Future Research Agenda
The debates previously outlined cannot be resolved through argument alone. Throughout the gathering and in the pre-convening survey, participants identified specific gaps in research where competing theories could be adjudicated with the right data.
What Explains Variation Among State Parties?
We assume that state parties have hollowed out, but we lack systematic knowledge of what they actually do. Some state parties were cited as functional (namely, Utah, Georgia, Arizona, and Virginia), but we don’t know what distinguishes them from dysfunctional ones or even how to measure the difference.
A scoping review would ask: What existing research describes state party activities and capacity? What data sources exist (Federal Election Commission filings, state disclosures, prior surveys)? What do practitioners know that has not been systematically documented? What variation exists that could be exploited for comparative analysis?
Where Do Local Parties Remain Functional?
A similar, if not more acute, gap exists at the local level. While one participant, as noted earlier, said that local party committees become “performative anger echo chambers,” another described communities where new activists revitalized dormant parties after 2016. Both could be true in different places, but we do not know the distribution, the patterns, or the causes.
A scoping review would ask: What proportion of county parties are active or dormant? What do we know about who participates and why? What existing data or surveys could be assembled? What would a systematic mapping exercise require?
How Are Parties Shaped by Internal Processes?
The centralization-versus-democracy debate generated strong claims but little U.S. evidence. Comparative work suggests internal democracy produces extremism; practitioners defend democratic processes as legitimate and functional. One survey respondent offered a detailed specification: State parties vary in how they select officers, structure local-state ties, and integrate elected officials, and these variations could be studied.
A scoping review would ask: What do we know about variation in state parties’ internal structures? Has anyone studied the relationship between internal organization and outcomes (candidate quality, electoral success, activist engagement)? What data would be needed to test competing claims?
These questions directly address whether parties should centralize authority or deepen member participation. How they are answered will have major implications for reform strategy.
What Does Party Competition Do for Leadership?
If noncompetitive environments fail to develop political talent, that is a mechanism connecting lack of competition to governance failure—and an argument for prioritizing structural reform.
A scoping review would ask: What do we know about how competition affects who runs for office? Are there natural experiments involving redistricting or demographic shifts that could isolate the effects of competition? What data exist on candidate quality and career trajectories across competitive contexts?
Why Don’t More People Get Involved?
A survey respondent posed the following questions: “Why don’t more people get involved in local party work? What are the barriers and how can they be overcome?” One political scientist offered a hypothesis: When instrumental benefits are low and barriers high, “you get weirdos.” But we do not know systematically what barriers to participation matter or how to lower them.
A scoping review would ask: What research exists on motivations for party activism? What do we know about barriers (time, culture, awareness, perceived efficacy)? Have any interventions been tested? What would a rigorous study of barriers and inducements require?
How Does Fundraising Affect Trust and Participation?
The gathering achieved strong consensus that predatory fundraising damages parties, but a survey respondent pointed out the need for a more precise understanding: “How does reliance on mega-donors versus broad grassroots fundraising affect public trust and perceptions of corruption, and how do those perceptions feed back into turnout, trust in institutions, and party strength?”
A scoping review would ask: What evidence exists on fundraising’s effects beyond immediate revenue? Have different fundraising models been compared? What data exist on donor experience and its downstream effects? Could experimental or quasi-experimental designs isolate fundraising’s impact on trust?
If predatory fundraising significantly damages party brand and suppresses engagement, “banning bad vendors” becomes a strategic imperative, not just an ethical preference.
Where Does Good Political Leadership Come From?
We know that “many of our leaders come out of states,” but “we don’t know what the pipelines are,” one researcher noted. Ideas such as political fellowships and state party leadership development programs were suggested. But we lack systematic knowledge of what pathways actually produce effective leaders or which interventions support talent development.
A scoping review would ask: What do we know about career trajectories of state and local political leaders? What role do formal programs versus informal networks play? What research exists on leadership development in political contexts compared to the corporate or nonprofit realms? What data could support career pathway analysis?
How Do Party Committees Function Internally?
A survey respondent captured the gap precisely: “Everybody who looks at actual dynamics of party committees, DNC or state parties, observes the petty rivalries that look like high school student government, but nobody has actually gone beyond that observation to explain just how those dynamics work and what it means.” One expert noted that even basic information about party structures, such as DNC membership lists and state party bylaws, are opaque.
A scoping review would ask: What research exists on internal party committee dynamics? What ethnographic or interview-based work has been done? How do formal structures relate to actual power distribution? What would a systematic study of committee functioning require?