Elections, Voters, and the Polarization Between Them 

 Yair Amitai

Despite the wide range of avenues available to citizens in a democratic state to influence the political arena, the overwhelming majority rely solely on voting in elections. Elections have thus become the central mechanism through which citizens express their political preferences. Yet in recent years, this mechanism appears to be malfunctioning. In many Western democracies, politicians adopt extreme positions and polarizing rhetoric even though their voters do not hold similarly extreme views. This gap is reflected in several significant indicators pointing to a consistent decline in perceived representation and public trust in the political system.

How can we explain this decline? Why do politicians adopt extreme positions while their voters often hold moderate ones?
A possible answer lies in the very mechanism that connects voters and representatives: elections.

Every day, individuals make dozens of decisions — what clothes to wear, what food to consume, whom to meet. Capitalism and technology have dramatically upgraded our ability to express our unique preferences as consumers, and to tailor the products we consume to those preferences. For example, food delivery apps require us to answer multiple questions just to ensure that the meal we order precisely matches our individual tastes. The penetration of the concept of “customization” into everyday discourse reflects this process: companies strive to adapt generic products to the unique preferences of each consumer.
Political preferences, however, have largely escaped this technological transformation. Since no programmer has yet built a “Political Wolt,” elections require citizens to perform a task that people increasingly do less and less — to choose between conflicting preferences. And voters possess many such conflicting considerations.

Voters take into account a wide range of factors when making electoral decisions. The literature on voting behavior highlights two primary types: ideological considerations and identity-based considerations. Ideological considerations reflect a voter’s policy preferences across various domains, such as culture, economics, and security. Identity-based considerations derive from demographic characteristics — religion, gender, education, place of residence — combined with socio-cultural affiliations, such as ultra-Orthodox Lithuanian, kibbutz member, settler, or Arab.

Theoretically, one might find among Likud voters a settler who believes in socialist economics, a secular Tel Aviv resident with hawkish security views, and a traditional woman from Ashdod who believes peace deserves a chance. Each of these voters may support the same party for entirely different reasons.
Beyond technological limitations, the difficulty of achieving representation in politics stems from a more fundamental structural issue. When the relevant “product” is a public good — such as representation — preferences must be aggregated. Political parties do not serve a single client but tens or hundreds of thousands simultaneously. They cannot optimize representation or policy for each individual voter. Thus, from the voter’s perspective, one must decide: which party offers the best overall “product”? Which considerations should be prioritized — ideological or identity-based? And what happens when ideological commitments conflict with identity loyalties?

Political science offers two major approaches to this question. Political economy views the voter as a rational individual seeking to maximize personal utility through voting. In this framework, politics is a competition between ideas, and voters prioritize ideological considerations. They compare alternatives and vote for the party closest to their policy positions.

In contrast, political sociology views voters not as fully autonomous decision-makers, but as members of identity-based political groups that deeply shape their choices. Politics, in this view, resembles sports: competition among teams, where supporters remain loyal even when dissatisfied with performance. Voters may remain loyal to a party even if it governs poorly or adopts positions inconsistent with their own preferences.
Whether voters behave as rational individuals or as group-based actors has profound consequences for political elites. When elections revolve around ideology, politicians seeking majority support must appeal to the median voter, who is typically moderate. But when politics becomes a struggle among identity groups, the mechanism linking voter preferences to representatives breaks down. Politicians must mobilize emotional loyalty — emphasizing in-group identity and belonging, or intensifying hostility toward political opponents.

In recent years, affective polarization has risen significantly, shifting politics toward identity and emotion at the expense of rational ideological discourse. Affective polarization refers to the gap between positive feelings toward one’s own party and negative feelings toward political rivals.

Research identifies three major drivers of rising affective polarization:
(1) the radicalization of elite discourse, which filters down to the public;
(2) the rise of social media and new media;
(3) processes of political and social sorting, which have aligned political identity (the party one supports) with broader social identity (how one defines oneself).
A “Bibi supporter” is no longer someone for whom voting Likud is just one attribute; support for Netanyahu becomes a central component of personal identity.

While emotions have always played a role in politics, the combination of these three factors has profoundly reshaped Israeli public discourse. Politics increasingly becomes a clash of identities — not a disagreement between opinions, but a confrontation between who I am and who you are. In such an environment, losing elections carries existential consequences, and extreme tactics appear justified.

When elections revolve around emotion, ideological considerations lose salience. As politicians push citizens to hate one another, they promote policies and values that may contradict their own voters’ preferences — without fear of electoral punishment. Voters become “captives” of their political camp. When the political opponent becomes an enemy — a traitor or a fascist — the likelihood of defection disappears. Politicians thus have a clear incentive to intensify emotional division. By consolidating loyal supporters, they reduce the need to present clear policy platforms and can advance controversial measures without effective public accountability.

Politicians exploit the structural weaknesses of elections for personal gain. The responsibility of active democratic citizens is to demand more: substantive public debate on core issues, respectful discourse with political opponents, accessible and reliable political information, and sustained civic engagement — not just once every four years. These steps can help mitigate polarization, reshape political discourse, and restore accountability.