50%/50% President Elections why not 60%/40%

[Kedas]

I find it strange/funny that US president elections are always around 50%.

because that is what you would get if everyone would choose without thinking.

 

So does this basically mean that they don't know what they are choosing?

[Lance]

So does this basically mean that they don't know what they are choosing?

 

I think that the two parties just represent opposite view points. Look at all the arguments in this section. Everybody here is split 50/50 but surely we know who we are picking.

 

 

In my experience I have observed that the majority of the population is idiots. Whether they know what they are choosing or not I don’t know. Interesting theory.

 

However I doubt this is limited to the US. I’m sure there are just as many idiots in the rest of the world.

[Douglas]

I find it strange/funny that US president elections are always around 50%.

because that is what you would get if everyone would choose without thinking.

 

So does this basically mean that they don't know what they are choosing?

Good question.... 1st of all, only 50% of the eligible voters actually vote.

Of the remaining 50%, I'd guess that 20% vote for the party their grandfather voted for, 20% don't have a clue who they're voting for, 20% vote for the party that has the best commercials, 10% vote for whom they've been told to vote and 30% actually know the issues and know who they will vote for.

[Pangloss]

The 50% turnout (of registered voters) in the last election was actually a record. Normally it's not even that much. I believe the actual tally was around 50 million for Bush and around 51 million for Gore. Gore's was a record, surpassing Reagan's. Bush was just under it. Both men scored well over the next mark, which was set by Clinton. (I'm just going by memory here, so don't quote me on these figures.)

 

But what I really wanted to say was that presidential elections aren't "always" 50-50. In fact that's *rarely* the case.

 

My favorite example is the 1972 election. Nixon was running for re-election, and of course this was the election during which Watergate happened, but it wasn't discovered for another year, so it wasn't a factor in the election itself. Polls showed the race to be close, but with Nixon ahead. As it turned out, Nixon won *49 states*.

 

This at the very height of Vietnam, mind you, when you would think that all the frustration and hostility from the 68/69/70 years would have resulted in a HUGE defeat for an incumbent. The reason most often stated for this was that Nixon succeeded in convincing voters that the war was not his responsibility (it wasn't) and that he would wrap it up (which he more or less did).

 

Now roll out the timeline a bit and take a look at the next two elections:

 

1976: Carter steamrolls Ford, who's perceived as a bumbling fool who pardoned Nixon. (When Nixon left office his approval rating was in the *TWENTIES*. Contrast with Bush's today, has been about the same as Clinton's when he left office, around 53%.) (Bush's approval is now around 49%, in a new poll out this week.)

 

1980: Carter's approval rating falls into the *TWENTIES* thanks primarily to the 1979 energy and hostage crises. Defeated in a huge landslide to Reagan, who receives the highest vote count in the history of the country (which stands for 20 years until Gore's mark in 2000).

 

This is all off the top of my head, really if you wanted to get detailed on it there are web sites out there with vote totals from each year.

[swansont]

But what I really wanted to say was that presidential elections aren't "always" 50-50. In fact that's *rarely* the case.

 

My favorite example is the 1972 election. Nixon was running for re-election' date=' and of course this was the election during which Watergate happened, but it wasn't discovered for another year, so it wasn't a factor in the election itself. Polls showed the race to be close, but with Nixon ahead. As it turned out, Nixon won *49 states*.

[/quote']

 

But that's electoral. I think the question is about popular vote. here is a list.

 

I'd say it's because the candidates move to the middle. If your view is so extreme that you don't represent at least 40% or so, there's little chance you get that far.

 

If you look at Carter v Reagan in '80, there was also John Anderson, who got votes from people who probably otherwise would have voted Democratic (if they would have voted). That race becomes a lot closer.

 

The blowouts happen when the other candidate is too far to the extreme. Goldwater in '64 and McGovern in '72 leap to mind.

[Douglas]

The 50% turnout (of registered voters) in the last election was actually a record.

Yes, and I also, am thinking from the top of my head. I think that the polls showed Reagan and Mondale in a fairly close race in '84. Yet Reagan won by a landslide taking 48 states, I believe he lost Mass. and Minn.

 

In '72, Nixon probably lost Ma also.

[Pangloss]

But that's electoral. I think the question is about popular vote.

