I don't follow the logic there at all. Surely a low turnout means the exact opposite. If there's a low background vote anyone who can inspire new voters to come out and vote has a massive advantage compared to nations with typically high turnouts.flash2015 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:59 pmI know that low turnout for elections is bad for democracy. The poster child for this is the USA. Due to the low turnout, elections in the US aren't about convincing people to change their mind to vote for you. Elections are all about getting your supporters to turn out and discouraging your opponents from voting.
What typically happens in any democratic nation is that the dominant parties observe trends and this becomes the perceived wisdom in how they think they can win elections. They then double down on this every election cycle, with success attributed to doing it well and failure attributed to not trying it hard enough. In many ways like the evolution of sabre toothed tigers that gave the species ridiculous teeth that would fail abysmally if faced with a true competitor.
You could argue that Trump was defeated by this very thing. He relied on motivating the Republican base, which he clearly succeeded in doing looking at the numbers who voted for him, but lost because there was a record turnout including a hell of a lot of people who don't normally give a damn.
If you look at Macron in France, he is President because the perceived wisdom of the traditional centre left and centre right French parties turned out to be bollocks. UKIP and its successor Brexit Party destroyed the idea that only the two major UK parties have real influence in Britain and forced through their agenda. Italy is constantly redefining the perceived wisdom of how Italian politics (for want of a better word) works. Germany may well be heading for its own shift in perceptions.