Fact Check: "Moderate candidates often lose voter turnout, extreme candidates boost it."
What We Know
The claim that "moderate candidates often lose voter turnout, extreme candidates boost it" is a nuanced assertion that touches on the dynamics of political participation and candidate positioning. According to a study by Michael Neblo, Jason Brennan, and Whitney Quesenbery, political extremism and polarization are currently at unprecedented levels, while civic participation is at near all-time lows. They argue that increasing voter turnout could potentially shift political incentives and reduce polarization, suggesting that moderate candidates might struggle to engage voters who feel disconnected from the political process (source-1).
Conversely, research indicates that increased political participation does not necessarily lead to a moderation of views. Jason Brennan posits that politically active citizens tend to be more extreme and intolerant, while those who abstain from voting often possess a more nuanced understanding of different viewpoints. This suggests that the politically apathetic may not inherently support moderate candidates, as they often do not engage in the political process at all (source-1).
Moreover, a study highlighted by Vox indicates that moderation can indeed depress voter turnout among certain demographics, particularly among Democratic voters, who may feel that moderate candidates do not represent their interests adequately (source-5).
Analysis
The evidence surrounding the claim is mixed. On one hand, the assertion that moderate candidates may struggle to mobilize voters is supported by the idea that many voters are disengaged and perceive politics as catering to organized interests rather than their own concerns (source-1). This disengagement can lead to lower turnout for moderate candidates who may not energize the base as effectively as more extreme candidates.
On the other hand, the claim that extreme candidates boost turnout is more contentious. While extreme candidates may galvanize their supporters, it is also possible that they alienate moderate voters, leading to a polarized electorate that does not necessarily reflect an increase in overall voter turnout. Brennan's analysis suggests that increased participation could exacerbate polarization rather than mitigate it, as the politically active tend to be more extreme (source-1).
Furthermore, the research on ranked-choice voting indicates that electoral systems can influence candidate viability, with moderate candidates potentially benefiting from systems that encourage broader support (source-2). However, the effectiveness of these systems in increasing turnout for moderate candidates remains to be fully established.
Conclusion
The claim that "moderate candidates often lose voter turnout, extreme candidates boost it" is Partially True. While there is evidence suggesting that moderate candidates may struggle to engage voters, particularly in a polarized environment, the assertion that extreme candidates uniformly boost turnout is more complex. Increased participation does not guarantee a shift towards moderation; rather, it may reinforce existing extremes. Therefore, while there is some truth to the claim, it oversimplifies the relationship between candidate extremism, voter engagement, and turnout.
Sources
- The Impact of Voter Turnout on Polarization - Georgetown University
- Ranked-Choice Voting - Center for Effective Government - University of Chicago
- Does moderation actually hurt Democratic candidates? - Vox
