Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
In a recent column, I argued that Indiana’s low voter participation is less about apathy than it is about a lack of competitive elections.
That raises a deeper question: If competition drives participation, why is meaningful competition so rare?
One answer is straightforward but overlooked. It is harder than most people realize for people to run for public office.
In most professions, we try to attract talented people into leadership roles. In business, companies recruit executives. In education, we develop school leaders. In medicine, we train specialists.
In politics, however, the pathway into leadership is narrow and difficult to navigate.
For many potential candidates, the barriers begin with time. Running for office can require months or years of sustained effort, with no guarantee of success. For people with families and financial responsibilities, that is a significant risk.
There are also structural hurdles. Ballot access rules, signature requirements and compliance regulations can be complex. For candidates outside established party structures, these challenges are even greater.
In Indiana, the path to office is largely routed through party primaries, where a relatively small share of voters determines who appears on the general election ballot.
Candidates must either have a history of voting in that party’s primary the last two elections in which they cast a ballot or obtain approval from the county party chair. Together, these requirements significantly narrow the pool of candidates who can realistically access the ballot.
This structure favors candidates who align most closely with party primary voters, who are often more partisan than the broader electorate and less representative of it. It also creates a meaningful barrier. As a result, some capable potential candidates never make it onto the ballot.
Fundraising presents another obstacle. Competitive campaigns often require substantial resources. In many races, candidates must raise tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to be taken seriously. Building that network takes time and access, and many qualified individuals do not have those networks.
There are also less visible barriers. Running for office can carry professional and personal costs. It can expose candidates and their families to scrutiny and criticism. For many capable people, the cost-benefit calculation leads them to conclude that running isn’t worth it.
Over time, these dynamics shape who runs — and who doesn’t. That, in turn, shapes the quality of leadership that emerges.
When fewer people are able or willing to enter the arena, elections become less competitive. Voters have fewer meaningful choices, and participation declines.
The result is a cycle that reinforces itself: Limited entry leads to limited competition, which leads to lower engagement.
If we want better outcomes from our government, it is worth paying attention to this pipeline. The quality of public leadership is not just a function of who wins elections. It is also a function of who is able to run.
This is not a call for any one policy or reform. There are many ways states and cities might approach these challenges. But it is a reminder of a simple principle: In most areas of life, competition improves performance. When more capable people are able to participate, systems function better.
Government is no different.
If we want more competitive elections, higher voter participation and better outcomes, we should ask a simple question: Are our systems making it easier — or harder — for serious, talented people to step forward and lead?
The strength of a democracy depends not only on how people vote, but on whether the system consistently attracts capable people to the ballot in the first place.•
__________
Patel is chair of The Center for Independent and Effective Government. Send comments to [email protected].
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.