The CSPC Dispatch - Nov. 15, 2024
Welcome to The CSPC Dispatch!
This edition features contributions from CSPC Senior Fellow Jeanne Zaino on the consequences of the decline in competitive seats in the House of Representatives and Senior Fellow Robert Gerber, who takes a look at the ongoing COP29 climate summit and what the U.S. elections might mean for climate and clean energy policy going forward.
We hope that you will find the newsletter useful and would be delighted to receive your feedback or thoughts on how we can improve going forward.
Swing Seats: The Consequences of Declining Competitiveness
by Jeanne zaino
As of this writing, it is still unclear which party will control the House of Representatives in the 118th Congress. According to the Associated Press [AP], Republicans have the upper-hand, having already won 214 seats, leaving them just 4 shy of the 218 they need to maintain the majority. In contrast, Democrats have 205 seats, meaning they would need to win 15 of the 18 races still left to be called to take control of the lower chamber.
With all the focus on who will control the House, far less attention has been paid to the consequences of the lack of competitive seats in this cycle. As Table 1 shows, Cook Political Report [CPR] rated just 16% of seats ‘competitive’ (69), including 22 ranked as ‘toss-up’ and 47 as lean/likely.
Table 1: CPR ‘Competitive’ Seats by Party, 2024
Source: “2024 CPR House Race Ratings” Cook Political Report
Looking back at CPR ratings from the last 5 presidential election cycles (2008-2024), it becomes clear that while the number of competitive seats this year was low, it was not historically such. In 2016, for instance, an even smaller number of races were rated as competitive. As Table 2 shows, that year there were even fewer ‘toss up’ (18), lean/likely (38), and competitive seats (56). That said, 2024 represents a marked decline from the more than 100 competitive seats in 2008 (104). Between 2008 and 2024, the overall number of competitive seats declined by 8% (24-16%).
Table 2: CPR ‘Competitive’ Seats in Presidential Cycles, 2008-2024
The decline in competitive races goes back several decades. Fifty years ago, political scientist David Mayhew was one of the first to note the trend. In “Congressional Elections: The Case of the Vanishing Margins,” Mayhew found that between 1956-1972 “the number of districts with close House elections dropped precipitously.” At the time, he described the House swing seat as ‘a phenomenon fast declining.’
When we go back even further, we find that the decline dates to at least the end of the 19th C. For much of the 1800s, House turnover averaged over 45%. By the later part of the century, however, that number had declined dramatically; and after 1882 it would never exceed 50% again.
Despite a good deal of interest in electoral competition, political scientists differ in terms of how best to measure the phenomenon. In addition to published ratings by groups such as CPR, another measure that is rough, but compelling, is the incumbency reelection rate (IRR). As Chart 1 shows, over the last 60 years, the IRR in the U.S. House has never dropped below 85% and in the last election (2024) was an astonishing 99%.
Chart 1: Incumbency Reelection Rate, US House, 1964-2024
Source: “Reelection Rates Over the Years,” Open Secrets
Data like this is the reason that most scholars agree that the majority of House races today are uncompetitive and the level of competitiveness has declined a good deal over the last Century.
The possible cause(s) of uncompetitive seats have also become a source of both interest and debate. One possibility that has a good deal of support in the literature is redistricting. As Michael Li et al write, “one of the most consequential outcomes of this redistricting cycle has been the continuing decrease in the number of competitive congressional districts.” Not everyone agrees, however, and in fact some of the research shows that redistricting only accounts for a small portion of the decline in competitive races.
Looking at this data and mulling over the causes of the decline of the swing seats it is fair to ask the question that we should ask of all research: so what? Or, to put it another way, who cares?
This is precisely the question Mayhew asked half a century ago. At that time, he pointed to the potential for uncompetitiveness to lead to "electoral disaggregation,” “a weakening” of the link between the people and their government. He also expressed concern that “a Congress that cannot supply quick electoral change is no match for a presidency that can.”
