A common narrative suggests that deeply polarized American voters always support their party's candidates, but a new study suggests otherwise in certain circumstances.

Researchers from Sacramento State and San Diego State universities asked more than 900 partisan voters about housing and homelessness - then asked them to choose, in a hypothetical local election - between a candidate from their party who disagreed with their views, or one from the opposite party who is aligned with them on policy.

Sacramento State Associate Professor of Political Science Danielle Martin co-authored the study.

"Overall, voters do support candidates from their own party - even when an opposite party candidate was closer to their views on one of those salient local issues," said Martin. "But we also found that about 40% defected from their party."

The study found that people with weak party loyalty were more likely to defect, as were people who are very invested in their policy position.

They also point out that in national and state-level races, people are much less likely to split their votes between parties.

Study co-author Professor of Public Policy and Administration Ted Lascher, also from Sacramento State, said the data show that voters are more flexible when an issue hits close to home.

"One of the implications is that somebody who's running, who's the out party, in terms of local party identification, may be able to win elections in city council and mayoral races," said Lascher, "if they choose the issue very carefully. Because voters will sometimes cross party lines on particular local issues."

San Diego State University Political Science Professor Brian Adams said this means that even though Democrats enjoy broad support in California, that support is more conditional than absolute in local races.

"A lot of this research suggests that if Republicans put forward candidates that actually agreed with some of the policy positions that Democratic voters have," said Adams, "at least some Democratic voters would be willing to switch."

About 96% of electoral contests in the U.S. are at the local level - for races such as the school board, the city council, and the county board of supervisors.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

As Ohio heads into a pivotal election season, the divide between rural and urban voters might seem deep - but one expert says the gap isn't as wide as it appears.

An upcoming webinar on "Understanding Rural Voters" will dive into what brings voters from different backgrounds together. One of the presenters, Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, James Irvine chair in urban and regional planning and professor of public policy at the University of Southern California, said rural and urban voters share common ground on many important issues.

"Their values are very much aligned on the basics," she said. "We all care about the environment. We care about our families. We hope for a better future for our country. We believe in democracy."

Research from Ohio's John Carroll University confirms that both rural and urban Ohioans care deeply about issues such as family, faith and preserving their communities. Despite what's often portrayed in the media, they share similar concerns about social policies and the environment.

Currid-Halkett also pointed to a lack of accessible, reliable news sources that she said makes it harder for many people, especially in rural areas, to see beyond the political divide.

"If we had easier access to understand varying political perspectives," she said, "we might, one, realize we aren't so divided, and two, we might get a sense of why people think differently than us. But it's very hard to do that in the current way we get media."

She said it doesn't help that so many online media outlets have paywalls that restrict access to their content.

The webinar, coming up Oct. 21, will feature experts from across the country, providing insights into how folks with different political perspectives can better understand each other. Registration is free on the USC Price School of Public Policy website.

Voting may be a bit more confusing than expected in Utah this year, as two of the four amendments on the ballot have now been voided.

The Utah Supreme Court nixed Amendment D, which would have allowed state lawmakers the power to change voter initiatives and prohibit "foreign influence in the initiative process." And this week, a Third District Court judge also voided Amendment A, which would have allowed state income taxes to be used for needs other than public education.

A new report from the Utah Foundation examines each of the four amendments. Annalisa Holcombe, the foundation's board chair, said information is power, especially around election time "because we know how important it is to provide clarity around public policy issues that affect us and the state of Utah as voters, and to have an independent, nonpartisan view of these amendments."

Amendments A and D will remain on the ballot, but won't be counted. Instead, voters will weigh in on Amendments B and C. Amendment B would increase the limit on annual distributions from the State School Fund to public schools from 4% to 5%, and Amendment C would require counties to elect a sheriff every four years. Both face little to no opposition.

Utah Foundation President Shawn Teigen described some of the information surrounding the amendments as "misleading" and unclear about the real issues at hand. Teigen said the topics of both Amendments A and D are likely to make a comeback in the future, and encourages people to learn more about these issues now.

"There's a chance to educate some folks here, to give people a little bit of information," he said, "so that when and if these come back that we'll have something to fall back on, in terms of some past education."

The report also explains that enacting amendments and changing the Utah Constitution is a long and complex process. Constitutional amendments have to pass the Utah Legislature by 66% and then be ratified by 50% of the public. By contrast, most Utah laws pass with a simple majority of legislators.

The Indiana Citizen, a nonpartisan voter information platform, aims to improve civic engagement in Indiana by helping voters make informed choices. The publication's "virtual ballot" provides unbiased, accessible information on candidates and issues.

Publisher Bill Moreau emphasized the state's need for better civic health.

"One of the things that we wanted to address," he said, "is this chronic civic health crisis that Indiana is mired in - a whole wide range of metrics, voter registration, turnout and civic literacy - where voters can go and become informed voters."

Moreau highlighted its commitment to younger voters. The platform has facilitated more than 2,400 new voter registrations and now focuses on providing these first-time voters with detailed information. By inputting their address, users can see a personalized ballot featuring profiles of candidates for offices ranging from the presidency to local school boards.

Moreau underscored the importance of sharing accurate data, especially amid widespread misinformation. The Indiana Citizen's profiles pull from diverse sources, including candidates' own websites, and sometimes media reports on candidates' past issues, such as DUIs, to present a comprehensive picture.

Moreau said now that information is assembled, it's focusing on getting it into voters' hands.

"We're going to actively use social media and digital advertising to get right to them," he said, "and say, 'OK, now that you're registered, here's access to information about the candidates and the issues.'"

The Indiana Citizen collaborates with Free Press Indiana and Franklin College's Statehouse File to ensure voters have access to the information.


get more stories like this via email