Elections and voters make up a feedback loop. That loop reinforces centrism.

[MineralMan]

Candidates look to pollsters to tell them what "likely voters" are interested in and declare their goals based on that feedback because they want to win the election for themselves. If they win, the feedback loop has reinforced their decisions.

Voters become part of that "likely voters" group by, well, voting. Past performance is how pollsters figure out who is a "likely voter." Candidates who don't espouse views that appeal to voters depress the turnout rate among voters who don't like the views on display from the candidates. In the next election, those who chose not to vote will less likely to be included in the "likely voters" measurements. By not voting, they have produced feedback that reinforces whatever were the goals espoused in the previous election.

In 2014, less than 40% of registered voters showed up to vote. And that's just the percentage of registered voters. Registered voters make up less than half of eligible voters. People who don't even register to vote are not part of the feedback loop at all. So, for 2016, the turnout this year and those who turned out will play a role in providing feedback to candidates.

Sadly, this feedback loop tends to produce results that reinforce the positions at the center. I do not know how to break the loop, but that is what will have to be done before election results will favor a shift to the left. Either candidates will have to ignore polls to attempt to sell more progressive ideas or people who want progressive results will have to turn out at the polls. Most often, the feedback loop just keeps reinforcing itself, giving us the government we have, which is firmly centered in the political spectrum overall.

[MineralMan]

1. More about Feedback Loops in General:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

[JaneyVee]

2. Yup, that pendulum keeps swinging....

And centrism is a corporate trap.

[MineralMan]

3. So it seems. I remember watching the Foucault Pendulum

at the Griffith Park Observatory in California as a teenager. A very small magnetic impulse kept that pendulum swinging 24 hours a day. Just a tiny push on every swing kept it going, as it drew the characteristic pattern in the fine sand. It was endlessly fascinating to me.

[mcar]

4. This means that our governancd

is decided by 20% or less than the adult citizens of this country. Discouraging.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, exactly. A small proportion of the populace has

an inordinate influence on our politics. The smaller that proportion is, the more power it has. That's why it's so important for more, not less, people to vote. Trouble is that inertia keeps the non-voters not voting, and there's little stimulus out there for politicians to try to entice them to the polls. That's the negative feedback effect.

Everything tends to move to the center if no change is made. The change, though, can come from either the candidates or the electorate. The feedback system, though, does not favor change in the status quo.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. That's an interesting observation.

I think the solution to the problem is: people who want progressive results will have to turn out at the polls. But how can that be made to happen? Advocating voting on DU is preaching to the choir. Leaving aside the now-serious problem of people who want to vote being prevented from doing so by GOP voter suppression policies, how can apathetic or uninterested non-voters be motivated? Damned if I know.

My impression was that the national party did a deeply shitty job of motivating people to give a damn about this election. My email inbox was constantly deluged with doom-and-gloom warnings to the effect that if I didn't donate $5 this minute civilization would come to a screeching halt. The problem, apart from the negative psychology of their fundraising campaign, was that they didn't need money nearly as much as they needed voters. How much of the money they raised went to GOTV? Or did they just dump it all into depressing and demotivating advertising?

The Dems have never been good at selling progressive ideas. I don't know why. Maybe it's because progressive ideas aren't based on fear and fear sells better than anything else. Or maybe it's just because they are too chickenshit to stick their necks out and take a strong progressive position because they're afraid somebody on Fox News will say something mean about them.

If I knew how to fix this I'd be a highly-paid campaign consultant instead of some frumpy old lady whining on the Internet.

[MineralMan]

7. I don't have an answer for breaking this loop.

On the precinct level, I've had some success in convincing reluctant voters to turn out, by focusing on individual issues of importance to those voters and showing them one or more candidates who have a solution to their issues. That's very labor intensive, though, and requires me to have a conversation with an individual voter. It works, but is limited by time and resources.

Here on DU, I can see clearly that many people are tightly focused on a particular issue or range of issues. Their enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm about a candidate or political party are based largely on that issue of interest. That reflects what I see in my canvassing in a single precinct. Each voter has a particular set of concerns and of issues that will determine whether and how they will vote.

Sadly, in campaigns, candidates can only take a certain number of specific, public positions on specific issues. Which issues they choose are almost always based on polling, and polling is heavily weighted toward the issues of importance to the "likely voters" I mentioned. Positions on other issues can be found on candidate's websites, but those are infrequently accessed, especially by reluctant voters.

I don't have an answer. We're not very good at taking a broad, informed look at our candidates. Instead, we expect candidates to address the particular issues of interest to us as individuals. If they don't do that or we don't notice it, we're disappointed.