Question

Why does this the strategy of politicians identifying with the median voters position in whatever constituency they are appealing to in an election sometimes result in a candidate seeming to change his or her positions when moving from a primary to a general election? Give an example of a situation where one might think a candidate either attempted to follow the median voter, or a situation in which he or she did NOT attempt to move to the median voter's position. Did the candidate in your example behaved strategically? Did he or she behaved ethically?

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

The Median Voter Theorem involves the political ideological spectrum and it states that whether the majority of the electorate may be concentrated as a moderate or polarized, there will always be one voter in the middle. The median voter is recognized through taking 50% of the electorate plus one. One half of the electorate sits on the other side of the political spectrum while the other half sits on the other side. The median voter is the indicating voter. In United States elections, there are primary elections and general elections. Primary elections are held to determine the party nominees. This would result in a more tendency for the voting population to have extreme ideological leanings. In a republican primary election, the electorate may be more skewed to be conservative rather than moderate, therefore a candidate would also move their positions further. When elected for general elections, however, the voting population tend to be more moderate the candidates therefore would move towards the center again.

An example for this is the nominee for the Republicans during the 2012 elections. During the primaries, he held a more conservative stance during the primary elections, gaining the vote and winning the nomination for the party However, during the general elections, he shifted to a more moderate stance. This move can be very strategic, .however, this can also fail. This is a very strategic decision because staying firm on a stance and appearance my prove successful for one election, but would not prove successful for the other. However, this can also fail because this could lose the votes a candidate initially gained. Ethically speaking, this may be considered manipulative, and can imply that a candidate is only interested in winning elections and not their principles.