The effect of non-voters on extremism and who a politician represents.
This is general and could be either in international or Canadian politics-- there is no general politics so I put it here.
I have been thinking about the positive and negative effects of an increasingly large body of non-voters on the process. The effects in some ways can be argued to be positive and in others negative.
You now have to stand for something
On the positive side, I have concluded that non-committed voters no longer voting have made politicians more sensitive to the need to be more active to get the support of people who want to vote for something rather than out of an obligation to vote. Bland mushy policy designed to not offend in order to get the middle voter has not been healthy and having people stay home if nothing is worth voting for can force politicians to try to present something worth coming out for. This is a good thing.
But there are negative effects of losing a block of potentially accessible voters participating without a great deal of loyalty.
Now when politicians stand for something substantive, it can be extreme and loathsome to a majority but pull out a minority sufficient to get it elected if others stay home. More extreme policies are a byproduct of there not being a middle pool of voters, instead each has to provide the more extreme red meat to get their supporters to come out in greater numbers with more enthusiasm than the other side. This can lead to less compromise and more conflict between extremes. I have concluded that there is an art to being extreme enough to get your people out without turning off enough of the other side to provoke them to come out. The result is still more fringe policies than those geared toattract the non-aligned voter.
Politicians no longer feel the need to pretend to represent everyone or reach for compromise
I remember when leaders in both Canada and the US would fight during elections and then after speak to all, tell them they heard, and that they represent everyone no matter who they voted for. Now they still say the words but it is obvious they do not mean it as the very next day they make it clear they only represent their most loyal supporters -- the ones they can get votes from.
The first time I really noticed that this had changed was when Mike Harris got elected in Ontario and made it clear that he only represented those who voted for him and had no interest in hearing from anyone else. We watched the same thing happen with Harper. The first election, Harper mouthed the words but in later elections he was pretty clear that he had no interest in governing for all. His aggression towards anyone who is not loyal was naked. Now we see this with Trump. I do not think this is just about the character of these people. It is also becuase they can be this way without consequence and to win they may feel the need to.
I have started to wonder if this is not at least in part due to non-voters. Non-voters take themselves out of the equation, they drain the pool of potential voters dry as there is almost nobody left in the middle. Parties understand that there is no point in moderating to get a moderate group when they can poll and see that they don’t vote. Voters now tend to be loyal and move less. So elections like the recent one in the US are largely about two camps who hate each other and are not open to each other, but who have various groups of supporters they each try to get out. The game plan is to stop the other -- turn them off or make it harder for their supporters to vote or for those votes to count. This is why the emphasis has moved to that both in the US and Canada.
You notice that turnout is the greatest factor in US elections – whose and where.
In Canada we have a slightly different complication. This same dynamic exists with a twist. Conservative voter vs most others are showing this. There is now little migration in the Conservative vote. How well they do is largely about how many come out. Conservative leaders are more and more radical as they understand they are speaking only to a particular group of voters as the others will not ever consider them. The NDP and Liberals do have a migration and while I have a negative opinion of the record of the Liberal party, I know they are going after and trying to talk to the same voters as the NDP. This is why these parties hate each other more than ever. They are the real rivals not the Conservatives. Each election they accuse each other of attacks saying that they should focus on the Conservatives when both understand that their potential voters are with each other and much less so the Conservatives. The result depends on how that vote splits: even and the Cons win, lopsided and one of them can.
All this is because of the absence of a middle vote that could go each way. After all, why should a Conservative politician listen to me? If we are being honest he/she does not stand a chance asking for my vote. (in my case the Liberals don't either.)
In all this we have the advent of people’s custom news channels through specialist and social media. We complain about the mass media rather than recognize that there is now no such thing. Each market for opinion is mostly looking to confirm biases rather than check them. Each media universe co-exists with little contact with the others. People are not aware of the news the other sees. (In the past they would have a different take on it but at least still see the same basic news which is what MSM is.)
Put this together and you can see why we should not be surprised by the turn toward more extreme politics with less confidence that compromise is possible or worth pursuing.
The non-voters play a role in this as well -- in many cases checking out entirely unaware of policies that may affect them until they are already in place, if at all.
I mostly agree with most of what you said. But I do find it interesting that you note that we've essentially eroded away "the centre", leaving only the extremes, and that this precludes either of those extremes for seeing any need for negotiation, and any need for compromise.
Isn't this what progressives want? How often have I read here that the greatest threat to everything is the centrist? Not right-wing enough to vote Con, not left enough to vote NDP. "A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything", etc., etc.
Now the two extremes can have a righteous battle to the death, with the spoils to the victor, as The Gods intended -- no mealy-mouthed, fence-sitting, "Love me love me love me I'm a Liberal" voters bothering to get in the way.
Yes and no.
The problem is not that people left the centre for one of the two sides, it is that they no longer vote. This means that a side can win with much less support and that is not a good thing.
I did say that there was a benfit in that people have to stand for something to get elected -- but the problem is this can be very extreme.
And we are talking about degrees. I am happy to see the very middle have to choose but when the choices become more extreme this is more problematic.
Ya, I don't disagree that the fact that politics has become so much more polarized is not a good thing.
