What’s the Matter with Polarization?
A Reaction to:
Political Polarization in the American Public Morris P. Fiorina and Samuel J. Abrams

In the world of political science, theories often lack substantial evidence or support to become conclusive. There are nearly always loopholes critics can find in conjectures, and as time progresses, politics can change to falsify or clarify established findings. In the past ten years, the idea of political polarization in the American public has become something that political scientists are obsessed with, yet something that is still puzzling to figure out. Is polarization defined by voters’ preferences, or by their choices? By specific issues, or by party identification? To find whether such a division exists, there must be a way to measure it, and evidence strong enough to support it. Here lies the problem. As Morris Fiorina and Samuel Abrams do in their work, Political Polarization in the American Public, researchers search for ways to prove popular polarization exists, and struggle. With the lack of a universal definition of polarization, the changing and fairly unpredictable nature of the human voter, and even with the proven existence of elite polarization, the existence of true political polarization will never be determined. When attempting to prove polarization, it is much easier to use the choices voters make in elections and determine from that information whether polarization is present. While easier, the choices voters make do not necessarily represent their specific preferences. In nearly all elections, when voting for a candidate, a voter will not agree with all of the stances a candidate takes on various issues. Rather, they will go with the candidate they agree with on the most issues. Therefore, such a method is a poor way of measuring polarization, as it is far too broad.
Looking