This post is contributed by LWVJ member Pat Watt.

Our Assembly and School Board members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Why is that – and does it matter?

State statutes require Alaska’s local governments to adopt rules for conducting local elections – but allow them plenty of flexibility about how they conduct those elections. Juneau’s Municipal Charter, adopted in 1970, provides that all local elections shall be non-partisan. Most municipalities in the state have chosen the same method.

An estimated two thirds of municipalities across the country have chosen to use nonpartisan elections for local offices. In 2010, California voters passed Proposition 14, which requires nonpartisan elections not only for local but also for state and federal offices. Louisiana and Nebraska similarly use nonpartisan elections for their state legislatures.

Recent surveys have shown that voters currently tend to hold local elected officials in higher regard than those at state or federal level. Some academics ascribe the difference, in part, to the fact that so many local elections are nonpartisan.

So what’s the difference between partisan and non-partisan elections? And are there advantages to having nonpartisan local elections?

The immediate differences for voters are:

• In nonpartisan elections, no party affiliation is listed beside candidate names on the ballot;
• In partisan elections, names on the ballot give party affiliation;
• In partisan elections, only names of those candidates picked in each party’s selection process are on the ballot.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that partisanship tends to go hand in hand with political animosity. “While the current partisan environment does not for the most part appear to be turning neighbor against neighbor, it may be making for some difficult conversations about politics.”  In partisan elections, discussions about public policies and how to solve community problems may not only be more difficult but may get lost in the crossfire of personal exchanges or character attacks. And the acrimony from such campaign rhetoric then impedes the ability to find common ground once candidates are elected.

Some advantages of a nonpartisan election have been identified as:

• Politicians who have been elected without party labels or support find it easier to cooperate and/or compromise to find solutions to community problems.
• It is easier for independent and unaffiliated candidates to get on the ballot in nonpartisan elections and they may have a better chance of getting elected.
• Candidates are more free to state their true beliefs, rather than being pressured to stick to a party line.
• Those holding more extreme views, appealing only to a narrow portion of the electorate, are less likely to make their way on to the ballot.
• Nonpartisan elections avoid the animosity that often leaks into partisan campaigns, especially in the current environment.
• It eliminates blind, straight-ticket voting where uninformed voters simply vote their party preference regardless of the merits of the individual candidates.

Some advantages to a partisan elections have been identified as:

• Political parties can help less financially able candidates by providing resources and volunteers to compete against wealthier candidates.
• Voters may be less likely to bother to vote if they are required to learn about the background of candidates and their platforms.

• In the absence of a party ballot, uninformed voters may turn to whatever cue is available, including simple name recognition or even the nature of a candidate’s name.

• Voting on a party basis can be easier and more convenient for voters who can simply adhere to a broad, philosophical agenda and support their party’s candidates.

Democracy is a fragile plant.  Its citizens are best served with an electoral system that promotes civility in the public arena and focuses discussion on how to resolve community problems, allowing differing ideas to be considered and explored with respect.

The League of Women Voters (LWV) promotes open governmental systems that are representative, accountable and responsive and facilitates citizen participation in government decision-making. It has taken no stance on the virtues or failings of nonpartisan elections compared to those held on a partisan basis.

This post is contributed by LWVJ member Pat Watt.

Our Assembly and School Board members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Why is that – and does it matter?

State statutes require Alaska’s local governments to adopt rules for conducting local elections – but allow them plenty of flexibility about how they conduct those elections. Juneau’s Municipal Charter, adopted in 1970, provides that all local elections shall be non-partisan. Most municipalities in the state have chosen the same method.

An estimated two thirds of municipalities across the country have chosen to use nonpartisan elections for local offices. In 2010, California voters passed Proposition 14, which requires nonpartisan elections not only for local but also for state and federal offices. Louisiana and Nebraska similarly use nonpartisan elections for their state legislatures.

Recent surveys have shown that voters currently tend to hold local elected officials in higher regard than those at state or federal level. Some academics ascribe the difference, in part, to the fact that so many local elections are nonpartisan.

