Polarisation - a political attitude that has been observed as an unhealthy development for democracy due to the gridlock (pg. 267) and ideological extremism (pg. 192) that it creates - can also increase voter turnout at a time of political apathy. To view this development as flawed is understandable. What nation would want an ideologically divided public? However, this phenomenon, ironically, can have a beneficial effect on democracy.
Remedying political apathy:
Polarisation raises the stakes of politics (pg. 1), creating feelings of hostility and dislike towards opposing presidential candidates because citizens feel that their belief system is being threatened by an individual that holds different ideological views. This means that there is a greater significance on who is elected due to the increase in the ideological range of policies proposed. This mobilises the electorate to engage in politics as there is competitive drive between voters to keep the opposing candidate out of power. Ward and Tavits(pg. 11), document that higher levels of dislike towards opposing candidates correlate with a higher intention to engage in elections, particularly in the US. Combined with this, the more competitive an election is, the more likely voters will turn up to vote.
Also, polarisation may increase the clarity of the running candidates ideological and policy position, and thereby decrease the difficulty of choosing between competitors. By removing this difficulty voter abstention (pg. 4) is reduced as the electorate can vote with confidence in a candidate that they believe in.
This notion can be applied to the 2020 election. Love him or hate him, Trump mobilised voters in a way that no other American politician has, demonstrated through the election’s record turnout.
The 2020 election
About 160 million (66%) Americans voted in the 2020 election. Approximately ⅔ of the voting age population participated - a proportion not seen in over a century. Studies show that his turnout rate was positively correlated with the steady rise in polarisation. This polarisation stems from a combination of factors including racial inequality, social media, and populism.
Racial division:
Following the death of George Floyd and the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, racial injustice was at the forefront of the election. Trump denounced the BLM movement, referring to all protestors as “thugs” and “anarchists”, and tweeted “when the looting starts, the shootings starts”, a phrase that incited violence against protestors. This galvanised his supporters, who are mostly strong defenders of the All-Lives-Matter movement causing violent protests to ensue throughout the nation. Whereas, Biden was sympathetic to the cause, and met with the leaders of the BLM movement to discuss potential police reform.
This became a battle between the left and right, Democrat and Republican and of course Trump and Biden. This played a significant role in increasing voter turnout amongst young people. A study by CIRCLE, found that nearly ⅔ of young people (aged 18-29) said they were more motivated to vote because of the protests against racial injustice. Resulting in an 9% increase in youth turnout (55%) - the highest rate since 1972.
Social media:
At the time, most of the world was online because of the pandemic. Social media became the main form of communication, thereby increasing its significance during the campaign process.
Media outlets, particularly Twitter, amplified certain issues and ideological viewpoints through echo chambers created by ‘recommendation algorithms’. This is when Twitter use informationfrom engagement data, and filters out content users are less likely to enjoy. This echo chamber became more concentrated in 2020, with two clear ideological divisions, giving fewer users access to opposing beliefs. This exacerbated polarisation as political positions were reinforced, strengthening users’ belief through the exposure of ideologically aligned media. Studies show that between 2016 and 2020, Twitter users were less likely to disseminate information or interact with users on the other side of the political spectrum. Resulting in users being exposed to specific issues that they strongly resonated with. This instilled passion within voters, energising them to vote for a candidate that would address such deep-rooted issues. Fujiwara asserts that Twitter played a significant (pg. 23) role in increasing voter turnout.
Populism:
Trump’s populist approach deepened polarisationwhile increasing voter turnout amongst rural voters.
He appealed to voters, particularly across the rural heartland through an anti-immigration, anti-establishment and anti-elitist rhetoric. His remarks about immigrants, Muslims and globalisation were seen as exacerbating existing divisions, appealing to rural citizens that felt their social identity and economic well-being was being challenged (pg 31) by ‘outsiders’. In the 2020 election, Trump dominated the rural vote significantly more than he did in the previous election. He received (p 149) 7.1 million more votes than Biden from rural voters.
His populist approach also led to his demise. The division he caused was so deep that opposing voters, even those that infrequently engage in politics, turned up to keep him out of power. His presidency activated segments of the population who were concerned about the threat he posed to democracy. An exit poll shows that 44% of Biden voters casted a vote against Trump, not for the Democratic nominee. Displaying the extent to which he was resented by the opposing side.
What lies ahead in the next election?
Politicians who understand the relationship between polarisation and voter turnout will have the best chances of success. Trump’s divisive tactics have worked and proven to be successful on a national level. The next Republican candidate in the 2024 election must be able create enough fear and hatred between voters to beat Biden. America must be prepared for heighted polarisation to emerge, because this method will not be departing from the US political system anytime soon due its efficacy.
However, the danger of polarisation should not be neglected. The rise of polarisation may reach a breaking point where the division becomes so deep that democratic backsliding (pg. 4) occurs from violence between voters, collusion between elites and uncertainty in democracy (pg. 4). America has already experienced the destructive effects of polarisation from the storming of the Capitol. But this is only a fraction of what polarisation can do to a nation. Harteveld (pg. 2) put it well, “polarisationcan be seen as the oxygen for democracy: while it is needed to keep democracy breathing, an excess can make everything go up in flames”.