Safe seats and swing states

                America uses the single majoritarian system to elect virtually all of its representatives. The inherent problem with this particular method is that it can lead to safe seats whereby the winning party is effectively known before the contest is held. A system of proportional representation would ensure that no vote is wasted, but the prospect of electoral reform along such lines is negligible due to vested interests of the Republican-Democrat duopoly. There is also little public demand for a European-style system of proportional representation.

                Safe seats emerge by virtue of one party dominating in that particular constituency. Both parties have their strongholds. Broadly speaking, the Republicans are strongest in Middle America. They also dominate rural areas and wealthy suburbs. In contrast, the Democrats are strongest on the West Coast and the North-East. They are also the dominant party in the cities and Universities. 

                 No electoral system can entirely prevent the emergence of safe seats. As such, it would seem appropriate to ask ‘why the emergence of safe seats is problematic at all?’, given that the majority of those who vote in that constituency have consistently voted for a particular party. Well, safe seats are problematic in that they may lead to a relatively low turnout. People may feel there is very little point in exercising their democratic right when the winner is virtually guaranteed. This is not a healthy situation for any democracy, although it must be acknowledged that safe seats are a phenomenon common to all democratic societies. It must also be noted that American citizens have the freedom not to vote.

The issue of safe seats is particularly evident in the House of Representatives, where constituencies are often drawn deliberately in order to guarantee the winner. This cynical stitch-up suits both parties, in that they each get a slice of the electoral pie; but gerrymandering inevitably diminishes the number of genuinely competitive elections being held in the states. Vast swathes of the country are therefore electoral deserts for a particular party. A liberal Democrat candidate seeking office in one of the grazing states has as little chance of victory as a conservative Republican in a deprived inner-city area with a high number of ethnic minorities.

Safe seats invariably exacerbate the trend towards ideological polarization. With little chance of defeat in a general election, incumbents must adopt a firmly conservative or solidly liberal perspective in order to ward off potential defeat in a primary. Increasingly, the only genuine prospect of defeat is via a primary. When the victor is often known in advance, elected representatives have little incentive to reach out towards the middle ground or consider an alternative ideological position. Indeed, it makes rational sense for the incumbent to look after 'the folks back home' via pork-barrel politics whilst looking over his/her shoulder in case of defeat during a primary.

                The issue of safe seats is obviously less of a problem for elections to the Senate (where gerrymandering cannot by definition occur) and during a presidential election. However, it is still the case that a large number of states vote the same way from one presidential election to the next. Candidates therefore allocate their time and resources to those states which may swing from one party to another such as Ohio or Florida. In a tight contest, swing states can effectively decide the result. This is particularly the case when that state holds a high number of EC votes. Allocating time and resources in such a disproportionate manner effectively marginalizes safe states during a presidential election. Surely no candidate will ever make the same mistake as Richard Nixon did in 1960 when he pledged to campaign in all 50 states?

                In the specific context of a presidential election, demographic changes may well lead towards a particular state moving from the safe column towards a genuine electoral contest between the Democrats and the GOP. At the time of writing, the Lone Star state could eventually become a real contest between the two parties if the number of Hispanics (traditionally Democrat voters) continues to grow. Equally, some states can move from the swing column to a relatively safe seat. For instance, Missouri used to be the textbook example of a swing state. However, the ‘show me state’ last voted for a Democrat presidential candidate back in 1996.