“Are Unions Democratic?” For that matter, is the Pope Catholic? Is water wet? Do bears … well, you get the point. But the title of Daniel DiSalvo’s new paper for the Manhattan Institute poses the question in a different sense: not referring to organized labor’s partisan proclivities but to the way the public-sector unions run themselves, and to the implications this has for public policy.

So, are government unions democratic? DiSalvo’s answer: “only superficially.” Turnout in union elections is often below 20 percent (even lower, at least slightly, than the turnout for the 2013 New York City mayoral election); the voters are skewed to older members focused more on retirement benefits than wages; incumbents go unchallenged for long periods an often anoint successors; and unions, especially at the state and national level, take positions with which most of their members disagree.

His proposed remedies:

1. Require unions to publicize electoral procedures and report election returns. In particular, unions should report the names of the candidates for various offices; whether members voted in person, by phone, electronically, or postal mail; and the number of members who voted, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage.

2. Require unions to adopt online voting systems, thereby eliminating cumbersome barriers to voting (such as traveling to the union hall to cast a ballot); improving transparency; speeding the dissemination of election results; and reducing the costs of holding elections.

3. Stop requiring union members to pay for advocacy that they do not support. Specifically, public-sector unions need to formalize their political decision-making by holding referenda to gauge their members’ policy preferences more precisely. The results of these referenda should be made public.