Original question:

• What are the precedents of combining a national referendum with elections (either at national, regional or local level)?
• What are the pros and cons of holding these two events simultaneously?

Summary:

There are quite a few developed and developing countries all over the world that have held referendums at the same time as national elections – examples range from the US to Uruguay, Armenia, Taiwan, Slovakia and the Cook Islands to only mention a few – but there seems to be a lack of assessments on how this affected the implementation or the result of the referendum and/or the election. Preceding considerations and discussions regarding this decision also vary from case to case and from country to country.

When deciding whether or not to hold elections and referenda at the same time it is important to keep both practical/technical and political considerations in mind.

Tim Meisburger and Stina Larserud agree that there are both practical and political aspects to consider. While combining referenda with elections can save money and increase voter turnout, they can also cause incorrect associations (i.e. between the politician in office and the referendum proposed) for the vote. In the same way, protest votes are common when referenda are associated with elections. Virgina Beramendi Heine points out that there is often confusion among issues when voters are tasked with referenda and elections simultaneously. She cites the combination of referenda and elections in Armenia, Georgia, and Taiwan, among others. Sakuntala Kadirgamar Rajasingham Francesca Binda is in agreement that it can cause voter confusion.

 The most obvious practical advantage of arranging the two events simultaneously is the considerable cost savings that can be made, since ballot papers can be distributed at the same time, the same voters lists can be used, polling place personnel can be employed once instead of twice, voter information packages can be put together with information about both events and postage can be saved by sending it out only once. It is also plausible that holding simultaneous events would encourage governments and Electoral Management Bodies (EMBs) to harmonize legislation and procedures.

Looking at the political side of things, holding a referendum at the same time as an election can also serve as a way of increasing voter turnout (those engaged by the referendum will tend to cast their vote in the election as well and vice versa). On the one hand this may be something that in itself raises legitimacy for the elections, but it also means that referenda can be used instrumentally by incumbents to increase participation by their voters in the election, to secure re-election into office – instead of as a way of resolving an issue in genuine need to be put to the people. This can to some extent be dealt with in legislation by establishing a deadline for placing a referendum on the ballot quite far in advance of the election.  Francesca Binda points out the theory that the numerous controversial referenda on the 2004 U.S. ballot are seen to have motivated Bush voters to come to the polls who would have otherwise stayed home. Nadja Braun claims that this is a positive democratic phenomena, as is the case in Swiss elections, referenda bring out more voters, enhancing the democratic process. 

Among the likely disadvantages of holding an election and a referendum at the same time is the fact that despite overall savings, the practical, logistical and economic burden on a country will be enormous as certain things will take longer (e.g. counting, tabulation and reporting) and be more complicated and costly (e.g. voter education/information campaigns).

Looking at the possible political problems of holding these events simultaneously some things can be highlighted specifically. For example; a protest vote against a government risks having a spillover effect on the referendum – more so when held together with the election, than if they are held separately. It is also likely that the campaign messages will be harder for the parties to convey in a clear and concise manner with misconceptions among voters a possible result. This problem may be more salient in developing democracies than developed ones where voters have no or little previous experience from participating in elections.

Replies were received with thanks from:

• Tim Meisburger
• Stina Larserud
• Virginia Beramendi Heine
• Francesca Binda
• Nadja Braun
• Horacio Boneo
• Ayman Ayoub
• Sakuntala Kadirgamar Rajasingham
• Linda Edgeworth
• Michael Meadowcroft

Links to related resources:

• Direct democracy options in ACE Encyclopaedia
• Referendum in ACE Encyclopaedia
  
• Design and political issues of referendum in ACE Encyclopaedia
• Focus on Direct Democracy in ACE Encyclopaedia
• Research Centre on Direct Democracy

Quote from the ACE Encyclopaedia on Direct Democracy:

"Direct democracy is the term used to describe particular forms of vote within any democratic system. The term direct democracy is commonly used to refer to three distinct types of vote:

• referendums, which are votes on a specific single issue or piece of legislation (rather than for a party or candidate);

• citizen initiatives, whereby citizens can propose new legislation or constitutional amendments by gathering enough signatures in a petition to force a vote on the proposal; and

• recall, under which citizens can force a vote on whether to oust an incumbent elected official by collecting enough signatures in a petition."

Individual responses in full below:

Tim Meisburger:

From a technical perspective I cannot think of any reason why you would not hold these events at the same time (perhaps others can), as you would save a lot of money; but there could be many political reasons why you would not want to have a referendum at the same time as an election. For that reason, if you will consider the political as well as the technical (and I think you should), then I think it difficult to answer this question without context.

For example, in Nepal just now there is a debate going on about whether to have a referendum on the monarchy at the same time as an election for a constituent assembly that is going to re-draft the constitution (while also serving as an interim legislature). Technically, there is no problem holding them simultaneously, but many people feel one of the main purposes of the constituent assembly should be to debate the future powers (if any) of the monarchy, while others feel the question is simply too important (or too politically sensitive) to be resolved by anything less than a national vote.

