2021 RI General Assembly Election Strength Rankings

See which members have been the most competitive in recent elections

Why We Rank Election Strength

In the marketplace, the presence of competition usually results in better products. A company that holds a monopoly position has little incentive to innovate. In elections, the same rules apply. Elected officials who consistently run uncontested have little reason to listen and respond to their constituents, because they will hold onto the job regardless of their performance. Incumbents who often face contested races are incentivized to more closely represent the people they serve and be more responsive, knowing they will be competing for the job every 2 years.

Election Strength Rankings are intended to highlight incumbents who have shown the strength to win their district, sometimes overwhelmingly, and the abundance of uncontested races over the past 3 election cycles. Several factors play a part in election results, many of which an incumbent cannot control. For example, an incumbent cannot be faulted for winning an uncontested election. On the other side of the coin, a Senator's dominant victory may have come primarily as a result of a weak or underfunded opponent. Elections are ultimately a popularity contest and not a scientific measurement of a job well done. As a result, this rankings segment should not be considered a measurement of an incumbent's job performance and will not factor into a member's Overall Rankings.

Summary of Findings

Uncontested elections are a problem nationwide and Rhode Island certainly holds its own in that category. In fact, the number of General Assembly elections we counted in which the incumbent was unopposed was downright startling. However, when incumbents are challenged, especially in primaries, their chances of retaining seats are far from a sure thing. For current members of the House and Senate, here is a summary of what we found over the last 6 years (3 election cycles) we measured:

Uncontested Races in the General Assembly (last 3 election cycles)

Total:

63%

Primary:

76%

General Election:

50%

2020:

66%

2018:

61%

2016:

61%

Senate:

59%

House:

65%

2020 Challengers vs. Incumbents: Challenger Win Percentage

Overall

Total:

18%

Primary:

38%

General Election:

Senate

Total:

17%

Primary:

40%

General Election:

House

Total:

19%

Primary:

38%

General Election:

How We Scored Election Strength

We examine each member's last three election cycles (primaries and general) where possible, and focused on two metrics: the margin of victory and the number of elections that went uncontested. Special elections are not counted unless it was the member's most recent race. The most recent election cycle is by far the most important one, and is given much higher weight. We also give more weight to primary elections because they have been historically more competitive than general elections.

In counting the margin of victory, we take the winner's percentage of votes and subtract the total percentage of votes of all other declared candidates. In some 3+-way races, the winner receives a minority of the total vote and in these instances the margin of victory is scored as "0". We do not score these in the negative because it would imply that unopposed incumbents are more competitive, which is impossible to know.

Lastly, two deductions are applied: One accounting for uncontested races with a penalty based on the percentage of elections in which the member had no declared competition. For example, if a member had a contested election in 3 of the 6 races measured, they keep 50% of their combined margin of victory total. The second deduction is applied to Senators who did not run in 2018 or 2016. This ratio affects scores less, but helps account for the smaller track record these members have overall.

Senate Rankings

1. Tiara Mack

District 6 (Elected 2020)

699

2. Alana DiMario

District 36 (Elected 2020)

445

3. Maryellen Goodwin

District 1 (Elected 1986)

427

4. Michael McCaffrey

District 29 (Elected 1994)

