Median Voter Theorem
On the spectrum of politics (or any other ideologically-based matter), personal opinions will inevitably vary from one extreme on the left to the opposite on the right. In a governing system such as that of the United States, where the population directly elects representatives to govern, the position a candidate holds on the spectrum pertaining to certain issues in relation to other candidates becomes increasingly important. Theoretically, two people coming from different backgrounds and different political parties should provide contrasting opinions on major issues, allowing an individual voter to clearly and easily see the difference between his options and choose which option would be best for himself and his country. According to the Median Value Theorem, however, in most cases, the candidate's personal views and priorities cannot be considered if a victorious election is the ultimate goal, leading to nearly identical candidates at the time of election. Although this theory contains flaws, both theoretically in the actual workings and ideologically in the results, it is still valid and important to today's political strategies.
The median voter is the voter closest to the center on an issue. If determined properly, half of the population holds a position to the left of this determined median voter and half to the right. According to the Median Voter Theorem, the median voter in a majority-rule election will be decisive so long as voters have single-peaked preferences. The theorem implicates that candidates who are successful in winning elections are those who are able to capture the vote of the median voter. If two candidates campaign against each other, they are each forced to take the political p...
... middle of paper ...
...andidate will have taken on those views determined to be most popular.
The want for acceptance and the need to be liked are natural desires within human nature, especially within political context. Politicians are often criticized for bending their beliefs and making different promises to different groups, often even contrasting in their ultimate goal, but is there really another option? In order to win an election and maintain power, one must win the support of the majority of the constituent. In order to do so, he must sacrifice some of his own goals and thoughts to become what the people want, what the median voter wants; he must become who they want to represent them, who they want in office, and, most immediately, for whom they want to vote. Only by taking on this median voter approach on some scale, can a candidate even hope to become more than a candidate.
Fiorina would claim that this is confusing positions with choices in that individuals are voting for candidates that are closest to them on an ideological spectrum (2005). Therefore, when an individual votes, they are not necessarily voting for a perfect representation of their views rather they are voting for the candidate that is most like them. This is a great rationalization as to how moderates would vote, however again the most partisan individuals are also the most engaged (Abromowitz and Saunders, 2008). Because the most polarized individuals are often the most politically active, they have the most influence on the government which results in the election of polarized candidates and
Every individual can stand for a race, gender, income, education, age, or a combination of countless categories. Another criticism of Pomper is the complication of “critical elections” and “temporary peculiarities.” Pomper defines a critical election as “not usually part of (these) stable periods, but serve as breaking points, ending one era and leading to the next” (Pomper 547). A “temporary peculiarity” marks surprising changes in party electorate, but does not mark the end of one era and the beginning of another. This makes elections hard to accurately classify until after the long-term effects have been realized.
8.In order for political success, both sides of the political spectrum must be critically examined in order to omit mistakes and for cultural advancement. Over two hundred years of United States politics have seen many changes. The names of parties may have changed, but the bi-partisan feature of the party-system has not. Republicans and Democrats are our two major partisan groups in present day America. Sometimes there are disagreement amongst party members that lead to dispute and a less concentrated effort. That is the beauty of a democracy, everyone is allowed to put their two cents worth in.
"Winner-take-all” is a term used to describe single member district and at large election systems that award seats to the highest vote getters without ensuring fair representation for minority groups. In the United States, these are typically single-member district schemes or at-large, block-voting systems. Under winner-take-all rules, a slim majority of voters can control 100% of seats, leaving everyone else effectively without representation.
In Sinclair’s analysis, voters, political activists, and politicians all play significant roles in creating and enforcing the ideological gap between the two major parties in Congress. This trend of polarization is rooted in the electorate
Singh, S., & Judd, T. (2013). Compulsory Voting and the Dynamics of Partisan Identification. European Journal of Political research, 52(2), 188-211. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/details.xqy?uri=/03044130/v52i0002/188_cvatdopi.xml
In the United States we are divided by the left and right side on the political spectrum; even further divided into political parties such as Republicans, on the right, and Democrats, on the left side. These two political parties show philosophical differences through their viewpoints on major topics such as the economy, separation of church and state, abortion, and gun control.