Today we can add to these concerns that less competitive districts not only tend to make bipartisanship less likely but help insure against it. The fact that so many legislators are elected from partisan districts means that they are incentivized not to work across the aisle. It is rational for a legislator in an uncompetitive district who wants to keep her job to refrain from bipartisanship because to do otherwise is to risk reelection and invite a tough primary challenge.
Many Americans today say they want congress to pursue bipartisan solutions, but the data show that large numbers of our elected officials are operating in a system that is likely to punish them if they reach across the aisle. The fact that the interests of citizens diverge from that of their elected representatives helps explain why so many Americans are fed up with Washington and underscores the need for reform which can bring back swing seats and the incentives for bipartisanship that come with them.
COP29 in the Shadow of a New Trump Presidency
by Robert W. Gerber
Opening ceremony of World Leaders Climate Action Summit COP29, Photo Credit: President of Azerbaijanz
John Podesta, head of the U.S. delegation at COP 29 (the 29th UN Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), had a difficult task. Just two weeks after Donald Trump was re-elected to the presidency, Podesta had to explain to delegates assembled in Baku whether the United States would still be committed to global efforts to reduce the impact of climate change.
Podesta touted the Biden Administration’s accomplishments toward climate mitigation. He did not mince words in expressing his feelings about the election outcome: “It’s clear that the next Administration will try to take a U-turn and reverse much of this progress.” “In January, we will inaugurate a President whose relationship to climate change is captured by the words “hoax” and “fossil fuels”. He has vowed to dismantle our environmental safeguards— and once again withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement. This is what he has said, and we should believe him.” A journalist asked Podesta how the diminished status of the U.S. delegation toCOP29 would affect its work, and another journalist asked whether the U.S. election created an opportunity for the PRC to exert leadership on climate.
The new Trump Administration in 2025 will likely end the U.S. government’s contributions to multilateral climate funds like the Global Environmental Facility and Global Climate Fund. Trump’s team will also likely abandon U.S. global climate targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions. Biden-era emissions rules for industry are also in jeopardy. But here is a reality check: progress on the climate front within the United States will continue. First, the green economy makes good business sense. Clean tech is a growing business sector, one where the United States is uniquely competitive globally. Sustainability and decarbonization are generally good for a company’s bottom line, and it is what many investors – and customers - demand. Clean energy is, in many cases, price-competitive with traditional fossil fuels. Global oil and gas companies are major investors in renewable energy and low-emissions technology. Elon Musk, now one of Trump’s top advisors, understands these facts and has previously supported U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Convention. Exxon’s CEO, who spoke at COP29, discouraged the United States from withdrawing from the convention.
Second, diversifying a country’s energy supply – particularly through off-grid and micro-grid renewables – and preparing for the effects of climate change, strengthen energy security and national security. This concept is reflected in the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2021-2027 climate adaptation plan, which includes an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at DoD -the country’s biggest energy user. The DoD strategy is not driven by “woke” policies, but by the realization that clean energy and preparing for the effects of climate change both contribute to national security.
Third, many states and municipalities are firmly committed to reducing emissions and supporting green energy investments. And the Inflation Reduction Act, which spurred enormous investment in clean tech manufacturing and infrastructure, was approved by the U.S. Congress, and cannot be easily waived by an Executive Branch order. Furthermore, its benefits are shared by blue and red districts alike.
A side note: UN Secretary General António Guterres failed to read the room when he deliveredremarks at COP29 that doubled down on the notion that wealthy countries owe developing countries money to address the effects of climate chance, calling it a matter of justice. He did notmention that developing countries can make progress toward climate mitigation and resilience by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, protecting forests and wetlands, adopting modern emissions standards, and addressing investment risk that repels would be clean energy investments. Putting the onus on donors to solve the global climate crisis will only strengthen the Trump Administration’s view that working with the UN runs counter to American interests.