Howl Movie
Regional elections occupy an unusual position in most political systems. They are not national contests, and they are rarely as narrowly local as a municipal vote. Instead they sit in the middle layer of government – the state, province, region, or Land – where many of the public services people encounter most often are planned, funded, and delivered.
That middle layer has grown steadily more important. The OECD describes decentralisation as one of the most significant reforms of the past fifty years, a “silent revolution” that has shifted powers and responsibilities from central governments to elected subnational authorities. As that shift has unfolded, the elections that fill those authorities have attracted more attention – and more political weight.
What counts as a regional election
A regional election is a contest for an intermediate tier of government, positioned between the national legislature and local councils. The name varies by country: states in the United States and India, provinces in Canada, Länder in Germany, autonomous communities in Spain, and states or federal territories in Malaysia. What these tiers share is a directly elected assembly and, usually, responsibility for a defined set of policy areas.
The scale is not marginal. The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates that voters in 46 U.S. states will choose 6,139 state legislators in the November 2026 elections, deciding more than 83 percent of all state legislative seats. In Western Europe, research collected in the Handbook on Local and Regional Governance found that more than 80 percent of the electorate in 15 countries can vote in regional elections, and that the depth of regional authority has increased in close to half of the regions studied.
The “second-order election” idea, and where it breaks down
Political scientists have long described regional elections as second-order. The concept, developed in the late 1970s to explain voting in European elections, holds that when less is at stake, voters behave differently: they turn out less, they use the ballot to register dissatisfaction with the national government, and they reward smaller or newer parties.
The model is useful, but its limits are significant. A study of 2,933 regional elections published in the journal Regional Studies found that clear second-order effects appeared in only about 18 percent of cases. Regional elections, in other words, are frequently shaped by their own regional issues and identities rather than by national politics alone. Later research reframed these contests as part of a multilevel system, in which regional and national arenas influence each other in both directions.
What regional governments actually decide
The reason regional elections can carry real weight is that regional governments make real decisions. The division of responsibilities varies by country, but OECD data on subnational spending offers a rough picture of where regional and local authorities concentrate their resources. Education accounts for roughly 30 percent of subnational spending across OECD countries on average, health about 20 percent, and social protection around 10 to 15 percent. Transport, infrastructure, and environmental protection make up smaller shares.
For a voter, that translates into something concrete: schools, hospitals, clinics, and local transport can all fall within the reach of a regional ballot. Where those responsibilities are clear, regional elections become a genuine mechanism for judging a government on services people use every day.
Turnout tells a more complicated story
One of the most consistent findings in the literature is that participation tends to fall as the level of government moves closer to the voter. The figures below are drawn from different countries and years, so they are illustrative rather than directly comparable, but the pattern is hard to miss.
| Election level | Approximate turnout | Source |
|---|---|---|
| National parliamentary (United Kingdom, 2019) | About 67% | UK Parliament research briefing, Turnout at elections |
| Local council (United Kingdom) | Around 30% | UK Parliament research briefing, Turnout at elections |
| Presidential (United States, 2020) | 66.8% | Carnegie Corporation, citing the U.S. Elections Project |
| Midterm congressional (United States, 2018) | 50.3% | Carnegie Corporation, citing the U.S. Elections Project |
| Municipal (United States, 30 largest cities) | Under 15% | Portland State University / Knight Foundation study |
| School board (United States) | 5–10% | National School Boards Association estimate |
The pattern is a tendency, not a rule. Research on 29 regional elections found turnout gaps of up to forty percentage points between the highest- and lowest-participation regions. Where regional identity is strong, or where a regional parliament holds substantial power, regional turnout can approach national levels. Election timing matters as well: when regional and national votes are held on the same day, the gap between them narrows sharply.
When regional results travel upward
Regional elections rarely stay contained. Several national upper chambers are built directly on regional representation – Germany’s Bundesrat, Spain’s Senado, France’s Sénat, the Netherlands’ Eerste Kamer, and Switzerland’s Ständerat among them. In Germany, the Bundesrat gives the 16 federal states a formal role in national lawmaking. A majority requires 35 votes, and the votes of an individual state cannot be split, which means the political composition of regional governments can affect whether federal legislation clears the chamber.
Regional contests can also function as a national barometer. In federal systems, a run of state-level results is often read as a signal about the governing party’s standing, and it can influence the timing or the strategy of national elections. Malaysia’s state assemblies sit below the federal parliament, and state elections there regularly draw attention well beyond the state concerned; for a closer look at how one such contest was reported, see this further regional reporting.
Accountability, autonomy, and the design question
Whether regional elections strengthen democratic accountability depends heavily on institutional design. Research published in The Annals of Regional Science, drawing on 709 legislative elections in 73 democracies between 1960 and 2018, found that asymmetric decentralisation – where some regions hold more authority than others – tends to strengthen electoral accountability in regional elections while weakening it in national ones. The same dynamic increases variation in party support across regions.
The OECD’s guidance reaches a similar practical conclusion: decentralisation outcomes depend less on whether power is transferred than on how. Unfunded mandates, unclear divisions of responsibility, and limited administrative capacity at the regional level can all undercut the benefits that regional elections are meant to deliver. Fiscal arrangements matter too – when regional governments depend heavily on central transfers, the link between a regional vote and a regional decision can weaken.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between a regional and a local election?
A regional election fills an intermediate tier of government – such as a state, province, or region – that typically handles education, health, and regional planning. Local elections fill municipal or council bodies responsible for more immediate services. In most systems the two are separate contests.
Why is turnout often lower in regional elections?
Turnout tends to fall when voters perceive less to be at stake, which is the core of the second-order election explanation. Timing also matters: when regional and national elections are held on the same day, the turnout gap shrinks, and where a region has a strong identity or a powerful parliament, regional turnout rises.
Can a regional election change national politics?
It can. In systems where regional representatives sit in a national upper chamber, regional results can affect national lawmaking. State-level results are also widely read as a signal of national political momentum, even where they have no direct legal effect on the national government.
Do regional elections decide national policy?
Not directly, in most systems. Regional governments decide policy within their own competences. Their influence on national policy usually flows through shared institutions, intergovernmental negotiation, or the political signal that results send to national parties.
What is a second-order election?
It is a contest that voters and parties treat as less important than the main national election. The term was coined in the late 1970s to describe European Parliament elections and has since been applied to regional and local contests. Research shows it fits some regional elections well and others poorly.
Regional elections are best understood as neither a footnote to national politics nor a smaller version of it. They are the point where the general and the particular meet: where voters judge a regional government on regional services, and where those same judgments can ripple into institutions that shape the whole country. Whether that potential is realised depends on how authority, money, and responsibility are arranged – a design choice rather than a fixed feature of any political system.
