Every odd-numbered year, candidates for municipal office get the political stage to themselves. Those voters who bother to participate have the chance to select the folks who will guide their schools, approve local policies, set the town budget, and assess the property taxes on homes and cars that will pay for it all.

These are elections that largely play out on the pages and websites of the local newspaper, in door-to-door leafletting, via lawn signs and, in recent years, on social networking sites. The candidates are your neighbors. They run for mayor or first selectman, school boards, representative town meetings and land-use commissions. If elected, most will receive no pay — the exception being those seeking the top executive positions —and they see their involvement as public service. Few aspire to higher office.

Perhaps because these elections are low key and for the most part do not show up on TV news or in commercials, large segments of the electorate ignore them. In 2017 the statewide turnout of registered voters for municipal elections was 30%. That number is dragged down by particularly dreadful turnout in some of Connecticut’s larger cities, but participation of under 40% is pretty much the rule in municipal elections.

Compare that with the 65.2% turnout for the 2018 election, which included a race for governor, and the 2016 presidential election, which saw about 77% of registered voters getting to the polls.

Election calendars vary greatly from state to state, but Connecticut is an outlier in segregating all its municipal elections in odd-number years.

Secretary of State Denise Merrill has sent up a trial balloon, most recently in an interview with the Norwich Bulletin, as to whether it is time to rethink Connecticut’s election calendar. Should the state end its local, odd-year elections and consolidate elections in even years for local, state and national offices?

“I think we should probably have them all every two years, altogether. I would support that. I think that would simplify things greatly,” Merrill said.

Such a change would have its advantages. Turnout would be higher, meaning more voters involved in electing their local officials. It would also, arguably, address voter fatigue. Having elections every year is a lot. Campaigns no sooner end than speculation turns to the next election which, in Connecticut, is always around the corner.

But such a move would have its disadvantages as well.

While turnout would be greater, would those larger numbers of voters be casting an informed decision on the local candidates? Right now, perhaps one-third of voters participate in municipal elections because one-third bother to follow these races. Will their vote be diluted by voters attracted to the polls only by the state or national campaigns?

If all elections are lumped together in the same years, the views of local candidates could well be drowned out by the cacophony of campaign attention played to state and national candidates. Newspapers, their staffs thinner due to losses of advertising revenue and circulation in the digital age, would be hard pressed to give so many campaigns adequate coverage.

And in blue-state Connecticut, such a change would almost certainly benefit the Democrats. Merrill is a Democrat.

Democrats are dominant in holding all seven congressional offices, the governor’s seat and both chambers of the state legislature. Suburban and rural towns remain the last Republican bastion in Connecticut. Larger voter turnouts generally benefit Democrats in Connecticut, meaning the big turnouts seen in state and national elections could begin to erode the Republican strength at the local level if the election seasons are merged.

Our inclination is for the legislature to consider other election issues before turning to a debate on whether to abandon the odd-year municipal election model.

Earlier this year the legislature approved a constitutional amendment which, if enacted, would allow Connecticut to pass new laws allowing some form of early voting. The Connecticut Constitution restricts voting to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and to absentee ballots. Connecticut is one of only 12 states without early voting.

If the amendment is approved again next year it would appear on the 2022 general election ballot for an up or down vote. If voters give the OK, in 2023 the legislature could discuss potential early voting laws.

Stick to that initiative for now and let any debate on the timing of elections wait a few years.

The Day editorial board meets with political, business and community leaders to formulate editorial viewpoints. It is composed of President and Publisher Timothy Dwyer, Executive Editor Izaskun E. Larraneta, Owen Poole, copy editor, and Lisa McGinley, retired deputy managing editor. The board operates independently from The Day newsroom.