So what’s the difference between partisan and non-partisan elections? And are there advantages to having nonpartisan local elections?

The immediate differences for voters are:

• In nonpartisan elections, no party affiliation is listed beside candidate names on the ballot;
• In partisan elections, names on the ballot give party affiliation;
• In partisan elections, only names of those candidates picked in each party’s selection process are on the ballot.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that partisanship tends to go hand in hand with political animosity. “While the current partisan environment does not for the most part appear to be turning neighbor against neighbor, it may be making for some difficult conversations about politics.”  In partisan elections, discussions about public policies and how to solve community problems may not only be more difficult but may get lost in the crossfire of personal exchanges or character attacks. And the acrimony from such campaign rhetoric then impedes the ability to find common ground once candidates are elected.

Some advantages of a nonpartisan election have been identified as:

• Politicians who have been elected without party labels or support find it easier to cooperate and/or compromise to find solutions to community problems.
• It is easier for independent and unaffiliated candidates to get on the ballot in nonpartisan elections and they may have a better chance of getting elected.
• Candidates are more free to state their true beliefs, rather than being pressured to stick to a party line.
• Those holding more extreme views, appealing only to a narrow portion of the electorate, are less likely to make their way on to the ballot.
• Nonpartisan elections avoid the animosity that often leaks into partisan campaigns, especially in the current environment.
• It eliminates blind, straight-ticket voting where uninformed voters simply vote their party preference regardless of the merits of the individual candidates.

Some advantages to a partisan elections have been identified as:

• Political parties can help less financially able candidates by providing resources and volunteers to compete against wealthier candidates.
• Voters may be less likely to bother to vote if they are required to learn about the background of candidates and their platforms.

• In the absence of a party ballot, uninformed voters may turn to whatever cue is available, including simple name recognition or even the nature of a candidate’s name.

• Voting on a party basis can be easier and more convenient for voters who can simply adhere to a broad, philosophical agenda and support their party’s candidates.

Democracy is a fragile plant.  Its citizens are best served with an electoral system that promotes civility in the public arena and focuses discussion on how to resolve community problems, allowing differing ideas to be considered and explored with respect.

The League of Women Voters (LWV) promotes open governmental systems that are representative, accountable and responsive and facilitates citizen participation in government decision-making. It has taken no stance on the virtues or failings of nonpartisan elections compared to those held on a partisan basis.

This post is contributed by LWVJ member Pat Watt.

Our Assembly and School Board members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Why is that – and does it matter?

State statutes require Alaska’s local governments to adopt rules for conducting local elections – but allow them plenty of flexibility about how they conduct those elections. Juneau’s Municipal Charter, adopted in 1970, provides that all local elections shall be non-partisan. Most municipalities in the state have chosen the same method.

An estimated two thirds of municipalities across the country have chosen to use nonpartisan elections for local offices. In 2010, California voters passed Proposition 14, which requires nonpartisan elections not only for local but also for state and federal offices. Louisiana and Nebraska similarly use nonpartisan elections for their state legislatures.

Recent surveys have shown that voters currently tend to hold local elected officials in higher regard than those at state or federal level. Some academics ascribe the difference, in part, to the fact that so many local elections are nonpartisan.

So what’s the difference between partisan and non-partisan elections? And are there advantages to having nonpartisan local elections?

The immediate differences for voters are:

• In nonpartisan elections, no party affiliation is listed beside candidate names on the ballot;
• In partisan elections, names on the ballot give party affiliation;
• In partisan elections, only names of those candidates picked in each party’s selection process are on the ballot.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that partisanship tends to go hand in hand with political animosity. “While the current partisan environment does not for the most part appear to be turning neighbor against neighbor, it may be making for some difficult conversations about politics.”  In partisan elections, discussions about public policies and how to solve community problems may not only be more difficult but may get lost in the crossfire of personal exchanges or character attacks. And the acrimony from such campaign rhetoric then impedes the ability to find common ground once candidates are elected.

