Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Local elections are less partisan because voters will cross party lines when issues hit close to home

Homeless encampment

Views on how to deal with the homeless encampments that have cropped up across California in recent years, such as this one in Los Angeles in July, don’t fall neatly along party lines.

Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

Lascher is a professor of public policy and administration at California State University, Sacramento. Adams is a professor of political science at San Diego State University. Martin is an associate professor of political science at California State University, Sacramento.

Hand-wringing over American politics commonly focuses on the sharp and growing divisions between Democrats and Republicans.

Accumulating evidence indicates that voters are less likely than ever to split their ticket or vote for candidates from different parties in presidential or congressional races. Polarization over hot-button issues has spiked, as has animosity toward members of the opposite party.

Research also shows that state-level political contests have become more partisan. Results for state-level electoral contests more closely mirror presidential election results than they once did.


As political scientists who study local politics, we wanted to know: Does that same partisanship carry over to city, county and other local elections?

Controversy over partisanship in local elections

Scholars have devoted relatively little attention to local elections, but some academic research suggests that local races, too, have become increasingly partisan. That would indicate that the particulars of local contests – for example, debates over housing, homelessness and public works projects – matter less in voters’ decision-making than party affiliation.

There is reason to be skeptical of these claims.

For one, the vast majority of mayoral and city council elections across the U.S. are formally nonpartisan, as are most school board elections; voters may not even know the candidates’ party identification. And contentious local issues such as where to build affordable housing may not fall neatly along partisan lines.

Further, partisan control over local governments may not matter as much to voters as it does on a national level.

That’s what many voters said in our survey research, conducted in California in 2021 and cited in our 2024 article for Urban Affairs Review. Over 60% of respondents claimed that they cast their ballots based on the candidates’ policy positions, not party affiliation. This factor far exceeded such other voting shortcuts as relying on party endorsements or the candidates’ demographic characteristics.

It is possible, of course, that the voters we surveyed only claimed to prioritize the issues over the politics because doing so is more socially desirable; it makes them seem more conscientious and thoughtful.

So we decided to test their commitment to nonpartisanship in local elections.

A survey experiment

Presented with the choice, how would voters respond in an election where the opposing party candidate was closer to their policy views than the candidate identified as being from their own party? Would they actually defect to the opposing party for this particular race?

To answer these questions, our team of three researchers at two California State University campuses conducted a survey experiment, building on the findings in our 2021 survey. In the new survey, conducted in late 2022 with 905 partisan, registered voters in California, we presented respondents with a choice between a city council candidate from their party who held policy views contrary to their own and a candidate from the other party who shared their policy preferences.

The survey focused on two highly relevant local issues: homelessness and housing. These are problems that matter to voters, and prominent California politicians within the same party have taken differing stands on them.

In the experiment, some respondents had to choose between a politician from their own party who agreed with them on one of these issues and a candidate from the opposing party who did not; this was the control group. In our separate test group, voters had to choose between a candidate from their own party who disagreed with them on one of the issues and an opposing party candidate who aligned with their views on that issue.

The experimental approach allowed us to isolate differences on these two issues from other policy matters that may have influenced their vote.

Our findings

We found that, overall, voters tend to support candidates from their own party – even when an opposite party candidate was closer to their views on salient local issues. About 60% of both Democrats and Republicans supported their party’s candidate for city council in the face of policy disagreements.

That said, 4 in 10 respondents defected from their party in this vote, prioritizing local issues – or these two local issues, at least – over partisan affiliation.

Indeed, under certain circumstances, most voters ditched the candidate from their political party. Fully 70% of respondents who supported a law enforcement-centered approach to homelessness, such as dismantling the highly visible encampments that have cropped up across California, would back a city council candidate from the opposite party who wanted police to clear the tent cities.

Looking deeper into the patterns from our experimental data, we found that the strength of both party ties and policy views mattered. Weak partisans were more likely to defect than strong partisans. Voters were also more likely to cross party lines if they believed homelessness and housing were very important issues or if they had more extreme policy preferences.

Party ties: Convenient but not binding

Our research complicates the common wisdom that partisanship dominates American electoral decision-making.

It suggests that Republican candidates can win in predominantly Democratic localities, and vice versa. Voters may cross party lines for politicians who take an appealing stance on local issues of serious concern, which may require breaking with party orthodoxy. Nonpartisan ballots that obscure the candidates’ party affiliation may help nudge voters toward party defection.

The implications are significant. More than 500,000 elected officials – 96% of all elected officials in the U.S. – serve at the local level, sitting on city councils, county boards of supervisors, school boards, special districts and the like.

In local politics, it turns out, a candidate’s party ties may be more of a convenience for voters than an identification that earns great loyalty. Partisanship looks less like sticking to your local sports team even when it’s having a terrible season and more like shopping at the nearest supermarket until a better one moves in.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More

How Veterans, Plane Travel, and Sausages Lead to Less Partisanship

The United States Capitol building.

Getty Images, bloodua

How Veterans, Plane Travel, and Sausages Lead to Less Partisanship

It’s no secret that partisanship is more intense than at any other time in recent history. And these intense political feelings don’t just play themselves out through gridlock in Congress. The threats of political violence have increased dramatically. Politics seeps into the workplace, resulting in coarse relations with colleagues (and, according to research, reduced productivity). And polls show that we’re just not “hanging out” with friends like we used to.

This makes it even more important to celebrate the discovery of examples of collaboration and strategies for improving our collective national character. One recent event revealed such examples. The nonprofit group Business for America recently held an event in Washington D.C., “ Across the Aisle: How Leaders Find Common Ground in a Divided Era.” The event featured elected officials and staff discussing the recurring factors in finding common ground in partisan times.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Could Help Save the Democratic Process

A dollar sign balloon.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Could Help Save the Democratic Process

After contributing more than a quarter of a billion dollars to elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk has now turned his attention to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, giving millions of dollars to support Judge Brad Schimel, the Republican candidate.

According to The Brennan Center, this race is the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. If Musk is successful, it will tip the High Court’s balance to his political favor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Together, We Must Repair a “House Divided”

A wooden cut-out of a home.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

Together, We Must Repair a “House Divided”

“My Father’s house has many rooms…” John 14:2-3

Lately, I’ve been seeing everything through a political lens whether I want to or not. So, it didn’t surprise me that a Biblical verse at a recent memorial service got me thinking about then-Senator Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 speech about a “House Divided.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Children are Collateral Damage of the Trump Agenda

A child holding an adult's hand.

Getty Images, Fisher Litwin

Children are Collateral Damage of the Trump Agenda

President Donald Trump has claimed a mandate following his electoral victory, using it to justify “ bold and profound change.” However, there is one substantial group of Americans who didn’t cast a single vote for the president—or any Republicans for that matter. They didn’t vote for any Democrats either. Yet, they will feel the impact of these changes for decades to come: Children.

Children comprise one-fifth of the United States population, their success will determine the success of our country in the future, yet they are often forgotten stakeholders in the political process. Children have no control over the circumstances they are born into, nor do they have much opportunity to change them. Lacking representation and the funds to lobby elected officials, children must rely on adults to ensure they are protected, supported, and given what they need to thrive. But more and more, policy decisions are harming children as their needs are overlooked by politicians who fail to consider the collateral damage of unrelated agendas. The consequences will be profound and enduring. Fortunately, there’s a simple and politically strategic remedy: prioritize children.

Keep ReadingShow less