Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Nonpartisan

Nonpartisan denotes an absence of affiliation with, bias toward, or designation by any political party, prioritizing neutrality over partisan allegiance.^[1] In governance and elections, the term applies to systems where candidates or officials operate without party labels, aiming to emphasize qualifications, policy merits, and local issues over ideological divisions.^[2] This approach contrasts with partisan structures, where party endorsements shape voter perceptions and candidate selection, potentially reducing turnout by about 10 percent in nonpartisan races due to diminished cues for voters.^[3] Nonpartisan elections predominate in numerous U.S. jurisdictions, particularly for municipal offices, school boards, and certain state-level positions, fostering decisions based on competence rather than party machinery.^[4] A pivotal historical manifestation emerged with the Nonpartisan League, established in 1915 in North Dakota by farmers seeking reforms like state-owned grain elevators and banks to counter exploitative markets, initially endorsing candidates from major parties without forming a new one.^[5] The League's strategy expanded to other Midwestern states, influencing progressive agrarian policies until internal divisions and opposition eroded its influence by the mid-20th century.^[6] While nonpartisanship theoretically mitigates polarization by sidelining party loyalty, practical implementation often encounters skepticism, as underlying ideological preferences can subtly influence ostensibly neutral actors, rendering pure neutrality elusive in contested political arenas.^[7] Nonpartisan frameworks persist in organizations and voter initiatives, yet empirical assessments reveal that voter confidence in candidates may wane without party signals, underscoring trade-offs between ideological clarity and impartial evaluation.^[3]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Principles

Nonpartisan refers to an approach, entity, or individual free from affiliation, bias, or support for any specific political party, emphasizing neutrality in political matters.^[1] In political contexts, this term describes elections, organizations, or officials that do not align with or promote party labels, candidates, or ideologies, allowing decisions to proceed without explicit partisan endorsements.^[8] For instance, nonpartisan elections, common in many local U.S. jurisdictions, list candidates without party designations to prioritize qualifications over affiliations.^[9] Core principles of nonpartisanship center on impartiality and independence from party influence, requiring actors to evaluate issues based on evidence and public interest rather than loyalty to partisan agendas.^[7] This involves refraining from actions that favor one party, such as endorsing candidates or policies tied to party platforms, while permitting engagement on non-partisan issues like procedural integrity or civic education.^[10] Nonpartisan governance also upholds objectivity by applying consistent standards across ideological divides, aiming to reduce polarization and foster decisions grounded in meritocratic criteria.^[11] Achieving nonpartisanship demands vigilance against subtle biases, as underlying values can influence outcomes even without overt party ties; thus, it relies on transparency and accountability mechanisms to verify neutrality.^[7] In electoral administration, for example, officials must administer processes without favoring voter groups aligned with parties, as evidenced by guidelines for uniform ballot handling and vote counting.^[12] These principles distinguish nonpartisanship from mere abstention, promoting active, unbiased participation in democratic functions.^[13] Nonpartisan refers specifically to the absence of affiliation with or bias toward any political party, allowing individuals, organizations, or institutions to engage in political discourse or decision-making without endorsing party platforms or candidates. This contrasts with partisan, which denotes explicit alignment with a particular political party and its ideology, often involving advocacy for that party's nominees or policies in elections and governance. Bipartisan, by comparison, describes actions, policies, or support involving cooperation between two major political parties, typically requiring compromise across ideological lines rather than eschewing party involvement altogether; for instance, a bipartisan bill garners votes from both Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Congress, but remains rooted in partisan structures.^[14]^[15]^[16] In electoral contexts, nonpartisan systems prohibit the display of party affiliations on ballots, emphasizing candidate qualifications and issue positions over party loyalty, as seen in many U.S. municipal and judicial elections where voters assess merits independently of partisan cues. This differs from independent candidacy or voter status, which denotes individuals unaffiliated with major parties but potentially leaning toward one ideologically; nonpartisan applies more structurally to processes or bodies designed to minimize party influence, such as nonpartisan voter guides or commissions, whereas independents may still participate in partisan primaries or express partisan-leaning views without formal affiliation.^[17]^[16] Nonpartisan is narrower than neutral or impartial, terms that connote broader non-alignment in conflicts or unbiased judgment without specific reference to political parties. Neutrality implies abstention from taking sides in any dispute, potentially avoiding engagement altogether, while nonpartisanship permits active involvement in political issues—such as hosting debates with diverse viewpoints—provided no party is favored. Impartiality focuses on equitable treatment in adjudication or analysis, applicable beyond politics, whereas nonpartisanship targets party neutrality in political systems; for example, a nonpartisan election board maintains procedural fairness without party ties, but impartiality might describe a judge's ruling irrespective of electoral structure. It also diverges from apolitical, which suggests complete disengagement from political topics, as nonpartisanship facilitates civic discourse on policy matters without institutional partisanship.^[7]

Historical Evolution

Early Theoretical Roots

The theoretical foundations of nonpartisanship emerged from classical concerns over factionalism and impartial rule, predating formalized political parties. In ancient Athens, governance operated without organized parties, as eligible male citizens participated directly in assemblies to deliberate and vote on laws, fostering a system where decisions aimed to reflect collective reason rather than partisan allegiance. This structure, spanning the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, emphasized direct accountability and minimized entrenched group loyalties, serving as an early model of non-factional democracy.^[18]^[19] Enlightenment political philosophy further developed ideas of governmental impartiality, positing that legitimate authority requires neutrality toward particular interests to ensure equal treatment under the law. Thinkers in the liberal tradition, including John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1689), argued that government's primary role is to protect natural rights through consent-based structures, implicitly critiquing bias toward factions or privileges that undermine universal application of justice. This emphasis on reason and limited power laid groundwork for viewing partisanship as a potential corruption of impartial administration, influencing later republican designs to balance ambitions and prevent any single group's dominance.^[20]^[21] In the late 18th century, American founders articulated explicit cautions against party-like factions as threats to unified governance. James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 (1787), analyzed factions as arising from unequal property distribution and human passions, deeming them inevitable but controllable through extended republics and separation of powers to filter their effects and promote broader, less biased outcomes. George Washington reinforced this in his Farewell Address (1796), urging citizens to prioritize national concord over "the spirit of party," which he saw as fostering despotism or disunion by prioritizing narrow interests over public good. These writings reflected a realist assessment of human nature while idealizing nonpartisan mechanisms to safeguard deliberative impartiality.^[22]^[23] By the 19th century, as parties solidified in modern states, the term "nonpartisan" gained currency around 1872 to describe actions or entities unbound by party loyalty, signaling theoretical maturation amid rising partisan machinery. This evolution underscored nonpartisanship not as naive utopianism but as a causal safeguard against factional capture, rooted in empirical observations of how divided loyalties distort policy from evidence-based ends.^[24]

