I believe there is a simple but paradoxical tendency for elections to matter less when they are as passionate and competitive as today’s US federal elections. When the populace is divided into such large camps, the winner cannot afford to really piss off the disappointed near-50% that voted for someone else. With so many people in opposition, a conciliatory status-quo-conserving approach is almost certain. Winning with a huge majority mandate, on the other hand, would permit the winner to act more dismissively toward the minority voters’ concerns. After all, there are so few of them.

Ironic, isn’t it? According to this theory, the more polarized an election, the “better”. The more different the candidates try to appear, the more similar they would be forced to act.

Actually it’s not so surprising. A modern nation has tremendous inertia, which makes it impractical for even an extreme candidate to make significant changes. Think back to the most “way out” political situation you have lived under, and consider how much has your own life had consequentially changed as it came and went? Barely, if at all, I bet. Politicians just cannot screw things up that much.

This is probably the common wisdom that leads to generally declining voting turnout.