Some of the main considerations that can be made when it comes to deciding whether or not to hold elections and referenda at the same time are:

• Practical considerations: logistical arrangements are likely to be less costly (in total) if the two are held simultaneously as many of the tasks do not have to be repeated (e.g. printing and distribution of ballots, voter registration, setting up polling stations etc.). At the same time, the logistical burden on one single day will increase and there needs to be sufficient capacity to handle one national election and one national referendum on the same day (counting will take longer, demands on voter education will be higher etc.).
• Timing a referendum with an election can be done to increase turnout in the election (or the other way around). Holding a referendum which is likely to engage supporters for the sitting government at the same time as a national election may be a smart move as more voters are then likely to turn out to vote in the election as well - thereby increasing the likelihood of reelection. Rumour has it this has been used by sitting governments to the extent where issues that were not even very important to them, or that they even knew they were likely to lose, were put to a referendum - just because it would get 'their voters' out to vote.
• A protest vote against a sitting government risks having a spillover effect on the referendum (rejecting the proposal made or endorsed by the government) even if the referendum is held separately from the election, but it's not unlikely that this spillover effect will be greater if the election is held at the same time.
• Related to the spillover effect is the fact that holding an election and referendum at the same time risks blurring the campaign messages and one or both events risk losing the focus they need during the campaign for voters to make an informed decision.

Virginia Beramendi Heine:

I would like to add that it is sometimes argued that combining polls can increase the risk that voters will confuse separate issues (e.g. the performance of the incumbent government can be confused with the issue on which the referendum is being held).  However, from an administrative point of view, it may be more cost effective to hold a referendum at the same time as an election.

There are some countries that have held referendums at the same time as national elections. However, there doesn't seem to be so many assessments on how this could have affected the implementation or the result of the referendum. 

The 2004 elections in Uruguay are one such example. Presidential and parliamentary elections took place at the same time as a referendum which approved a constitutional reform that defines water as a public good and guarantees civil society participation at every level of management of the country's water resources. 60% of the voters approved the referendum. However, opinion polls showed that a majority was unaware of the scope of the decision. Some have associated this outcome with the fact that the Socialist president-elect Tabaré Vázquez, the candidate of the left-wing Broad Front coalition, was one of the advocates of the constitutional reform.

IDEA's project on direct democracy is not collecting this information in particular, however, IFES' election guide shows that in the following countries referendums took place at the same time as either parliamentary or presidential elections: 

• In Armenia on 25 May 2003 parliamentary elections took place at the same time as a referendum which asked the voters to approve a series of amendments which would remove certain authorities reserved for the president and to balance powers between the executive and legislative branches. 
• In Georgia on 2 November 2003, parliamentary elections took place at the same time as a referendum which asked voters to vote on a constitutional provision which would reduce the number of members in the Supreme Council (Umaghiesi Sabcho) from 235 to 150 seats. 
• In Taiwan on 20 March 2004, presidential elections took place at the same time as a referendum which asked voter to decide whether to allow the government to strengthen its defence lines if the People’s Republic of China refuses to withdraw missiles aimed at Taiwan and whether the government should continue negotiations with the mainland to improve cross-strait relations.
• In Slovakia on the 3 April 2004, a referendum which asked voters to decide whether general elections should be held earlier than scheduled, took place at the same time as the first round of presidential elections. 
• In the Cook Islands on 7 September 2004 parliamentary and referendum (information about subject of referendum not available).
• In Belarus 17 October 2004 parliamentary and referendum (information about subject of referendum not available). 
• In Colombia 12 March 2006 legislative and referendum (information about subject of referendum not available).

Francesca Binda:

There was some discussion, immediately following the 2004 US elections, that controversial "initiatives" (referenda) motivated Bush voters who were not expected to come out to vote if only voting for the presidential race.  Once at the polling station to vote for their important issue, they also voted for Bush.

I'm not sure if the numbers or more in-depth analysis bears this out, but at the time it was seen as a brilliant political strategy by Bush operative, Karl Rove.

Nadja Braun:

In Switzerland, there are no national referendums during the elections to the National Council. This is mainly due to administrative reasons: vote counting in cantons with a proportional system takes some time and this should not be increased by counting votes of a referendum at the same time. However, in cantons with a majority system for cantonal elections, cantonal referendums and elections are held at the same time because of  voter turnout: holding referendums and elections at the same time attract (significantly) more voters and thus enhance democratic legitimacy.

To sum up the Swiss experience:

• pro referendums/elections at the same time: enhancing voter turnout and thus enhancing democratic legitimacy.
• contra: it could take more time to count all the votes, especially if the electoral system is a complex one.

Horacio Boneo:

In most cases there are no technical problems in having several elections and/or referenda at the same time. In the case of the US, you may have 30 or more elections/ referenda on the second Tuesday of November.  State or county referenda on issues that might include the opening on Sundays of a liquor store (real life example from Ohio) to serious constitutional issues, elections of Senators, Representatives, Judges, Sheriffs, member of School Boards, etc. It is argued that in developing countries people cannot cope with several referenda/elections at the same time, which is not true – there are quite a few examples of multiple elections in underdeveloped contexts going smoothly.

