JUST AS PREDICTED, Rhode Island is reaping the bitter fruits of a political system that suppresses competition and fresh ideas, and seriously tilts the playing field against change.

Jobs are disappearing at an alarming pace, and the Ocean State has plummeted to America’s worst unemployment rate. And, last week, officials learned its tax revenues have dropped off the table, with massive deficits confronting the state’s government. That spells deep cuts in public services, more jobs-killing tax hikes, or both.

And, still, its leaders are stubbornly wearing their party blinders, refusing to consider serious, nonpartisan reform of the system.

Two years into his term, for example, Democratic Secretary of State Ralph Mollis remains dead-set against getting rid of Rhode Island’s deplorable straight-ticket voting option, a legacy of machine politics of a century ago. Most states do not perpetuate that practice, which tends to create lopsided legislatures and strangle the minority party.

It certainly has done a marvelous job achieving these ends in Rhode Island, where in this month’s election nearly half of the tiny band of Republicans in the legislature were politically executed. Almost no one is left in the legislature to challenge the party in power, whose economic policies have been less than a ringing success, to put it mildly.

Sadly, even in these times, Mr. Mollis has chosen to put his party’s short-term political ends ahead of his state’s long-term civic and economic health.

But even union leader George Nee, who has done yeoman’s work electing Democrats, acknowledges that the Ocean State is in trouble. The utter dominance of one party “is terrible for the state. . . . I think a viable competitive two-party system is good for everybody. It makes people have to work hard, and it makes people really have to consult with their constituents; nobody gets complacent.”

Too bad Rhode Island refuses to nurture such a system.

Under the straight-ticket option that our Democratic leaders prefer, voters can opt to vote for one party, and thus vote for every member of that party on the ballot. This was a system designed by the old-time machine bosses to enforce loyalty and protect their hand-chosen candidates up and down the ballot. It was also a way to amass votes from people who did not understand English or the U.S. political system very well. They did not have to read an entire ballot; they simply had to pull one lever, or connect one line and — bam! — every member of the party was all set.

This scheme has little effect in lopsided, big-name races. Rhode Island, overwhelmingly Democratic, would have easily elected Barack Obama and re-elected Sen. Jack Reed and Representatives Patrick Kennedy and James Langevin under any system.

Where it gets pernicious is farther down the ballot, in legislative races with lesser-known candidates. Minus the straight-ticket option, many voters who are ignorant of those candidates and their issues would leave those races blank, letting more knowledgeable voters decide the matter. With the option, voters blindly sweep into office candidates they’ve never heard of.

The system creates virtual killing fields for GOP candidates in many communities. In his analysis of raw voting data, Marc Comtois of anchorrising.com found that in Central Falls, 59 percent of the ballots cast by Democrats were straight-ticket; in Providence, 46 percent; in Woonsocket, 38 percent; in Pawtucket, 36 percent; in East Providence, 31 percent; in North Providence, 30 percent.

GOP voters were much less willing to use the option. The greatest percentage of straight-ticket Republican votes came in Central Falls (25 percent).

Political pros know what these numbers mean. They mean that Democrats go into elections with a huge built-in advantage: roughly a 50-percent edge in straight-ticket votes. In a Democratic-dominated state, that makes it very, very hard for Republicans to win, even incumbents in districts friendly to them. Instead of a level playing field, GOP candidates confront a steep slope. (See the last several elections.)

Defenders of this racket say the voters have a “right” to the “convenience” of the option. They also say an intellectual case can be made for supporting every candidate from one party.

But why is it so important to serve the “convenience” of lazy, rigidly partisan voters? Is it really too much to ask of them that they expend the effort of proceeding down the ballot to actually vote for the people they put in power? As better-run, less corrupt states recognize, the danger to society of tipping elections to one party greatly outweighs the loss of such “convenience.”

A healthy two-party system pressures those who are in power to be honest and focused on the voters. It is when they have no fear of defeat that they grow complacent and serve their special-interest masters/supporters.

It would be nice if Rhode Island joined most of America by eliminating the straight-ticket option, but it is hard to see that happening any time soon.

Most of its leaders, like the machine bosses of old, think only of their party and the next election. They lack the vision and courage to put their state first, even if they (like Mr. Nee) have the brainpower to comprehend that Rhode Island is desperately ill. And there are certainly ever fewer members of the emaciated opposition party to carry the bullet-riddled flag of reform.

Edward Achorn is The Journal’s deputy editorial-pages editor ( eachorn@projo.com).