Competition does not influence quality and performance in politics.Generally, competition in education, school class, between teams, in business yields better performance. The quality or outcome points generally improve. If you've seen the CWG all India badminton final, the competition between both was excellent even though medals were granted.
In business fields, competition translates into better pricing for the consumer and improve productivity and cost-effectiveness from the manufacturer.
But in politics, this does not happen. There is stiff competition between candidates for getting tickets, hectic campaigning happens. But the outcome remains the same. People who did not get nominated (from all major parties) are indulging in disruption and destruction.
Despite the stiff competition, once the results are out, we are back to square one, the common man has the same issues, funds not used, funds not available, shortage of everything. Already in some parts of Bangalore people are complaining, what's the use of so many people asking us to vote, when there is not drinking water for us?
So, the logic that competition improves quality, performance and cost does not apply to the crowded political arena where all the above suffers and we end up paying for it.