Key Implementations and Reforms

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, enacted on January 16, 1883, marked a pivotal shift toward nonpartisan administration in the United States federal government by establishing a merit-based system for civil service appointments, replacing the patronage-driven spoils system that had dominated since the mid-19th century.^[25] Triggered by public outrage over the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881 by a disappointed office seeker, the Act created the United States Civil Service Commission as an independent, nonpartisan body to administer competitive examinations and oversee hiring for classified positions, initially covering about 10% of federal jobs but expanding over time to encompass nearly the entire executive branch workforce by the mid-20th century.^[26] This reform prohibited political assessments on employees' salaries for campaign contributions and protected civil servants from arbitrary dismissal based on partisan loyalty, thereby aiming to insulate bureaucratic operations from electoral cycles and party influence.^[18] Building on the Pendleton framework, the Hatch Act of 1939 further entrenched nonpartisan principles by restricting the political activities of federal employees to prevent the use of government resources for partisan purposes, particularly amid concerns over politicization during the New Deal era.^[27] The legislation, formally titled "An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities," barred covered civil servants from running for partisan office, using official authority to influence elections, or soliciting political contributions, while permitting limited off-duty participation in nonpartisan activities.^[28] Enforced by the Office of Special Counsel, the Act extended to certain state and local employees involved in federally funded programs, ensuring that public administration remained detached from party machinery and reducing risks of coercion or favoritism in program delivery.^[27] Subsequent amendments, such as those in 1993, refined these restrictions by distinguishing between "further restricted" and "less restricted" employees, but the core intent persisted in fostering a professional, apolitical civil service.^[28] In parallel with federal bureaucratic reforms, nonpartisan electoral mechanisms emerged in local governments during the Progressive Era (circa 1890s–1920s) as a response to machine politics and corruption, with cities like Galveston, Texas, adopting the commission form of government in 1901, featuring at-large, nonpartisan elections for a small executive council to prioritize managerial efficiency over party affiliation.^[12] By the 1910s, this model proliferated, influencing over 500 U.S. municipalities to implement nonpartisan primaries and general elections for mayors and councils, often coupled with reforms like the city manager system to depoliticize day-to-day governance.^[12] These implementations sought to elevate policy expertise and voter focus on issues rather than partisan labels, though empirical assessments later revealed mixed success in eliminating informal party influences.^[12]

Applications in Political Systems

Electoral and Party Systems

In electoral systems, nonpartisanship manifests primarily through elections where candidates are listed on ballots without explicit party labels, aiming to emphasize individual qualifications over partisan allegiance. Such systems are prevalent in the United States for local offices, including municipal councils, school boards, and certain judicial positions, with approximately 80% of cities with populations exceeding 100,000 conducting nonpartisan elections for mayors and council members.^[29] This format prevents formal party nominations, requiring candidates to qualify via petitions or independent filings, as defined under federal guidelines where no candidate represents a political party in nomination or election.^[2] Empirical analyses of nonpartisan local elections, such as school board races in North Carolina, indicate that shifting from partisan to nonpartisan ballots reduces overt party signaling, potentially altering outcomes by diminishing voter reliance on ideological cues, though underlying partisan preferences often persist through informal endorsements or campaign financing.^[30] Nonpartisan primaries represent a reform variant within party-influenced systems, where all candidates compete in a single preliminary election regardless of affiliation, advancing the top vote-getters—typically two—to the general election without party restrictions. Adopted in states like California via Proposition 14 in 2010 and Alaska following a 2020 ballot measure, these systems seek to broaden candidate pools and foster cross-partisan appeals, countering primary-induced polarization where nominees cater to ideological extremes in low-turnout contests.^[31] Studies on such reforms show mixed effects: while they increase voter turnout in some cases by simplifying ballot access, they can disadvantage minor parties and lead to same-party general election matchups, as observed in California's 2018 congressional races where over 20% of districts pitted Democrats against Democrats.^[32] Voter behavior in these setups often hinges on candidate quality signals absent party heuristics, with research finding higher abstention rates among less-informed voters due to reduced informational shortcuts.^[33] In party systems, nonpartisanship extends to institutional mechanisms like independent redistricting commissions, designed to depoliticize district boundary drawing and mitigate gerrymandering. California's Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by Proposition 20 in 2010, comprises citizens selected through a nonpartisan lottery and vetting process excluding recent party officials, resulting in maps that enhanced district competitiveness— with 10 of 53 congressional seats flipping parties between 2012 and 2020, compared to fewer under prior legislative control.^[34] Similarly, Colorado's 2018 constitutional amendments created independent commissions for congressional and state legislative maps, yielding boundaries that better reflected statewide partisan balance, as measured by efficiency gaps below 5% in post-2020 cycles.^[35] These bodies enforce criteria prioritizing compactness, community integrity, and competitiveness over partisan advantage, though critics note that selection processes can embed subtle biases if dominated by one ideological side, as evidenced by legal challenges alleging indirect favoritism in early commission outputs.^[36] Overall, such applications demonstrate nonpartisanship's role in curbing overt party dominance, yet empirical outcomes reveal persistent indirect influences, with commissions in practice reflecting broader societal divisions rather than achieving ideological neutrality.^[37]

Bureaucratic and Civil Service Structures

Nonpartisan bureaucratic and civil service structures emphasize merit-based recruitment, tenure protections, and impartial policy implementation to insulate administration from partisan influence, ensuring continuity across electoral cycles. In the United States, the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of January 16, 1883, established this framework by mandating competitive examinations for federal positions and creating the United States Civil Service Commission as a nonpartisan oversight body to supervise hiring and promotions based on qualifications rather than political loyalty.^[38]^[25] This reform addressed widespread patronage under the spoils system, initially covering about 10% of federal jobs but expanding to over 90% by the mid-20th century through subsequent executive orders and laws like the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which reinforced merit principles via the Office of Personnel Management.^[26] In the United Kingdom, civil service neutrality operates as a constitutional convention rooted in the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan Report, which advocated recruitment through open competitive exams and promotion by merit independent of political patronage.^[39] Civil servants pledge to serve the government of the day impartially, with restrictions on political activities—such as prohibitions on candidacy for Parliament without resignation—and oversight by the Civil Service Commission to enforce objectivity.^[40] This structure promotes administrative expertise unbound by partisan shifts, as evidenced by the service's role in maintaining policy delivery during 14 prime ministerial changes since 2010.^[41] Other systems, such as Singapore's Public Service Commission, exemplify nonpartisan meritocracy through rigorous, apolitical selection processes that prioritize competence and ethical standards, contributing to sustained governance stability since the 1950s.^[42] Core mechanisms across these models include oaths to uphold constitutional or legal duties over party allegiance, bans on partisan campaigning by career officials, and independent audits to prevent ideological capture.^[43] These elements aim to foster a professional cadre focused on evidence-based execution, though empirical assessments, such as U.S. federal workforce surveys from 1997–2019 showing balanced partisan representation among bureaucrats, indicate structural safeguards against dominance by any single ideology.^[44]

