US political parties become extremist to get more votes
Listen to this article
New research shows that U.S. political parties are becoming increasingly polarized due to their quest for voters—not because voters themselves are becoming more extremist.
The research team found that extremism is a strategy that has worked over the years even if voters’ views remain in the center. Voters are not looking for a perfect representative but a “satisficing,” meaning “good enough,” candidate.
What the researchers say: “Our assumption is not that people aren’t trying to make the perfect choice, but in the presence of uncertainty, misinformation or a lack of information, voters move toward satisficing,” said the senior author of the study
To accommodate voters’ “satisficing” behavior, the team developed a mathematical model using differential equations to understand how a rational political party would position itself to get the most votes. The tool is reactive, with the past influencing future behaviors of the parties.
The team tested 150 years of U.S. Congressional voting data and found the model’s predictions are consistent with the political parties’ historical trajectories: Congressional voting has shifted to the margins, but voters’ positions have not changed much.
“The two major political parties have been getting more and more polarized since World War II, while historical data indicates the average American voter remains just as moderate on key issues and policies as they always have been,” the researchers said.
The team found that polarization is instead tied to the ideological homogeneity within the constituencies of the two major parties. To differentiate themselves, the politicians of the parties move further away from the center.
The new model helps explains why. The moves to the extremes can be interpreted as attempts by the Democratic and Republican parties to minimize an overlap of constituency. Test runs of the model show how staying within the party lines creates a winning strategy.
“Right now, we have one party with a lot of support from minorities and women, and another party with a lot of support from white men,” the lead author said.
Why not have both parties appeal to everyone? “Because of the perception that if you gain support from one group, it comes at the expense of the other group,” he added. “The model shows that the increased polarization is not voters’ fault. It is a way to get votes. This study shows that we don’t need to assume that voters have a hidden agenda driving polarization in Congress. There is no mastermind behind the policy. It is an emergent phenomenon.”
The researchers caution that many other factors—political contributions, gerrymandering and party primaries—also contribute to election outcomes, which future work can examine.
The work challenges a model introduced in the late 1950s by economist Anthony Downs, which assumes everyone votes and makes well-informed, completely rational choices, picking the candidate closest to their opinions. The Downsian model predicts that political parties over time would move closer to the center.
However, U.S. voters’ behaviors don’t necessarily follow those patterns, and the parties’ positions have become dramatically polarized.
“People aren’t perfectly rational, but they’re not totally irrational either,” the researchers said. “They’ll vote for the candidate that’s good enough—or not too bad—without making fine distinctions among those that meet their perhaps low bar for good enough. If we want to reduce political polarization between the parties, we need both parties to be more tolerant of the diversity within their own ranks.”
So, what? And there was that story about pigs flying?
Join the discussion
More from this issue of TR
Society perceives the poor as less affected by distress than those with more means
Negative life events can cause significant hardship and even lifelong trauma. The poor are perceived to be “hardened” by these events and therefore less harmed by them than those with more means, even when this is patently false.
Why obeying orders can make us do terrible things
War atrocities are often committed by “normal” people “obeying orders.” Recently we have seen US border protection personnel in the US inflict needless pain on peaceful demonstrators in Portland. Why?
You might be interested inBack to Today's Research
Higher narcissism may be linked with more political participation
A politically engaged electorate is key to any thriving democracy, but not everyone participates in elections and other political activities. People with higher levels of narcissism—a trait combining selfishness, entitlement and a need for admiration—were more likely to participate in politics.
In a split second, clothes make a person seem more competent in the eyes of others
Clothing perceived as "richer" by an observer—whether it was a T-shirt, sweater, or other top—led to higher competence ratings of the person pictured than similar clothes judged as "poorer," the researchers found.
Join our tribe
Subscribe to Dr. Bob Murray’s Today’s Research, a free weekly roundup of the latest research in a wide range of scientific disciplines. Explore leadership, strategy, culture, business and social trends, and executive health.