The Intricacies of Close Elections: Why Margins Remain Minimal
Have you ever wondered how elections result in such narrow margins, despite the millions of voters involved? The outcome of many elections is often determined by a small percentage, sometimes even a fraction of a percent. Why does this happen? The answer lies in the strategic maneuvers of campaign managers, voter behavior, and the nature of party nomination processes.
Strategic Campaign Management
The scientific marketing techniques employed in modern political campaigns play a critical role in determining election outcomes. Campaign managers meticulously calibrate their approach, aiming to sway just enough voters in the middle to secure a win without alienating their core supporters. This delicate balance is achieved through strategic voter targeting and messaging. By understanding the preferences of their base and the fence-sitters, campaigns can influence voter behavior in a finely tuned manner.
This approach is particularly effective when both sides are equally skilled at it. When both political parties strive to win over the undecided voters, the competition often results in a political deadlock, with outcomes closely reflecting the center of the electorate's preferences. This can lead to margins as tight as under 1 percent, as seen in numerous elections where the majority of votes are split nearly 50-50.
The Role of Electability
Electability is a critical qualifier for political candidates, especially in primary elections. Parties nominate candidates who have a high probability of winning, striking a balance between representing their core values and appealing to a broader audience. On the left, candidates must be left-leaning enough to draw support from the party's base while being centrist enough to attract moderates and independents. Similarly, on the right, candidates need to be right-leaning but also capable of garnering support from those skeptical of more extreme candidates.
As a result, the inherent nature of the nomination process often leads to closely contested elections. Both Democratic and Republican parties aim to nominate candidates who can win without being so extreme as to drive away potential voters. However, this approach is not always applicable in all regions. In areas where one party has an overwhelming advantage and voters tend to vote strictly based on party affiliation, the party can field more extreme candidates who win despite their less centrist positions. This was evident in the 2020 election, where both Biden and Trump won pivotal states by narrow margins.
Irregularities and Exceptional Cases
It is not uncommon for elections to result in very close margins. In the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden won several key states by margins of less than 1 percent, such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan. Similarly, Donald Trump won North Carolina with a margin of around 1.35 percent and Florida with a margin of over 3.36 percent. These close margins reflect the reality of a democratic system where winning requires appealing to every segment of the electorate.
However, it is important to understand that such narrow margins are not the norm. In most swing states, where both parties have significant support, elections are often decided by votes in the middle of the political spectrum. This is why many states tend to have close election results.
In cases where one party has a historic advantage, such as in certain Southern states, the party can often run more extreme candidates who appeal to the core base and outperform more moderate candidates from the same party. This was the case in Georgia's 2021 Senate runoffs, where Raphael Warnock is expected to win by a larger margin than 1 percent, while Jon Ossoff is anticipated to win by a margin of less than 1 percent.
It is also worth noting that in some cases, a candidate's popularity and track record can influence the outcome, making their victory virtually inevitable. Such was the case with Barack Obama and George W. Bush, who won despite competing against more extreme candidates from their parties. These examples illustrate that while narrow margins are common, they do not reflect a systemic problem but rather the democratic process at work.
Why do unconventional results not seem unusual? In a democratic system, the competition among parties and candidates often leads to elections that are closely balanced. When one party lacks a competitive edge, they fragment into separate factions, leading to the creation of new parties. As a result, parties continuously strive to attract a diverse range of voters, and this often results in more closely contested elections. In the popular vote, drastic departures from a balanced outcome typically indicate some form of extraordinary event or systemic issue.
Understanding these dynamics can provide insights into the complexities of electoral processes and the reasons why margins remain minimal in many elections.