Guerrero (2010, p. 298-299) argues that the manifest normal mandate is the best description of a political candidate’s support, wherein the manifest normal mandate (MNM) refers to the amount of support expressed for a candidate through the electoral system in a certain area. While Brennan’s (2009, p. 537) “lesser of two evils” paradigm addresses the fact that voters must sometimes vote for a candidate they don’t wholly support, I think that Guerrero misses another important case: the case in which a voter supports two candidates, but cannot vote for both because they live in a jurisdiction with a one-vote electoral system. This paradigm, which I will refer to as the “greater of two goods”, could cause a candidate’s MNM to be much lower than the candidate’s actual normative mandate, which refers to the “degree of support that [the candidate] has from those individuals living in the jurisdiction over which [they] do or might govern” (Guerrero, 2010, p. 275).
With respect to every election race, we are reminded that decisions are both profoundly charged typical customs of a voting based system in a democratic society and is a key procedural part of our political system. Both segments of the political elections, typical and procedural, serve key functions at all levels of our political system.
The public falls into three main traps about politicians. The first main trap that the public falls into is “The Leader-and-Follower Trap.” The public wants politicians to be leaders, but when they do not lead the way citizens want, they are disliked. Expecting politicians to lead the way they believe the country should go and also follow what citizens want is unfair to them, (Medvic p. 9). Another trap that the public falls into is the “The Principled-and-Pragmatic Trap.” The public wants politicians to stand up for their beliefs, but to also negotiate to solve issues...
Today, political parties can be seen throughout everyday life, prevalent in various activities such as watching television, or seeing signs beside the road while driving. These everyday occurrences make the knowledge of political parties commonly known, especially as the two opposing political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Republican and Democrats have existed for numerous years, predominantly due to pure tradition, and the comfort of the ideas each party presents. For years, the existence of two political parties has dominated the elections of the president, and lower offices such as mayor, or the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, this tradition continues from the very emergence of political parties during the election of 1796, principally between Federalist John Adams and Anti-federalist Thomas Jefferson. Prior to this election people unanimously conformed to the ideas of one man, George Washington, and therefore did not require the need for political parties.1 However, following his presidency the public was divided with opposing opinions, each arguing the best methods to regulate the country. Ultimately, the emergence of different opinions regarding the future of the United States involving the economy, foreign relations, ‘the masses,’ and the interpretation of the Constitution, led to the two political parties of the 1790s and the critical election of 1800.
During the second half of the past century the notion that, political science should be treated as a science became extremely popular among academics specially in the United States. One of the most prominent exposers of this school of thought was Anthony Downs, who developed a theorem to explain in a rather economic sense, how and why voters behave in a certain way when it comes to voting. Downs did not only applied his theory to the way voters behave, he also used it to explain the way political parties align themselves when it comes to elections in a two and a multiparty system nevertheless this essay will analyze Downs’ claims about a two party system only. This essay argues that the Downs’ model has proven to be accurate in many cases throughout history, nevertheless it makes a series of assumptions about voters and parties that can not be considered realistic neither in 1957, when he published his paper An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy in 1957 nor in 2013. This essay also acknowledges that fact that this theory might help to explain how parties behave but it is by no means the only explanation. Furthermore this essay will prove that it is a multiplicity of factors rather than an economic theory what can help us understand why parties behave the way they do. In order to support the argument previously stated this essay will state and critically analyze a number of Downs assumptions, then his theory will be outlined. Then it will carefully consider how effective it has been at predicting the way in which parties align themselves by examining the behavior of political parties during general elections in different countries.
In order for a politician to make his way up the ranks, he usually needs to build a strong intra-ethnic coalition followed by inter-ethnic support. This can be a difficult task because the the politician has to please everyone, which makes him seem “bland” to his original supporters.
Politics, although a very abhorred profession, is a necessity for society, and requires good leaders who make good political decisions for their constituents. Unfortunately, there is always a negative connotation associated with politicians, as they are usually seen as corrupt, lying, and scheming people. There are many dif...
In society it is hard to break away from boundaries, people like to stick with majorities vote. Ever notice why people follow the crowd? Even though they probably don’t agree with what they stand for. This is because people do not want to stick out and be the odd one. They like to feel secure and the fact that they’re not alone. People tend to just follow the crowd due to their lack of