Some advantages of a nonpartisan election have been identified as:

• Politicians who have been elected without party labels or support find it easier to cooperate and/or compromise to find solutions to community problems.
• It is easier for independent and unaffiliated candidates to get on the ballot in nonpartisan elections and they may have a better chance of getting elected.
• Candidates are more free to state their true beliefs, rather than being pressured to stick to a party line.
• Those holding more extreme views, appealing only to a narrow portion of the electorate, are less likely to make their way on to the ballot.
• Nonpartisan elections avoid the animosity that often leaks into partisan campaigns, especially in the current environment.
• It eliminates blind, straight-ticket voting where uninformed voters simply vote their party preference regardless of the merits of the individual candidates.

Some advantages to a partisan elections have been identified as:

• Political parties can help less financially able candidates by providing resources and volunteers to compete against wealthier candidates.
• Voters may be less likely to bother to vote if they are required to learn about the background of candidates and their platforms.

• In the absence of a party ballot, uninformed voters may turn to whatever cue is available, including simple name recognition or even the nature of a candidate’s name.

• Voting on a party basis can be easier and more convenient for voters who can simply adhere to a broad, philosophical agenda and support their party’s candidates.

Democracy is a fragile plant.  Its citizens are best served with an electoral system that promotes civility in the public arena and focuses discussion on how to resolve community problems, allowing differing ideas to be considered and explored with respect.

The League of Women Voters (LWV) promotes open governmental systems that are representative, accountable and responsive and facilitates citizen participation in government decision-making. It has taken no stance on the virtues or failings of nonpartisan elections compared to those held on a partisan basis.

This post is contributed by LWVJ member Pat Watt.

Our Assembly and School Board members are elected on a nonpartisan basis. Why is that – and does it matter?

State statutes require Alaska’s local governments to adopt rules for conducting local elections – but allow them plenty of flexibility about how they conduct those elections. Juneau’s Municipal Charter, adopted in 1970, provides that all local elections shall be non-partisan. Most municipalities in the state have chosen the same method.

An estimated two thirds of municipalities across the country have chosen to use nonpartisan elections for local offices. In 2010, California voters passed Proposition 14, which requires nonpartisan elections not only for local but also for state and federal offices. Louisiana and Nebraska similarly use nonpartisan elections for their state legislatures.

Recent surveys have shown that voters currently tend to hold local elected officials in higher regard than those at state or federal level. Some academics ascribe the difference, in part, to the fact that so many local elections are nonpartisan.

So what’s the difference between partisan and non-partisan elections? And are there advantages to having nonpartisan local elections?

The immediate differences for voters are:

• In nonpartisan elections, no party affiliation is listed beside candidate names on the ballot;
• In partisan elections, names on the ballot give party affiliation;
• In partisan elections, only names of those candidates picked in each party’s selection process are on the ballot.

A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that partisanship tends to go hand in hand with political animosity. “While the current partisan environment does not for the most part appear to be turning neighbor against neighbor, it may be making for some difficult conversations about politics.”  In partisan elections, discussions about public policies and how to solve community problems may not only be more difficult but may get lost in the crossfire of personal exchanges or character attacks. And the acrimony from such campaign rhetoric then impedes the ability to find common ground once candidates are elected.

Some advantages of a nonpartisan election have been identified as:

• Politicians who have been elected without party labels or support find it easier to cooperate and/or compromise to find solutions to community problems.
• It is easier for independent and unaffiliated candidates to get on the ballot in nonpartisan elections and they may have a better chance of getting elected.
• Candidates are more free to state their true beliefs, rather than being pressured to stick to a party line.
• Those holding more extreme views, appealing only to a narrow portion of the electorate, are less likely to make their way on to the ballot.
• Nonpartisan elections avoid the animosity that often leaks into partisan campaigns, especially in the current environment.
• It eliminates blind, straight-ticket voting where uninformed voters simply vote their party preference regardless of the merits of the individual candidates.

