The Genius of Karl Rove

Classical political theory, as I understand it, is a function of a concept called “Median Voter Theory.” A variant of competition along a line, the idea is to locate as near to the other candidate as possible, based on the knowledge that every voter from your location to the end of the continuum will vote for you and that everyone from your opponent’s position to the other continuum will vote for them. The incentive, then, is to locate as near to your opponent as possible in order to capture the maximum number of voters from their position back. In a space of two issues, with voters allotted to the candidate closest to their position in the two-issue space, the ideal location would be on the line running between and equal number of voters on each side. This is the Clinton theory.

Karl Rove introduced another wrinkle: the turnout function. The allotment of voters is not only a function of relative distance of the candidate to the voter, but also of absolute distance. Which is to say: there is a cut-off function. The candidate has a “capture-space” within a certain distance of his positions. Outside of this distance, the voter does not turn out at all, and becomes a non-allotted unit. This means that not only is it important for a candidate to capture the voters on his side of the ideal line, but to locate near concentrations within his half. Even ceding the opponent some distance from the line, if it means including a concentration within one’s “capture space,” becomes a successful strategy. Counter-intuitive to the average pollster (non-allotted voters still appear in polls) and consultant, this distinction means the difference between victory and spending the next four years grousing from the sidelines about how badly the war is going.

In the diagram above, ‘B’ locates in the spot dictated by conventional wisdom, but ‘A’ wins, able to include more voters in his “capture space.”