Elections
Paragraphs

In April 2023, New America, the Center for Ballot Freedom, Protect Democracy, Lyceum Labs, and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law convened a conference at Stanford University on the future of political parties in the United States. The conference, titled “More Parties, Better Parties,” focused on the idea that U.S. democracy would benefit from stronger and more representative parties and that essential to that vision was opportunity for more parties beyond the current party duopoly to emerge. The essays in this collection, derived from papers prepared for the conference, trace the following argument: Parties are essential institutions in a democracy; there is an unjustified hostility to parties in much American political discourse; and fluid and overlapping coalitions of a multiparty system can improve governance and confidence. We then look at the promise of fusion voting, a practice once widespread and now prohibited in most states, which could allow new parties to gain a foothold by cross-endorsing candidates from established parties.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Reports
Publication Date
Subtitle

Essay within "The Realistic Promise of Multiparty Democracy in the United States," a political reform report from New America.

Journal Publisher
New America
Authors
Didi Kuo
1
Japan Program Postdoctoral Fellow, 2023-2024
Hikaru_Yamagishi.png Ph.D.

Hikaru Yamagishi joined the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) as Japan Program Postdoctoral Fellow for part of the 2023-2024 academic year. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University in 2022, and most recently was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Program on U.S.-Japan Relations at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Her research focuses on democratic institutions and electoral competition, with a special interest in the case of Japan.

Date Label
Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

What would Americans really think about possible reforms to our democracy and electoral processes if they had a chance to weigh the options under good conditions? Researchers James Fishkin, Alice Siu, and Larry Diamond of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), in collaboration with Helena and various partners, have just conducted a national Deliberative Poll® to find out.

America in One Room: Democratic Reform is the third installment of America in One Room (A1R), a Deliberative Polling® project designed to explore Americans’ perspectives on some of our country’s most contentious issues, including voter access, non-partisan election administration, protection against election interference, Supreme Court reform, and more. With the 2024 election on the horizon, the findings from this comprehensive deliberative poll have the potential to reshape the discourse surrounding these important topics.

In a joint press release, DDL shared that poll results showed increased movement toward bipartisan support on a set of previously polarizing issues that are already beginning to drive political debates and candidate platforms as we head into Election 2024.

Before deliberations, participants across party lines reported feeling dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the U.S., with 65% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans, and 72% of participants overall reporting dissatisfaction. However, deliberating together about potential reforms reduced discontent, with the overall percentage of dissatisfaction dropping 18 points to 54%, and party dissatisfaction dropping 11 points for Democrats and 31 points for Republicans.

Across specific democratic reform topics, there were often strong party differences before deliberation. Discourse resulted in significant depolarization and increased cross-party support on several key issues, including voting rights and ballot access.

Below, Fishkin, the director of DDL; Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI; and Siu, a senior research scholar and the associate director of DDL, reflect on their findings and what the results indicate about the path forward in strengthening American democracy.



What were your biggest takeaways from this iteration of America in One Room (A1R)? Were you surprised by any of the results?


Jim Fishkin: In normal times, the issues of how we register to vote, how and when we cast our ballots, and how we can avoid partisan interference in the elections would not be big issues. But we live in a period of fierce partisan division about our elections, and I was gratified to see this affirmation of basic American values about the non-partisan guardrails of democracy. The movement by Republicans on issues like voting rights for felons was large and surprising. The willingness of Democrats to embrace audits with random samples of ballots and paper records of the votes confirmed by the voter (initially Republican positions) also showed the capacity of dialogue to move opinion.

Larry Diamond: One of the biggest takeaways was the consistent majority support for Ranked Choice Voting in all of its different potential applications. After deliberating, majorities of our sample consistently supported the use of RCV for all kinds of elections — local, state, and national, and in both primaries and in general elections. While Republicans were more wary of this reform, up to 45% of Republicans supported some use of it, for example, in local elections, and 43% of Republicans liked the "final four" or "final five" version, as in Alaska, where there is a single non-partisan primary and then the top four finishers contest in a general election using RCV. I was also struck by the openness to some other electoral reform proposals and the strong gains in support for these (including proportional representation) after deliberation. I was not surprised by how far apart Democrats and Republicans remained on the Electoral College — there is an obvious divergence in partisan interest there.

Alice Siu: We can never predict what participants' opinions will be after deliberation. What surprised me the most was the increase in satisfaction with democracy after deliberation. Prior to deliberation, only 27% of participants expressed satisfaction with the current way democracy is working in the US. After deliberation, this percentage increased to 54%. Furthermore, when looking at satisfaction levels by political parties, we found that Republicans' satisfaction increased from 18 to 50% and Democrats increased from 34 to 46%. We have to keep in mind that participants deliberated together for 12 hours over the course of a weekend or a few weekday evenings. Together after engaging in thoughtful and structured deliberation, they developed a greater satisfaction with democracy, just showing that what our society needs are opportunities to talk and listen to each other.

We live in a period of fierce partisan division about our elections, and I was gratified to see this affirmation of basic American values about the non-partisan guardrails of democracy.
James S. Fishkin
Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab

What does this poll show about the American public and our political and civic discourse that the headlines miss?


Diamond: Over and over (this is now our third "America in One Room"), we find that ordinary Americans are hungry for thoughtful and civil discussions with their fellow citizens about the issues we face. And it is possible to have these discussions if you set good conditions and ensure that everyone has access to the same body of balanced and objective information, with a fair presentation of the pro and con arguments for each proposal. Americans do narrow their differences when they can deliberate in this way. But more than that — and quite stunning to us — they also became more hopeful about American democracy. The percentage of Americans who say they are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the US increased from 27% before deliberation to 45% after. And satisfaction among Republicans doubled — from 24% to 50%.

Siu: Headlines often lead with how polarized our society is, but what they fail to tell us is that if people had the opportunity to engage with diverse others, people are capable of having respectful conversations. In fact, after deliberation, agreement with the statement 'I respect their point of view though it is different from mine' increased from 57 to 75%. Among Democrats, this percentage increased from 49 to 73%, and among Republicans, this increased from 73 to 84%. The headlines amplify the perceived polarization in our society, but what it misses is how deliberation can bring our society together in a respectful way.

Fishkin: Dialogue across differences can activate the fundamental values of our democracy and show the way for constructive solutions. The increased support for ranked choice voting and for non-partisan redistricting commissions was particularly noteworthy.

Ordinary Americans are hungry for thoughtful and civil discussions with their fellow citizens about the issues we face. And it is possible to have these discussions if you set good conditions and ensure everyone has access to the same body of balanced and objective information.
Larry Diamond
Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy, FSI

What implications might this installment of A1R have for the 2024 U.S. presidential election and democratic reform initiatives on the ballot?


Fishkin: This project identifies practical reforms that have a claim on the values and concerns of the American public if they focus on the issues. I think it can be invoked for non-partisan redistricting commissions, for ranked-choice voting in various contexts, for ethics reform of the Supreme Court, and a host of other issues.

Diamond: It may not have much impact on the 2024 presidential election, but it will give momentum to reformers who are working to expand voting rights, ensure a more transparent non-partisan administration of elections, and institute Ranked Choice Voting and related electoral reforms. I think our results show that people can be persuaded, even across party lines, and it points to certain types of reforms that are more broadly appealing than others. As we analyze the transcripts of the discussions, we will also learn what kinds of arguments resonated with voters and which did not.

Siu: One of the striking results from this installment of A1R is people's concerns about voting accessibility. From restoring voting rights to citizens with felony convictions to strengthening federal standards for election machines and requirements for reporting security incidents, we hope that policymakers see the priorities that registered voters have for ensuring that our elections are fair and transparent.

We must all understand that for our society and for any society around the world, listening to each other, whether we agree or disagree, is really not an option.
Alice Siu
Associate Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab

How can this research be used to help reduce polarization moving forward and create meaningful change in our public dialogues?


Siu: This installment of A1R, along with the previous A1R Deliberative Polls, have shown that deliberation can, in fact, reduce political and affective polarization. We must all understand that for our society and for any society around the world, listening to each other, whether we agree or disagree, is really not an option. 

Diamond: We now have a second major demonstration in the US of the dramatic utility of the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, developed by Stanford Professor Ashish Goel and his Crowdsourced Democracy Team. This was the second "America in One Room" to deploy this platform very successfully. When people can deliberate online, it cuts costs dramatically, and yet still, it brings about reductions in polarization and constructive changes in public opinion on many issues. Now the challenge is to figure out how we can scale up deliberation to much larger numbers of Americans and apply the tool to a wider range of issues in jurisdictions across the US as well as globally. International demand for the framework and tools of the Deliberative Democracy Lab keeps growing.

