Elections have consequences that go beyond the results.
Americans casting their ballots in tomorrow’s midterm elections might be voting in their 30th or 40th contest in four years. In the same amount of time, a German citizen might vote in six to eight races.
Put simply, the U.S. has an unusually high number of elections. The federal government alone holds elections every two years, compared with around every four or five years in other advanced democracies.
Why does this matter? Some experts argue that the saturation of elections has significant downsides — exhausting voters and hurting the quality of governance by pushing lawmakers toward more campaigning, fund-raising and short-term thinking.
But more frequent elections also offer voters more opportunities to hold officials accountable. Experts characterized elections as a balancing act: Too many can overwhelm the public and lawmakers, while too few provide insufficient chances for accountability.
“It’s not about whether democracy is good or bad, but how we manage democracy,” said Sarah Anzia, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. “The question is if these systems are leading to the government doing a good job and doing the things that we want it to do.”
In today’s newsletter, I will explain why America votes so frequently and why other countries take a different approach.
The U.S. is an outlier in two ways: the frequency of its elections and the number of government positions that are elected, said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist who has analyzed election trends in the U.S. and other countries.
In other countries, parliamentary democracies typically hold elections every four or five years. Those that have elections more frequently are typically suffering political crises. (Israel, for example, held its fifth election in less than four years last week and voted to restore the previous prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to power even as he faces corruption charges.)
In the U.S., the federal government holds elections for Congress at least twice as often, every two years. More local and state elections are sometimes pegged to the federal races, but not in most cases.
Americans elect more than half a million officials in total, from president to county coroner. (It’s hard to compare this number to other countries, which might put more legislative seats to a vote but not, say, mine inspector or county engineer.) One example that’s particularly odd in a global context: “No other democracy in the world uses elections to pick judges or prosecutors,” said Richard Pildes, an elections expert at New York University. Instead, other officials typically appoint a country’s judges and prosecutors.
All of these elections can also sometimes require at least two rounds of voting, in both party primaries and general elections. In other countries, party leaders typically pick their party’s candidates, instead of relying on primaries, as my colleague Max Fisher explained.
How did the U.S. become so vote-happy? In part, it goes back to progressive activists’ push in the early 20th century to make America more democratic, experts said. The activists of the time believed that frequent elections would give the public a greater voice and keep citizens politically engaged. Over decades, they pushed local and state governments to put more offices to voters and to hold elections more frequently.
But the changes might have had the opposite effect to the one that activists sought.
For one, the number of elections can overwhelm voters, prompting them to sit out races. Turnout for local elections often sinks below 25 or even 15 percent. And even in federal races with high turnout, U.S. voters participate at a lower rate than many other democracies, including Australia, Germany and France. (Experts cautioned that the abundance of elections is just one factor in these trends.)
“Reformers often think that the average citizen is as interested and engaged and focused on political matters as the reformers are,” Pildes said. “But that’s unrealistic.”
In this way, more elections can produce a less democratic outcome: With fewer voters casting ballots, the resulting government is less representative of the full population. “This is actually distorting our democracy by putting in candidates that don’t reflect majority opinion,” Jacobs said.
The frequency of elections also pushes lawmakers toward extensive campaigning. Congressional leaders have indicated that they want to pass several major bills before 2023 — to fund the government, protect same-sex marriage rights and improve election security, among other issues. Yet Congress recessed a month ago to give legislators time to campaign for tomorrow’s elections.
Lawmakers also tend to prioritize short-term issues, knowing that they and their party only have two years to act before they face voters again. In other advanced democracies, governing parties typically get four to five years to implement their full agenda and show voters the effects before elections.
Moving to a system of less frequent elections might make the U.S. seem less democratic in its governing processes, advocates of the change acknowledged. But if fewer elections boost participation and engagement, they said, the country could become more democratic in its outcomes.
More on the midterms
President Biden hoped to heal America’s divides, but he’s campaigning in a nation as polarized as ever. Follow our updates.