384 Swipe left to see ratings

#	Senator	Dist	Score	CR%	'20 P	'20 G	'18 P	'18 G	'16 P	'16 G
1	Mack	6	699	100	20	79	-	-	-	-
2	DiMario	36	445	100	50	0	0	-	-	-
3	Goodwin	1	427	50	58	X	52	X	X	66
4	McCaffrey	29	384	67	16	32	32	X	X	29
5	Archambault	22	328	83	18	2	24	29	X	16
6	Valverde	35	276	75	X	12	68	8	-	-
7	Sosnowski	37	270	50	21	39	X	X	X	18
8	Cano	8	230	50	X	44	X	46	-	-
9	de la Cruz	23	221	75	X	34	2	11	-	-
10	Bell	5	212	50	45	X	0	X	-	-
11	Lawson	14	199	50	X	45	16	X	-	-
12	Burke	9	138	100	2	18	-	-	-	-
13	Mendes	18	101	50	24	X	-	-	-	-
14	Murray	24	97	50	X	X	38	18	-	-
15	Kallman	15	92	50	22	X	-	-	-	-
16	Felag	10	86	33	X	28	X	X	X	38
17	Gallo	27	79	50	X	10	X	22	X	12
18	Paolino	17	76	50	X	18	X	2	X	2
19	Anderson	31	60	100	0	9	-	-	-	-
20	Calkin	30	59	60	10	X	0	-	X	4
21	Ciccone	7	58	33	X	X	40	X	8	X
22	Miller	28	56	17	X	41	X	X	X	X
23	Morgan	34	49	50	X	8	X	8	X	10
24	DiPalma	12	39	33	X	X	X	32	X	22
25	Coyne	32	38	33	X	X	X	36	X	8
26	Euer	13	31	25	X	X	X	44	-	-
27	Lombardi	26	30	17	X	22	X	X	X	X
28	Lombardo	25	29	33	X	X	X	19	X	32
29	Seveney	11	25	33	X	X	X	24	X	4
30	Pearson	19	22	33	X	X	X	18	X	12
31	Ruggerio	4	17	17	10	X	X	X	X	X
32	Picard	20	12	17	X	X	X	24	X	X
33	Raptakis	33	11	33	X	X	X	10	X	4
34	Quezada	2	1	17	X	X	X	X	4	X
35	Goldin	3	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
36	Acosta	16	0	50	0	X	-	-	-	-
37	Rogers	21	0	25	X	X	X	0	-	-
38	Algiere	38	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X

Level of Competitiveness

Very High Good Low

Key

Uncontested

Did Not Run

How We Rank

Score is the cumulative total of the member's election victory margins ('20 Prim/'20 Gen/'18 Prim/'18 Gen/'16 Prim/'16 Gen) multiplied by a recency factor plus deductions for uncontested races and races in which they did not participate. Recency factor gives higher weight to more recent elections and to primaries, and was applied as follows: 2020 Primary: 10, 2020 General: 8, 2018 Primary: 4, 2018 General: 3, 2016 Primary: 2, 2016 General: 1. If a member had contested elections in every race they participated in and ran in all 3 of the last election cycles, this would be their final score.

A deduction was applied based on the member's Contested Races Percentage (CR%), which is the percent of races the member has run in where they had at least one declared opponent. To calculate the deduction, the total cumulative victory margin was multiplied by the CR%. For example, if the total cumulative victory margin was 200 and member had contested races 50% of the time, their adjusted score would be 100.

A smaller deduction was applied based on the number of races, out of the 6 measured, that the member has run in. Deductions were applied as follows for races in which the member was not a candidate: 2018 Primary: 5%, 2018 General: 5%, 2016 Primary: 3%, 2016 General: 3%.

It is important to reiterate that Election Strength is not a good measure of a member's job performance and these scores will not count towards the member's overall rankings. Members with scores 300+ are considered "Very competitive", scores between 50 - 299 are "Reasonably competitive", and scores below 50 are considered "Not competitive". The maximum possible score is 2660 (albeit a theoretical impossibility). The lowest possible score is 0.

House Rankings

1. Grace Diaz

District 11 (Elected 2004)

835

2. Rebecca Kislak

District 4 (Elected 2018)

683

3. Michelle McGaw

District 71 (Elected 2020)

585

4. Terri Cortvriend

District 72 (Elected 2018)

548 Swipe left to see ratings

#	Rep	Dist	Score	CR%	'20 P	'20 G	'18 P	'18 G	'16 P	'16 G
1	Diaz	11	835	67	45	73	38	X	30	X
2	Kislak	4	683	75	X	75	36	75	-	-
3	McGaw	71	585	100	60	12	-	-	-	-
4	Cortvriend	72	548	75	62	16	X	10	-	-
5	Williams	9	476	67	X	47	34	61	8	X
6	Donovan	69	460	83	X	16	60	10	78	0
7	Fogarty	35	453	67	52	X	X	40	10	16
8	McNamara	19	391	67	24	26	X	38	X	22
9	Ruggiero	74	388	50	73	X	X	14	X	4
10	Ranglin-Vassell	5	354	67	X	49	X	24	2	60
11	Felix	61	339	100	18	28	-	-	-	-
12	Kennedy	38	332	67	30	16	X	20	X	8
13	Serpa	27	311	67	36	X	X	24	10	12
14	Tanzi	34	227	50	42	X	X	10	2	X
15	Potter	16	222	100	20	8	-	-	-	-
16	Perez	13	182	50	34	X	0	X	12	X
17	Chippendale	40	181	50	X	32	X	22	X	40
18	McEntee	33	167	50	X	X	60	24	X	22
19	Quattrocchi	41	163	50	X	30	X	28	X	2
20	Speakman	68	154	50	X	19	44	0	-	-
21	Lombardi	8	136	17	80	X	X	X	X	X
22	Biah	3	126	50	30	X	-	-	-	-
23	Nardone	28	120	50	X	16	32	0	-	-
24	Barros	59	114	33	X	X	74	X	X	48
25	Knight	67	105	50	X	X	X	49	12	38
26	Carson	75	104	33	X	38	X	X	X	12
27	Henries	64	101	50	24	X	-	-	-	-
28	Kazarian	63	100	33	X	X	68	X	X	30
29	Lima	49	94	50	X	28	-	-	-	-
30	Batista	12	92	50	22	X	-	-	-	-
31	Cassar	66	91	50	X	X	28	27	-	-
32	Marszalkowski	52	83	67	X	2	X	18	24	6
33	Hull	6	75	17	X	55	X	X	X	X
34	Tobon	58	67	33	X	X	38	X	X	50
35	Vella-Wilkinson	21	65	33	X	19	X	15	0	0
36	Fenton-Fung	15	60	50	X	18	-	-	-	-
37	Azzinaro	37	53	17	X	39	X	X	X	X
38	Solomon, Jr.	22	52	50	X	5	X	X	18	28
39	Fellela	43	50	33	X	17	X	X	X	16
40	Price	39	38	50	X	4	X	8	X	20
41	Morgan	26	37	50	X	9	-	-	X	11
42	Edwards	70	33	17	X	24	X	X	X	X
43	Craven	32	32	33	X	X	X	28	X	12
44	Shanley	24	30	33	X	X	X	28	X	8
45	Abney	73	26	17	X	X	X	50	X	X
46	Roberts	29	25	33	X	X	X	22	X	10
47	Phillips	51	22	17	X	X	X	44	X	X
48	Caldwell	30	18	50	X	4	X	2	-	-
49	Bennett	20	17	33	X	X	X	12	X	16
50	Noret	25	17	25	X	X	X	24	-	-
51	Hawkins	53	16	50	X	2	X	6	-	-
52	Place	47	14	33	X	X	X	14	X	0
53	Blazejewski	2	12	17	X	X	X	X	X	70
54	O'Brien	54	11	17	X	X	X	X	32	X
55	Cardillo	42	7	50	X	2	-	-	-	-
56	Ajello	1	6	17	X	X	X	X	X	36
57	Casimiro	31	3	17	X	X	X	X	X	16
58	Morales	7	0	50	0	X	-	-	-	-
59	Slater	10	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
60	Lima	14	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
61	Baginski	17	0	0	X	X	-	-	-	-
62	Handy	18	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
63	Shekarchi	23	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
64	Filippi	36	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
65	Costantino	44	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
66	Ackerman	45	0	17	X	X	X	X	X	0
67	Shallcross-Smith	46	0	50	X	0	-	-	-	-
68	Newberry	48	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
69	Casey	50	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
70	Corvese	55	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
71	Giraldo	56	0	0	X	X	-	-	-	-
72	McLaughlin	57	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
73	Alzate	60	0	0	X	X	X	X	-	-
74	Messier	62	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
75	Amore	65	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X

Level of Competitiveness

Very High Good Low

Key

Uncontested

Did Not Run

How We Rank

It is important to reiterate that Election Strength is not a reliable measure of a legislator's job performance and these scores will not count towards the member's overall rankings. Members with scores 300+ are considered "Very competitive", scores between 50 - 299 are "Reasonably competitive", and scores below 50 are considered "Not competitive". The maximum possible score is 2660 (albeit an unrealistic possibility). The lowest possible score is 0.