64 posted on Friday, December 16, 2011 10:27:49 AM by Strategerist: “The above is a fantasy, not a reality. Sorry. Just anecdotally, on a personal level, I know only at most 3-4 people who AREN'T in the broad middle, politically, and many dozens who are in the middle. The number of those who are fiscal conservatives but social liberals, especially, in the country ALONE is vast - and there are plenty of other types of people in the “Mushy Middle.” The only way someone could convince themselves of the falsehood that there are no moderates is someone who only sits at their computer and reads FR and DU, and think that the posters represent the country.”
A caution here: in the United States, unlike some other countries which have a high turnout rate, election winners are determined by which side gets their supporters to the polls, not necessarily who has the most public support.
Many moderates don't vote, at least not on a consistent basis. Many other moderates don't vote except in presidential elections.
The result is that the winners of the primary races, the off-year national elections, and most state and local races other than those which happen to be on a November election ballot tend to be determined by the ability of the candidate to aggressively appeal to a constituency of highly committed voters, usually but not always with commitments due to ideology.
With some important exceptions, that leads to a bipolar model of the electorate rather than a bell curve. The most common exceptions to ideologically motivated turnout happen when a sports star, a movie star, or someone else with broad public appeal motivates lots of people into voting who don't typically vote. It's less common, but massive dissatisfaction with the status quo can lead to a “throw them all out” anti-incumbent mentality that harms everyone who has been in office for long periods regardless of party, though the people who get hurt the worst in such anti-incumbent periods are from the party in power.
Another view is that the broad masses are happy with the government they've got so they don't vote ~ they leave it up to those who care or who are concerned ~ and can only be convinced to vote when there's a national disaster at hand. They rarely vote against doing something about it.
I don't necessarily agree with that second view ~ George Will came up with it to explain low voter turnout.
On the other hand there's something to it.