Proposed Policy Reform: Non Partisan Congressional Elections

The partisan system problematically undercuts true representation based on the belief that voters are too ignorant and apathetic to be responsible, blocking many from political involvement. Continuing a system that merely plays on this perceived ignorance and apathy is not a sign of a healthy and representative government nor will it ever correct this problem.

Parties are justified on the belief that voters are incapable of evaluating a candidate's merits, and that they must rely on party label, which may not effectively disclose a candidate's views on the issues. A truly representative government requires that voters become informed not only of the issues, but of the candidate as well. However, voters often rely on the party label alone to determine their vote, perhaps even voting against their core values. Partisanship also causes problems when it comes to state redistricting that reduces competition and increases voter apathy.

Partisan systems exclude lower-classes from running for office, as candidates are typically required to know many influential upper-class individuals in order to secure support, while ignoring traditional lower-class non-voters. Additionally, elected officials are beholden to their party and financiers (5). The candidate who wishes to be elected is required to make many long-term promises to an elite faction in exchange for monetary and campaign support. Once elected, legislators must also perform to their party's expectations or risk losing favor with their party. The net effect of this situation is that elected officials do not have the ability to vote for their constituents or their conscience, but rather are required to vote as the party requires, even when this violates the spirit of the legislator's core beliefs.

Proposed Solution

Nonpartisan congressional elections combined with Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) would eliminate the need for primary elections, allow elected officials to vote as their constituency or conscience requires, and eliminate the hostile partisanship of Congress. These reforms would further encourage voters to become informed about the issues and candidates, which would provide a net benefit to our representative government.

In a nonpartisan system, any candidate would be free to make a coalition of various interest groups, crossing traditional "left vs. right" lines of politics. Most importantly, nonpartisan elections would require that candidates gain the support at the grass roots level, thus bringing previous non-voters into the electoral system.

Therefore, reforms should be made with nonpartisan congressional elections and IRV being the goal.

Challenges

A status quo mentality will be the greatest challenge. Current incumbents and their financiers will be the largest obstacle as their support will be required to make this change. Substantial grass roots support of candidates willing to make this change may be required to overcome this challenge.

In addition, several arguments have been made against nonpartisan elections including that they would exclude the poor and minorities and that they would unfairly favor the rich. This argument does point out a deeper problem that maintaining the current partisan system does not effectively address: voter apathy among the poor and uneducated. However, such arguments remain based on the belief that voters are incapable of educating themselves on the issues and merits of the candidate.

Perhaps our political leaders prefer to maintain such a system in the cynical belief that uneducated voters are easy to manipulate or that low voter turnout helps to ensure their continued incumbency.

More Research Needed

Unfortunately, the most recent research that has been performed on nonpartisan elections tends to be focused on municipal elections. Non-municipal research is frequently out of date, often from the 1960s and 1970s. Most of the research that can be found tends to point out that there is an advantage to Republicans through nonpartisan elections (Hawley, 77). Hawley also found that a lack of organization and political cues may account for the lower participation among traditional Democrat voters in nonpartisan elections (Hawley, 91-93). The 1963 study by Robert H. Salisbury & Gordon Black which looked at the effect of nonpartisanship in Des Moines suggested that class may be a more important factor than party in determining voter participation. They found that upper-class voters turned out more than lower-class voters, particularly in nonpartisan elections. Research has also found that the effect of party on legislative votes is diminished by nonpartisan elections (Comer, 110-111)

Conclusion

The lack of organization or political education should not be a factor in blocking nonpartisan elections. A well-educated electorate would have no need for partisan cues when making their political decisions. Likewise, nonpartisan legislators would be free to make those decisions that are in the best interests of their constituents without compromising their core values. More research on this subject is desperately needed. Almost 40% of eligible voters chose not to vote in the 2004 presidential elections (6). A common reason given by these nonvoters is that there is no representation for their views.

No party may represent these voters, but perhaps a nonparty could.

Sources:

Comer, John and James B. Johnson. 1978. Nonpartisanship in the Legislative Process. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.

Hawley, Willis. 1973. Nonpartisan Elections and the Case for Party Politics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Salisbury, Robert, and Gordon Black. 1963. Class and Party in Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections: The Case of Des Moines. American Political Science Review Vol.57 No.3:584-592.