Scott Alexander explores the Median Voter Theorem, its limitations in real politics, and why recent US elections have been surprisingly close despite these complications. Longer summary

This post explores the Median Voter Theorem and its application in real-world politics. Scott first explains the theorem, which states that rational candidates will converge on the position of the median voter. He then discusses three reasons why this doesn't perfectly describe reality: primary elections, voter turnout, and party goals. Despite these complications, Scott notes that recent US elections have been surprisingly close to 50-50, suggesting some validity to the theorem. He explores how parties might target different median voters for different elections (House, Senate, Presidency) and considers how parties might adjust their positions in response to structural advantages. The post ends with questions about how quickly and effectively parties can shift their positions in response to changing political landscapes. Shorter summary

The post explores the contradiction between studies suggesting elite influence on policy and those indicating money's limited impact on politics, offering several hypotheses to reconcile these findings. Longer summary

This post discusses two seemingly contradictory political science findings: one suggesting that elite opinion strongly influences US policy, and another indicating that money has little impact on politics. The author presents several hypotheses to reconcile these findings, including the possibility that legislators are themselves elites, that elites control cultural institutions, or that money influences politics through lobbying rather than campaign contributions. The post critically examines each hypothesis, considering their strengths and weaknesses in explaining the apparent contradiction. Shorter summary