Some advantages to a partisan elections have been identified as:

• Political parties can help less financially able candidates by providing resources and volunteers to compete against wealthier candidates.
• Voters may be less likely to bother to vote if they are required to learn about the background of candidates and their platforms.

• In the absence of a party ballot, uninformed voters may turn to whatever cue is available, including simple name recognition or even the nature of a candidate’s name.

• Voting on a party basis can be easier and more convenient for voters who can simply adhere to a broad, philosophical agenda and support their party’s candidates.

Democracy is a fragile plant.  Its citizens are best served with an electoral system that promotes civility in the public arena and focuses discussion on how to resolve community problems, allowing differing ideas to be considered and explored with respect.

The League of Women Voters (LWV) promotes open governmental systems that are representative, accountable and responsive and facilitates citizen participation in government decision-making. It has taken no stance on the virtues or failings of nonpartisan elections compared to those held on a partisan basis.

In the blog Popular Vote 1, three questions were proposed, and the attempt to answer those questions can be found in the following blog.

ONE:  Why do we have the Electoral College rather than a popular vote determining the winners of the Presidential elections?  The writers of the Constitution struggled with the problem of electing a President and Vice-President. What they ended up with, after many votes on a variety of options, gave four basic notions on what was required: 1. A Presidential/VP election should be held every four years by a small group called Presidential electors. 2. Each state is allowed one presidential elector for each Senator and Representative. 3. A majority of votes from the electors is required for a win; a lack of a majority throws the Presidential selection into the House and the Vice Presidential selection into the Senate.  4, Originally each elector cast two votes with the leading candidate becoming President and the second-place going to the Vice President.  The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, changed the process so that each elector casts a separate vote for President and Vice President.  The original Articles did not give individual voters the right to cast a ballot for either of these important positions in the U.S. government; to put it another way, there was no popular vote.  In contrast, today most states use the popular vote to determine the pair of candidates that receives all the state’s electoral votes.  The manner in which the electors were chosen was left to each state to determine.

TWO:  How do political parties affect the use of the Electoral College?  George Washington was not a fan of the notion of political parties.  In his Farewell Address to the Nation in 1796, after completing two terms as President, Washington cautions citizens against political parties, stating that “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” might infect citizens “with ill-founded jealousies.”  These “jealousies” could be exploited by a candidate “more able or more fortunate than his competitors,” who “turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”  Washington further warns that political parties might open “the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”  Clearly Washington saw a time in the future when political party would come first and country might come second.  He may not have been able to see into the future and imagine the way that bias in reporting, fake news, and the loss of fact-based truth might affect elections, but he certainly knew how jealousy and passions could lead the country astray.

Both of Washington’s elections were without the aid of political parties; these were the first and the last two elections to have that characteristic.  The election of 2016 involved electors who were bound to their party vote rather than to the notion of casting votes for the most qualified candidate.  This is not a new occurrence, for in very few cases have electors voted differently than their parties instruct.  And the seven who did veer this year did so for several reasons: fear that the candidate was unfit, a feeling of allegiance to a candidate who lost the elector’s state primary, and other unknown reasons.  So it seems that rather than elect the most qualified candidate, party politics and passion determine to a great extent the winner along with the so-called battleground states and their winner-take-all policies.

THREE:  Is there any way to change the way we currently elect the President and Vice-President?  Assuming the majority wishes a better representation for each vote when these two important elected officials are chosen, there are several ways to gain more equity.  One is a proportional method of casting the electoral votes; a second way is to amend the U.S. Constitution; and the third way is the National Popular Vote Compact.  In the next blog post, Popular Vote 3, we will look at the pros and cons of each and the process needed to put each method in place.

In the blog Popular Vote 1, three questions were proposed, and the attempt to answer those questions can be found in the following blog.