Judicial and Quasi-Governmental Bodies

In various jurisdictions, judicial selection methods seek to promote nonpartisanship by minimizing direct political party involvement, such as through nonpartisan elections or merit-based commissions. As of April 2025, 13 U.S. states employ nonpartisan elections for selecting judges, where candidates appear on ballots without party affiliations, aiming to prioritize qualifications over partisan loyalty.^[45] The Missouri Plan, adopted in 1940 and used in several states, exemplifies merit selection: a nonpartisan judicial commission screens applicants, nominates candidates to the governor, who appoints from the list, followed by retention elections without opponents, intended to reduce electoral partisanship while incorporating public input.^[46] Empirical analyses indicate mixed outcomes for these methods' ability to foster impartiality. Research published in 2021 found that judges selected via nonpartisan elections or merit commissions produce higher-quality opinions, measured by citation rates and reversal frequencies, compared to those from partisan elections, suggesting reduced political pressures enhance decision-making rigor.^[47] However, other studies reveal persistent partisan influences; for instance, even in nonpartisan systems, judges face incentives to align rulings with prevailing voter sentiments to secure retention, leading to observable ideological skews in case outcomes, such as in tort or criminal sentencing decisions.^[48] A 2024 analysis of federal circuit courts, while appointment-based, documented increasing partisan divergence in voting patterns, with Republican appointees more likely to favor conservative outcomes in ideologically charged cases, underscoring how selection processes—even insulated ones—can embed biases that endure post-appointment.^[49] Quasi-governmental bodies, hybrid entities with public mandates but operational autonomy, often incorporate nonpartisan designs to shield technical decision-making from electoral cycles. The U.S. Federal Reserve System, established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, operates as a quasi-governmental central bank with a board of governors appointed for 14-year terms by the president and confirmed by the Senate, structured to prioritize economic stability over short-term political gains.^[50] Similarly, independent regulatory commissions like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), created in 1934, feature staggered terms and bipartisan composition requirements to approximate nonpartisanship in overseeing sectors such as telecommunications.^[51] Despite these mechanisms, evidence points to challenges: appointees' ideologies, shaped by nominating administrations, correlate with policy tilts, as seen in FCC voting splits along party lines on net neutrality rules in 2015 and 2017, indicating that structural safeguards do not fully eliminate causal influences from partisan selection.^[52]

Purported Advantages

Theoretical Rationales

Nonpartisan governance is theoretically rationalized as a safeguard against the capture of public institutions by partisan interests, enabling decisions oriented toward empirical evidence and long-term societal benefits rather than short-term electoral gains. By decoupling roles from party machinery, such systems prioritize meritocratic selection and neutral administration, reducing the risk of policies distorted by ideological loyalty or reciprocal favors among party elites. This aligns with public administration principles that view bureaucracy as an apolitical instrument for implementing laws efficiently, insulated from the vicissitudes of electoral politics to maintain continuity and expertise.^[53]^[54] In electoral theory, nonpartisanship addresses the principal-agent problems inherent in party-dominated systems, where voters may defer to party cues over substantive evaluation, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes from unexamined ideological commitments. Proponents contend that removing party labels compels assessments based on candidates' records, qualifications, and proposed solutions, fostering accountability to constituents' specific needs—particularly in local contexts where national partisan divides are less relevant. This mechanism theoretically enhances voter agency and deliberation, mitigating the amplification of polarization through partisan primaries that reward extremity over moderation.^[12]^[55] For quasi-independent bodies like commissions or judiciaries, the nonpartisan ideal posits enhanced legitimacy through perceived impartiality, which bolsters compliance with rulings and policies by signaling fidelity to rule-of-law norms over partisan advantage-seeking. Theoretically, this neutrality facilitates consensus-building on technical or contentious issues, such as redistricting or regulatory standards, by emphasizing data-driven criteria and procedural fairness, thereby approximating a Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" where decisions transcend group-specific biases. However, these rationales assume actors' capacity for genuine detachment, a premise subject to empirical scrutiny in polarized environments.^[56]^[57]

Empirical Evidence from Studies

Empirical analyses of independent redistricting commissions in the United States demonstrate their association with increased electoral competitiveness. A logistic regression study of U.S. House elections from 1982 to 2018 found that districts drawn by such commissions were 2.25 times more likely to produce competitive outcomes (defined as 45%-55% two-party vote shares) compared to those drawn by state legislatures, alongside a 52% reduction in the odds of incumbent party victories (odds ratio of 0.48).^[58] These effects persisted after controlling for state and year fixed effects, regional factors like Southern location, and open-seat dynamics, with post-reform examples such as California showing competitive district shares rising from 5.2% to 14.6%.^[58] In judicial selection, reforms shifting from partisan to nonpartisan elections have been linked to improved judge quality. Examination of state supreme court judges from 1947 to 1994, using forward citations of opinions as a proxy for quality, revealed that nonpartisan systems select higher-performing jurists than partisan elections, based on causal estimates from natural experiments in adopting states.^[47] This holds under parallel trends assumptions and controls for case incentives and portfolios, suggesting reduced partisan capture enhances technocratic selection without compromising accountability.^[47] Merit-based civil service systems, which prioritize nonpartisan recruitment over political loyalty, correlate with superior bureaucratic performance. A 2023 systematic review of empirical studies identified consistent positive associations between meritocratic appointments, promotions, and protections with organizational efficiency, reduced corruption, and policy implementation effectiveness across diverse contexts.^[59] For instance, merit principles foster higher employee satisfaction and retention, indirectly bolstering service delivery, though causal identification remains challenging due to confounding reforms.^[60] Comparative analyses, such as those of senior manager selection in Latin American agencies, further indicate that merit processes yield measurable gains in public sector outputs over patronage alternatives.^[61] Local nonpartisan elections exhibit mixed but occasionally advantageous outcomes relative to partisan counterparts. Research on U.S. city councils suggests nonpartisan ballots can attenuate extreme partisan skews in representation, though underlying affiliations persist and may favor conservative-leaning candidates in some demographics.^[62] In school board contexts, shifts to nonpartisan formats have been observed to moderate policy polarization, enabling cross-partisan consensus on administrative matters.^[30] However, voter reliance on party cues diminishes, potentially increasing abstention rates among less-informed electorates in low-salience races.^[33]

