Opinion of holding local elections at completely random times in the year?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This is probably one of the worst parts of American elections - you effectively disenfranchise everybody who isn't a political anarok by holding random elections in February or whenever.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Horrible Phenomenon. It's like a political landmine when used by political machines; it denies the field to your opponent, but keeps harming people years after the conflict they used it for (and indeed the machine itself) is gone.

[Virginiá]

Terrible. Not only is it a big waste of money, but it facilitates low turnout and skews the decision making to only the most active, often more ideological portions of the electorate. There is no worthwhile reason for general elections to be held outside of federal/state elections every 2 years. In fact, I'd argue that all states should hold their legislative/gubernatorial and local elections at the same time as federal elections to both save money and encourage more participation in these races.

I also have to agree with what Avveroes said. Who are many of these people? Often I find it very difficult to find adequate information on elections in my town/county. This is something I really wish all the states would get together on and chip in for a website that is maintained by all 50 states + DC, where the details of all candidates on the ballot would be put up so people can make informed choices. No opaque descriptions or mere scraps of information, but full bios, positions, etc. There is no reason this can't be done. It just takes some effort.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There's a lot that's fundamentally wrong with American politics. Local elections should be bigger than Christmas. Yet when my city last held elections, I had no idea what to make of the names on the ballot. Aside from one or two short articles in the paper and a somewhat bizarre "candidates forum" convened by the local Unitarian church - that I remember only because one candidate spent a great deal of time describing his plans for a municipal water park - I had very little information on which to base my decision.

This is why partisan politics is useful tbh.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Terrible. Not only is it a big waste of money, but it facilitates low turnout and skews the decision making to only the most active, often more ideological portions of the electorate. There is no worthwhile reason for general elections to be held outside of federal/state elections every 2 years. In fact, I'd argue that all states should hold their legislative/gubernatorial and local elections at the same time as federal elections to both save money and encourage more participation in these races.

I also have to agree with what Avveroes said. Who are many of these people? Often I find it very difficult to find adequate information on elections in my town/county. This is something I really wish all the states would get together on and chip in for a website that is maintained by all 50 states + DC, where the details of all candidates on the ballot would be put up so people can make informed choices. No opaque descriptions or mere scraps of information, but full bios, positions, etc. There is no reason this can't be done. It just takes some effort.

I would argue it would be more sensible to place all local elections on the off year, but always in November. That means you can still do national GOTV (in partisan and nonpartisan wuys) but local issues won't get drowned under the all-encompassing federal and state politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, it's horrible. Further proof that American politicians are just not serious about the whole democracy thing.

[Torie]

Yeah it is terrible. Here in NY, we have special elections for school boards and spending and bonding proposals. The turnout is miserable, allowing the schools to have their way, even when not justified. They just get their supporters to vote. In the last local school election here in the Hudson school district, the turnout was like 10%, with almost nobody understanding the merits of the issues at hand.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's quite a difference between New York and most places in California.
Here's what they often would have had for elections in the last 2 years.

New York has 7 elections
odd year primary
odd year general election
Presidential primary
school board election
congressional primary
local primary
general election

California has 2 elections
first round election / Presidential primary
general election

[Illiniwek]

I really dislike it. There should really only be two election days in each state each year.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I really dislike it. There should really only be two election days in each state each year.

And they should both be holidays.

[Virginiá]

I would argue it would be more sensible to place all local elections on the off year, but always in November. That means you can still do national GOTV (in partisan and nonpartisan wuys) but local issues won't get drowned under the all-encompassing federal and state politics.

That is a fair point, but my issue is turnout. Odd year elections, such as in Virginia, have been shown to generate midterm-level turnout in VA's odd-year statewide/legislative elections (2013), but abysmal turnout in legislative-only off-year elections (2015). If only local races are held, you're going to get really bad turnout even if it is synchronized nationally. I think it would be much cheaper to hold all elections together, but spend resources to inform/motivate voters to read up on their local races rather than trying to GOTV for purely local races. Swim with the current, not against it.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There's a lot that's fundamentally wrong with American politics. Local elections should be bigger than Christmas. Yet when my city last held elections, I had no idea what to make of the names on the ballot. Aside from one or two short articles in the paper and a somewhat bizarre "candidates forum" convened by the local Unitarian church - that I remember only because one candidate spent a great deal of time describing his plans for a municipal water park - I had very little information on which to base my decision.

This is why partisan politics is useful tbh.

Not if you live in a de facto one party city.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

I don't understand the question.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Surely this is common internationally? In countries where parliamentary coalitions can fall at any time, elections can happen throughout the year, and won't be synched with local elections.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I like it. Adds some to fun to the system.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, it's horrible. Further proof that American politicians are just not serious about the whole democracy thing.

Either that or that voters are not or cannot be serious. It would be more convenient for all elections to be held on the same date, sure, but what does it say that these can occur without most of the people who are nominally being governed even noticing?

Voters (especially disadvantaged ones) have so many more urgent things to worry about that it's easy to miss elections that get next to zero media coverage. I agree that this say something awful about the prevailing political culture, but to blame it on the voters themselves strikes me as unfair.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Surely this is common internationally? In countries where parliamentary coalitions can fall at any time, elections can happen throughout the year, and won't be synched with local elections.

I'm not talking about being synched with national elections (although Virginia is). I'm talking about them being synchronised with each other. In most countries, local elections have some element of synchronization:

- British local elections happen on the same May date every year, even if they are staggered.
- even simpler for countries like the Nordics, most of eastern Europe, Japan, Spain, Portugal, South Africa; there is a singular local elections day for all local elections
- most federal countries like Canada, Australia and Germany have unified local elections on a provincial or state level (e.g. BC, or wherever, all have their elections on the same day)

This is very different from America, where states make no effort to coordinate local elections at all it seems, with the results that local elections just happen at random times during the year.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Having town meetings in the spring is a noble New England tradition that must be upheld, but holding actual elections at random times of year is obviously horrible.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Surely this is common internationally? In countries where parliamentary coalitions can fall at any time, elections can happen throughout the year, and won't be synched with local elections.

I'm not talking about being synched with national elections (although Virginia is). I'm talking about them being synchronised with each other. In most countries, local elections have some element of synchronization:

- British local elections happen on the same May date every year, even if they are staggered.
- even simpler for countries like the Nordics, most of eastern Europe, Japan, Spain, Portugal, South Africa; there is a singular local elections day for all local elections
- most federal countries like Canada, Australia and Germany have unified local elections on a provincial or state level (e.g. BC, or wherever, all have their elections on the same day)

This is very different from America, where states make no effort to coordinate local elections at all it seems, with the results that local elections just happen at random times during the year.

Are you thinking that, say, Milwaukee elects its council on one day, Madison on a different day, Green Bay on another? That's not how it works in Wisconsin at least; there's one statewide local election day. Which states don't have their municipalities vote on the same day?