Changing gears, I’m now going to shift to the presidential election. I want to look at two points, why are politics so much more polarized now and how that connects to why I vote.
Going back to about 1900 the voter turnout was close to 100%. Why? Well elections were a literal party, there would be wagons to pick you up and take you to the polls then you could go have a sweet party and get liquored up with all of the supporters of your party. Moreover, since the parties controlled their candidates with iron fists you knew exactly what candidate X would do in office. Now the downside was that your vote was not secret and if you voted the wrong way (i.e. against your party) you would risk losing your job, your house, and public services the party provided for you. This meant you voted not for good ideas but for a cool party and to keep the good times rolling for yourself.
Then during the Progressive Era this was stopped and political parties weakened so that elections became centered on candidates and not the party itself. Since that time, voter turnout has begun to fall drastically. As candidates gained more freedom from party constraints they had less incentive to follow the party line. Currently, candidates are more than willing to take money from their party but more than willing to disagree with it on many issues (see Southern Democrats for an example). The downside to this was that now it became much more difficult to find what a candidate believed, in the past the party dictated the platform and if the candidate disagreed or voted against it they were gone. Now to find it you have to research and even then the candidate may not stay true to their promises.
The time associated with deciphering political positions deterred many people from doing it. As such, we have come to rely increasingly on tv for our information (hence attack ads become more effective with the little research people do, and tv is expensive so this requires more money to reach voters, which means candidates need more fundraisers to do so). The impact of low turnout has been felt among the median voters the most. Most political scientists believe the electorate looks like a bell shaped curve with most of the population falling in the middle. These people are the biggest percentage but also the least likely to be attached to a certain party or issue and therefore see less reason to go out and vote (negative ads are thus meant to keep these people away from the polls by disgusting them with both sides and this leaves mainly the hardcore supporters who turnout). See below.
Because candidates cannot count on as many median voters coming to the polls they have to play to their “base” or those on the small sides to the left and right of the curve. These are the people most likely to come out to vote (countless polls have showed this, since when you have an issue you are attached to you come out to vote while those in the middle who are less attached to issues are less likely to vote), to give money, and to work for a campaign. Since John Q candidate cannot be sure that people in the middle are coming to vote he has to spend more time with those on the wings. Thus, he moves his own positions to mirror the wings, which advantages more extreme candidates. And when in office he has less incentive to compromise issues such as abortion because he knows that if he does the people on the wings (who put him in office) will put him out of office.
This isn’t a grand conspiracy; to stay elected politicians have to use their limited time and resources on those most likely to come out to vote. As the most likely to vote have moved to the extremes, so have politicians. The downside is that this leaves out a lot of the population in the middle as politicians do not speak to the issues they are concerned with but instead concern themselves with the issues important to the wings of the party.
This explains the rise of Republicans in recent years. Republicans have relied heavily on evangelical churches to get out the vote and raise their cause. These churches are large and have much better organization than those on the left so they can get out the vote much better than the Democrats, which has led to the rise of abortion and opposition to gay marriage as major issues. This also explains the power of the NRA. By making it seem like the sky is falling they can get tons of people (on the right mostly) out to vote which means politicians have to increasingly respect their positions.
The result has led to fractured politics and the disinclination of politicians to compromise or reach across the aisle as they rely on extreme groups for continued support. Of course, these are the very things that tend to dissuade those in the middle from voting, which only continues the trend.
While I may no longer be a strong left winger like I once was (I am still a lefty though), this is part of why I vote. I figure that if only 25% of Americans graduate from a four year college, college being the institution that lets us gain the tools to better understand and research political issues, those of us who have been to college have a responsibility to vote. As for the way I vote, it’s always the Democratic ticket. I have never knowingly voted for a Republican, while you can chalk that up to me being liberal it is also since I believe that having people who are not on the extreme and consistently vote for a party is the best way to produce stronger parties and therefore bring issues important to most Americans back to the forefront.
So there you have it. If you want to decrease the polarization in politics today get out there and vote because you staying away is what they are counting on.
