Uncontested elections undermine American democracy | Rafael Gonzalez

About 70% of races tracked by Ballotpedia in 2024 in America were uncontested elections. That’s partly because these races were often for local offices in small districts, but it’s also because many people don’t see these silent elections as a big problem.

Some argue the absence of a challenger signals satisfaction with government or that the winner is a foregone conclusion. So the lack of a challenger doesn’t matter.

This is misguided.

Unchecked silent elections stifle democratic dialogue and depress turnout. No challenger also means no campaign and no candidate debate, which limits opportunities for citizens to engage with multiple views and develop a habit of political engagement. When citizens are robbed of this, democratic culture erodes.

Nadia Milleron, an independent running for Congress in Massachusetts’ 1st District, agrees.

“What kind of democracy is that if you don't have anyone running against someone who at the time had been in 36 years, earlier than the Berlin Wall falling,” she said, referring to her 2024 and 2026 opponent, Congressman Richard Neal, a Democrat first elected in 1988.

Milleron’s decision to challenge Neal was partially to give voters a choice. But Milleron also was frustrated by her experience dealing with Neal’s office.

In 2019, Milleron’s daughter, Samya Stumo, was aboard a Boeing 737-MAX that crashed, killing all on board. Milleron soon discovered that Boeing concealed important information about its flight-control system, and a House committee faulted the FAA for poor oversight. 

Milleron felt she had to act. Her advocacy eventually helped pass the 2020 Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act, overhauling aircraft certification.

While advocating for this law, Milleron became exasperated by Neal’s refusal to meet with her despite her being a member of his district. Milleron’s experience is common. Officials elected without competition skip more votes and sponsor less legislation than their peers who have won competitive elections.

These politicians also tend to be less responsive to constituent inquiries and requests. I experienced that, too, because Neal’s office repeatedly ignored my requests for comment.

Milleron also grew to resent Neal’s extensive use of political action committee funding for campaigns, which she believes makes him beholden to corporate donors, not his constituents. PACs funded most of Neal’s 2024 campaign.

To Milleron the solution is simple, “No corporate money should be in any election process. No corporate money at all.”

Some political scientists argue that money has little impact on election outcomes because money flows to candidates already likely to win. They argue that well-funded candidates win because they are good candidates, not because they have more money.

Even if money in politics doesn’t change who wins, it changes who runs. Studies have shown that potential candidates without access to fundraising sources, such as tradesmen, are less likely to run than candidates with access to fundraising sources, such as lawyers.

That means money, not political debate, is filtering potential candidates. Sometimes this filtering process leaves just one candidate as would-be candidates abandon their campaigns in the face of massive funding disadvantages.

Something is lost when passionate candidates don’t run, even if they are unlikely to win. To run for Congress, Milleron collected the required signatures herself by talking to people outside a local grocery store. Milleron says of the experience, “You're able to talk with and show your sign to every single person. So I thought that was really good.” An aspiring politician speaking face-to-face with would-be constituents represents the best of American elections, an institution Alexis De Tocqueville praised for bringing “a multitude of citizens permanently together.” In silent elections, that is lost.

Milleron never considered challenging Neal in the democratic primary instead of the general election because she believes the two-party system obstructs action. When I ask Milleron how she sees herself ideologically, she rejects the question. “I really disagree with those categories. Moderate, liberal, left, right,” she says. “You're just in a club and you're not dealing with actual problems.” She knew she was unlikely to win a personally draining independent campaign. Friends told her not to run, but something urged her on. “I don't think it was a very carefully assessed decision,” she recalls. “It was more of an instinctive decision.”

Through friends, community outreach, and her personal funds, Milleron raised $350,000 for her campaign. Those funds let her buy political ads that raised her name recognition. “I know my district; I know what the people are like,” she recalls. “I just knew that I had to do that.” Congressman Neal ultimately outspent her 8-1.

Politics can be unforgiving to longshot candidates, but optimists can find reasons for hope. In 2024, Milleron won 37.5% of the vote in Massachusetts’ 1st District.

Unfortunately, candidates like Milleron — competent individuals with passion, time, and resources — are rare.

The inherent challenges of running for office mean that candidates need to be competent, determined, and committed. Unfortunately, the barriers to running for office mean candidates must also be well-off and have abundant free time. Most people don’t meet those criteria, but they are governed primarily by those that do. This disconnect is bad for democracy. To address this gap we need more people to run for office, especially from unconventional backgrounds, and especially in districts with histories of uncontested elections.

Some people resist efforts to encourage more candidates to run, fearing that more candidate quantity means less candidate quality. When electoral fields become overly crowded, as was arguably the case with the 2016 Republican and the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, discussion of individual attributes crowds out policy discourse. This concern is legitimate, but currently far more races suffer from a dearth of candidates than suffer from an onslaught of them.

Silent elections in America are a symptom of a political culture which makes it very difficult for people from less privileged backgrounds to enter politics. They are also inherently harmful to a democracy because of how they bypass the community building and public dialog of an election.