Criticisms and Empirical Shortcomings

Risks of Concealed Ideological Biases

Nonpartisan institutions, designed to operate without explicit party affiliations, can inadvertently or deliberately conceal underlying ideological biases held by their members or staff, leading to outcomes that favor certain worldviews over others. Empirical analyses of redistricting processes reveal that even commissions labeled as nonpartisan often produce maps with partisan asymmetries, as decision-makers' implicit preferences influence criteria like compactness and competitiveness, undermining the assumption of neutrality.^[63] In bureaucratic settings, such as international organizations, staffers' ideological leanings—typically left-leaning due to recruitment from academic and progressive networks—shape policy recommendations and implementations, despite formal mandates for impartiality.^[64] These concealed biases pose risks by entrenching dominant ideologies without electoral accountability, fostering groupthink that prioritizes consensus over diverse empirical scrutiny. For instance, administrators in ostensibly neutral public agencies exhibit partisan responsiveness, favoring policies aligned with their personal ideologies during election periods, which distorts resource allocation and regulatory enforcement.^[65] Surveys across multiple countries indicate widespread public perceptions of ideological skews in institutions like scientific bodies and civil services, where left-leaning biases are commonly attributed to systemic influences from education and media, eroding trust in nonpartisan claims.^[66] The consequences include policy distortions that ignore causal realities, such as overlooking data-driven alternatives in favor of ideologically preferred interventions, and heightened polarization as affected groups perceive systemic unfairness. In judicial contexts, nonpartisan selection processes fail to eliminate biases, with empirical studies showing lingering ideological influences in sentencing and rulings, particularly where commissions screen candidates from ideologically homogeneous pools.^[67] This opacity reduces incentives for self-correction, as nonpartisan facades shield actors from partisan scrutiny while allowing unacknowledged worldviews to prevail, ultimately compromising institutional legitimacy.^[68]

Impacts on Voter Decision-Making and Accountability

In nonpartisan elections, the absence of party labels removes a key informational shortcut for voters, often leading to reduced engagement and less systematic decision-making. Empirical studies indicate that voters frequently depend on party affiliations to evaluate candidates efficiently, particularly in low-information environments; without these cues, abstention rates increase as individuals face higher cognitive costs in assessing candidate qualifications independently. For instance, analysis of municipal elections shows that nonpartisan ballots correlate with greater ballot roll-off, where voters skip down-ballot races due to insufficient cues, resulting in lower overall participation and potentially distorting representation.^[33]^[69] This reliance on alternative heuristics, such as incumbency or name recognition, can further impair voter choices by favoring established candidates over policy alignment. Research on nonpartisan judicial and local elections demonstrates that voters often infer partisan leanings covertly—through endorsements or media—but these proxies are less reliable and more susceptible to manipulation than explicit labels, leading to inconsistent ideological voting patterns. In school board contexts, shifting from nonpartisan to partisan elections has been associated with clearer voter alignment on policy issues, suggesting that party cues enhance the informativeness of votes rather than merely biasing them.^[70]^[30]^[71] Regarding accountability, nonpartisan systems complicate retrospective voting, as voters struggle to attribute policy outcomes to coherent ideological groups. Parties facilitate collective responsibility, enabling electorates to reward or punish based on aggregated performance; in their absence, accountability devolves to individual incumbents, who benefit from personal vote advantages untethered from systemic failures. Studies of nonpartisan municipalities reveal diminished issue-based accountability, with low-salience races exacerbating voter uncertainty about officials' roles in governance outcomes, as high information costs deter systematic evaluation.^[72]^[73]^[74] Critics argue this structure erodes democratic oversight, as nonpartisan facades may conceal partisan maneuvering while voters lack tools to enforce ideological consistency. Evidence from cast vote records in nonpartisan settings confirms persistent copartisan voting despite label removal, indicating that suppressed cues do not eliminate biases but obscure them, potentially weakening the linkage between voter preferences and elected behavior. Overall, while intended to promote candidate-centric evaluation, nonpartisan approaches empirically hinder effective decision-making and accountability by overloading voters with unfiltered information demands in partisan realities.^[75]^[76]

Notable Examples and Case Studies

United States Contexts

In the United States, nonpartisan elections are prevalent at the local level, particularly for municipal offices, school boards, and certain judicial positions, where candidates appear on ballots without party affiliations to emphasize issues over partisan loyalty. As of 2025, over 70,000 such open seats exist across the country, allowing voters to select based on individual merits rather than party labels.^[77]^[29] However, empirical analyses indicate that ideological alignments persist, with candidates often backed by party networks informally, leading to outcomes that mirror partisan divides despite the structural intent to insulate from them.^[78]^[79] A prominent federal example is the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), established under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to provide objective, nonpartisan analyses of legislative budgetary impacts. The CBO hires staff based solely on professional expertise, without regard to political affiliation, and its reports have influenced major fiscal debates, such as projections on the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act adding $1.9 trillion to deficits over a decade.^[80]^[81] Despite these safeguards, critics from both parties have questioned its impartiality; for instance, Republican lawmakers challenged CBO deficit estimates for 2025 reconciliation bills, while a 2025 analysis revealed the health division's staff skewed heavily Democratic in prior donations, raising concerns about concealed ideological influences in technical modeling.^[82]^[83] The Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent legislative agency created in 1921, exemplifies nonpartisan auditing by investigating federal program efficiency and issuing over 1,000 reports annually to Congress, free from executive branch control. GAO maintains independence through strict ethical standards prohibiting political activity by staff and by deriving authority directly from Congress, as affirmed in its operational guidelines.^[84]^[85] Case studies, such as GAO's 2020-2025 audits of COVID-19 relief funds totaling $4.6 trillion, highlight its role in uncovering waste—estimating $200 billion in improper payments—without partisan favoritism, though findings occasionally draw partisan pushback when implicating preferred programs.^[86] State-level independent redistricting commissions represent another application, designed to curb gerrymandering by removing direct legislative control. Arizona's 2000 voter-approved commission, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015's Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, produced maps in 2021 that competitive districts increased from 6% to 18% of seats, per post-cycle analyses, fostering closer electoral contests.^[87]^[88] Yet, implementation reveals limitations: California's commission, established in 2010, faced lawsuits alleging subtle biases favoring incumbents, with Democratic seat shares rising from 52% to 60% post-2022 despite nonpartisan claims, underscoring how selection processes for commission members—often involving legislative or gubernatorial input—can embed indirect partisanship.^[88] Judicial nonpartisan elections, adopted in states like Texas and Washington since the early 20th century, aim to prioritize qualifications over party. A 2021 econometric study across 30 states found that shifting from partisan to nonpartisan systems correlated with a 5-10% improvement in judge reversal rates on appeal, suggesting enhanced merit-based selection and reduced overt politicization.^[47] In practice, however, donor influences and ideological screening in primaries persist; Texas's 2020 judicial races saw 90% of seats retained by incumbents amid $10 million in untracked advocacy spending, illustrating accountability gaps in ostensibly nonpartisan frameworks.^[47]

