The meaning behind this theory is that campaigns focus towards key states that hold more electoral sway rather than states that where a majority of constituent voters may already be dedicated to a certain candidate. This political bottlenecking levels an uneven amount of focus towards those chosen states, while other states may remain unaddressed. The concern being that by implementing such a strategy a campaign deems certain states ