Voting in Prince George’s County, Md. is a strange experience. This Election Day, I drove to the polling place, cast my ballot, and left without seeing a single sign endorsing any candidate. Perhaps that sounds like a blessing. But it’s more a feature of Democratic dominance in this area. One-party rule can produce some benefits, but it brings its own hazards as well.

The only political signs seen near my home in the past month endorse Maryland’s Question Three as a way to “oppose Trump.” Question Three would amend the state constitution to enable the Maryland legislature to aggressively gerrymander the state’s congressional districts and eliminate the last Republican member of Congress from the Eastern Shore — Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R).

This is not speculation. It is exactly what the Maryland legislature tried to do in redistricting after the 2020 census. The map created a district that spanned across empty water in the Chesapeake Bay to crack the Eastern Shore into multiple districts around Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington, D.C. However, a judge struck down that map because the Maryland Constitution requires that “each legislative district shall consist of adjoining territory, be compact in form, and of substantially equal population.”

Under these standards, the Maryland legislature already managed to eliminate what should be a Republican-leaning congressional district in Western Maryland. But, in the name of opposing Trump, Maryland Democrats are ready to throw out their own fair-minded principles for district-drawing (which would still apply to the state legislature). That’s what one-party rule can achieve.

It can also achieve rather uncompetitive general elections. Republicans did manage to field candidates for governor, comptroller, attorney general, U.S. House of Representatives (MD-04), and state senate (District 22).

But the rest of my ballot was a predetermined wasteland: three names (all Democrat) vied for three seats in the Maryland House of Delegates (district 22), two names (both Democrat) vied for two at-large seats on the county council, nine Democrats sought nine seats on the state circuit court (district seven), and three sought three seats on the Orphans’ Court. Beyond this, there was exactly one candidate listed for each position of the following: county executive, county council (district five), Maryland Supreme Court (circuit four), Maryland Appellate Court (at large), state’s attorney, clerk of the circuit court, register of wills, and sheriff (although one write-in candidate did qualify for the sheriff’s race).

For those keeping score, that makes 11 totally uncontested positions, 12 positions with no contest apparent on the ballot, and a total of 25 candidates running with no opposition. Talk about a boring election!

In fairness, my corner of America does have its political competition, but that competition happens in the Democratic primary. Earlier this year, three candidates vying to become the county’s Register of Wills erected multiple car-sized billboards, to keep up with the deluge of other political signage.

The significant competition for such seemingly insignificant positions reflects the fact that one-party rule can turn into something of a machine, where someone must grab hold of the lower rungs and work their way up by being a team player in order to ever find higher office. But, for those who learn the game, becoming part of the establishment is a reasonably sure means to advancement; over time, the positions change, but the names stay the same. For example, former Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks is now a U.S. senator (D). Former States Attorney Aisha Braveboy replaced Alsobrooks as county executive.

The hazards of a system dominated by one party are that immoral or incompetent candidates can often survive, or even fail upward, if they can manage to stay in their party’s good graces. No particular examples come to mind for my locality, but one can surely think of a presidential ticket from the recent past characterized by two such figures.

Another feature of one-party rule is the predictable policies conforming to partisan tendencies. Just from knowing that I live in an area dominated by Democrats, a reader could reasonably predict that I pay high taxes and find Pride displays in the public library, and he would be right.

Of course, every feature of one-party rule applies to both parties. Based on my local context, I have used the Democrats as the readiest example, but much of what I have said is also true of Republicans. In deep-red areas, there is hardly any Democratic opposition worthy of the name, so the only meaningful political competition (if any) comes in Republican primaries — often characterized by a rush to the right.

In some areas, party establishments take over, enabling some well-connected figures to glide from office to superior office with relative ease (e.g. Marsha Blackburn moving from U.S. Senate in Tennessee to the governor’s mansion). Some officials (e.g., Kristi Noem) fly quite high indeed before suffering the same fate as Icharus.

Furthermore, Republican-dominated areas implement predictably Republican policies. For instance, the states that prohibited abortion after the Dobbs decision were largely able to do so because of the sizable majorities Republicans enjoy there.

Thus, the tendency of one-party rule to enact the policies favored by that party can be viewed positively or negatively, depending on whether one agrees with the policies of that party — hence the importance of party platforms.

The greatest hazard of one-party rule is the permission it gives for laziness. Much like a business monopoly, freedom from the constant pressure of competition invites parties in uncompetitive states to grow lax. They might not weed out poor candidates, they might let their ground operations atrophy, or they might simply let their state’s prosperity dwindle. Because the party is so dominant, its mismanagement may not become evident for decades.

A counter example to this is Florida. A quarter century ago, Florida was consistently one of the most competitive states, and its growing Hispanic population led some forecasters to believe it would inevitably trend toward the Democrats. However, the competition — especially in the 2000 election — rallied Florida Republicans to remarkable efforts, strengthening their ground operations and Hispanic outreach to the point that it has become a Republican stronghold — not to mention one of the most efficient at counting ballots. It’s possible for a party machine to achieve Florida-like results in a one-party stronghold, but it’s more likely for a party to grow far less vibrant.

The battlegrounds of today may become the Floridas of tomorrow. The ads may be deafening, the political spending may be sickening, but the results may yet be beneficial if it prompts a party to do more than rest on its laurels by responding to voter concerns and enacting policies that benefit the state. If you were annoyed by political ads this election season, always consider the alternative: your elections could be boring. Intense political contests are often a sign of a vibrant republic.