Voting and Accountability in a Non-Partisan Election

One of the simplest cues individuals use to inform their vote choice is a candidate’s party affiliation. If a candidate is part of the incumbent party, then any blame or credit for the conduct and policies of the previous administration becomes part of the information voters can use to determine their vote preference. In non-partisan contests, however, party cues are often unavailable. How do voters decide between candidates in such situations? Issue stances and personalities may sway preferences, but this paper focuses on how, and to what extent, opinions about the prior administration factor into vote choice, especially if there are no incumbents running. Does a lack of parties lessen the accountability function of elections? We investigate these issues in the context of the 2014 Toronto Municipal Election, using data from the Toronto Election Study. This election was unique for several reasons. First, attitudes toward the former mayor were shaped by high-profile political and personal considerations. Thus, there was the potential for different types of negative retrospective evaluations. Second, although there was no incumbent candidate, the former mayor’s brother ran for office. Surnames may have provided a proxy for party. Third, there was a sharp ideological divide between the main candidates. If voters were unhappy with the direction of the government, a clear ideological alternative was available.