The 2015 presidential election in Nigerian shows the danger of having presidential and legislative elections on the same day. People cast their vote not only for a president but also for their Representatives in the National Assembly, comprising the Senate and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, many people in that election voted for their representatives based on how they felt about a party’s presidential candidate.The All Progressives Congress (APC) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP) essentially presented themselves as holding concrete ideologies with uniform adherence to party policy standards among their members.Voters without the time or temperament to become informed on each candidate’s policies often choose a party which most aligns with their own ideology of how the government should function and then simply vote along party lines.The simplified political strategy these voters practise holds serious consequences for election outcomes and forces politicians to appeal to the lowest common denominator of voters or risk angering their party and voter base.For starters, a party’s platform often changes during a presidential election because the party’s nominee wields an incredible amount of influence over the future direction of the party. An extremist nominee will cause the party to advocate for extremist policies, and a moderate nominee will cause the party to become more moderate.This rapid shift in policy can be difficult for politicians to adjust to, especially for those who adhere to more moderate views.The difficulties arising from this situation are often experienced by senators and congressmen whose names are on the same ballot as the presidential nominees. Their party may move toward policies which a moderate politician seeking re-election adamantly opposes as part of the platform.This straw man I’m referring to will find himself guilty by association. Despite the politician’s beliefs and service record, an image spoils easily in the eyes of many party hardliners. This can ruin a political career and deprive our nation of some of its most effective and honest legislators.If a politician finds himself in a situation where he is very moderate and his party becomes more extreme — or vice versa — there’s little for a candidate to do.While changing parties, known as party switching, may seem like a feasible solution, there are dangerous stigmas attached. The politician will be viewed as a traitor by his previous base, and many in his new party will doubt the politician’s motives. Because of this, party switching rarely occurs.There’s not an easy solution to resolving the problem of congressional and presidential elections occurring at the same time.We could theoretically change when each office is elected, but it would require an overhaul in our political process, an overhaul unlikely to take place. Politicians could switch parties to avoid having their names tainted, but the resulting suspicion dissuades many. They could also attempt to distance themselves from their party’s platform, but sending a political message costs money and appealing to the party donors often goes hand in hand with sticking to the party line.Ultimately, politicians are trapped in a system where outcomes are judged by the policies the party’s candidate advocates for.
Discover more from NewsBreakers
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What's your reaction?
Excited
0
Happy
0
In Love
0
Not Sure
0
Silly
0
