Are non-partisan elections developing parties?
Parties are integral to every democratic system in the world. They are coordination mechanisms that allow like-minded candidates to more efficiently campaign, and a signifier or shortcut in communicating policy platforms to voters.
In America, parties don’t apply to most municipal offices, which is the vast majority of elected positions. This is either because the position is officially non-partisan, as in Boston, or because one is so dominant that some of the most significant policy divisions exist within one of the major national parties, as in New York City.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that coordination and signifier effects vanish at the local level, even though in some cases. As any observer of local politics knows, some councilors work more closely than with others, adopt similar platforms, and share voting bases.
In Boston, a MassINC poll looked at who supporters of the two mayoral candidates plan to vote for in the race for City Councilor At-Large (for which there are four positions). Though the divide is not as stark as in a typical partisan race, it is easy to conceptualize Party A -- running Wu for Mayor and Mejia, Halbert, Louijeune, and Monteiro for Councilor -- against a Party B -- supporting Essaibi George for Mayor and Flaherty, Murphy, Nee-Walsh for Councilor (although the candidates themselves might push back on those divisions).
Candidates who share a political vision working to get each other elected is basic in a party system, but this cooperation can also take place without a formal institution to support the process. Since this dynamic exists in many local elections, let's look at some common approaches of those running where they can’t have, or don’t want, a party.
If you’ve ever considered joining forces in a run for office, here are some pros and cons of different tactics we’ve observed in recent elections.
Use cues for voters
For graphic designers, one of the trends of the last two years has been the “AOC style.” Progressives have used the upwardly slanting sans serif font of her 2018 run so often that the New York Times wrote a trendpiece about it.
In many ways, visuals are the most direct way to signal to voters. If a graphic style is strongly associated with one group of elected officials, then voters can intuit your platform just from a lawn sign.
There are other ways to tacitly communicate what part of the political spectrum you belong to. Maybe it’s color scheme (like blue versus red tones), employing popular party language, a logo you put on your flyers, or a national movement that you publicly praise — as some Republican candidates did with the Tea Party in 2010. If your voters can immediately connect you to some larger group and thereby know where you stand, you have succeeded.
Pros: Instant recognition of the affiliation you want to suggest
Cons: Relies primarily on identification with a national concept, which might not be of interest or applicable in a local race
Co-campaigning
While a visual cue helps fill in the communications role of a party, campaigning with others helps manage the immense task of running for office.
In official parties, incumbents and candidates campaign together to such an extent that it’s newsworthy when they don’t -- of course Democrats want other Democrats elected and Republicans want other Republicans. If candidates are invested in the others’ success, they’ll send fundraising emails for each other, pay dues to a central party account, and travel to stump at rallies.
Even without the institutional apparatus, there’s nothing to stop a candidate for local office from knocking doors with flyers for other candidates. If there’s reciprocity (and if the two aren’t competing for the same seat), it allows for double the conversations with voters using the same resources and volunteers.
For example, we see candidates coordinating in the Boston election, especially district and at-large candidates who need the same voters but who aren’t competing for the same seat.
Pros: Easiest way to stretch campaigning resources
Cons: Have to be sure you want to be associated with those other candidates
Running a slate
Cambridge, MA, has a nine-seat city council elected entirely at-large using a single transferable vote system (a bit akin to proportional representation). In 2015, seven of nine incumbents announced the creation of the Cambridge Unity Slate, a label under which all would run and endorse each other. The other two incumbents announced a rival slate comprised of themselves and challengers.
A slate may not be a party, but two groups facing off against each other recreates much of the effect. Group A signals who they are to the voters and collaborate on re-election, while Group B does the same.
Slates do not typically stay the same for each race. In the next election, factions may re-align or be given different names, and there are few institutional resources (as far as we know) available from one race to the next. For the Maryland House of Delegates, which elects three members per district, slates are continuously formed and called Leadership Teams, sometimes creating joint fundraising committees, for the upcoming election.
Pros: Many of the same benefits of a party system
Cons: Little institutional carry-over
Quasi-parties
The Rhode Island Political Cooperative is a fascinating organization formed with the intent of running in partisan elections. Their website has a political platform, a plan to win a governing majority in the State House, and a list of candidates.
This is exactly what a party has: a platform, candidates, and an institutional apparatus.
Yet the RI Political Cooperative is also not a political party. It’s a non-profit corporation, which, according to its website, provide direct services to candidates, unlike tax-exempt non-profits -- 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) -- or PACs.
By creating their own structure that mimics a party but isn’t one, Cooperative members can more effectively compete in party primaries. However, this type of apparatus may be hard to sustain, since it will require continued investment, and successful candidates may seek different means of re-election.
In Somerville, MA, three socialist-identifying candidates running At-Large are working as a slate, with a joint website and campaign events; they are also coordinated with the socialists running for district offices. They have the support of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a national 501(c)(4) nonprofit that functions similarly to a party.
The involvement of standing party-like organizations can make an election as close to a traditional partisan election without involving official party labels, and certainly may not be for everyone. However, if they appear to be effective, their use may start to spread as other candidates find them helpful.
Pros: Signaling and organizational benefits of a party
Cons: Most effort required of all options and longevity is uncertain
How Legislata helps
However you choose to run your campaign, you’ll need to be just as effective in governing. Legislata is productivity software for people in politics. Streamline your emails, track constituent concerns, and save time that can be spent crafting policy.