International and Non-State Applications

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), founded in 1863, exemplifies nonpartisan principles through its core tenets of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which enable humanitarian access in armed conflicts worldwide without aligning with any belligerent party.^[89] This approach allows ICRC delegates to negotiate with all conflict actors, operating without armed escorts across frontlines in over 90 countries as of 2023, delivering aid based solely on need rather than political affiliation.^[90] In practice, such neutrality facilitated the ICRC's mediation in prisoner exchanges during the 2022-2023 Russia-Ukraine conflict, where it visited over 2,000 detainees impartially, though critics have questioned its silence on certain atrocities as a trade-off for access.^[89] Nonpartisan election observation missions represent another international application, with organizations like the Carter Center deploying impartial monitors to assess electoral integrity in more than 100 countries since 1989.^[91] These efforts emphasize verifiable processes, such as secret ballots and universal suffrage, as outlined in the 2012 Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election Observation, endorsed by networks covering domestic monitors in diverse regions.^[92] For instance, in Kenya's 2017 presidential election, international nonpartisan observers documented irregularities in vote transmission, contributing to a Supreme Court annulment and rerun, thereby enhancing accountability without endorsing candidates.^[91] The Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors (GNDEM), linking over 245 nonpartisan groups across 90 countries as of 2023, standardizes such practices to build public trust in electoral outcomes.^[92] Non-state think tanks further apply nonpartisanship in international policy analysis, producing evidence-based research independent of governmental or partisan influence. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, established in 1910, conducts global studies on nuclear nonproliferation and regional conflicts, drawing on data from field experts without advocating for specific parties, as evidenced by its 2023 reports on Middle East dynamics informed by multilateral consultations.^[93] Similarly, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), operational since 1962, maintains nonpartisanship in assessing security threats, such as its 2024 analysis of Indo-Pacific alliances using declassified intelligence and economic metrics, influencing policy in multiple nations without electoral bias.^[94] These entities prioritize empirical methodologies, though their funding from diverse philanthropies and governments requires transparency to mitigate perceptions of concealed influences.^[94]

Contemporary Challenges and Debates

Reform Proposals in Polarized Contexts

In highly polarized political environments, reform proposals seek to embed nonpartisan elements into electoral and governance structures to counteract the incentives for extremism and zero-sum partisanship, often by diluting party control over candidate selection and districting.^[95] These include shifting to ranked-choice voting (RCV), where voters rank candidates in order of preference, and votes are redistributed until a majority winner emerges, theoretically compelling candidates to court broader coalitions beyond their base.^[96] Implementations in places like Alaska's 2022 special elections demonstrated candidates from opposing parties cross-endorsing each other, fostering post-election bipartisan legislative cooperation, though broader empirical evidence on polarization reduction remains preliminary and contested, with some studies finding no significant decline in racially polarized voting patterns.^[97]^[98]^[99] Nonpartisan open primaries, allowing all voters regardless of affiliation to participate in selecting general election candidates, represent another targeted reform to elevate moderates over ideologues, as partisan primaries often reward extremes due to low-turnout, activated bases.^[100] In California's top-two primary system adopted in 2012 via Proposition 14, this has occasionally produced same-party general election matchups, exposing voters to less polarized choices, but critics argue it can disadvantage minor parties without proportional safeguards.^[95] Complementary proposals involve independent redistricting commissions, detached from legislative control, to draw competitive districts that discourage safe-seat extremism; Michigan's 2021 citizen-led commission, for instance, produced maps increasing competitive seats from 8% to 18% in the state legislature, correlating with marginally less ideological divergence in subsequent elections.^[95] Proportional representation (PR) systems, allocating seats in multi-member districts based on vote shares, aim to ensure minority voices gain representation, potentially moderating outcomes through required cross-ideological coalitions in divided legislatures, as seen in international cases like New Zealand's mixed-member PR adopted in 1996, which reduced single-party dominance and party-line voting rigidity.^[97] In polarized U.S. contexts, hybrid PR models face adoption hurdles due to constitutional barriers, prompting state-level experiments like multi-winner RCV districts.^[97] Campaign finance adjustments, such as public funding or caps on party-affiliated donations, seek to lessen the sway of polarized donors, with evidence from small-donor matching programs in New York City elections showing candidates relying less on extreme-interest funding.^[95] Overcoming polarization to enact these requires nonpartisan pathways like ballot initiatives or bipartisan select committees, as proposed in 2025 legislation by U.S. Representatives Jared Golden and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez to study electoral reforms insulated from immediate partisan capture.^[101] However, entrenched parties often obstruct via veto points, with historical data indicating only 15% of major electoral reforms passing without voter overrides since 2000, underscoring the causal barrier where polarization amplifies collective action problems among reformers.^[102] Deliberative processes, such as Stanford's 2023 "America in One Room" poll of 500 randomly selected citizens, have empirically shown temporary depolarization and bipartisan consensus on issues like immigration when insulated from partisan cues, suggesting scalable citizen assemblies as a meta-reform to build support for structural changes.^[103]

Verifiability of Nonpartisan Claims

Verifying claims from nonpartisan sources poses unique challenges due to their self-proclaimed objectivity, which often lacks external mechanisms for falsification beyond self-reported methodologies. Unlike partisan claims, where ideological alignment provides a predictable lens for scrutiny, nonpartisan assertions require examination of funding origins, personnel affiliations, and selection biases in what topics are addressed, yet such details are frequently opaque or selectively disclosed. Empirical analyses indicate that even organizations adhering to nonpartisan standards, such as fact-checking outlets, display asymmetries: false statements fact-checked are 20% more likely to involve political elites than true ones, suggesting potential skews in coverage prioritization rather than random sampling.^[104] Studies on fact-checking reliability highlight variability in judgments across independent verifiers. For example, assessments of misleading statements by The Washington Post and PolitiFact show incomplete overlap, implying that "nonpartisan" verdicts depend on subjective interpretations of evidence rather than uniform criteria, complicating independent replication. Cognitive biases further undermine verifiability, as fact-checkers are susceptible to confirmation tendencies and anchoring effects when evaluating claims, with proposed countermeasures like bias-aware pipelines remaining experimental and unstandardized.^[105]^[106] In nonpartisan think tanks, verifiability is hindered by undisclosed ideological influences despite nominal independence. Research on social science outputs reveals that studies by female authors are more frequently cited by left-leaning think tanks, pointing to selective endorsement patterns that correlate with researcher demographics rather than content neutrality. While aggregate fact-checking frequencies do not disproportionately target one political party—Republican officials face scrutiny comparable to Democrats, driven more by prominence than partisanship—disparities in rating severity or thematic focus persist, requiring cross-validation against raw data sources for true assessment.^[107]^[108] Ultimately, robust verification demands triangulating nonpartisan claims against primary empirical records, diverse outlets, and longitudinal outcomes, as self-certification alone fails to mitigate concealed selection effects or institutional pressures in polarized environments. Public distrust compounds this, with ideological groups variably perceiving the same nonpartisan source as biased based on outcome alignment, underscoring the need for transparent, auditable processes over declarative neutrality.^[109]

