Political and social factors contributed to this
America is always divided "by half" in general elections
Polarization in the American street has reached an unprecedented level.
archival
American voters are more mature.
archival
Former President Bill Clinton supports the Democratic candidate in New York.
archival
picture
Republicans and Democrats once again find themselves in a heated competition for control of the US legislature.
A general poll showed that 46% of Americans prefer the Republican Party, and 45% prefer Democrats.
Despite wild fluctuations in the economy, the alarming rise of anti-democratic politics on the right, and political differences between Democrats and Republicans, the results of national elections continue to converge remarkably, as if predetermined.
A few decades ago, a Democratic president's unpopularity would have triggered a Republican midterm wave.
This year, political analysts expected more.
Neither side is building much momentum for long.
Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1955 to 1995, for example.
Now, the composition of the chamber is about to change for the fourth time in 15 years, and the gap in the number of congressional seats held by majority and minority parties has collapsed.
Between 1959 and 1995, the House of Representatives had a majority of no fewer than 50 seats, each election seemed close, and the results of far-reaching policies were determined repeatedly by a few thousand votes, in a small group of states.
political stagnation
In many ways, this is a painful trend.
It is, at least in part, the result of our political stagnation and extreme polarization, meaning that when either side wins, it does so without much mandate, it also means that neither side has been forced to regroup and reform, after a humiliating defeat.
In the words of Princeton University political science professor Frances Lee, both parties are "insecure" in victory, and overly engaged in a "permanent campaign" against the other.
There is no simple explanation for why this happens.
I initially thought it had something to do with game theory: You have two parties, each with deep resources and strong incentives to win, thus reducing the number of voters halfway.
And the warped parties are reviewing their arguments, and both are getting better at winning elections, enhancing their use of voter data, organizing on the ground, and maneuvering in elections.
Over time, competitions end up showing a 50-50 ratio.
According to Vanderbilt University political science professor John Sides, this hypothesis may be partially correct, but he points to historical factors that in his view provide the strongest explanation for today's political environment.
During the Great Depression, the Democrats became an almost unshakeable majority party in Congress, bolstered by the votes of white Southerners and New Deal supporters across the country.
But in the 1960s, white southerners began migrating to the Republican side in revolt against the National Democrats, who supported civil rights legislation and redistributive policies that helped black Americans.
As the New Deal's political significance faded, parties became more competitive, and their voter bases more equal.
"The thing that made us unusual for a long time was the South," said Sides. "We had a one-party state within the country, and its disappearance paved the way for elections close by 50-50, and a swing government."
Indeed, as Frances Lee describes in her book The Unsecured Majority, Republicans became a "complete and politically viable national alternative" only in 1980, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency with a low-tax government program.
In the same year, the Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time in a quarter of a century.
In 1994 they broke the Democrats' grip on the House of Representatives.
sharp differences
The relevant explanation for the instability prevailing today relates to the increasing polarization between the two parties.
In the early 20th century, Democrats and Republicans had significant overlap in politics, and lawmakers worked across the aisle frequently, and since then, differences in their policy have become sharply apparent.
And the electorate changed, too: they stopped changing their positions, and became more reliable supporters on one side or the other.
They are 'ranked' on political grounds, are more likely to live near people who vote like them, as well as become more ideologically fervent, with fewer overarching social ties, a phenomenon that the political scientist Liliana Mason has touched upon. the other side.
This polarization has contributed to our upcoming elections: when nearly all voters have already made up their minds, there aren't many people to persuade politicians to.
As Frances Lee explains in her book, such close rivalries, and frequent changes in power, are the cause of partisan strife.
"No party considers itself a permanent majority or a permanent minority," she wrote, continuing, "This shift has altered the partisan incentives and strategic choices of members in ways that help advance the sharp and controversial partisanship that characterizes contemporary American politics."
less incentive
These days, both Republican and Democratic leaders have less incentive to cooperate across the aisle.
Why give the other party a legislative victory if you are so close to regaining the House of Representatives or winning the Senate?
It also appears that the competitiveness of the US elections has made the government less responsive to the desires and needs of the voters.
“In the current context, you have party control that hinges on small margins of the vote share in a small number of races,” Sides said.
Is this really what the electoral mandate was?
Is this what the voters want?
I am not sure.”
It seems that not losing by a large margin, or for an extended period of time, was bad for the parties themselves as well.
In fact, electoral exclusion from time to time encourages political organizations to reform and change.
It encourages them to think about a long-term proposition, not just how to win a few thousand more votes in Wisconsin, and forces them to adapt to the needs of ordinary voters.
Ignore the advice
The political climate has reduced this constructive pressure on both sides.
Consider the number of times Republicans have ignored advice on moderation and dealing with black voters, choosing instead to repeatedly run a particular version of the Southern Strategy.
However, for both sides, getting out of power for any extended period of time seems like an existential threat.
For both sides, too, holding on to power so much of the time seems impossible.
Whatever happens in this election, the next election will likely result in some of them being scrapped, giving voters a greater sense of insecurity and urgency, with more at stake each time.
A related explanation relates to the instability prevailing today due to the increasing polarization between Republicans and Democrats.
During the Great Depression, the Democrats became an almost unshakeable majority party in Congress, bolstered by the votes of white Southerners and New Deal supporters.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news