When Massachusetts voters went to the polls last November, two-thirds of them saw only one candidate’s name for state representative on the ballot. While state legislatures nationwide have witnessed less and less competition for elected offices, the situation seems especially grim in the Bay State. In fact, Massachusetts ranks 49th out of all 50 states in the number of candidates seeking state legislative office. Pam Wilmot, the director of Common Cause, which has studied this growing trend, will discuss the state’s rather undistinguished distinction and much more at an upcoming panel, " No Contest: The Decline of Competition in Massachusetts State Legislative Elections, " put on by the Rappaport Forum at Suffolk University Law School. The Phoenix caught up with Wilmot to ask her about the dwindling number of contested races and what it all means.

Q: Is " crisis " too strong a word to describe what we’re seeing today?

A: There’s definitely a crisis of accountability in Massachusetts legislative politics. We cannot have a functioning democracy with two-thirds to three-fourths of our incumbents not opposed in elections. Voters need a choice. They need to be able to have a referendum on their elected officials’ actions. Even with improved competition, we’d still likely see incumbents getting re-elected because there’s a lot of power that goes with incumbency. But without hearing elected officials defend their records, there isn’t accountability.

Q: Why are we seeing this lack of competition?

A: There are many reasons. Some of the popular ones aren’t actually true. Many people pin this on the fact that we’re a one-party state. But other states like Rhode Island and Idaho are more single-party than Massachusetts and have much higher competition rates. There’s also no correlation between competition and campaign-contribution limits, which are fairly strict here. States with stricter limits have more competition than we do. On the other hand, we have the highest war chests in the country. So that’s a barrier to entry. There are also institutional issues. It’s a dispiriting time to be in the Massachusetts legislature because it’s dominated by its leaders. People who think about running say, " Why bother? " Another related factor is that politics is a blood sport here. We’re tough on our politicians. And the cynicism makes it difficult to attract people to office.

Q: So what do we do now?

A: There are some solutions. One way to jump-start competition is clean elections. Making public financing available for candidates to run for these lower state offices is a cost-effective way to improve democracy. It has the added benefit of forcing elected officials to work only for the voters, not the special interests. You could also reduce the fundraising advantages of incumbents, such as changing the kind of things that candidates can buy with campaign money. Currently, those things involve goodwill-buying — flowers for people who die and turkeys for Thanksgiving parties and baseball-team uniforms and other incumbent protections that put the patina of Santa Claus on elected officials. But really, the best solution is clean elections. It’s one guaranteed solution.

To learn more about the no-contest trend, hear Wilmot and other political commentators at the Rappaport Forum panel on March 6 at 5:30 p.m., at Suffolk University Law School, 120 Tremont Street, Room 295. The event is free.