CONCLUSION| 223Conclusion
Candidates in American national elections compete for diff erent offi ces using a
variety of rules that determine who can run for offi ce, who can vote, and how bal-
lots are counted and winners determined. Election outcomes are shaped by who
runs for offi ce and how they campaign, who decides to vote, and how they decide
whom to support, but also by the rules that govern electoral competition.
It is easy to complain about American elections. Citizens are not experts about
public policy. They often know little about the candidates running for offi ce. Can-
didates sensationalize, attack, and dissemble, rather than giving constructive
details about who they are and what they would do if elected. Even so, there are
clear, systematic diff erences between Democratic and Republican candidates
that translate into diff erent government policies depending on who holds offi ce.
In addition, the criteria that average Americans use to make vote decisions refl ect
these diff erences. People don’t know everything about politics or about elections,
but their votes are, by and large, reasonable.
Moreover, many examples of seemingly strange behavior in American elec-
tions make more sense once you examine them. It makes sense that so few
Americans are issue voters and that many abstain. It also makes sense that can-
didates seeking the attention of distracted voters tend to emphasize sensational-
ism over sober discussion of policies. The outcome of the election is the result of
all these individual-level choices added together. In that sense, election outcomes
refl ect the preferences of the American people.
American elections are not perfect, but it is impossible to say that they are irrel-
evant. By determining who holds political offi ce, elections determine what govern-
ment does. The 2010 and 2012 elections illustrate this point. After Republicans
gained control of the House and won additional Senate seats in 2010 and 2012,
congressional Democrats and President Obama had to scale back plans for new
policy initiatives, as they now required substantial Republican support to enact
leg islation. The la st t wo yea rs have a lso seen ex tended dead lock over defi cit reduc-
tion and government spending, refl ecting the divided control of government. The
2012 elections, which preserved this outcome, are likely to produce deadlock on
many issues as well. However, if Mitt Romney had won the presidency and Repub-
licans gained control of the Senate, the result would have been signifi cant changes
in policies throughout the federal government.