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 does 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:

22%

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

Swipe left to see ratings

#	Senator	Dist	Score	CR%	'20 P	'20 G	'18 P	'18 G	'16 P	'16 G
1	Mack, T	6	932	100	13	68	20	79
2	Goodwin, M	1	921	67	55	62	58	X	52	X
3	Lauria, P	32	573	100	49	24
4	McCaffrey, M	29	527	83	16	31	16	32	32	X
5	Lawson, V	14	385	67	25	20	X	45	16	X
6	Britto, R	18	292	100	10	31
7	Lombardi, F	26	283	50	38	15	X	22	X	X
8	Tikoian, D	22	282	100	28	7
9	Kallman, M	15	274	50	X	62	22	X
10	DiPalma, L	12	259	33	X	93	X	X	X	32
11	DiMario, A	36	242	80	X	14	50	0	0
12	Cano, S	8	229	50	X	35	X	44	X	46
13	Valverde, B	35	195	67	X	14	X	12	68	8
14	Zurier, S	3	193	50	46	X
15	Bell, S	5	185	50	19	X	45	X	0	X
16	Acosta, J	16	162	50	X	43	0	X
17	Sosnowski, S	37	161	50	X	15	21	39	X	X
18	Ciccone, F	7	140	33	34	X	X	X	40	X
19	McKenney, M	30	137	80	5	14	0		9	X
20	Euer, D	13	124	33	X	41	X	X	X	44
21	Burke, J	9	106	75	X	11	2	18
22	Murray, M	24	95	50	X	12	X	X	38	18
23	Anderson, K	31	93	100	0	9	0	9
24	Felag, W	10	81	33	X	20	X	28	X	X
25	Ruggerio, D	4	77	33	19	X	10	X	X	X
25	Rogers, G	21	77	33	X	29	X	X	X	0
27	Lombardo, F	25	73	33	20	X	X	X	X	19
28	Picard, R	20	64	33	X	21	X	X	X	24
29	de la Cruz, J	23	59	50	X	X	X	34	2	11
30	Pearson, R	19	57	33	X	19	X	X	X	18
31	Morgan, E	34	56	50	X	10	X	8	X	8
32	Paolino, T	17	28	50	X	0	X	18	X	2
33	Miller, J	28	21	17	X	X	X	41	X	X
34	Gallo, H	27	17	33	X	X	X	10	X	22
35	Seveney, J	11	4	17	X	X	X	X	X	24
36	Raptakis, L	33	2	17	X	X	X	X	X	10
37	Quezada, A	2	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
37	Algiere, D	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

Swipe left to see ratings

#	Rep	Dist	Score	CR%	'20 P	'20 G	'18 P	'18 G	'16 P	'16 G
1	Diaz, G	11	1119	83	30	71	45	73	38	X
2	Kislak, R	4	669	67	X	79	X	75	36	75
15	Potter, B	16	538	100	34	16	20	8
75	Dawson, M	65	457	100	28	33
10	DeSimone, A	5	438	100	5	59
36	Fenton-Fung, B	15	425	50	85	X	X	18
8	McNamara, J	19	381	67	36	X	24	26	X	38
3	McGaw, M	71	341	75	X	26	60	12
27	Henries, B	64	331	75	11	33	24	X
58	Morales, D	7	252	50	X	63	0	X
11	Felix, L	61	240	75	X	23	18	28
7	Fogarty, K	35	236	50	X	28	52	X	X	40
6	Donovan, S	69	231	67	X	21	X	16	60	10
72	Voas, B	57	220	100	3	29
43	Craven, R	32	212	50	18	27	X	X	X	28
38	Solomon, Jr., J	22	211	50	31	12	X	5	X	X
19	Quattrocchi, R	41	207	50	X	37	X	30	X	28
12	Kennedy, B	38	205	67	X	15	30	16	X	20
17	Chippendale, M	40	199	50	X	35	X	32	X	22
14	Tanzi, T	34	189	50	X	25	42	X	X	10
63	Shekarchi, J	23	183	33	39	20	X	X	X	X
16	Perez, R	13	176	50	X	27	34	X	0	X
20	Speakman, J	68	166	67	X	13	X	19	44	0
23	Nardone, G	28	165	67	X	17	X	16	32	0
18	McEntee, C	33	160	50	X	22	X	X	60	24
28	Kazarian, K	63	155	33	X	41	X	X	68	X
4	Cortvriend, T	72	153	50	X	X	62	16	X	10
13	Serpa, P	27	152	50	X	17	36	X	X	24
74	Messier, M	62	152	33	28	22	X	X	X	X
57	Casimiro, J	31	142	33	29	17	X	X	X	X
33	Hull, R	6	128	33	22	X	X	55	X	X
47	Phillips, R	51	105	33	27	X	X	X	X	44
56	Ajello, E	1	100	17	X	75	X	X	X	X
52	Place, D	47	93	33	X	33	X	X	X	14
41	Morgan, P	26	91	50	X	18	X	9	X	11
44	Shanley, E	24	87	33	X	29	X	X	X	28
67	Shalcross Smith, M	46	83	50	X	22	X	0
53	Blazejewski, C	2	80	17	48	X	X	X	X	X
64	Spears, T	36	77	50	X	23
25	Knight, J	67	72	33	X	21	X	X	X	49
49	Bennett, D	20	71	33	X	25	X	X	X	12
35	Vella-Wilkinson, C	21	68	67	3	0	X	19	X	15
70	Corvese, A	55	62	17	37	X	X	X	X	X
32	Marszalkowski, A	52	60	50	X	12	X	2	X	18
21	Lombardi, J	8	53	17	X	X	80	X	X	X
31	Boylan, J	66	50	50	X	15
42	Edwards, J	70	48	33	X	9	X	24	X	X
48	Caldwell, J	30	43	50	X	9	X	4	X	2
68	Newberry, B	48	37	17	X	28	X	X	X	X
5	Sanchez, E	9	34	50	8	X
60	Lima, C	14	33	17	20	X	X	X	X	X
22	Biah, N	3	28	25	X	X	30	X
39	Fellela, D	43	28	33	X	4	X	17	X	X
55	Cardillo, E	42	27	75	0	4	X	2
30	Batista, J	12	21	25	X	X	22	X
24	Stewart, J	59	21	50	5	X
37	Azzinaro, S	37	20	17	X	X	X	39	X	X
26	Carson, L	75	19	17	X	X	X	38	X	X
66	Ackerman, M	45	15	17	X	11	X	X	X	X
65	Costantino, G	44	11	17	X	8	X	X	X	X
45	Abney, M	73	8	17	X	X	X	X	X	50
29	Brien, J	49	7	100		1
50	Noret, T	25	4	17	X	X	X	X	X	24
46	Roberts, S	29	4	17	X	X	X	X	X	22
51	Rea, B	53	4	50	X	1	X	0
59	Slater, S	10	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
61	Baginski, J	17	0	0	X	X	X	X
62	Handy, A	18	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
40	Cotter, M	39	0	50	X	0	X	0
69	Casey, S	50	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
54	O'Brien, W	54	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
71	Giraldo, J	56	0	0	X	X	X	X
34	Cruz, C	58	0	50	0	X
73	Alzate, K	60	0	0	X	X	X	X	X	X
9	Finkelman, A	74	0	0	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.