fbpx
Donate Newsletters
Home » Democracy + Elections » Election consolidation is a red-blue partisanship puzzle

Election consolidation is a red-blue partisanship puzzle

Democrats and Republicans swap scripts on the same bills depending what state they’re in — and that could be good news for reformers.

Alan Durning

Welcome to Sightline Institute’s redesigned website!

You’ll find our same top-notch solutions research, just with a fresh new look. Learn more here about new features, or simply browse as usual. 

FULL ARTICLEThe Bizarre Red-Blue Politics of Election Consolidation  

SEATTLE, WA – Election consolidation (moving local elections to the same November ballot as national elections) boosts turnout more than any other effort, often doubling participation in local elections. The reform has widespread support among the organized right and the organized left. 

To date, however, election consolidation has been more bizarre-partisan than bipartisan. In a rare pattern of role reversals, proposals come from Republicans in red states and Democrats in blue states, according to new research from the nonpartisan think tank Sightline Institute. 

  • Almost every state election consolidation proposal in living memory has split legislators along party lines. In red states such as Arizona, Montana, and Tennessee, Republicans vote yea and Democrats vote nay. In blue states such as Washington and New York, vice versa. 
  • Proponents and opponents recite the same arguments for and against election consolidation.  
  • The reform’s support is mile-wide and inch-deep: even among the all-star bipartisan roster of organizations that endorse it, it’s almost no one’s priority.  
  • Election consolidation appears to be a boon to neither the left nor the right, though it routinely doubles turnout and yields a much younger electorate. 

Lead author of the research and executive director of Sightline Institute Alan Durning found that these patterns could be a byproduct of negative partisanship: elected officials guessing which electoral reforms will help or hurt their team in reaction to which side proposed a given piece of legislation. 

“If negative partisanship is the main thing driving legislators to polarize in their current state-by-state patchwork formation, it actually bodes well for continuing the consolidation of local elections,” said Durning. “Patient and diplomatic reformers may be able to navigate the tides using the rarest of things in 21st-century politics: bipartisan coalitions.”   

Read the full analysis: The Bizarre Red-Blue Politics of Election Consolidation  

Related: 

### 

Talk to the Author

Alan Durning

Alan Durning, executive director, founded Northwest Environment Watch in 1993, which became Sightline Institute in 2006. Alan’s current topics of focus include housing affordability and democracy reform.

Talk to the Author

Alan Durning

Alan Durning, executive director, founded Northwest Environment Watch in 1993, which became Sightline Institute in 2006.

About Sightline

Sightline Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank providing leading original analysis of democracy, forests, energy, and housing policy in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, British Columbia, and beyond.

For press inquiries and interview requests, please contact Martina Pansze.

Sightline Institute is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization and does not support, endorse, or oppose any candidate or political party.

You can power us forward on sustainable solutions.

See an error? Have a question?

Find the author's contact information on our staff page to reach out to them, or send a message to editor@sightline.org.