Well you made it to the end, thanks for reading and leave a comment so I know what you think.
Going back to about 1900 the voter turnout was close to 100%. Why? Well elections were a literal party, there would be wagons to pick you up and take you to the polls then you could go have a sweet party and get liquored up with all of the supporters of your party. Moreover, since the parties controlled their candidates with iron fists you knew exactly what candidate X would do in office. Now the downside was that your vote was not secret and if you voted the wrong way (i.e. against your party) you would risk losing your job, your house, and public services the party provided for you. This meant you voted not for good ideas but for a cool party and to keep the good times rolling for yourself.
Then during the Progressive Era this was stopped and political parties weakened so that elections became centered on candidates and not the party itself. Since that time, voter turnout has begun to fall drastically. As candidates gained more freedom from party constraints they had less incentive to follow the party line. Currently, candidates are more than willing to take money from their party but more than willing to disagree with it on many issues (see Southern Democrats for an example). The downside to this was that now it became much more difficult to find what a candidate believed, in the past the party dictated the platform and if the candidate disagreed or voted against it they were gone. Now to find it you have to research and even then the candidate may not stay true to their promises.
The time associated with deciphering political positions deterred many people from doing it. As such, we have come to rely increasingly on tv for our information (hence attack ads become more effective with the little research people do, and tv is expensive so this requires more money to reach voters, which means candidates need more fundraisers to do so). The impact of low turnout has been felt among the median voters the most. Most political scientists believe the electorate looks like a bell shaped curve with most of the population falling in the middle. These people are the biggest percentage but also the least likely to be attached to a certain party or issue and therefore see less reason to go out and vote (negative ads are thus meant to keep these people away from the polls by disgusting them with both sides and this leaves mainly the hardcore supporters who turnout). See below.
Because candidates cannot count on as many median voters coming to the polls they have to play to their “base” or those on the small sides to the left and right of the curve. These are the people most likely to come out to vote (countless polls have showed this, since when you have an issue you are attached to you come out to vote while those in the middle who are less attached to issues are less likely to vote), to give money, and to work for a campaign. Since John Q candidate cannot be sure that people in the middle are coming to vote he has to spend more time with those on the wings. Thus, he moves his own positions to mirror the wings, which advantages more extreme candidates. And when in office he has less incentive to compromise issues such as abortion because he knows that if he does the people on the wings (who put him in office) will put him out of office.
This isn’t a grand conspiracy; to stay elected politicians have to use their limited time and resources on those most likely to come out to vote. As the most likely to vote have moved to the extremes, so have politicians. The downside is that this leaves out a lot of the population in the middle as politicians do not speak to the issues they are concerned with but instead concern themselves with the issues important to the wings of the party.
This explains the rise of Republicans in recent years. Republicans have relied heavily on evangelical churches to get out the vote and raise their cause. These churches are large and have much better organization than those on the left so they can get out the vote much better than the Democrats, which has led to the rise of abortion and opposition to gay marriage as major issues. This also explains the power of the NRA. By making it seem like the sky is falling they can get tons of people (on the right mostly) out to vote which means politicians have to increasingly respect their positions.
The result has led to fractured politics and the disinclination of politicians to compromise or reach across the aisle as they rely on extreme groups for continued support. Of course, these are the very things that tend to dissuade those in the middle from voting, which only continues the trend.
While I may no longer be a strong left winger like I once was (I am still a lefty though), this is part of why I vote. I figure that if only 25% of Americans graduate from a four year college, college being the institution that lets us gain the tools to better understand and research political issues, those of us who have been to college have a responsibility to vote. As for the way I vote, it’s always the Democratic ticket. I have never knowingly voted for a Republican, while you can chalk that up to me being liberal it is also since I believe that having people who are not on the extreme and consistently vote for a party is the best way to produce stronger parties and therefore bring issues important to most Americans back to the forefront.
So there you have it. If you want to decrease the polarization in politics today get out there and vote because you staying away is what they are counting on.
Well you made it to the end, thanks for reading and leave a comment so I know what you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment