The Median Voter v Political Options

I really have to stop going to bed at 4 in the morning.

So, there's kind of this interesting paradox regarding political polarization. In some ways, it's bad. It's bad because it makes it harder for members of congress to actually represent the median policy preferences of the median voter in their constituency. And it's bad, because it makes it much harder to compose a supermajoritarian coaltion to pass legislation (as we've seen in the modern Senate).

On the other hand, political polarization also has some palpable democratic benefits. Because when the parties have very clear and very different issue platforms, voters are much more likely to understand what they're voting for. When they go into the voting booth, they see two names; they have only the foggiest notion of who these people are. If it's a state representative instead of national representative, there's a good chance they've never even heard these people's names. BUT!!! They see that these people have a big R or a big D next to their names, and because the two parties have very clear differences, this voter has a pretty good idea which of these candidates is going to be closer to his or her issue preferences. Not only does this make their vote more "rational," it also allows voters to clearly punish particular parties. When congressional voting is polarized, a voter only needs to know how a particular party approached a particular issue, which is a much lower informational bar than trying to track down how their particular representative voted.

There's also an advantage to giving people distinct choices. If the parties were not polarized, which would probably yield representatives is that were more ideologically moderate, how could people choose between them?

Anyway...it's just kind of an interesting paradox. In a nutshell, polarization is bad for representation but good for accountability and choice.

Also, for Vijay's benefit: titties.