ONE:  Why do we have the Electoral College rather than a popular vote determining the winners of the Presidential elections?  The writers of the Constitution struggled with the problem of electing a President and Vice-President. What they ended up with, after many votes on a variety of options, gave four basic notions on what was required: 1. A Presidential/VP election should be held every four years by a small group called Presidential electors. 2. Each state is allowed one presidential elector for each Senator and Representative. 3. A majority of votes from the electors is required for a win; a lack of a majority throws the Presidential selection into the House and the Vice Presidential selection into the Senate.  4, Originally each elector cast two votes with the leading candidate becoming President and the second-place going to the Vice President.  The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, changed the process so that each elector casts a separate vote for President and Vice President.  The original Articles did not give individual voters the right to cast a ballot for either of these important positions in the U.S. government; to put it another way, there was no popular vote.  In contrast, today most states use the popular vote to determine the pair of candidates that receives all the state’s electoral votes.  The manner in which the electors were chosen was left to each state to determine.

TWO:  How do political parties affect the use of the Electoral College?  George Washington was not a fan of the notion of political parties.  In his Farewell Address to the Nation in 1796, after completing two terms as President, Washington cautions citizens against political parties, stating that “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” might infect citizens “with ill-founded jealousies.”  These “jealousies” could be exploited by a candidate “more able or more fortunate than his competitors,” who “turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”  Washington further warns that political parties might open “the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”  Clearly Washington saw a time in the future when political party would come first and country might come second.  He may not have been able to see into the future and imagine the way that bias in reporting, fake news, and the loss of fact-based truth might affect elections, but he certainly knew how jealousy and passions could lead the country astray.

Both of Washington’s elections were without the aid of political parties; these were the first and the last two elections to have that characteristic.  The election of 2016 involved electors who were bound to their party vote rather than to the notion of casting votes for the most qualified candidate.  This is not a new occurrence, for in very few cases have electors voted differently than their parties instruct.  And the seven who did veer this year did so for several reasons: fear that the candidate was unfit, a feeling of allegiance to a candidate who lost the elector’s state primary, and other unknown reasons.  So it seems that rather than elect the most qualified candidate, party politics and passion determine to a great extent the winner along with the so-called battleground states and their winner-take-all policies.

THREE:  Is there any way to change the way we currently elect the President and Vice-President?  Assuming the majority wishes a better representation for each vote when these two important elected officials are chosen, there are several ways to gain more equity.  One is a proportional method of casting the electoral votes; a second way is to amend the U.S. Constitution; and the third way is the National Popular Vote Compact.  In the next blog post, Popular Vote 3, we will look at the pros and cons of each and the process needed to put each method in place.

In the blog Popular Vote 1, three questions were proposed, and the attempt to answer those questions can be found in the following blog.

ONE:  Why do we have the Electoral College rather than a popular vote determining the winners of the Presidential elections?  The writers of the Constitution struggled with the problem of electing a President and Vice-President. What they ended up with, after many votes on a variety of options, gave four basic notions on what was required: 1. A Presidential/VP election should be held every four years by a small group called Presidential electors. 2. Each state is allowed one presidential elector for each Senator and Representative. 3. A majority of votes from the electors is required for a win; a lack of a majority throws the Presidential selection into the House and the Vice Presidential selection into the Senate.  4, Originally each elector cast two votes with the leading candidate becoming President and the second-place going to the Vice President.  The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, changed the process so that each elector casts a separate vote for President and Vice President.  The original Articles did not give individual voters the right to cast a ballot for either of these important positions in the U.S. government; to put it another way, there was no popular vote.  In contrast, today most states use the popular vote to determine the pair of candidates that receives all the state’s electoral votes.  The manner in which the electors were chosen was left to each state to determine.

TWO:  How do political parties affect the use of the Electoral College?  George Washington was not a fan of the notion of political parties.  In his Farewell Address to the Nation in 1796, after completing two terms as President, Washington cautions citizens against political parties, stating that “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” might infect citizens “with ill-founded jealousies.”  These “jealousies” could be exploited by a candidate “more able or more fortunate than his competitors,” who “turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”  Washington further warns that political parties might open “the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”  Clearly Washington saw a time in the future when political party would come first and country might come second.  He may not have been able to see into the future and imagine the way that bias in reporting, fake news, and the loss of fact-based truth might affect elections, but he certainly knew how jealousy and passions could lead the country astray.

