In winner-take-all systems, swing voters matter only at election time

By David McElroy · May 1, 2012

If you listen to political pundits, the people who matter most in American politics are the swing voters. They’re the ones in the middle who sometimes vote for Democrats and sometimes “swing” to Republicans. I’m going to tell you why swing voters are really just suckers who get fooled every time.

There are some voters who are reliably with one party or the other. There’s a coalition of progressive left groups who are always going to vote for Democrats. There’s a coalition of social conservatives and economic conservatives who are always going to vote for Republicans. With few exceptions, the people in those groups are generally happy when their side is in power.

Then there are people who don’t fit into either of the mainstream camps. A lot of those people are libertarians (self-identified or otherwise) and a lot of them are simply moderates who don’t want to see either side of the mainstream become too dominant. And then there are people who don’t really know that much about what they believe, but they just don’t really like either side of the mainstream.

It’s the people in those middle groups who push elections one way or the other — as they swing from one mainstream party to the other. They were with Barack Obama in 2008, because they wanted almost any Democrat after eight years of George W. Bush, but they swung to Republicans heavily in 2010 congressional elections, because they didn’t like it that Obama had been doing what anybody should have known he was going to do as president.

It’s pretty clear what the two sides of the mainstream represent and what their followers want. To one extent or another, they’re going to get what they want from time to time — when their side is in power. However, for those swing voters, that’s not the case. They matter in elections. They’re going to hand victory to one side or the other — but once an election is over, they’re ignored again. That’s not going to change.

Here’s the way the pattern works in an election. In the primary, a candidate has to pander to the core voters of his constituency. A Republican candidate has to prove how conservative he is. A Democrat has to prove how dedicated he is to the various progressive causes. That will sometimes come in coded language so that the party faithful will get the signal that he’s “one of them,” but not in ways that frighten those who aren’t already on board.

For instance, a Republican has to prove how conservative he is, but in ways that the swing voters don’t perceive him — in the general election — to be extremist. In a primary, extremism is rewarded to an extent — at least if it’s a form of extremism that the core party voters like and perceive as making someone electable (whether they’re right about that or not). But in a general election, being a wishy-washy moderate is rewarded, so candidates who have spent their primaries pandering to extremist voters now have to be all things to all people as much as possible. It’s an odd line to walk.

The swing voters say — metaphorically speaking — “Hey, you candidates have to listen to our voices or you’re not going to get our votes.” So a GOP nominee who has spent his entire primary season proving how conservative he is (at least insofar as how primary voters define the term) will now move to the center and try to seem moderate and statesmanlike. A Democratic nominee who’s spent the primaries pandering to unions and various progressive interest groups will suddenly become more moderate-sounding.

Whichever side is most successful in seeming moderate and safe will tend to win those swing voters. (Of course, the swing voters are also most likely to go to whoever hasn’t been in power.) So one candidate or the other will successfully pander to the special interests of his party to get the nomination and then he’ll pretend to care about the preferences of the swing voters. Then he’s elected — at which point he goes back to being whatever he originally wanted to be.

What this means is that swing voters matter in a general election, but then a president goes back to being what his party expects him to be. Swing voters pushed Obama into office, after which he went back to being the progressive left Democrat that they should have known he was.

All of this is to say something simple. In a “winner take all” system — which is the way ours is structured — the people in the middle or the people who have minority views can’t make a difference. They can help decide which of the two major party candidates wins, but they can’t change anything about the way the country is governed. It just doesn’t work that way.

If you’re a libertarian or a moderate of some sort who thinks your participation is going to cause one of the major parties to change to be more like you, you’re fooling yourself. You matter in getting someone elected, but after the election is over, you’re going to be ignored.

Swing voters are suckers, because they’re courted at election time, but their interests are otherwise ignored. Even if you believe in a majoritarian system, if you’re in a minority, what good are you doing to participate? Why are you wasting your time?

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts