BULLETIN: There is no national election in November 2002, whatever you may have read to the contrary. No, there hasn't been a coup, and terrorism or bad weather didn't force a postponement. The truth is much sadder: there isn't enough competition to qualify next November 5th as anything other than a patchwork of party battles in widely scattered parts of the United States.
Every four years, an election is held at the midterm of the President. Just like a presidential election, we tend to think of it as "national," since all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives are on the ballot, plus 36 of the 50 state governorships, and a third of the U.S. Senate seats.
In no midterm year is there anything as leavening as the presidential contest, which every state lists on the ballot. Still, with the layering of contests for state executives and federal legislators, most midterms feature multiple close races in about two-thirds of the states.
Not so in 2002. Just 11 of the 34 Senate contests and a shockingly low 44 of 435 House seats can be termed competitive. The governorship elections provide some relief, with 23 of 36 registering as competitive.
Yet nearly half of the states appear to have no intense fights for either of the top statewide offices. Some of these states, such as Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia-have just a House seat or two on the political radar screen, hardly enough to gain the attention of an entire state's electorate. And six states have not a single close, competitive election for governor, senator, or U.S. representative: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Nebraska, New York, and Virginia. New events and late trends may change some of this, but it's just as possible that more districts and states may fall out of the competitive category as fall in, during the election's waning months.
The varying state schedules for electing their governors and senators accounts for some of this, but so does the ridiculously pro-incumbent redistricting that took place over the past year in all but about a half-dozen states. (The most prominent exceptions were Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.) Incredibly, there is but a single close House contest in each of the mega-states of California (53 total seats), Illinois (19 seats), Ohio (18 seats), and Texas (32 seats)-four seats out of 122. Only Iowa of the fifty states has even as many as three close House elections on tap.
So where should political junkies migrate for the autumn of 2002? The Midterm Election Map of America gives the directions. A state is assigned ten points for any very competitive Senate race; ten for a large-state governorship contest of the same variety; eight points for a very competitive medium or small-state governorship; six points for a second-tier competitive race for the Senate anywhere or a governorship in a large state; four points for a second-tier governor's contest in a medium or small-state; two points for each competitive House seat; and of course, no points for uncompetitive contests.
Based on this scale, each state is expanded or contracted to represent its real significance in the 2002 midterm elections.
Election aficionados will want to catch the first flight to the Midwest, especially Iowa and Minnesota (top of the scale at 24 points each); marvelous Senate and Governor match-ups, plus five solid House races, will make for a fulfilling fall in these civic-oriented states.
Texas is close behind, with 22 points, all but two of which are generated by the heated wars for Senate and the statehouse. Three smaller states, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Tennessee, round out the top half-dozen, with 20 points each. Fierce jousting for both senator and governor is taking place in each state.
Other small states, such as South Carolina (18 points) and Maine (16 points) also rank relatively highly on the competitiveness scale, especially when one considers that the average score for a state is less than 8 points. In a few cases, such as Iowa, a rare kind of redistricting that ignores the desires of House incumbents plays a role. It is also easier and less expensive to win a major post in a lightly populated state.
Regionally, the West is by far the least competitive region this year-just look at its shrunken visage on the map. All other geographic regions are home to at least one state with 20 points or more on the competition scale.
Still, the overall impression left by the rankings in the Midterm map is the country's need to refocus the political parties and the public on the need for greater competition. Yes, in a nearly split Senate and House, just a few contests are needed to create drama and affect control of the Congress. But excitement in a few places, like scattered thunderstorms in a drought, is not good enough, despite the pyrotechnics.
To the extent possible, the Midterm Map of America ought to more closely resemble the geographic map of the United States. And it only takes a quick glance at this year's concoction to see how far we have to go.
Sabato is Director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics and University Professor at U.Va. He is the editor of the forthcoming book, MIDTERM MADNESS: The Elections of 2002.
