As the tulips begin to bloom, political mailers are starting to arrive in our mailboxes, a sure sign that another campaign season is beginning.
This year’s campaign season arrives with a significant change. For the first time, most local elections in New York will be held alongside state and federal races. Even without a presidential contest, those bigger campaigns will dominate the attention and resources, leaving local issues to fight for whatever space remains. The sales pitch for making this change was that combining all these elections would result in higher vote participation. That may be true, but what will be lost is any attention to local issues. They will be relegated to the back burner, if they are on the burner at all.
The race for Mike Lawler’s re-election in the 17th Congressional District will cost over $50 million. The governor’s race, also on the ballot, will likely dwarf that in terms of spending. It’s hard to imagine local candidates for town board breaking through that kind of noise. There won’t be very much discussion of roads, zoning, parks or local policing.
In that environment, the national party label – Republican or Democrat – becomes the default. The result is predictable: Republican towns elect Republicans, and Democratic towns elect Democrats. Red towns get redder, and blue towns get bluer. More towns can expect local boards that will be one party only.
Political scientist and Yale Law Professor David Schleicher has studied local elections extensively and found that “the vote in local elections directly tracks the vote in national elections, despite strong evidence that voters hold very different views on local issues.” In areas where one party dominates, he notes, competition at the local level often disappears. Competition tends to produce better outcomes throughout our economy and our culture. It stands to reason that local government would be no different.
But are we better served when all our elected officials come from the same party? Probably not. When competition disappears at the local level, so does diversity of thought. The decision-making process may be cleaner and more efficient, but is it better?
There is a growing body of research showing that groups make better decisions when they include a diversity of perspectives. As one researcher put it, “Diversity trumps ability.” When people approach a problem from different backgrounds and viewpoints, they’re more likely to challenge assumptions, test ideas and avoid blind spots. The process can be a little messier and often less efficient, but it tends to produce stronger and more durable outcomes. Outcomes that probably line up with stakeholders’ desires much better than group think.
Ideologically homogeneous boards bring fewer perspectives to the table, and fewer questions get asked. Ideas are less likely to be challenged before they come policy. Things may look smoother on the surface. Town board meetings may be shorter, but the outcomes are unlikely to be better.
We seem to be building a system that trickles down national politics to the local level, which is not the way American democracy is supposed to work. It flies in the face of the Jeffersonian notion that the government closest to the people governs best. The system is supposed to be bottom up, not top down.
A town board should run more like a roundtable, with each member representing a distinct perspective. Better outcomes tend to follow. One-party boards are not destined to fail since individual officials can and do bring independent judgment to the job. But the broader question is about the quality of decision making, not party labels. If we can all agree that better decisions come from a diversity of perspectives, then it’s worth considering whether the current system we are building here in New York is producing diversity or squeezing it out.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But perhaps the first step is agreeing on what we want from local government. If we want decisions that reflect the full range of community viewpoints, then we should at least be asking whether we are moving closer to that goal or away from it.