Tribal Politics or Discerning Voters?
Party and Policy in Local Elections
Danielle Martin (California State University-Sacramento), Brian E. Adams (San Diego State University), & Edward L. Lascher, Jr. (California State University-Sacramento)
The substantial influence of partisanship on voting behavior at the national level is widely studied and agreed upon. But to what extent does partisanship influence voting behavior at the local level? While some research indicates local elections may be similar to national elections in terms of partisan influence, there are reasons to be skeptical. Local elections typically are nonpartisan; even if they are not, issues may not fall neatly along party lines. Our central research question is whether voters in local elections are willing to defect if candidates from the other party are closer to their positions on salient local issues. Will voters choose candidates that are better aligned with their policy positions even if it means crossing party lines, or will they stay loyal to their party regardless of policy differences?
We expect that when cross-pressured on party and policy, voters in local elections stay loyal to their party, consistent with the literature on national elections. Yet we expect individual characteristics, including partisanship strength, issue salience, and policy position strength also impact who is more likely to defect from their party. Voters are more likely to defect from their party if they are weak partisans, if the issue is salient to them, and if they hold strong policy preferences.
To test our expectations, we draw on an original survey experiment of California voters who identify with the Democratic or Republican parties. Respondents were asked their party affiliation and then a series of policy questions on housing and homelessness, two highly salient issues that do not fall neatly along party lines. They were then asked to choose between two hypothetical candidates. Some respondents received candidate vignettes that cross-pressured them, meaning one candidate was a co-partisan but disagreed on housing or homelessness policy, while the other candidate was of the opposite party but agreed with their policy views. By comparing their responses to those who were not cross-pressured, we can assess whether they stay loyal to their party or vote for the candidate who is closest to their policy views.
We find a majority of cross-pressured respondents preferred co-partisan candidates even when they have policy positions contrary to their own preferences. This indicates that party loyalty was an important factor influencing voter decisions. Open-ended responses suggest that some respondents were thinking about the cross pressure, and whether to stay loyal to their party when choosing a candidate. Yet the rate of party voting was not as high as some previous literature suggests. Weak partisans, respondents with strong policy preferences, and those who viewed the issues as highly salient were more likely to defect from their party when cross-pressured, suggesting there are limits to party loyalty. We also found that respondents who were in favor of a “pro-enforcement” approach to homelessness were very likely to defect from their party. Thus, there were conditions under which many voters would defect from their party.
In short, our analysis suggests that voters are not blindly loyal to their party and will defect under the right conditions. These findings add to our understanding of how voters make decisions in local elections and suggest that we need to be careful about inferring that partisanship is as decisive at the local level as it is in national elections. This reinforces the need to pay more attention to the unique attributes of the local electoral context.
Danielle Joesten Martin is an associate professor of Political Science at California State University, Sacramento. Her research has been published in journals such as Journal of Politics, Political Behavior, American Politics Research, Social Science Quarterly, and Journal of Women, Politics & Policy.
Brian E. Adams is a professor of Political Science at San Diego State University whose research focuses on democratic practices in local government. He is author of two books, Citizen Lobbyists and Campaign Finance in Local Elections.
Edward L. Lascher Jr. is a professor of Public Policy and Administration at California State University, Sacramento. He is co-author of Initiatives Without Engagement: A Realistic Appraisal of Direct Democracy's Secondary Effects (University of Michigan Press, 2019).