Figure 1: US DataLabs Political Dominance Map
All federal lawmakers from Massachusetts—two in the Senate and nine in the House—are Democrats, as is the governor. Democrats also control over 80 percent of both chambers of the state Legislature, and 61 percent of the state voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2024. All this has contributed to Massachusetts’s status as the most Democratic-controlled state in the country, according to US DataLabs.
Massachusetts has also been ranked last in Ballotpedia’s 2024 “Competitiveness Index,” as well as in the last five biennial rating reports. Much of this comes from the lack of primary challengers as well as the country’s lowest percent of races with both a Democratic and Republican candidate on the ballot, as only one in five 2024 races in Massachusetts featured candidates from both parties. Among the last five Ballotpedia surveys, Massachusetts had its lowest competitiveness score in the most recent cycle (2024).
A system that offers voters limited electoral choice has the potential to undermine democracy. When candidates don’t face primary opponents or general election challengers, it is harder to hold them accountable to the will of voters. The lack of political competition can have broader implications: when compromise becomes scarce, governance suffers. In fact, in 2022 a nationally representative survey found that 74 percent of Americans stated it was most important for federal government officials to prioritize compromising to find solutions rather than to stand on principle. This marks the highest proportion of Americans with this view in a decade.
Unfortunately, 58 percent of those surveyed also said that they had no confidence that lawmakers would try to reach across the aisle, more than double the 23 percent found in 2008. Americans are more desperate than ever for leaders who will put aside partisanship and forge compromise, yet their belief in the likelihood that elected officials will rise to that challenge continues to diminish.
Furthermore, research has demonstrated that lawmakers who face uncompetitive re-elections or run unopposed tend to be less effective. For example, studies have indicated that state legislators who won office in uncontested elections exhibited higher rates of absenteeism and introduced fewer bills. Furthermore, legislators who faced strong primary or general election competition were found to have greater legislative effectiveness, demonstrating the importance of competitive elections in holding politicians accountable.
This effect of single party dominance can also be seen nationally. Just as Democratic control in Massachusetts has minimized electoral competition, Republican dominance in Congress and the Executive Branch has enabled legislation like the “Big, Beautiful Bill” to advance without bipartisan input or negotiation—ultimately passing despite uniform Democratic opposition in Congress. Rather than seeking compromise across party lines, lawmakers have focused on intra-party consensus, revealing how overwhelming party control—regardless of political affiliation—can sideline the deliberative processes on which democracy relies.
Andrew Harding is a Roger Perry Government Transparency Intern with the Pioneer Institute. He is a rising senior at Connecticut College, with a double major in Government and Educational Studies. Feel free to contact via email, LinkedIn, or writing a letter to Pioneer’s office.
