When I began publishing research on elections and representation, I always imagined the audience as primarily academic - political scientists, methodologists, perhaps a few practitioners who hunt for new data. But as my work with Expand Democracy deepens, I find myself reflecting on how scholarship shapes the public conversation and why academic writing is not necessarily a detour from democracy but can be a foundation for it.
This essay reflects on that specific interaction: how academic work contributes to our understanding of democratic institutions, why it remains essential for reform movements, and how my own research aligns with Expand Democracy’s evolving mission.
The Role of Academic Writing in Democratic Reform
The value of academic work in democracy reform is not new. Foundational texts in the field, such as Douglas Amy’s Real Choices, New Voices, Arend Lijphart’s Patterns of Democracy, or Jane Mansbridge’s work on representation, did more than present empirical findings. They provided a reference point that activists, funders, journalists, and advocates could all cite and gave the movement a shared vocabulary, empirical grounding, and legitimacy.
Amy’s book, for example, became a canonical reference for proportional representation reformers. It brought analytic rigor and historical depth to a conversation that lacked both. Scholarship in this sense performs a dual function. On the one hand, it disciplines the imagination while simultaneously expanding it. It prevents democratic reform debates from becoming slogans while simultaneously supplying the intellectual framework for new institutional designs. This dual function of constraint and creativity is central to why academic writing remains indispensable to reform organizations.
How my research supports Expand Democracy’s mission
Several of my recent projects address questions at the heart of today’s institutional reform debates.
1. Electoral systems and participation/turnout
My co-authored articles in Electoral Studies (2024) and Social Science Quarterly (2025) examine the relationship between ranked-choice voting and turnout across racial/ethnic groups. These studies draw on multi-year datasets and causal inference tools to answer a question that is often asserted in public debate but rarely rigorously tested: does RCV mobilize voters, depress participation, or do something more complex?
My other recent work for the American Bar Association “2025 report What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting” reviewed decades of peer-reviewed scholarship on RCV and concluded that, while not a panacea, RCV “provides evidence … of clear benefits in representation, campaign quality, mobilization, and turnout.” This is the kind of evidence-based foundation that my own empirical analyses of turnout shifts and candidate representation seek to build on.
In a political environment where turnout disparities map onto structural inequalities, this research performs both the disciplining and generative functions described above. It closes the gap between rhetoric and reality while generating new questions about when, for whom, and under what conditions reforms improve participation.
2. Representation and political equality
My ongoing research on the descriptive and substantive representation of women, Latino, and Asian candidates under RCV situates local electoral reforms within larger debates about political equality and system responsiveness. These questions are central to both comparative political science and to practical reform efforts seeking to correct representational distortions.
3. Election governance and administrative capacity
As part of the Democracy Exchange Network and in my prior analysis for the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, I have contributed to a growing scholarly conversation about election governance and management. This field has historically lacked empirical grounding, but it is increasingly central to democratic stability. My RCV election management report (2024) and my emerging collaborations directly engage questions of institutional design and administrative realism. These analyses help Expand Democracy assess the feasibility of institutional reforms and identify areas where research reveals gaps between theoretical innovation and administrative capacity.
4. Political communication and polarization
My forthcoming article on the far-right podcast ecosystem in the Journal of Radio and Media (with David Dowling) and my book chapter on election fraud beliefs (in M. Ritter’s Rising Above Conspiracy: Understanding Elections, Election Administration, and Democracy in America and Abroad in the 2020s) draw on communication theory and political psychology to analyze how misinformation, identity, and media structure political attitudes. This work is foundational for an organization concerned with voter trust, legitimacy, polarization, and the public understanding of elections. It clarifies the constraints under which reform messaging operates and diagnoses the system-level challenges that undermine democratic participation.
The Relevance of Scholarship Generally to Expand Democracy’s Mission
Expand Democracy’s mission is to strengthen democratic institutions by identifying promising reforms, assessing their viability, and building networks of practitioners, scholars, and policymakers. This orientation places academic knowledge at its crux because it provides analytic clarity. Reform debates often hinge on empirical claims about turnout, about candidate diversity, and about the consequences of electoral rules. Academic work disciplines these claims, allowing organizations like ours to separate empirical outcomes from assumptions.
In addition, scholarship strengthens institutional legitimacy. Funders, policymakers, journalists, and election officials are more likely to engage with reform proposals that have been shown to carry empirical weight. Double blind peer-reviewed publications signal rigor, credibility, and independence, qualities essential in a space that is politically contested.
Last but certainly not least, scholarship informs how we translate ideas for broader audiences. That's why Expand Democracy has formed a Scholars Network to engage regularly with scholars as we consider and discuss new ideas and projects. This helps hone our popular writing like Substack essays, the Democracy Lab podcast, op eds, policy briefs, etc., which are more effective when grounded in research. Academic work gives those narratives depth and precision. Conversely, writing for broader audiences makes scholarly insights actionable rather than insular.
Scholarship as a Democratic Tool
If there is one takeaway from this past year of research is that democracy reform is strongest when rooted in evidence. Movements need stories that resonate, but they also need facts that anchor them. To be sure, not all academic work is constructive, particularly when it arguably exaggerates the inevitable flaws of certain reform proposals without balancing full discussion of the benefits. Yet academic work offers a path to both by providing a depth of understanding and the ability to translate that depth into accessible language for broader audiences.
At Expand Democracy, we’re trying to close the gap between research that sits on a shelf and ideas that change institutions. That means embracing scholarship (my own and others) as a key tenet of our mission. And if Doug Amy’s work taught us anything, it’s that the ideas with the longest shelf life are the ones with strong intellectual foundations. My own publications are one small contribution to this larger ecosystem, but they reaffirm that evidence, now more than ever, is a democratic resource that needs to be utilized.
Dr. Eveline Dowling is a Senior Fellow and Research Analyst at Expand Democracy. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis, specializing in public opinion, political behavior, survey research, and election reform.
