Fact Check: "Moderate candidates risk losing elections by depressing voter turnout."
What We Know
The claim that moderate candidates risk losing elections by depressing voter turnout is supported by various studies and expert opinions. According to a study published by Michael Neblo, Jason Brennan, and Whitney Quesenbery, political extremism and polarization are at unprecedented levels, while civic participation is at near all-time lows. They argue that increasing voter turnout could shift the political incentives that drive polarization, suggesting that moderate candidates might benefit from higher turnout if they can engage a broader electorate (source-1).
However, opposing views also exist. Jason Brennan contends that increased voter participation may not necessarily reduce polarization. He argues that politically active citizens tend to be more extreme, while those who do not participate are often less partisan and more moderate. Thus, if more apathetic citizens were to vote, they might not support moderate candidates, potentially leading to a more polarized electorate (source-1).
Furthermore, research on electoral systems like Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) suggests that while RCV can encourage moderate candidates by allowing voters to express preferences beyond their first choice, it could also lead to more polarized outcomes in certain contexts (source-2).
Analysis
The evidence surrounding the claim is mixed, highlighting the complexity of voter behavior and electoral outcomes. On one hand, the argument that moderate candidates may struggle to mobilize voters is supported by findings that increased turnout does not guarantee a shift toward moderation. Brennan's analysis points to a trend where the politically engaged are often more extreme, and thus, increasing turnout could inadvertently favor candidates who appeal to these extremes rather than moderates (source-1).
On the other hand, the research by Neblo and colleagues suggests that engaging a wider electorate through increased turnout could create opportunities for moderate candidates to gain traction. Their findings indicate that traditional avenues for voter engagement often cater to organized interests, leaving moderate voices unheard. By fostering environments where diverse constituents can engage in deliberative discussions, there is potential for moderates to gain support (source-1).
The reliability of the sources is generally high, as they come from established scholars in political science and electoral studies. However, the interpretations of data can vary, and the context of specific elections can significantly influence outcomes. The debate over the effects of voter turnout on polarization and candidate success is ongoing, and different electoral systems may yield different results.
Conclusion
The claim that "moderate candidates risk losing elections by depressing voter turnout" is Partially True. While there is evidence suggesting that moderate candidates may struggle in highly polarized environments, the relationship between voter turnout and candidate success is not straightforward. Increased turnout could potentially benefit moderates if they can effectively engage disenchanted voters. However, there is also a significant risk that higher participation could favor more extreme candidates, as politically active voters tend to be more partisan. Thus, the impact of moderation on electoral outcomes remains nuanced and context-dependent.