Fishkin: With our technology, we have hopes of spreading this kind of dialogue. I was struck that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all supported fostering deliberation on contentious topics.

Read More

Climate change activists march down a street carrying banners and signs.
Q&As

Together For Our Planet: Americans are More Aligned on Taking Action on Climate Change than Expected

New data from the Center for Deliberative Democracy suggests that when given the opportunity to discuss climate change in a substantive way, the majority of Americans are open to taking proactive measures to address the global climate crisis.
Together For Our Planet: Americans are More Aligned on Taking Action on Climate Change than Expected
Hero Image
A voter casts their ballot in the Kentucky Primary Elections at Central High School on May 16, 2023 in Louisville, Kentucky.
A voter casts their ballot in the Kentucky Primary Elections at Central High School on May 16, 2023, in Louisville, Kentucky.
Jon Cherry/Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

"America in One Room: Democratic Reform" polled participants before and after deliberation to gauge their opinions on democratic reform initiatives, including voter access and voting protections, non-partisan election administration, protecting against election interference, Supreme Court reform, and more. The results show many significant changes toward bipartisan agreement, even on the most contentious issues.

Authors
Nora Sulots
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The National Assembly of South Korea has just convened a nationally broadcast Deliberative Poll® to consult the public about changes in its electoral system. The Korea Broadcasting System (KBS) televised the proceedings live May 6 and 13, 2023 and reported on its initial results. Hankook Research, which has extensive experience with Deliberative Polling® in Korea, conducted the project in coordination with Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), housed at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law. At the conclusion of the deliberations, the Speaker of the National Assembly, Kim Jin-Pyo, announced on television that “this [poll] provides an excellent guideline for the ruling party and others to negotiate and decide the rules. The reform should be finalized by the end of the second quarter of this year.” Professor James Fishkin, director of DDL, provided advice on the project and joined the broadcast to explain Deliberative Polling®.

Background


The need to reform the parliamentary election system has received unanimous approval across political parties. During the 2022 presidential election, all candidates pledged to change the parliamentary electoral reform. To change the current system, the 21st National Assembly, elected in 2020, formed the Special Committee for Electoral Reform (Special Committee). Last April, the Special Committee came up with three agendas to be discussed in a Whole House Committee Meeting (Whole House Meeting) where 100 legislators can speak at length. However, the Whole House Meeting could not arrive at an agreed conclusion. On the last day of the three-day-long Whole House Meeting, the Special Committee announced that it designated the consortium comprised of Hankook Research and Seoul National University’s Institute for Social Development as the organizers of the Deliberative Polling to gather informed public opinion.

About the Deliberative Poll


Hankook Research recruited a national stratified random sample of the country’s voters to deliberate on parts of two weekends. 469 participants completed the deliberations. The sample was stratified by region, gender, age, and opinions on the issue (measured in a separate survey).

The participants answered some key questions in time for the concluding broadcast and then followed by completing a more detailed questionnaire. The National Assembly has members selected both from single-member districts and by proportional representation. Support for changing the election rules rose from 77% to 84% with deliberation. Support for small single-member districts (rather than multi-member districts) rose from 43% to 56%. Support for raising the proportion of the members selected by Proportional Representation (PR) went from 27% to 70%, a surprising 43-point gain. These results were presented on the broadcast, and more details about the deliberations and the results will be released soon.

Learn More


A playlist of highlights from the broadcast can be viewed below:

For more information on this project, please contact Chun-Seok Kim or Jung-Seok Park of Hankook Research, or Professor James Fishkin of Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab. 

Read More

2023 Nobel Prize Summit
News

Deliberative Democracy Lab to Demonstrate Deliberative Polling® Method at the 2023 Nobel Prize Summit

On May 25, CDDRL’s Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), in partnership with the Nobel Prize Summit, will run an exercise in large-scale group deliberation on the subject of online misinformation and polarization and what to do about it. This demonstration will help develop the capacity to democratically vet policy proposals concerning the information landscape.
Deliberative Democracy Lab to Demonstrate Deliberative Polling® Method at the 2023 Nobel Prize Summit
California Considers
News

California 100 Announces Results of New "California Considers" Deliberative Poll® Examining Long-Term Policy Solutions for California

