Why are presidential elections always so close?

[XZeroII]

Even in this past election, there was only a few percentage points between McCain and Obama. Why is it always so close when the candidates' positions are so different? I would expect the popluar vote to show a 75%-25% victory every now and then, but it's always so close and that puzzles me.

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[sactoking]

300,000,000+ Americans. 75% of that would be 225,000,000+. Do you think that that many people can agree on ANYTHING?

Hell, in ATOT we can't even agree on HOW TO MAKE POPCORN!

 

[jpeyton]

Uninformed voters.

Voters who vote based on arbitrary things, like their family's voting history, instead of the issues.

Voters who vote based on "values", who will always vote for the party that is pro-life, regardless of what their stance on other policies is.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Uninformed voters.

Voters who vote based on arbitrary things, like their family's voting history, instead of the issues.

Voters who vote based on "values", who will always vote for the party that is pro-life, regardless of what their stance on other policies is.

That doesn't explain why it's always so close to 50-50. How did there get to be 50% pro-lifers and 50% pro-choicers? You would think that one would have a larger following than the other...

 

[Vageetasjn]

They weren't always so close. Check out 1968-1996:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...bama_vs_mccain/?map=20

 

[Kadarin]

There are a lot of red states out there. Remember that someone has to populate the left side of the bell curve...

 

[Budarow]

Because there may be only 1% of the peeps in the county who actually "know" what's really going on in this county. So this thread need 94 more peeps to respond so I can represent the 1% of those peeps on this tread

 

[GenHoth]

Because if a party got blown out 75-25 you can bet their stances would change to give them a chance to win.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

1984 was about 60-40 and an electoral maiming.
1964 was about 61-39 and almost as ass-kicking as 1984.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Uninformed voters.

Voters who vote based on arbitrary things, like their family's voting history, instead of the issues.

Voters who vote based on "values", who will always vote for the party that is pro-life, regardless of what their stance on other policies is.

Voters who associate with neither party. Who do the fiscal conservative / social progressives vote for?

IMO, we desperately need a third party - but in this winner-take-all election format there will never be a third party.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
1984 was about 60-40 and an electoral maiming.
1964 was about 61-39 and almost as ass-kicking as 1984.

Which if you think about it is still fairly close.

The reason is our first-past-the-post two party system. The two parties will always compete for the center (or else lose). That gives us relalatively close elections.

If you had a proportional / run-off system like in France say, you might get a final vote of 80-20% (like when the far-right party unexpectedly reached the final stage over the socialists.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
1984 was about 60-40 and an electoral maiming.
1964 was about 61-39 and almost as ass-kicking as 1984.

Which if you think about it is still fairly close.

The reason is our first-past-the-post two party system. The two parties will always compete for the center (or else lose). That gives us relalatively close elections.

If you had a proportional / run-off system like in France say, you might get a final vote of 80-20% (like when the far-right party unexpectedly reached the final stage over the socialists.)

But our system is a representative republic and our election process is an extention of that philosophy. Those electoral stomps were impressive. And really those numbers are impressive IMO considering we do have a 2 party system.

 

[miketheidiot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory

 

[seemingly random]

Maybe because each side tries only a little harder to be better than the other.

 

[KlokWyze]

I've always wondered this too, but these explanation make sense. Thanks.