A lack of competition between different candidates and different political parties isn’t beneficial to the public or to the political process.

Consider, for example, the struggles of the Hillary Clinton campaign, nationally. The term “coronation” was often used in conjunction with her campaign because it was supposed to be inevitable. Competition was kept at bay by a party that scheduled few debates and scheduled them at times to ensure few viewers. Many have balked at the effort, at the lack of fair competition, and this has not helped Clinton.

Americans don’t always react well to a lack of competition and that is part of what’s playing out in today’s primary cycle.

North Dakota has its own issues with competition, or the lack thereof. There are currently three Republican candidates for governor, but one has already asserted that if he isn’t endorsed by the party, he won’t challenge on a primary ballot. Meanwhile, no Democrat has stepped forward to take on the challenge of the governor’s race.

There are numerous challenges facing North Dakota, but there is also opportunity for a leader to emerge who can bring innovation and independence to bear on these challenges. It is disenheartening to see such a lack of competition for this opportunity.

This is not to disparage any of the candidates currently in the race. Each individual might well be capable of great things. But surely they would be better prepared by the rigors of a hotly contested election. Surely the people of North Dakota would be better served if many candidates from across the spectrum presented their ideas for comparison and contrast.

Competition works in the economic marketplace and in the marketplace of ideas.