
Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close? - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-close
======
komali2
This is what I don't like about the current zeitgeist. Things are either black
or white. You are either Red or Blue. Conservative or Liberal. Democrat or
Republican. Right or Left. There is no room in this political system for a
pro-life atheist, or a pro-gun liberal, or an anti-war economic conservative.
There's no room on the internet for a third party voter, or someone who both
believes cops lives matter AND civilian lives matter, or any other middle
ground. You're either a 4chan user or a Tumbler user, you're either a
Hillarybot or a Trumpbot.

Reasons for this I believe include upvote/downvote trains on the internet,
clickbait headlines, and networks streamlining content to cater to certain
audiences. People who watch Fox news don't want to hear about Trump rape
allegations, they want to watch news casters talk about Evil Hillary. It's the
reverse for CNN. Remember in the Bush era how blatantly Fox news was a
Republican news-horn, and how the case is the same now for CNN and Clinton?

Euck. Can't stand it. No room for moderates, your voice won't get heard if you
aren't making _someone_ stamp their feet.

Ninjaedit: I mean honestly how is it possible that of the 300 million people
spread across one of the largest (geographical) countries in the world and one
of the most diverse populations on the world, exactly _half_ want _one_ person
to represent them, and exactly _half_ want _one other person_ to represent
them. It doesn't make sense.

~~~
Practicality
I don't get why we don't just have a moderate party that represents the
majority. Despite what the news would seem to have us believe most people are
moderate, rather than one extreme or the other.

~~~
barsonme
First, the two major parties are so incredibly established that third parties
barely exist. So, starting a third party that can compete with the other two
is near impossible.

Second, since radio and television (media) started catering towards individual
interests (echo chamber) people get so wrapped up in "Hillary/Trump/Somebody
is so evil!" that they _don't_ want to experiment because it could cause the
person they dislike to win.

Third, nobody cares about politics. We get ~40% turnout in midterm elections,
~60% for presidential. That's pitiful. Those who vote are those who _really_
like voting--those who are engaged.

To break the stranglehold you'd need:

\- people to stop consuming sound bite media (Now This, Twitter) and tailored
media (talk radio, some major news stations)

\- better civic engagement at the local level (this is _the_ most important
bit)

\- better civic knowledge (the previous bullet point is predicated on this
one)

\- people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe
weirdo

~~~
myowncrapulence

      people willing to run for office as a third party _and_ not be a fringe weirdo
    

I genuinely believe Bernie could have won if he stayed independent. The two
political parties are owned and operated as Corporations. They can choose
whoever they want to represent them. There are no laws governing their inter-
party behavior. This is why non-party candidates need to be taken seriously.

~~~
komali2
I voted for Bernie, but how could he win independent if he couldn't win the
Democratic primary?

~~~
yesiamyourdad
Because the primary/caucus process disenfranchises the majority of the
electorate.

I believe this is why the GOP produces such poor candidates in the last 20
years or so; they must pander to the hard core of the party to become a
candidate, and the people that pass that test are almost always too far
removed from the electorate to win the general.

This is also why we're devolving to a system of ruling families. Clinton was
never the best candidate. She was the presumed candidate and the candidate
preferred by the party core, so nobody was willing to challenge - except
Sanders who could seriously run on ideology.

------
msluyter
A similar take on the issue in this old Slate article:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_sp...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles_special/2002/10/fiftyfifty_forever.html)

Choice quote:

"But why should we expect the deadlock to be broken at all? Think of it in ...
well, cheap Darwinian terms. Imagine that we have a two party system, and each
party is a collection of status-seeking individuals looking for power by
winning a greater "market share" of the vote. Imagine that they each have
their ideological principles --one is more to the left, one more to the right
-- but these principles are quite flexible in the face of imminent or repeated
failure at the polls. Over time, as each party crafts its message to maximize
its appeal -- and adjusts its message after each election to regain any lost
share of the votes -- wouldn't one expect the system to reach a roughly 50-50
equilibrium, in which every election was a cliffhanger?"

~~~
ktRolster
There is no position that either party holds so strongly that they wouldn't
switch immediately if it became expedient.

Which party is the 'pro-war' party? Which party is the 'pro-public healthcare'
party? Which party is the 'small-government' party? Both parties have been on
both sides of these lines in the last two decades.

Yes, and you can see it happening after every election. For example, as soon
as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity, _both parties_ switched
position, saying they favored it to some degree. Democrats switched faster
(because of their local politics), but Republicans had a gay speaker at their
convention.

One of the toughest issues used to be abortion, until democrats softened on it
somewhat, and they let anti-abortion candidates into the party (which is why
Bart Stupak, a democrat, held up Obamacare based on opposition to abortion).

Democrats were anti-war under Bush (but they voted for his wars anyway), and
Republicans were anti-war under Clinton (but they voted for his wars anyway).

