Final answer:
Jurisdictions often adopt nonpartisan elections to reduce political polarization, promote informed voting beyond party lines, and to counter issues like straight-ticket voting and gerrymandering. These elections encourage voters to focus on candidates' individual merits and are particularly relevant for local and judicial offices where impartiality is valued.
Step-by-step explanation:
Many jurisdictions have adopted nonpartisan elections because they aim to avoid the polarization that often comes with party affiliations, particularly in local and judicial office positions where the issues at hand are expected to transcend partisan divides. Without party labels, voters may focus more on the candidates' qualifications and stances on issues rather than their party alignment. This approach can help in combating political extremism since candidates are evaluated on their own merits, fostering a potential for more moderate and broad-based support.
Moreover, nonpartisan elections may address the issues arising from straight-ticket voting, in which voters select all candidates from a single party, potentially overlooking non-partisan candidates. In a nonpartisan system, the absence of party identification on the ballot encourages voters to consider each candidate individually, which can lead to more informed and deliberate choices. This also coincides with the belief that certain roles, such as judges or local officeholders, should operate outside the partisan sphere to better serve the community's interests impartially.
In addition, the implementation of nonpartisan election frameworks can be a response to the consequences of gerrymandering. For example, independent commissions for drawing political district boundaries, like the one in California, are intended to create more competitive and representative districts that appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, rather than catering to specific partisan interests.