It makes for good TV for the proles, and they get to feel like they participate.

It has become a cliche quote among us in this subreddit and other like minded people, but 'the illusion of choice' rings too true. I was just noticing in my friends tonight that their enthusiasm for this election was based more in entertainment value rather than the actual policies presented. It's just a suspenseful charade.

I'd say the odds are 50/50.

you

I always wondered the same thing. How come they divide a country of 210 million eligible voters, almost exactly in half every time!

"Barrack picks up Mitt and gives him the BODY SLAMM!!!"

There are no coincidences. Only the illusion of coincidences.

This is perfectly likely if you have a system that's rigging everything - which we do.

I wouldn't call the 2008 election essentially a tie, but I see what you're getting at: you're wondering why there hasn't been something like a 2:1 blowout or greater recently.

What it comes down to is that the two parties are more or less evenly matched adversaries, and it takes a series of colossal blunders to push the popular vote ratio to 3:2 let alone 2:1. Now in the digital age, there are systems in place beyond primaries, pundits, etc that can better warn a campaign when they're in danger of totally losing control and advise them on how to right the ship.

The system of long election campaigns with constant sources of feedback throughout makes a series of outcomes relatively close to 50-50 not coincidental, but rather expected.

Extremely good, actually. The big-tent parties created naturally by the single-winner-district national politics almost always end up evenly divided just because people form a relatively normal distribution about the political center.

Yes. Also all the dramz that goes along with the elections these days is weird. Oh look, they're neck-and-neck! Whatever will be the outcome? Glue yourself to the newsmedia to find out!

The show must go on.

You have to understand that both sides pander to different groups and that they pick the groups to pander to based on the best way to divide the country, I'd say they've done a good job of that. divide, and conquer.

I seriously can't believe it was this close. Even with the lesser of two evils re-elected, the fact people are willing to vote for a man who lies consistently to the public about his policies, is beyond dumbfounding.

So on one hand, I would like to believe there were a lot of strings pulled to get the number where they are now, but from what Ive read from some conservative blogs I don't think that's the case...which is even worse when you think about it

This is the expected outcome in a two-party system, according to the Median Voter Theorem.

because they are all controlled its not strange it is planned.

no difference... the policy remains unchanged

This election to me is one of the most believable to why it would be so close to a tie. The reasons to not like Romney or Obama are so superficial that it makes so much sense that it would be so close.

What are the odds that on a two, three, four, five, or six lane wide interstate everyone wants to drive side by side at the exact same speed for miles on end?

/What are the odds of that?

Very high. Candidates, parties and political factions do not operate in a vacuum. If altering their political platform will allow them to net more votes and garner more support, they will. This is why a political party may be very different dependent upon regional factors. Etc. Until the candidates reach a Nash equilibrium. Also coming into play is Madison's public weal, The general entrenchment of the dual parties coupled with the unfavorabilty of third party candidates/positions,and regression to the mean.

Also the two thousand four election had Obama at Ten million votes ahead of McCain.

People tend to pick one or two values to vote on and choose a candidate who panders to those values. It doesn't matter to most people whether or not a candidate will actually ruin them later so long as that value is catered to. Basically it's 50/50 because voters are stupid and don't think.

It's not strange at all. It's always been that way.

Edit: Well, almost always.

The odds of that are 50/50.

[deleted]

It's been well known for about the last month that it was mathematically impossible for Mitt Romney to win, based on a few select counties in select states.

You can thank Gary Johnson for siphoning votes from both sides (but hurting Romney more in the process).

The margin of victory in the popular vote is too large to attribute anything like this to johnson, though. Third parties weren't players this year, unfortuently.

[deleted]

What reason do you have for thinking Gary Johnson would poll above 1%?

After all this talk about Gary Johnson, I refuse to believe he would not do as well as Ross Perot.

All this talk? Perot made it to the debates and, at least initially, was polling equal with the two major party candidates. Johnson never got anywhere near that level of exposure or support. With that in mind, why would you believe he would achieve success on the same level

What about that is so unbelievable?

Informed political analysis has suggested Obama winning this election handedly for quite a while now.

Seriously, hes was polling 5% and had so many bases fired up. I just can't believe the results.

He was polling 5% when not put against the entire field, and had low voter enthusiasm because they all recognized that he'd never win a district, much less the election. Protest votes are the least likely to be cast.

If you asked 100 random people who Gary Johnson was I would imagine that somewhere in the realm of 10 to 15% would actually have any name recognition.

The writers are getting tired.

It wasn't essentially a tie. Obama won 303 (332 if FL goes to him) to Romney's 206.

They're referring to the "popular" vote. 60 million to 57 million.

But that's not how it works. If the candidates cared about popular votes, then both candidates would have campaigned differently.

Of course it doesn't work that way. Nevertheless, OP's point was about the popular vote always being a virtual dead heat.

And that's because the strategy isn't targeted towards the popular vote.

That's a very good point. Eliminate the electoral college and it now becomes a good strategy to go to a "stronghold" (like NYC for the Dems) and rally votes there. In our current system if Obama wins NY by 5 percent or 30 percent doesn't matter - which probably depresses turnout in these areas.

It has become a cliche quote among us in this subreddit and other like minded people, but 'the illusion of choice' rings too true. I was just noticing in my friends tonight that their enthusiasm for this election was based more in entertainment value rather than the actual policies presented. It's just a suspenseful charade.

The margin of victory in the popular vote is too large to attribute anything like this to johnson, though. Third parties weren't players this year, unfortuently.