If any view on an issue is clearly a loser, no candidate will espouse that
view.

~~~
morgante
> For example, as soon as gay marriage passed the 50% level of popularity,
> both parties switched position, saying they favored it to some degree.

Where are you getting that from? The Republican party platform explicitly
condemns gay marriage and wants to ban it federally. [0]

The fact that they're willing to accept millions from a gay Republican is
hardly evidence of a changing worldview.

[0] [http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-
marriag...](http://time.com/4411842/republican-platform-same-sex-marriage-
abortion-guns-wall-street/)

~~~
ktRolster
Read carefully what I wrote, and I don't think you will disagree with it. Some
Republicans oppose gay marriage, but so did most Democrats a few years ago,
including the president and the current Democratic candidate. Any movement is
a change in position.

On the other hand, there are Republicans who've fought for gay rights for a
while, see for example: [http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/opinion/the-
untold-sto...](http://bangordailynews.com/2012/05/10/opinion/the-untold-story-
of-the-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal/)

The libertarian wing of the Republican party has favored gay rights for a long
time, even if they didn't openly fight in favor of them.

If you want to see a switch like this happen again, watch marijuana
legalization. Right now, most politicians oppose it, but as soon as enough
polls come out showing you can win an election based on that issue, both
parties will come out in favor of it more-or-less, almost immediately.

~~~
morgante
> Read carefully what I wrote, and I don't think you will disagree with it.

I don't disagree with you saying the Democrats switched position, but I 100%
disagree with the notion that the Republican party is "somewhat" in favor of
gay marriage. The party platform explicitly condemns the idea and calls for a
complete ban on gay marriages.

I don't dispute that _some_ Republicans support gay rights, but that no more
proves that the Republican party supports it than the fact that some
Republicans believe the moon landing was faked means the Republican party
"somewhat" believes the moon landing was faked.

In practice, what happens when a contentious issue like this gains majority
support is that one major party adopts it into their platform and the other
party mostly tries to stop talking about it in the general election (thereby
avoiding making it an issue while still holding on to the voters who oppose
it). That's what you're seeing with gay marriage now and, historically,
racism.

------
harshreality
> Also, Trump is not acting like a rational ice cream seller. He has not
> appeared to move his policy portfolio, to the extent he has one, toward the
> center. “Rational candidates end up pivoting, and trying to move as much as
> they can back toward the center. But of course right now there’s one
> presidential candidate who’s not doing that at all,” Tom Vogl, a Princeton
> economist, told me.

Because the "rational" policy depends on politics being 1-dimensional. Trump
has refused to deal with politics that way.

The ice cream theory is how things work normally, the same way that Newtonian
mechanics works normally, but when you find yourself in a situation with
extreme gravity wells or high velocities, using Newtonian mechanics to solve
problems can get you killed.

Everyone knows politics isn't really one-dimensional. It just ends up being
treated that way in plurality voting races because mathematics enforces it,
unless you want to take a big risk and upset the apple cart. When you get an
opponent who can triangulate an extreme non-centrist position in multi-
dimensional politics, moving to the 1-dimensional center might be fatal
because of negative traits that centrism implies on certain dimensions that
the other candidate has made the campaign about.

------
jlj
9% of American voters was all it took for Clinton and Trump to win the
primaries.

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/n...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-
percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0)

The "public" debates are sponsored by a partisan non-profit that is controlled
by the Democrats and Republicans. Ogliarchs do not like competition. Their
tax-exempt status is being challenged in court but other lawsuits have been
unsuccessful.

[http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/Memor...](http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities.pdf)

Polling requirements for other political parties are arbitrary 15%, but the
media companies write the polls to exclude minor party candidates, and the
major parties control the media.

Billions $USD are spent on political advertising and propaganda. The Citizens
United case allows unlimited spending for political activities.

Congress does not have term limits, further consolidating power within the
major parties.

Most Americans don't know or don't care that there are other options. In WA
there are 7 candidates on the ballot. But in the left/right paradigm that the
powers insure is the only public dialogue, there will always be a race to the
middle. This explains why:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theorem)

I'll be voting for Gary Johnson. Ignoring biased media accounts of him, he's
one of the few honest candidates and his platform mostly aligns with my own.
Being public about this has cost me some relationships this year. I've never
seen the amount of negativity and belligerance on social media. The only good
thing to come of it, is I finally deleted my Facebook account.

This election has brought out the worst in us, and we will get who we deserve
on November 8th.

------
mtw
This would have been the perfect election to have a third alternative. But
unfortunately, the american political system is not made for this. Time for
change?

~~~
wrsh07
There's a "law" that describes this: Duverger's Law [1]

Pedantry follows:

First past the post is [more or less] the election system we have - you select
one candidate. Candidate with plurality [that's a generalization of a
majority, ie the person with the most votes even if they don't have > 50%]
wins.