Conducted in partnership with CDDRL's Deliberative Democracy Lab and the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, key findings show strong support for the state to provide universal mental healthcare, institute a strengthened high school civics course, develop a “one-stop-shop” for easier access to government programs, reform for the state’s CEQA law, and increase its support for K-12 education, among others.
California 100 Announces Results of New "California Considers" Deliberative Poll® Examining Long-Term Policy Solutions for California
Climate change activists march down a street carrying banners and signs.
Q&As

Together For Our Planet: Americans are More Aligned on Taking Action on Climate Change than Expected

New data from the Center for Deliberative Democracy suggests that when given the opportunity to discuss climate change in a substantive way, the majority of Americans are open to taking proactive measures to address the global climate crisis.
Together For Our Planet: Americans are More Aligned on Taking Action on Climate Change than Expected
Hero Image
Broadcast of South Korean national Deliberative Poll on Electoral Reform
KBS Announcer Lee Kwang-yong (center left) and Speaker of the National Assembly Kim Jin-pyo (center right) announce the results of the national Deliberative Poll® during a live television broadcast.
Korea Broadcasting System (KBS)
All News button
1
Subtitle

Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab assisted with a nationally broadcast Deliberative Poll® in South Korea to explore support for changing the country’s election laws. The project was conducted for the National Assembly by Hankook Research.

Date Label
Paragraphs

Economic development has been linked to a declining importance of religion. But alongside secularization, there has been an increased salience of religion in electoral politics. These seemingly contradictory trends can be understood by distinguishing between two dimensions of religiosity: religious belief and church attendance. We show that religious voting cleavages are strongest in democracies where there is religious cohesion, which means belief and practice go hand in hand. Voting cleavages require group members to have distinctive policy preferences and be politically engaged. Strong religious beliefs are associated with distinctive policy preferences (but not with political engagement), and church attendance is associated with political engagement. Thus, religious cohesion provides the key ingredients for a religious political cleavage. But what explains variation in religious cohesion in democracies? We find that religious cohesion increases with economic security. Thus, economic security can promote secularization, but also facilitate the religious cohesion associated with strong religious voting cleavages.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Comparative Political Studies
Authors
Ahmed Ezzeldin Mohamed
Authors
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

Turkey is bracing for what is expected to be a pivotal moment in its political history as the country gears up to hold parliamentary and presidential elections on May 14, 2023. With a range of significant challenges facing Turkey — from the erosion of democratic institutions to economic instability and concerns about its foreign policy — the outcome of the elections is likely to have far-reaching implications for the country's future.

To shed light on the electoral landscape and the stakes involved, we sat down with Ayça Alemdaroğlu, Associate Director of CDDRL’s Program on Turkey, to discuss the key issues at play and what they mean for Turkey's trajectory.

Turkey will have two elections on Sunday, May 14. Can you talk about why these elections are important?


The upcoming elections in Turkey hold immense importance due to several reasons. The country has faced a multitude of challenges, including the erosion of democratic institutions, political polarization, and a struggling economy. Firstly, the government, led by President Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party(AKP), has used its power to silence opposition voices, restrict the press, control the judiciary, and crack down on civil society organizations. These actions have led to fear and intimidation among citizens, creating an environment where dissent is not tolerated. In addition, the government's efforts to centralize power under the presidency have further weakened the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy. This election is Turkey's chance to reverse the democratic decline.

Secondly, the two major earthquakes that affected 11 cities and millions of people in February exposed the decay in state institutions under the current government, causing significant human and urban destruction. When the current government is responsible for much of this destruction, it will be a mistake to let it lead to the urgent recovery needed in the earthquake region.

Thirdly, Turkey's economy is in disarray due to President Erdogan's erratic economic policies and mismanagement, leading to rising inflation rates, a weakened currency, and economic instability. The COVID-19 pandemic has only added to these challenges, further impoverishing the people. In addition, the economic situation has resulted in an exodus of the most educated sections of society, causing a significant setback to Turkey's human development and economic potential. Therefore, Turkey needs a government that can fix these economic problems.

Finally, the elections come at a time when Turkey faces increased tensions with several international actors, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine adds to the existing pressures. The foreign policy stance of the next government will have far-reaching implications for global democracy and security, making it vital for Turkey to be governed democratically and to uphold the rule of law.

The outcome of the elections will decide how these issues will be addressed, and the re-election of President Erdogan and his AKP would further deteriorate the situation. On the other hand, if the opposition coalition wins, they plan to undo Mr. Erdogan's autocratic presidential system of government, shift back to a rational economic policy, release jailed opposition figures and journalists, and, most importantly, restore democratic institutions and practices.

Can you explain the political landscape in Turkey and the major political parties contesting the upcoming elections?


There are two distinct races in Turkey's upcoming elections — one for the presidency and the other for parliament. In the presidential election, four candidates are vying for the position, with Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of the main opposition party Republican People's Party (CHP), being the strongest contender against President Erdogan. Muharrem Ince, the CHP's 2018 presidential candidate, is also running again. His few percentage points serve no one other than Erdogan in this closely contested race.

There are 26 parties and three election coalitions on the ballot for parliamentary elections. Erdogan's People's Alliance includes his Justice and Development Party (AKP), the ultra-nationalist MHP, and two Islamist fringe parties. The main opposition coalition, known as the Table of Six or Nation Alliance, includes the CHP, the ultra-nationalist Iyi Party, and three other small parties with significant political personalities. The Labor and Freedom Alliance of Turkey's Labor Party and pro-Kurdish Green Left Party support Kilicdaroglu in the presidential race. Polls indicate that Erdogan will be unseated by a small margin and the opposition will win at least a parliamentary majority, which unfortunately may be less than what is needed to make constitutional changes.

What are the key issues and challenges facing Turkey in the lead-up to the upcoming elections, and how are the major political parties addressing these concerns in their campaigns?


Election security is the key issue. Turkey has been grappling with significant election security concerns in recent years. There have been allegations of voter fraud and irregularities in past elections. The independence of the High Electoral Board and the fairness of the electoral process are also of major concern. We have seen how the Board repeated the 2019 Istanbul elections when the ruling party candidate lost it.

In addition, there have been incidents of violence and intimidation at polling stations, which have led to questions about the safety of voters and the integrity of the electoral process. During the current election period, the government has made every effort to delegitimize the contender parties by accusing them of collaborating with terrorist groups. But the attack on the opposition is not just in words. Over the weekend, we saw a violent mob attack one of the opposition leaders, the Istanbul mayor, Ekrem Imamoglu, and his audience during a rally in the eastern city of Erzurum. Unfortunately, the police neither intervened to stop the mob nor arrested anyone afterward. Imamoglu responded well, calling his supporters to calm down and retreat and ending the rally prematurely. However, I worry that these violent attacks will ramp up in these last days before the election.

Finally, the upcoming elections are closely watched with concerns about potential interference and attempts to manipulate the results. It is a big question for me and many others if the opposition parties have adequate means and preparations to deter these manipulations. We will soon know the answer.

What critical issues and concerns are shaping the campaign discourse in Turkey, and how might they resonate with American voters?


The condition of the Turkish economy, growing inflation, joblessness, corruption and plundering of Turkey’s resources, and the decline of democratic institutions, freedom, and human rights are prominent problems that the opposition campaign addresses. The government alliance holds a negative campaign accusing the opposition of collaborating with terrorist organizations and portraying it as inept in solving Turkey’s economic problems. The discourse of associating the opposition with terrorism reached a new level last week when the Ministry of Interior declared that if Erdogan loses, they will consider the elections as a coup against the government. This issue would strike a particular chord with American voters.

More importantly, Turkey is the largest country by land area and population in Europe, with an important sphere of influence in Central Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Turkey’s economy, despite its problems, is among the twenty largest economies in the world. Turkey has the second-largest military force in NATO and plays a pivotal role in regional security, as evident in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. If the US government worries about global democracy and security, it will be better off having Turkey governed not by a single man but with democracy and strong institutions, and that is what the opposition promises.

Ayça Alemdaroğlu

Ayça Alemdaroğlu

Research Scholar and Associate Director of CDDRL's Program on Turkey.
Full Biography

Read More

Turkish riot police block the main gate of Boğaziçi University during protests against President Erdogan’s appointment of a new rector. Istanbul, January 4, 2021.
Commentary

Boğaziçi Resists Authoritarian Control of the Academy in Turkey

Turkey woke up to 2021 with an uproar over a new authoritarian assault on its academic institutions.
Boğaziçi Resists Authoritarian Control of the Academy in Turkey
Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan before their meeting on Sept. 3, 2016 in Hangzhou, China.
Commentary

Erdogan Is Turning Turkey Into a Chinese Client State

With few friends left in the West, Ankara is counting on Beijing for help.
Erdogan Is Turning Turkey Into a Chinese Client State
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivers a speech in Ankara on Sept. 5, 2019
Commentary

Turkey’s Generation Z Turns Against Erdogan

The Turkish leader tried to mold a generation of pious followers. Instead, the country’s youth could bring about his final defeat.
Turkey’s Generation Z Turns Against Erdogan
Hero Image
Presidential Candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu Holds Campaign Rally In Tekirdag
Presidential candidate Kemal Kilicdaroglu holds a campaign rally in Tekirdag, Turkey.
Burak Kara/Getty Images
All News button
1
Subtitle

In this Q&A, Ayça Alemdaroğlu, Associate Director of the Program on Turkey at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, discusses the key issues and their implications for the country's future.

-

On February 6, two devastating earthquakes struck a region spanning southern Turkey and northern Syria. One was the largest earthquake in Turkey since 1939. Tens of thousands of people were killed in an event that affected 16 percent of Turkey's population and a cross-section of Turkey's highly diverse society. Meanwhile, Turkey is scheduled to hold general elections in May, when voters will decide whether or not to reelect President Tayyip Erdoğan, who has led the country since 2003 under the banner of the Justice and Development Party. The earthquakes and the elections bring to the fore a number of issues that have been shaping regional politics over the past decade (at least), including the Syrian refugee crisis, demands for Kurdish autonomy, Alevism in Turkish society, the rise (and fall?) of neoliberal development models, and political Islam as a form of democratic governance. Now, in this moment after the earthquakes but before the elections, faculty from Stanford's Program on Turkey—representing the disciplines of History, Literature, Anthropology, and Sociology—will hold a "teach-in on Turkey" for all members of the Stanford community.

Stanford faculty speakers will include Ali Yaycıoğlu (History), Burcu Karahan (Comparative Literature), Serkan Yolacan (Anthropology), Denise Gill (Ethnomusicology), and others.

All Stanford students, staff, and faculty are warmly invited to join this lunchtime discussion. Lunch will be provided for those who RSVP.

This event is co-sponsored by the Sohaib and Sara Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies, the Mediterranean Studies Forum, CDDRL's Program on Turkey, and Stanford Global Studies.

Encina Commons
615 Crothers Way, Stanford, CA 94305

Panel Discussions
-
Image
Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, the Center for Ballot Freedom, New America, Protect Democracy, and Lyceum Labs logos

Extreme polarization between the two major parties has given us an unresponsive government and an American public that is dissatisfied and disaffected. A growing share of Americans identify as independents and say they would like to see more parties. At a time when polarization and extremism threaten our democracy, some reformers view political parties as unnecessarily divisive, and thus aim to undermine their role. However, anti-party efforts have a poor historical record. Parties are the essential institutions of modern mass democracy. They give voters meaningful choices and help political actors organize for collective action necessary to actually govern. Many experts believe we need more parties and stronger parties. How do we get there?

On April 13 and 14, Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, the Center for Ballot Freedom, New America, Protect Democracy, and Lyceum Labs will host a 2-day in-person conference on political party reform and multiparty politics. The conference will bring together a select group of academics and practitioners to explore the value of political parties in democracy, the challenges associated with governing in a two-party system, and possible strategies for reform, focusing on the revival and re-legalization of fusion voting. The goals will be to expand scholarship and conversation about these topics and to build a community of thought leaders across the ideological spectrum.

Attendance is by invitation only. Memos available by request.


By invitation only.

Conferences
Paragraphs

Leader personality has a major impact on decisions made and policies chosen, yet the systematic study of political leadership using observational data is challenging. This is particularly true in closed informational settings of authoritarian regimes, where, incidentally, the effects of leader personalities are often more pronounced and less institutionally constrained. I show one way of addressing this challenge by focusing on political ambition, or self-selection into the political career, and exploring how selection rules affect an individual decision to run for office in a lab setting. I argue that certain properties of the selection process lead to self-selection based on risk attitudes.  Using a series of laboratory experiments in Russia, I demonstrate that higher costs of candidacy and public accountability of the selected officials lead to an increased role of risk-seeking in the decision to pursue an office. These findings suggest, for example, that in hybrid regimes, pro-regime candidates would be more risk-averse than the opposition candidates. The study shows the directions for theory development and research within the scholarship on ambition and candidacy under imperfect democracies and non-democratic regimes.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Working Papers
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
CDDRL Working Papers
Authors
Guzel Garifullina
Subscribe to Elections