Democrats are bracing for losses even in traditionally blue areas. Here are four potential election outcomes.
Russian trolls are spreading misinformation before tomorrow’s elections.
John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate candidate, is leaning into his health challenges on the campaign trial.
Donald Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis, the top stars of the Republican Party, held competing rallies in Florida.
The average score on our midterms news quiz was 10.3. Take it and share your score.
THE LATEST NEWS
A private militia, run by a former convict and onetime hot-dog seller, might be Russia’s best hope for a military victory in eastern Ukraine.
Millions of Somalis are on the brink of starvation, but their government has been reluctant to declare a famine.
Other Big Stories
World leaders are gathering in Egypt for climate talks. Among the topics on the agenda: whether rich nations will pay for climate-related damage.
A Supreme Court case about the adoption of Native American children may threaten tribes’ sovereignty.
Meta, Facebook’s parent company, plans layoffs this week.
Twitter is waiting until after the midterms to charge $7.99 a month for verification check marks.
There’ll be a total lunar eclipse overnight, the last for three years. NPR has tips on how to catch it.
The Powerball jackpot rose to $1.9 billion. The next drawing is tonight.
From “the law of anti-incumbent anger” to “Kathy Hochul will win,” Times Opinion writers give their midterm predictions.
Climate change and oil drilling have turned peatlands into carbon-emissions time bombs, Daniel Zarin writes.
Gail Collins and Bret Stephens discuss their preferred midterm candidates.
“Philadelphia Chicken Man”: Why did he eat 40 rotisserie chickens in 40 days?
Salary requirements: Guess how much these New York jobs pay.
Metropolitan diary: A Broadway legend’s unexpected reward.
A Times classic: What kind of milk is healthiest?
Lives Lived: Rebecca Godfrey drew praise for the precision and compassion of “Under the Bridge,” her nonfiction book about the murder of a 14-year-old girl. Godfrey died at 54.
SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETIC
Sunday night football: Kansas City beat Tennessee 20-17 in overtime with a field goal. Quarterback Patrick Mahomes was sensational.
Top dollar: The New York Mets agreed to a five-year, $102 million contract for the star reliever Edwin Díaz. The contract is a record for a closer.
Reversal: The Boston Bruins severed ties with the defenseman Mitchell Miller yesterday, two days after signing him. Miller was convicted in 2016 of bullying a developmentally disabled Black classmate.
26.2 miles through five boroughs: Sharon Lokedi and Evans Chebet, both from Kenya, won yesterday’s New York City Marathon. Here are some of The Times’s best photos, and here’s how fast several celebrities ran.
ARTS AND IDEAS
A star being born
In 1960, Barbra Streisand was an 18-year-old singing at the Bon Soir, a chic club in New York City. Over the next two years, her gig became a must-see. It’s where her eventual longtime manager and two of her future songwriters first witnessed her star power and pillow-soft singing, The Times’s Wesley Morris writes.
Now we can hear what they heard on “Live at the Bon Soir,” a restored recording of two dozen songs from late November 1962. There’s some shock in hearing such a famous voice being before it was discovered, Wesley writes. Maybe even for Streisand herself. “I didn’t realize, actually, that my vocals were that good ’til they played me the new one,” she told Wesley. “I thought, ‘Oh my God. That girl can sing.’”
PLAY, WATCH, EAT
What to Cook
Election cake is fruity, spicy and was baked before the American Revolution.
What to Read
Bob Dylan’s new book “is about a genius recognizing unfiltered genius in others,” Dwight Garner writes.
Anatomy of a Scene
See how Daniel Radcliffe gets “weird” in “The Al Yankovic Story.” (And here’s The Times’s review.)
Now Time to Play
The pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was impartial. Here is today’s puzzle.
Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Krill seeker (five letters).
And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.
Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — German
P.S. The Times’s Alexandra Berzon discussed election deniers and the midterms on NPR’s “Fresh Air.”
Here’s today’s front page.
“The Daily” is about Fetterman.
Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at firstname.lastname@example.org.