There are lots of alternatives, and even a ballot initiative in Maine [2] to
switch to a different type of voting system known as Ranked Choice Voting.

New types of voting systems are exciting, but complexity lends itself to a
poor user interface. So more sophisticated forms of voting actually depress
poll #s [I'll just cite Harry talking about this ballot initiative in this
podcast [3]].

If you're looking to ever have a real alternative to the big two, the path to
that is convincing your local government to switch voting systems.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)
[2]:
[https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiativ...](https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Ranked_Choice_Voting_Initiative,_Question_5_\(2016\))
[3]: [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elections-podcast-
countd...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/elections-podcast-
countdown-11-days/)

[Edit: put scare quotes around law]

~~~
abecedarius
The issue of complexity is why I'd push for approval voting (i.e. you can
upvote multiple candidates).
[http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/](http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/) shows some of the
weirdness that comes up with ranked choice voting (what I'd always heard of
before as instant runoff voting). It looks even more surprising than what we
have!

I've been wondering recently if California would go for a ballot initiative to
change their _primaries_ to approval voting or score voting or some other
reasonable improvement. Since recently the state has open primaries, meaning
you might end up with a general election between two Democrats, or two
Republicans, and other weirdness. I can imagine less resistance to a change
here, than for the mechanism of the general election.

~~~
wrsh07
Majority judgment or judgment voting is interesting / more general than merely
up vote + down vote.

I think the most important thing is for voters to want to experiment. And to
be engaged.

------
LordHumungous
>The competition for votes between the Republican and Democratic parties does
not lead to a clear drawing of issues, an adoption of two strongly contrasted
positions between which the voter may choose. Instead, each party strives to
make its platform as much like the other’s as possible

Problem with that theory is, the two parties aren't close _in the slightest_.
Democrats prefer expanding the social safety net, minority rights, etc.
Republicans prefer... the opposite.

~~~
ktRolster
_Democrats prefer expanding the social safety net_

Which party had a healthcare plan in 2008? Was the 'individual mandate' a
Republican or Democratic idea?

------
codingdave
The chart at the top of this article directly opposes their own premise that
presidential elections for the last 100 years have been close to 50/50.

~~~
cafard
Indeed. Apart from Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, the two really close elections of
the 20th Century involved third parties: Wallace in 1968, Nader in 2000.

~~~
bryanlarsen
I guess it's a matter of perspective. In my eyes, even the blowout of 1984 was
fairly close. Mondale got over 40% of the vote, which is enough to win with a
wide margin in most countries where there are more than two viable parties.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
True. But if there were more than two viable parties, Mondale wouldn't have
gotten 40% of the vote...

------
rahrahrah
The median voter theorem isn't the whole story, not even close. In particular,
it assumes that most of voters are driven by what parties say about themselves
in terms of policy, which is manifestly not true. When Trump says he won't cut
social security, people from deep republican states say "yeah he cares about
the american people, he's with the little guy", whereas when a democrat says
the same thing they go "boo he wants to social medicine, commie".

There was this study that showed when remove parties from policies, something
like 90% of the population wants free health care for all, free education for
all, richer people to be taxed more, not less. 90% isn't really split down the
middle.

------
SapphireSun
Here's an analysis of the problems with First Past the Post which nearly
always generates a two party system:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)

~~~
sampo
USA gets some slack for being more or less the first (still existing)
democracy in the world. But in the modern world, First-Past-the-Post should
not be considered full democracy anymore, but only some level of proto-
democracy, since proportional representation systems are so much better.

It's like, democracy-wise, Americans are all still driving around in Ford
T-Models.

~~~
mvid
Is there a way to have proportional representation for a single person elected
office? I understand how it works in parliament or multiple person offices,
but isn't there still a necessity for a direct voting mechanism when you are
electing a single person?

~~~
sampo
> Is there a way to have proportional representation for a single person
> elected office?

No. (Well maybe runoff voting would be a slight improvement.)

My point was that with proportional voting, you get more than two viable
parties in the parliament, and thus the whole political landscape will be
different. And more than two parties will be putting forward their
presidential candidates, too.

------
lutorm
The other dimension is turnout. With the ridiculously low turnout in US
elections, the people not voting could probably elect a third candidate if
they all suddenly decided to.

It seems that elections are won and lost at least as much by whose supporters
bother to show up as by people switching allegiances.

------
eli_gottlieb
While the article nicely deploys undergrad political science, I don't really
think that the _median_ voter theorem can possibly be true as described. The
thing is, the nominal "center" around which the two-party system orbits
_moves_ , on timescales of decades. If we assume both parties gravitate
towards a genuinely "privileged" (in the sense that the origin point of a
coordinate system is privileged) center, it shouldn't do that: the center
should remain exactly where it allows the two parties to split the country
down the middle and never shift.

Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further
and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s. Prior to that,
during the fifth party system, the political center rested with a coalition of
urban and Southern working-class Democrats.

Now in our current election, the center seems to be moving into wealthy
suburbs and Silicon Valley, libertarian-lite.

The interesting question is what sort of forces move the center and alter the
composition of the party-system at any given time.

~~~
zeveb
> Instead, what we observe is that our political center has been moved further
> and further into the Republican Party, ever since the '70s.

Perhaps in an economic sense, but hardly in a cultural sense (other than guns,
is there a single Republican cultural issue which has been winning against its
Democratic inverse?).

~~~
eli_gottlieb
You're right: the cultural center has shifted glacially to the left over time,
with erratic jumps back to the right when the Republicans actually hold
supermajority power, followed by further gradual leftward drift when they lose
it.

Though in an economic sense, yeah, my original point stands. And actually,
it's strengthened in a way: how can we talk about the median voter theorem
pushing the parties to the center if they spent the whole most recent party
system both moving strongly to the right on economic issues while moving
erratically but consistently to the left on social issues? That would mean
there isn't even one center!

------
golemotron
The Median Voter Theorem is too specific. Both sides don't have become as much
like each as possible to compete. They can compete by taking positions on new
issues progressively over a campaign to seek advantage or by reframing earlier
positions.

------
kordless
Dissonance, basically. Dissonance manifests as diametrically opposed views in
society. It's also what makes reality, reality. See "this video will make you
angry" on Youtube for the meme context.

------
saalweachter
tldr: Article claims elections are close because the two major parties are
intentionally ideologically similar.

I am not impressed by the article, which does not delve into actual party
positions, reasons voters give for voting, or well-known blocks of voters, and
instead gives an analogy about ice cream vendors.

~~~
waqf
Then you missed the point of the article, which is about _why_ the parties in
a system like the US's can be expected to be ideologically similar, based on
game-theoretic considerations.

I mean, you may have the opinion that it's a trivial or incorrect point that
wasn't worth expressing, but you seem not to be aware that it's there at all.

(tl;dr: you didn't like the article because it had the temerity not to be the
article you were expecting. Who knows, if one read such articles one might
learn something one didn't already know!)

~~~
saalweachter
Well no, it's more that I thought it was completely insane to state that the
Republican and Democratic parties are ideologically similar. They diverge
radically on a large number of issues that voters care about. So talking about
"why they become similar" is inane.

------
vonklaus
Polling data is lagging, but the state department just released >300 emails.

Not unlikely U.S is source of leak not Russia. Total media blackout. NYT,
Bloomberg, CNN, WaPo, ect.

538 has a 3.1 popular vote margin and in the last 24ish hours Trump has gone
from 80/20 to 60/40\. Many sides manipulating information, so both amplify
their candidate. Going to be very close

~~~
maxerickson
There is no blackout.

[http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-
state-...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/03/politics/clinton-emails-state-
department/index.html)

[http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-11-03/state-
dept-releases-new-batch-of-clinton-e-mails)

~~~
vonklaus
0 mention of wikileaks. NYT hasn't weighed in, had to fire a staff member for
feeding HRC intel. In fact, there is virtually no mention that wikileaks is
actively disclosing emails. One article indicating "voters already made up
their minds". I think they are both scumbags, it's just that it is absurd that
NYT isn't even trying to spin, just pretending it didn't happen.

I have been getting updates via a fucking uncharged fugitive seeking asylum
from my country and reading updates via RT (Russian News). I feel sick to my
stomach and I am _very_ cynical.

~~~
maxerickson
Wait, what are you saying they are blacking out?

NYT is covering the Wikileaks emails:

[http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks](http://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/wikileaks)

Also, are you confusing CNN firing a commentator with the NYT? Donna Brazile
was not 'a staff member' at CNN, they paid her to go on TV and babble, not as
a reporter. She acted in bad faith, but she wasn't in a journalistic role.

~~~
vonklaus
Sorry, yes am getting them confused. Trying to figure out what is going on
with little sleep and email data. I am embarassed I made those mistakes but it
is also telling.

I am not contending there is a blackout-- that was an over reaction, but all
major networks are barely mentioning much of the disclosures or even showing
HRC in that bad of a light. If this was Gary Johnson-- who most people dont
know; would ve surprised if state dept & WL werent front page.

Bloomberg, CNN, NYT, WaPo, CBS, NBC are running with blatant propaganda. Just
because I find HRC to be a dangerous, doeNt mean I support T.

The state dept/FBI are releasing data dumps on a former senator & secretary of
state as well as pursuing her investigation of criminal activity. None of
these papers allude to that scary fact, or the scarrier fact that there is a
schism internally as well.

Comcerned.

