Here is a simplified model illustrating the centrifugal
force problem with the current presidential nominating
system. (In physics, centrifugal force refers to the
effect that pulls you outward, away from
the center, if you are in a rotating frame of
reference.) Suppose that views on government policy
can be arranged along one dimension, with voters
evenly distributed from one end (we’ll call it position 0)
and the other end (we’ll call it position 100).
Assume that candidates take a position along this
scale, and that voters will vote for whichever candidate
is closest to their position.
In a final election with two candidates, the candidates
will be pulled toward the center. If one candidate
is at position 55, then the other candidate can choose
position 54.9 and will win a majority of the votes.
If one candidate is at position 45, then the other
candidate can win a majority of votes by taking
position 45.1. This situation will push both candidates
very close to position 50. (Harold Hotelling was
a pioneer in analysis of situations like this.)
However, if there are four candidates (two from each
party) trying to earn the nomination, the situation
becomes different. If the voters are evenly split
between the two parties, so party 1 has voters with
positions from 0 to 50 and party 2 has voters with
positions from 50 to 100, and there is a partisan
nominating process, then the two candidates from
party 1 will both be pushed to position 25.
If one of these candidates chose position 27, then
the other candidate could choose position 26.9 and
would win a majority of the votes of those party
members and would be nominated. For the same reason,
the two candidates of the other party would both
cluster at position 75. The result illustrates the
centrifugal force problem: the partisan nominating
process exerts a force pulling candidates away fromn
the center.
The reality is much more complicated than this simple
model. There are many dimensions of policy questions,
and voters judge candidates by looking at their personal
characteristics as well as their policy positions.
Nevertheless, the model does illustrate an important
feature of reality: candidates for a presidential
nomination have to appeal to the “base,” or the most
extreme voters of their party, but then they find
in the general election it would help to have a position
more in the middle. Sometimes they can try to shift
the emphasis of their position for the general election,
although they risk looking inconsistent and unprincipled
if they do this too much.
Next time: a solution to the problem.
……………..
–Douglas Downing
You are welcome to write your comments on the facebook page at
https://www.facebook.com/DouglasADowningSPU/?ref=profile
This blog is part of the
Seattle Pacific University Political Economy blog group
(click here for index).
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/douglasdowning
New items will be posted about two times per week.
douglasadowning 