If you dig a little bit, you would find in most cases political reasons for holding the elections together or having them on separate dates. If a party has a very popular candidate for the Presidency, it would prefer holding simultaneous Parliamentary elections.  Referenda tend to be not so closely related to party politics/preferences, but there are always examples of political linkages with other elections and reasons for preferring given sequences – like the Uruguay and Nepal examples probably show.

In the case of the USA, the issue usually is getting out the voters, and referenda are shamelessly used to mobilize voters – antiabortion/antigay reforms for mobilizing the conservatives, proposals for raising minimum wages in the case of liberals. However, having referenda on that kind of issues is mostly an American (and Swiss) practice, and not too relevant for most other countries.

Ayman Ayoub:

In addition to what has been pointed out by other colleagues, I would mainly think that one should consider whether we are talking about a develoing democracy or a consolidated one, and whether we are in a post conflict situation or in a transitional process.

All these consideration affect voters behaviour and the freedom of their choice. 

Generally speaking, I am of the view that in developing democracies, where demcoratic culture and values are still in the making, and where the levels of voters awareness is rather limited to exercise their voting rights in a completely contious and free manner, different consultations and different level elections should be held separately. Voting for a president or a parliament would certainly tend to affect voters choice in a referndum that is held simultaneously, as voters would tend to vote in the referdum for the options that are defended by the candidates or parties of their choice in the elections, while they might have a different opinion otherwise. the same could be said of holding local elections together with national elections, for example.

These are obviously among the political asepcts of the matter. Technically speaking, and although might add complications and difficulties to the process, it would be more sound and cost effective to hold different elections and/or consultation at the same time. It would also encourage governments and EMBs to harmonize legislation and procedures.

Sakuntala Kadirgamar Rajasingham:

I am wary of mixing elections with a referendum as previously  mentioned voters may confuse the issues ...support for a single or cluster of initiatives / support for the party introducing the initiative and support for a party that they consider overall to reflect their aspirations in forming a government. 

In Nepal the decision now is that the Constituent assembly will decide by simple majority vote if the monarchy is to be retained.

PS: In 1982 Sri Lanka held a referendum on the question (NOT a direct quote but a paraphrase)  "Do you wish this existing Parliament to continue for a further 5 years and continue with the economic policies and advances that it has made"..  It received the required majority to carry the referendum and that was considered sufficient for not holding elections and continuing the life of that Parliament where the government had a 4/5th majority (secured previously under FPTP) and surely unattainable under the existing PR system. The government had introduced a liberal open economic policy and there were greater business opportunities, employment etc which swayed the voters to support the economic policies but not the entire parliament as constituted. There were many corruption allegations against govt MPs who who have lost their seats if an election was held, and even if the govt was returned to power, it would not get that majority which enabled it to make constitutional changes at will.

Sri Lanka would surely have counted as a consolidated democracy at that time (universal adut franchise was introduced in the 1930's)...

Linda Edgeworth:

As we can see, a question which on its face seems to be a simple one, opens the door on a number very important issues that can have very serious consequences, not just in terms of potential political manipulations when referenda are mixed with candidate elections, but also in terms of the kinds of issues that can be subject to referendum. In Armenia, the question regarding acceptance of the Constitution was tied to the presidential election. At the time, the administration was very keen to have the constitution accepted through the vote of the people. The elaborate government sponsored campaign that ensued throughout the pre-election period was totally one-sided, and there was no room for any dissenting opinion or debate. It is just another example of the potential danger of having referenda simultaneously with a candidate election.

But it is very difficult to argue against the cost savings by having multi-level and multi-question elections at the same time. In some jurisdictions legislation serves to minimize the potential for political manipulation such has been raised in this discussion by establishing a deadline for placing a referendum on the ballot quite far in advance of the election on which it will appear.

Circumstances related to refereda in the United States can get quite complicated and vary from state to state. One of the issues that has become a real problem in California with that the initiative process has been used as a way to dedicate budget funding for programs favored by the sponsors.  So, at every election there are lots of bond propositions or questions related to new programs. If the measure passes, it means that the funds are dedicated from the spending in the State's annual budget. Neither the legislature nor the administration can modify or redirect those funds regardless of the state of revenues, economic conditions or changes in priorities. Many states' laws limit the issues that can be a subject of a referendum or initiative. 

When California's governor could not get cooperation from the legislature he called special elections several times and the population supported his initiatives each and every time until they got weary of spending millions of dollars on special elections. His last attempt was a miserable failure and it became a major political defeat.

Michael Meadowcroft:

"What are the precedents of combining a national referendum with elections (either at national, regional or local level)? What are the pros and cons of holding these two events simultaneously?"

It happens interminably at US elections, with propositions to be voted on at the same time as the elections for public office.
It happens from time to time elsewhere and is not regarded as wildly unusual.
There are sometimes different provisions in the electoral law regarding registration for voting in referenda - Croatia, for instance, requires a voter to be on the register for twelve months in order to be able to vote in a referendum.

The question does, of course, beg the political issue of why have any referendum ever!