References

[1]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonpartisan
[2]
FAQ Repository - What is a nonpartisan election? - OSC.gov
Examples of political parties that received votes in the last Presidential election are the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green Parties. The ...<|separator|>
[3]
[PDF] Partisan or Nonpartisan Elections - Clark County
o Voter turnout tends to be an average 10 percent less in nonpartisan elections than partisan elections. o Candidates' party affiliations have less impact on ...
[4]
Cities 101 — Partisan and Non-Partisan Elections
Dec 14, 2016 · Municipal election systems are determined by the nature of the council members' constituency and by the presence or absence of party labels on the ballot.Missing: examples | Show results with:examples<|separator|>
[5]
Summary of North Dakota History - Nonpartisan League
The NPL, born in 1915, united progressives, reformers, and radicals behind a platform that called for many progressive reforms.
[6]
Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice - Non-Partisan League
The Non-Partisan League (NPL) was an independent political movement active in the United States and Canada from 1915 to the mid-1950s.
[7]
What Does Nonpartisan Actually Mean? A Guide for Higher ...
Feb 19, 2025 · In a time when many institutions face pressure to take explicit stances on political and social issues, true nonpartisan leadership is rare ...
[8]
Nonpartisan - Ballotpedia
The term nonpartisan may be used to describe a group or individual that does not expressly support one political party or candidate over another.
[9]
Nonpartisan vs. Partisan Elections - UNC School of Government
North Carolina law permits cities, towns, and villages to use either partisan elections or any one of three versions of nonpartisan elections.
[10]
What it Means to be Non-partisan | LWV Ohio
The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any political party, elected official, or candidate for office. That does not mean that we are apolitical.
[11]
The Power of Nonpartisanship | National Council of Nonprofits
Sep 26, 2016 · It is the law of the land – and good for the nonprofit community and those we serve – that charitable nonprofits must remain nonpartisan.
[12]
Nonpartisan Election Administration - Center for Effective Government
Oct 15, 2024 · Local election officials have considerable discretion over how elections are run, and many of them are chosen through partisan elections or a ...
[13]
[PDF] What does it mean to be nonpartisan? - AIGA
To be nonpartisan means not biased or partisan, especially towards a candidate or political party. In the case of 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, ...
[14]
BIPARTISAN Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties. bipartisan support for the bill. ...
[15]
Bipartisan - Ballotpedia
Bipartisan is defined as "relating to or involving members of two political parties." In a two-party system, like in the United States, bipartisan ...
[16]
Partisan vs. Nonpartisan: What's the Difference? - GoodParty.org
Aug 10, 2023 · Imagine stepping into the voting booth on Election Day. You see a list of candidates, some with a political party label next to their names and ...<|separator|>
[17]
Independent vs. Nonpartisan: Is There a Difference? - GoodParty.org
Nov 1, 2023 · An independent voter does not belong to any major political party. To put it another way, voters who are independent are not Democrats or Republicans.
[18]
How the civil service system changed American government - WBUR
Jan 14, 2025 · The Pendleton Act of 1883 established a non-partisan civil service. President-elect Donald Trump says he'll upend the law, firing non-partisan employees and ...
[19]
Bureaucracy and the Evolution of Public Administration | American ...
Throughout history, both small and large nations have elevated certain types of nonelected workers to positions of relative power within the governmental ...
[20]
Political Philosophy: Methodology
Both classical and modern liberals agree that the government has a strict duty towards impartiality and hence to treating people equally, and that it should ...
[21]
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government (1689) - House Divided
John Locke (1632-1704) was one of the Enlightenment-era British political philosophers who had the greatest influence on the American revolutionaries.Missing: party- | Show results with:party-
[22]
James Madison and the Origins of Partisanship | Cato Institute
James Madison believed “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” as a way to limit the power of government.
[23]
Patriotism and Partisanship - Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
As a realist, Thomas Jefferson recognized partisan politics were inevitable in a democracy; as an idealist, he firmly believed that Americans shared common ...
[24]
Non-partisan - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Also nonpartisan, from 1872 American English, means not based on or loyal to any political party; origin is non- + partisan, relating to a political ...
[25]
Pendleton Act - Ballotpedia
The act established the United States Civil Service Commission as a nonpartisan federal agency to oversee the hiring of federal civil servants. The commission ...
[26]
The civil service, explained - Protect Democracy
Jun 11, 2024 · Beginning with the enactment of the Pendleton Act in 1883, which instituted a competitive hiring process and protected workers from partisan ...
[27]
Hatch Act Overview - OSC.gov
The law's purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in ...
[28]
Analysis: The Hatch Act | Research Starters - EBSCO
The Hatch Act, enacted in 1939, is a US federal law designed to limit political activities of government employees, thereby promoting a non-partisan civil ...
[29]
Nonpartisan elections - Ballotpedia
Nonpartisan elections are elections in which all of the candidates for an office are listed on the ballot without party labels identifying any political ...Partisan and nonpartisan... · Federal and state elections · School board elections
[30]
[PDF] The Effects of Partisan Elections on Political and Policy Outcomes
nonpartisan local elections, in the context of school board elections in. North Carolina. Specifically, we study the impacts of shifting to partisan elections ...
[31]
Nonpartisan primaries would ease U.S. polarization, advocates say
Sep 18, 2023 · There's a lot of discontent with America's political system, including with party-based primary elections. So reform advocates are urging ...
[32]
What are nonpartisan primaries? - Unite America
Apr 15, 2024 · Pandering to Extremes: Candidates in primary elections, especially in safe districts where the general election is not competitive, are ...Missing: United | Show results with:United
[33]
Abstention and informedness in nonpartisan elections - ScienceDirect
Citizens often rely on the party affiliation of candidates when voting (Bonneau and Cann, 2015; Rahn, 1993; Schaffner and Streb, 2002). Indeed, Rahn states: “ ...
[34]
California Citizens Redistricting Commission | "Fair Representation ...
The Commission has absolutely no involvement in the Governor's efforts to replace the state's Congressional maps. The Governor's proposed Congressional maps ...About Us · Final Maps · Final Maps, Report, & Data · Meetings
[35]
Colorado Independent Redistricting Commissions
The Colorado Independent Congressional and Legislative Redistricting Commissions were established by Amendments Y and Z in 2018 to draw Colorado's ...
[36]
Redistricting Process Reform - Center for Effective Government
Feb 20, 2024 · Independent redistricting commissions are frequently proposed as a way to draw fair district lines that don't favor either party or any candidate.
[37]
Independent Redistricting Commissions - Campaign Legal Center
An Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) is a body separate from the legislature that is responsible for drawing the districts used in congressional and ...
[38]
Pendleton Act (1883) | National Archives
Feb 8, 2022 · Approved on January 16, 1883, the Pendleton Act established a merit-based system of selecting government officials and supervising their work.
[39]
The Positive Neutrality of Civil Servants - GOV.UK
