University of Chicago Center for Effective Government

Advocates of Ranked-Choice Voting have made many claims in its favor. RCV advocates claim that RCV is better than existing systems at choosing a broadly popular winner and encouraging political moderation. Advocates also claim that RCV gives voters more choices, allows voters to express their preferences more fully and less strategically, and encourages the election of women and minority candidates. In this installment of our Democracy Reform Primer Series, Professor Andrew Eggers from the?University of Chicago?and Professor Laurent Bouton?from Georgetown University?explore what the research has to say about the promise of Ranked-Choice Voting in the US.? Scroll to read more or download the primer????https://bit.ly/40fSLtL

US local governments have a multitude of elections but remarkably few voters. Typical turnout in mayoral elections is 20%. While federal and state races garner the most media attention, the vast majority of elections in the United States are for offices in local government. The nation’s roughly 90,000 local governments include cities, counties, townships, school districts, and a plethora of special purpose districts, such as park districts and library districts. Most of these jurisdictions are run by an elected board and many also elect executives and other officers. Collectively, they are governed by nearly half-a-million elected officials. Most local elections are held off-cycle. Changing local election times to coincide with higher-profile federal and state elections could generate dramatic increases in turnout and a more representative set of voters. But what does the research say about the potential impact of this reform?? As part of the Democracy Reform Primer Series, Professor Christopher Berry?from the University of Chicago?discusses what scholarship tells us about the likely effects of the Timing of Local Elections. View more of the Democracy Reform Primer Videos ???? https://bit.ly/4eWYto1

What happens when a political outsider takes power and shakes up the system? Last week's episode of Not Another Politics Podcast looked at a fascinating case study that reveals how leaders outside the establishment build loyalty, push their agendas, and change the political landscape. Political scientist Renard Sexton?from Emory University?discusses his paper “Deadly Populism: How Local Political Outsiders Drive Duterte’s War on Drugs In The Philippines." It covers how local mayors chose to enforce (or resist) his policies, what they gained in return, and what this means for populism. Could Trump’s second term follow a similar path? And do populist leaders deliberately push extreme policies to ensure loyalty?

A central argument in favor of publicly funded campaigns is that it may promote electoral competition. In private fundraising systems, certain candidates enjoy systematic fundraising advantages (e.g. incumbents and well-connected individuals), and this may translate into electoral advantages. By giving all candidates access to a certain level of campaign finance, public funding may reduce fundraising inequalities, level the electoral playing field, and strengthen electoral selection and incentives. But what does the research say about the potential impact of this reform?? As part of the Democracy Reform Primer Series, Professor Alexander Fouirnaies from the University of Chicago?discusses what scholarship tells us about the likely effects of Public Funding of US Elections. View more of the Democracy Reform Primer Videos ???? https://bit.ly/4eWYto1

"The Senate established the filibuster to prevent a tyranny of the majority. But in recent years, the filibuster, which effectively requires a supermajority for the Senate to even consider legislation, has become a tool for casual, lazy obstruction." In case you missed it, check out the op-ed on filibuster reform by Danielle Brian, Executive Director of the Project On Government Oversight. Read the op-ed ???? https://bit.ly/3U8ousQ This article reflects on the Democracy Reform Primer by Ruth Bloch Rubin, professor at the University of Chicago. The Democracy Reform Primer Series serves as practical research guides exploring what existing scholarship has to say about the promise of different institutional reforms.? Read the primer ???? https://bit.ly/46CTRRg

Presidents have long lamented the difficulties of managing the federal bureaucracy. Some consider the career bureaucracy to be insufficiently attuned to presidential priorities. Other presidents find the executive apparatus too unwieldy and inefficient to accomplish presidential goals. These issues can drive presidents to make reforms to the federal bureaucracy. President Donald Trump’s “Schedule F” executive order proposed one such major overhaul. Issued in October 2020, this presidential directive created a new category of federal employees, called Schedule F. Unlike most merit-protected civil servants in the federal government, Schedule F employees would be subject to at-will employment. This policy would make it so that some current federal bureaucrats would lose their civil service protections and potentially be terminated without cause, opening the possibility that these positions could become subject to politically motivated hiring and firing. In essence, Schedule F workers would become political appointees. But what does the research say about the potential impact of this reform?? As part of the Democracy Reform Primer Series, Professor Rachel Augustine Potter?from the?University of Virginia?discusses what scholarship tells us about the likely effects of Schedule F. View more of the Democracy Reform Primer Videos ???? https://bit.ly/4eWYto1

Join the International Institute of Research in Paris (IIRP), The Chicago Center On Democracy and University of Chicago Center for Effective Government for a public panel “The University in a Time of Democratic Erosion.” In this panel we will be looking at global examples of the ways that countries experiencing democratic erosion have seen universities targeted, through attempts to purge faculty, restrict student attendance, cutting public funding, replacing university leaders, and the like. ?? Date: 3 March, 2025 ?? Time: 9:30 a.m. - 7: 00 p.m. ?? Location: University of Chicago John W. Boyer Center in Paris, 41 rue des grands moulins Paris 75013 This event is open and free to the public. This is a hybrid event, please use this link to register for the Zoom meeting if attending virtually: https://shorturl.at/X8Y4V

Check out the new op-ed "Criminalizing Corporate DEI Skews the DOJ's Founding Mission" by CEG Democracy Fellow Omar H. Noureldin.

Many of the local officials responsible for administering elections are themselves directly elected in partisan elections or are appointed by partisan figures, raising the concern that they will use their authority to advantage their party. Eighty-four percent of the nearly 2,900 counties that administer elections at the county level either directly elect their election official in a partisan election or ask a partisan official to appoint the election official. One alternative—nonpartisan officials appointed in a bipartisan way—are rare. But what does the research say about the potential impact of this reform?? As part of the Democracy Reform Primer Series, Professor Dan Thompson?from UCLA?discusses what scholarship tells us about the likely effects of Nonpartisan Election Administration. View more of the Democracy Reform Primer Videos ???? https://bit.ly/4eWYto1

"I bring the lessons of fierce analysis, evaluation, and negotiation that I learned in CLA to every table that I sit at. My CLA counterparts, both from the 2022 cohort and beyond, are still people that I turn to when I’m not sure what is the right course of action, or when I need additional perspectives on an issue." ICYMI:? Dion McGill?(CLA'22) shares the impact of his experience in the Civic Leadership Academy at the?Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago.?