At the same time, if the "mushy middle" said to itself "Well, whatever. Both sides think we're the problem." I could understand. For various reasons, the middle may have felt irrelevant, but for sure both extremes made the effort to tell them they are. There seems to be, on both sides, a bit of an active campaign to encourage others to become more extreme, rather than more compromising.
I guess to be clear I like enough of a polarization that there are meaningful choices but not to the point that you ahve extremists talking only to their own supporters becuase there is nothing else to be had.
I think there have always been meaningful choices. But the electorate doesn't really want to endorse those choices unless everyone else does... at which time those choices would effectively become the new middle.
This is my view.
The middle is irrelevant until there is a massive national action that is required, such as a state of war or vast natural or economical disaster.
Until then, the middle is a no man’s section of the political war. Both the left and right will venture into the middle to cause some chaos and disruption to the other side like trench raiding of WW1.
In the end, politicians on base side of the political spectrum seem interested in the middle however take great care not to displease them but at the same time not to disappoint them until they are required to win the war.
Then after the action is resolved maybe in a few years or decades, the middle is then abandon until the next crisis.
Edit: I am likely incorrect.
In some ways I think you are correct.
On the other hand, the middle is also the most important, because it is only once they accept the actions of either of the poles that reform truly happens. A government can implement the most radical (good or bad) action there is, and unless there is a critical mass of people accepting it, it will eventually fail.
I don't think non-voters have caused the polarization in the political system. To me the political choices in Canada are not two extremes the choices are an extreme right wing party, a centrist right wing party and a centrist party. I think the dissatisfaction comes from the lack of choice. It is why both the NDP and Liberals promised electoral reform and why the Liberals are not likely to implement any system that does not give them a distinct electoral edge. In Canada the cynicism is from the broken promises.
On a party level you might be right. Or not. Even on a partisan level it's not as simple as where on the spectrum a party lies.
When you look at it based on issues though, there are examples that politicians will not touch, or only go after things in an underhanded way, for fear of pissing off the electorate, whether they vote or not.
If it can make a politician like Harper betray his own base on an issue like anti-choice, or make our premier pursue his privatization agenda in the most weasely way possible (after all, he could just up and sell SaskTel), despite his overwhelming majority, clearly they do sometimes pay attention to something other that just who votes.
Similarly, things like bilingualism, and immersion and separate language schools were a big deal (at least where I lived when they first came in). Now very few even think about it. It isn't that there aren't anti Quebec and anti-francophone bigots. But that issue has pretty much been accepted by everyone.
If you look at all of the registered parties in Canada, they pretty much cover the spread from "God is Great" to "nationalize all industry".
I think the real problem is that -- as the "bell curve" or "curve of normal distribution" suggests -- support for both of the extremes I mentioned a sentence ago is insufficient for them to ever form government.
So the problem is not that there are no choices. It's that people want choices that might reasonably win.
The definition of what can reasonably win has been changing and it is including more populist and activist than a do-nothing-middle. The Liberals had to pose as progressives in the last election to win and the NDP posing as do-nothing centrists lost.
The Conservatives are as we speak trying to figure out which version of extremism will float their boat.
The reason that Canadian politicians are attracted to the 'mushy middle' is not inherently ideological, IMHO - it is because that's where they think the most votes are. And for better or for worse, most public opinion polls seem to substantiate that general assessment.
So if a politician heads for the margins (left, right, or whatever) one is effectively self-defining as a marginal candidate, which is just not very strategic in a first past the post electoral system. Except perhaps for single issue or regional-based parties.
As regards voter turnout, Stats Can has looked at this very issue, and concluded: "'Among the 23% of eligible Canadians voters who reported that they did not vote in the October 2015 federal election, the most common reason reported for not voting was 'not being interested in politics,' followed by being 'too busy.'"
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/160222/dq160222a-eng.htm
Make of that what you will. While we Babblers may want to believe that a truly progressive policy platform will ensure more Canadians become sufficiently interested in politics to vote, there is precious little evidence to support that belief. ie that voters would endorse such a platform and/or that they would believe that politicians would or could deliver on it.
In this day and age, it seems much more likely that a celebrity-style, charismatic candidate will motivate new voters. Just give me a few minutes to try and think of a real-life example ...
I disagree. The fact that as people stay home more activist programs are getting elected speaks to that.
You may point to the progressive nature of the NDP platform but the fact is most people were not aware of it. The NDP message was caution and no deficit and the NDP went from elading to a poor third. This is part of that. The Liberals spoke to running a debt to get things done and made lavish promises and got elected. The Cons with rather extreme views (for Canada) came not far behind. The evidence is slapping you in the face. People are not willing to vote for the sake of voting or even be interested in politics but they will march in the streets in the thousands when there is something real to discuss. In the US the Clinton campaign was lacking ambition claiming they wanted to continue the same thing. The one asking for change got the poeple out where they needed. I suspect that the bulk of those who did not vote probably would have picked Clinton but the point is they did not vote.
The old rules about the middle being the only thing electable are changing and you are seeing this in many places.
The reason the left is often defeated now is they are stuck in the old idea that they have to go to the middle to get elected. That is not working.
If Bernie Sanders had been in that US election, Clinton would have come a poor third. We have a generation of voters now who will not vote for politicians who do not stand for something real. If the left does not learn this they will be irrelevant for the next generation.