Both of Washington’s elections were without the aid of political parties; these were the first and the last two elections to have that characteristic.  The election of 2016 involved electors who were bound to their party vote rather than to the notion of casting votes for the most qualified candidate.  This is not a new occurrence, for in very few cases have electors voted differently than their parties instruct.  And the seven who did veer this year did so for several reasons: fear that the candidate was unfit, a feeling of allegiance to a candidate who lost the elector’s state primary, and other unknown reasons.  So it seems that rather than elect the most qualified candidate, party politics and passion determine to a great extent the winner along with the so-called battleground states and their winner-take-all policies.

THREE:  Is there any way to change the way we currently elect the President and Vice-President?  Assuming the majority wishes a better representation for each vote when these two important elected officials are chosen, there are several ways to gain more equity.  One is a proportional method of casting the electoral votes; a second way is to amend the U.S. Constitution; and the third way is the National Popular Vote Compact.  In the next blog post, Popular Vote 3, we will look at the pros and cons of each and the process needed to put each method in place.

In the blog Popular Vote 1, three questions were proposed, and the attempt to answer those questions can be found in the following blog.

ONE:  Why do we have the Electoral College rather than a popular vote determining the winners of the Presidential elections?  The writers of the Constitution struggled with the problem of electing a President and Vice-President. What they ended up with, after many votes on a variety of options, gave four basic notions on what was required: 1. A Presidential/VP election should be held every four years by a small group called Presidential electors. 2. Each state is allowed one presidential elector for each Senator and Representative. 3. A majority of votes from the electors is required for a win; a lack of a majority throws the Presidential selection into the House and the Vice Presidential selection into the Senate.  4, Originally each elector cast two votes with the leading candidate becoming President and the second-place going to the Vice President.  The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, changed the process so that each elector casts a separate vote for President and Vice President.  The original Articles did not give individual voters the right to cast a ballot for either of these important positions in the U.S. government; to put it another way, there was no popular vote.  In contrast, today most states use the popular vote to determine the pair of candidates that receives all the state’s electoral votes.  The manner in which the electors were chosen was left to each state to determine.

TWO:  How do political parties affect the use of the Electoral College?  George Washington was not a fan of the notion of political parties.  In his Farewell Address to the Nation in 1796, after completing two terms as President, Washington cautions citizens against political parties, stating that “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” might infect citizens “with ill-founded jealousies.”  These “jealousies” could be exploited by a candidate “more able or more fortunate than his competitors,” who “turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”  Washington further warns that political parties might open “the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”  Clearly Washington saw a time in the future when political party would come first and country might come second.  He may not have been able to see into the future and imagine the way that bias in reporting, fake news, and the loss of fact-based truth might affect elections, but he certainly knew how jealousy and passions could lead the country astray.

Both of Washington’s elections were without the aid of political parties; these were the first and the last two elections to have that characteristic.  The election of 2016 involved electors who were bound to their party vote rather than to the notion of casting votes for the most qualified candidate.  This is not a new occurrence, for in very few cases have electors voted differently than their parties instruct.  And the seven who did veer this year did so for several reasons: fear that the candidate was unfit, a feeling of allegiance to a candidate who lost the elector’s state primary, and other unknown reasons.  So it seems that rather than elect the most qualified candidate, party politics and passion determine to a great extent the winner along with the so-called battleground states and their winner-take-all policies.

THREE:  Is there any way to change the way we currently elect the President and Vice-President?  Assuming the majority wishes a better representation for each vote when these two important elected officials are chosen, there are several ways to gain more equity.  One is a proportional method of casting the electoral votes; a second way is to amend the U.S. Constitution; and the third way is the National Popular Vote Compact.  In the next blog post, Popular Vote 3, we will look at the pros and cons of each and the process needed to put each method in place.