TOPIC 1: Do the 2006 and 2008 elections strengthen or weaken Fiorina's argument for sorting?

Fiorina argues that polarization can be explained as political sorting. Political sorting is essentially those who hold or share similar preferences on issues and ideology will generally vote together. He also states that those who affiliate with any party today, are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically correct party than they were in earlier periods of history. Fiorina and Abrams use the idea of sorting to explain behaviors of the electorate in terms of division. Their belief is that the electorate might be closely divided, it is not deeply divided and this holds true in elections that are closer and more competitive than those candidates who win by landslides.

The 2008 exit polls show these minor divisions in a few instances. CNN exit polls.

When talking about what is more important, issues or personal qualities of the candidates it was both a 60-40 split for both Democrats and Republicans. 60% of voters who voted for Obama felt that issues were more important and 60% of voters who chose McCain said that personal qualities were more important. 60% to 40% is not that great of a division.

When asked about what issues were most important, the divisions are even less evident. The economy was the most important issue in this last election and 53% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans agreed on this. Iraq was the next important issue and 60% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans also agreed on this. On the issue of Energy Policy, 50% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans felt that is was the most important issue. As laid out by these polls, Democrats and Republicans are not divided even though both candidates had stark contrasts on their positions on these issues. It seems that there is not a question of what is important to the voters and their ideologies or values, but how extreme their partisanship or political identification is.

In a New York Times exit poll, there is a political identification poll.

In the 2008 election, 44% of the electorate considered themselves to be independents or moderates. 60% of those moderates voted for Obama and 40% voted for McCain. 22% of the entire electorate consider themselves to be liberals and 34% align themselves with the conservatives.

CNN exit polls for 2006.
In the 2006 elections we see a different story. 26% of the electorate consider themselves to be independents, 38% democrats and 36% are republicans.

Also in 2006, 60% of voters who considered themselves moderates voted on the Democratic ticket and 40% on the Republican ballot.

In 2006, on the issue of illegal immigration both Democrats and Republicans were split 50-50 in agreeing that immigration was an important issue. We see a similar split on the “importance of value issues” and on the “importance of corruption and ethics”.
IMPORTANCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (48%) 46% 52%
Very Important (52%) 49% 50%


IMPORTANCE OF VALUES ISSUES
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (66%) 40% 58%
Very Important (34%) 51% 48%


IMPORTANCE OF CORRUPTION/ETHICS
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (61%) 59% 39%
Very Important (39%) 51% 47%

Our system is a 2 party system, when we vote we make a choice between 2 individuals based on a political preference, opinion of the candidate, a candidates specific view(s) on issues we care about. Someone who considered him or herself as an independent or a moderate voter is forced to make a vote choice between one extreme and another. A large percentage of the electorate claims that they lie in the middle. Just because that individual votes for an extreme, elite candidate does not mean that the voter is an extremist himself.
Fiorina and Abrams argues this as well. They say that the American electorate is, "a largely centrist public drifting slightly rightward on some issues, slightly leftward on others, but with only very small declines...in the number of moderates."

Politics is polarized on the elite level but the electorate is well sorted and lies towards the middle if not directly in the center. Fiorina also makes the claim that because we agree so much as an electorate our elections are so close and more competitive. His "sorting" theory of voter behavior can also be explained by voters disliking both parties equally and trust neither party. So in election after election in a 2 party, 2 candidate system, both unpopular, their votes get sorted into two roughly equal halves.

I agree with Morris P. Fiorina. When you examine the actual views of Americans, "voters are not deeply or bitterly divided."