Oct 16, 2014 · Civil servants are recruited by competitive examination and promoted within a system designed to reward merit and be independent of political or other external ...
[40]
General election guidance 2019: guidance for civil servants - GOV.UK
Mar 20, 2025 · The basic principle for civil servants is not to undertake any activity that could call into question their political impartiality or that could ...Preface · Political activities of civil servants · Public and Senior Civil Service...<|separator|>
[41]
Politicisation of the civil service - House of Lords Library
Nov 21, 2024 · The idea of civil service impartiality, defined as the ability to serve the government of the day without fear or favour, is one of the core ...
[42]
[PDF] Renewing America's Civil Service: Guiding Goals and Principles
Goals include a non-partisan, competent, and knowledge-based civil service. Principles include a skilled workforce, core values, and merit-based hiring.
[43]
Civil Service 101
Impartial. Civil servants are nonpartisan experts who pledge an oath to defend the Constitution, not a political party. They are responsible not just to the ...Missing: structures | Show results with:structures
[44]
Civil Servants Often Work for Administrations They Disagree with ...
Jun 1, 2021 · Between 1997 and 2019, Democrats made up about half of all federal bureaucrats, while Republicans wavered between a third and a quarter. (The ...
[45]
Nonpartisan election of judges - Ballotpedia
Instead, these primary elections typically narrow the field to two candidates for the general election. As of April 2025, 13 states used nonpartisan elections ...
[46]
The Missouri Plan
The Missouri Plan, otherwise known as the Non-Partisan Court Plan, is a model for the nation. Proposed and adopted to the state Constitution by Missouri ...
[47]
Reducing partisanship in judicial elections can improve judge quality
Over the last century, many states have tried to reduce the role of party politics by replacing partisan elections with nonpartisan elections, where judges do ...
[48]
A Survey of Empirical Evidence Concerning Judicial Elections
Mar 14, 2012 · First, nonpartisan elections are contested at lower levels than partisan elections, and, when they are contested, they are less competitive both ...
[49]
Study Shows Increasing Partisanship and Politics in the Federal ...
Oct 2, 2024 · Federal judges' decisions do, in fact, show evidence of political polarization, the paper shows. The U.S. federal court system is the “ ...
[50]
Quasi-Government Agency | Definition, Function & Examples - Lesson
The Federal Reserve Bank is a Quasi-Governmental Agency with strict ties to official branches of government. It Is made up of twelve privately owned regional ...What is a Quasi-Government... · Function of a Quasi...
[51]
The Quasi Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government ...
These hybrid organizations (e.g., Fannie Mae, National Park Foundation, In-Q-Tel), collectively referred to in this report as the “quasi government,” have grown ...Quasi Official Agencies · Adjunct Organizations Under... · Nonprofit Organizations...
[52]
Quasi-Governmental Entities and Legislative Power Delegations
For example, Congress created Amtrak in 1970 as a for-profit corporation to provide railroad passenger service, requiring by law for Amtrak to “maximize its ...
[53]
[PDF] Independence and Accountability in Public Service_Fisk_1.19.25
Jan 19, 2025 · The nonpartisan and merit-based federal civil service, along with collective bargaining rights, whistleblower protections, and other job ...
[54]
[PDF] DEMOCRACY AND A NONPARTISAN CIVIL SERVICE
Third, I canvass evidence and theory on the benefits and costs of job protections for government employees. Finally, I explore and refute the.
[55]
[PDF] Candidate Choice Without Party Labels: - Alexander Coppock
We hypothesize that in nonpartisan elections, voters will exhibit a stronger preference for candidates with greater career and political experience, as well as ...
[56]
Why should impartiality and non-partisanship be considered as ...
Impartiality and non-partisanship, cornerstones of public service, ensure decisions are based on merit and public interest, not personal biases or political ...
[57]
The Political Theory of Parties and Partisanship: Catching Up
public interest, and the desired outcome is consensus. Yet not all theorists ... characterized as nonpartisanship but, in the United States at least, as a ...
[58]
Independent Redistricting Commissions Are Associated with More ...
Jan 12, 2023 · Independent commissions are 2.25 times more likely to have competitive elections, and they decrease incumbent party wins by 52%.
[59]
What does the evidence tell us about merit principles and ...
Jun 13, 2023 · This systematic review summarizes what empirical research tells us about effects of civil service practices, such as meritocratic appointments, meritocratic ...3 Results · 3.2. 1 Meritocratic... · 4 Discussion
[60]
The Importance of Merit Principles for Civil Service Systems
Jun 18, 2021 · Merit principles ensure public employment is based on merit, not political connections, and are linked to better work life, satisfaction, and ...Civil Service Reform And... · Merit Principles And Their... · Findings And Discussion
[61]
[PDF] Merit-based Selection of Public Managers: Better Public Sector ...
The empirical evidence on the effect of merit-based recruitment systems of senior officials on the performance of public sector organizations is not prolific.
[62]
The Partisan Consequences of Nonpartisan Elections and the ... - jstor
political structure difference: do nonpartisan elections produce council members that are more likely to be Republican than those elected in.
[63]
The Myth of Non-Partisan Cartography: A Study of Electoral Biases ...
a non-partisan cartography. effect of this decision is clearly partisan. Hence, non-partisan agencies do not necessarily guarantee non-partisan effects.
[64]
Biased bureaucrats and the policies of international organizations
Nov 6, 2024 · Overall, by showing how staffers' ideological biases shape IO outputs, we can observe how supposedly dispassionate rule-abiding bureaucrats ...
[65]
Partisanship, Bureaucratic Responsiveness, and Election ...
May 24, 2018 · Our findings provide new evidence about the presence of partisan biases from administrators in ostensibly neutral settings and raise important ...Missing: ideological | Show results with:ideological
[66]
Citizen perceptions of ideological bias in public service institutions
Sep 30, 2025 · We find that bias perceptions are widespread, with some institutional actors (scientists, schoolteachers, and journalists) being associated more ...
[67]
Does Political Bias in the Judiciary Matter?: Implications of Judicial ...
Many states have gone further and limited the role of elected officials in appointing judges: nonpartisan commissions screen or nominate judges. Miles and ...
[68]
[PDF] Whither the Neutral Agency? Rethinking Bias in Regulatory ...
Apr 28, 2021 · The problem of the willful agency is well known, in both the legal literature and in political science. See, e.g., DAVID EPSTEIN & SHARON. O' ...
[69]
[PDF] The Effects of Ballot Design and Electoral Structure on Voter
Voters using straight-‐party options (by definition) do not vote for candidates in nonpartisan elections. Consequently, ballot roll-‐off in these elections is.<|separator|>
[70]
Is more information always better? Party cues and candidate quality ...
Turnout rate is sensitive to newspaper coverage of courts only in nonpartisan elections. •. Partisan voting behavior is not explained by differences in court ...
[71]
[PDF] The Effect of Partisan Information On Voters in Nonpartisan Elections
Using data from a 1982 California Poll survey on state supreme court confirmation elections we demonstrate that nonpartisan elections are easily turned into ...
[72]
Issue Accountability in Non-Partisan Municipalities: A Case Study
Aug 16, 2024 · Municipal elections are often regarded as low-information and low-salience contests where voters face high costs of attaining political ...
[73]
Closest to the People? Incumbency Advantage and the Personal ...
Do incumbents dominate non-partisan elections because of an especially large personal vote? This question has important implications for understanding the ...Missing: definitions | Show results with:definitions<|control11|><|separator|>