 

You're right, and I can see how someone might get more of an impression that they tend to go 50-50 if they're looking at the total vote numbers (which I'm sure is what Kedas meant). But they still don't really break down 50-50 all that often.

 

I'd say it's because the candidates move to the middle. If your view is so extreme that you don't represent at least 40% or so, there's little chance you get that far.

 

Yeah, no question about it. I still maintain that most Americans ARE middle-groundes, even if 80% of them stick with one party or the other.

[Douglas]

But that's electoral. I think the question is about popular vote. here is a list.

 

 

If you look at Carter v Reagan in '80' date=' there was also John Anderson, who got votes from people who probably otherwise would have voted Democratic (if they would have voted). That race becomes a lot closer.

 

The blowouts happen when the other candidate is too far to the extreme. Goldwater in '64 and McGovern in '72 leap to mind.[/quote']

Talking about Anderson, the same can be said about Ross Perot in '92, he scooped about 20% of the vote, much of which may have gone to Bush.

 

About the '64 election, I don't think Goldwater was an extremist, it was LBJ who painted him as an extremist. Goldwater wanted to hit Vietnam with a real war, with intentions to win. LBJ didn't want a real war, he wanted a fake war. LBJ called G'water a war monger, yet 11 years later and 50,000 dead, I see LBJ as one of the worst presidents we ever had.

[swansont]

Yeah, no question about it. I still maintain that most Americans ARE middle-groundes, even if 80% of them stick with one party or the other.

 

But that wasn't really my point. You move to the middle to capture that fraction that are on your side of the middle. If you're conservative/liberal, you don't gain extra voters by becoming more so, you gain them by moderating a little.

[Aardvark]

But if you move to far to the centre you risk your more conservative or liberal supporters losing enthusium and not bothering to turn out to vote.

 

For instance G Bush knows that if he seems too centralist then the evangelical vote will be less bothered to turn out, and Kerry knows that if he is too centralist he risks losing more liberal voters to either apathy or Nader.

[Pangloss]

But that wasn't really my point. You move to the middle to capture that fraction that are on your side of the middle. If you're conservative/liberal, you don't gain extra voters by becoming more so, you gain them by moderating a little.

 

I agree. I didn't mean to spin your statement, you just happened to touch on one of my pet peeves. I quite agree with your analysis -- candidates definitely move to the center to get elected.

 

This gets back to the problem of how the nominees are selected in the first place. The primary system is badly in need of overhaul and national scoping. The Iowa caucus is a joke, the New Hampshire primary is mind-numbingly stupid, and so on. The system forces the candidates to run to certain, specific extremes in the primaries and then run back to the middle for the election. And we just have to deal with whatever candidates a few select groups in the NE decide to saddle us with. It just makes no sense at all.

 

Combine that with the contentious nature of the public eye, and the fact that WAY too much attention gets focused on this one race, completely ignoring incredibly import races elsewhere, and what you end up with are people pretending to be centralists who obviously aren't centralists at all.

 

This country has always succeeded by careful deliberation of the MIDDLE ground. Wars, legislation, whatever it is, those things which best define who we are when we are at our best come from the MIDDLE. When we're bipartisan. When we're compromising. When we're finding the best path in SPITE of conflicting ideologies.

 

This year's race SHOULD have been between Joe Lieberman and an incumbant John McCain. If it was, I'd have just as hard a decision to make as I currently do, but it would be postives on both sides, rather than negatives.

[swansont]

I agree. I didn't mean to spin your statement' date=' you just happened to touch on one of my pet peeves. I quite agree with your analysis -- candidates definitely move to the center to get elected.

 

This gets back to the problem of how the nominees are selected in the first place. The primary system is badly in need of overhaul and national scoping. The Iowa caucus is a joke, the New Hampshire primary is mind-numbingly stupid, and so on. The system forces the candidates to run to certain, specific extremes in the primaries and then run back to the middle for the election. And we just have to deal with whatever candidates a few select groups in the NE decide to saddle us with. It just makes no sense at all.

[/quote']

 

I quite agree. I have noticed that the democrats exclude unaffiliated voters from their primaries (or at least have in two states I have lived in, sort of). So they get their guy by appealing to the far left, and then have trouble winning the middle. If they had listened to the more moderate voters, who may not be registered democrats, they could run better candidates.