[74]
The dangers of non-partisan elections to democracy - Gale
Nonpartisan elections discourage informed citizen participation in the electoral process; they discourage collective responsibility and accountability in ...Missing: effects | Show results with:effects
[75]
Crossover Voting Rates in Partisan and Nonpartisan Elections
Feb 13, 2025 · We provide the first examination of the extent to which voters cast ballots for copartisan candidates in nonpartisan elections using cast vote record (CVR) ...
[76]
[PDF] Can Voters Tame the Information Tide? How the Lack of Party ...
Nonpartisan elections were established to insulate offices from partisan politics. The idea is that voters should enter the voting booth with knowledge of the ...
[77]
There are over 70000 “nonpartisan” open seats in 2025 - BallotReady
See our latest analysis outlining how a majority of open seats on the ballot won't feature party labels next to candidate names.
[78]
In Non-Partisan Elections Ideology matters - The Campaign Workshop
Mar 10, 2025 · While candidates for races like these do not run with a political party designation, don't let the absence of party labels fool you into ...
[79]
[PDF] The Effects of Nonpartisan Local Elections on City Council Partisan ...
I've Accidentally Elected a Republican! The Effects of Nonpartisan Local Elections on City Council Partisan Composition. Grant Baldwin & Chris Vazquez | Faculty ...
[80]
Introduction to CBO | Congressional Budget Office
CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard ...10 Things to Know · Products · Work at CBO · Organization and Staffing
[81]
Objectivity | Congressional Budget Office
CBO takes many steps to ensure that its work is objective, impartial, and nonpartisan. The agency must be—and must be perceived to be—objective and free from ...
[82]
What's the CBO? Meet the nonpartisan agency under fire from ... - NPR
Jun 6, 2025 · The CBO, which analyzes the budgetary impacts of bills, projected that congressional Republicans' signature legislation would increase federal deficits by ...
[83]
'Nonpartisan' CBO's health division overwhelmingly staffed by Dems ...
May 12, 2025 · CBO employees are barred from engaging in political activity if it would "identify, or appear to identify, CBO with a political campaign, ...<|separator|>
[84]
GAO is Nonpartisan. Here's How We Do It.
Aug 28, 2025 · GAO is known for its fact-based, nonpartisan work for Congress. But how does GAO keep partisanship out of its work when Congress, ...
[85]
Our Independence | U.S. GAO - Government Accountability Office
Jul 3, 2014 · All GAO employees working on audits must be capable of providing objective and impartial judgment, and maintain both independence of mind and independence in ...
[86]
[PDF] GAO-02-388G Government Auditing Standards: Amendment No. 3
3.12 Auditors and audit organizations have a responsibility to maintain independence, so that opinions, conclusions, judgments, and recommendations will be ...
[87]
Redistricting and the Supreme Court: The Most Significant Cases
Significance: The creation of a redistricting commission for congressional districts via ballot initiative does not violate the Elections Clause of the U.S. ...
[88]
[PDF] Redistricting Commissions in the 2021 Cycle
Jun 2, 2025 · Next, we provide the number of seats won by. Democrats in the 2022 legislative and congressional elections (the first election following the ...
[89]
The critical importance of neutrality: A humanitarian perspective into ...
Oct 31, 2023 · First, neutrality is the cornerstone of our engagement with conflict parties. Our teams operate on the ground without armed escort, across the ...
[90]
Neutral intermediary - ICRC
The ICRC's neutral stance is crucial in enabling us to assist people in some of the world's most dangerous and complex environments.
[91]
Democracy Program - The Carter Center
Observing Elections. Impartial, credible election observers play a key role in shaping perceptions about the quality and legitimacy of electoral processes.
[92]
Declaration of Global Principles for Nonpartisan Election ... - gndem
The Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors connects over 245 regional networks and individual nonpartisan citizen observation groups to share best ...
[93]
Worldwide (US and non-US) - Public Policy Research Think Tanks
Oct 13, 2025 · Top 75 Think Tanks Worldwide · Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – United States · Bruegel – Belgium · French Institute of International ...US · Top Think Tanks by Area of... · Top Think Tanks - Worldwide...
[94]
About CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies
CSIS's purpose is to define the future of national security. We are guided by a distinct set of values—non-partisanship, independent thought, innovative ...
[95]
Political Polarization and Networked Parties: Options for Reform
In response, there exist myriad reform proposals intended to solve some of the major problems including hyper-partisanship, polarization, and gridlock.
[96]
Ranked choice voting lowers polarization in politics - FairVote
Sep 26, 2024 · Winners of RCV elections are the candidates who can build both deep and broad support. To win a majority of voters' support, candidates often ...
[97]
Election Reform Turns Down the Temperature of Our Politics
### Summary of Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) and Proportional Representation (PR) to Reduce Polarization
[98]
Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization?
RCV implementation does not seem to reduce the level of racially polarized voting for the overall electorate. The conclusion holds even after examining each ...
[99]
Study: ranked-choice elections don't reduce polarized voting | SF ...
Nov 6, 2018 · San Francisco State University Assistant Professor of Politics Jason McDaniel's research shows that ranked-choice voting does not reduce ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[100]
Primary Reform - Center for Effective Government
Jun 30, 2025 · Shigeo Hirano is a Professor of Political Science at Columbia University. Professor Hirano's research interests include American politics, ...
[101]
Golden introduces bill to establish bipartisan electoral reform select ...
Jan 7, 2025 · Reps. Jared Golden (ME-02) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (WA-03) today introduced legislation to establish a bipartisan select committee that will examine ...
[102]
How to reform the political system to combat polarization - The Fulcrum
Dec 13, 2024 · On Dec. 19, Elections Reform Now will present a webinar on “How to Reform the Political System to Combat Polarization and Extremism.
[103]
National Deliberative Poll Shows Bipartisan Support for Polarizing ...
Aug 10, 2023 · Poll results showed increased movement toward bipartisan support on a set of previously polarizing issues that are already beginning to drive political debates.
[104]
Is Fact-Checking Politically Neutral? Asymmetries in How ... - arXiv
Sep 13, 2024 · Fact-checked false statements are, on average, 20% more likely to mention political elites than true fact-checked statements.Missing: verifying | Show results with:verifying
[105]
Cross-checking journalistic fact-checkers: The role of sampling and ...
The current study assessed agreement among two independent fact-checkers, The Washington Post and PolitiFact, regarding the false and misleading statements of ...
[106]
Cognitive Biases in Fact-Checking and Their Countermeasures
Lastly, we outline the building blocks of a bias-aware assessment pipeline for fact-checking, with each countermeasure mapped to a constituting ...
[107]
Is Social Science Research Politically Biased? - ProMarket
Nov 15, 2023 · Our results show that research conducted by women is more likely to be cited by a left-leaning think tank than research conducted by men: ...<|separator|>
[108]
Fact-checks focus on famous politicians, not partisans | PNAS Nexus
Dec 19, 2024 · We find that Republican elected officials are not fact-checked more often than Democratic officials. Politician prominence predicts fact-checking, but ...
[109]
The presence of unexpected biases in online fact-checking
Jan 27, 2021 · Fact-checking unverified claims shared on platforms, like social media, can play a critical role in correcting misbeliefs.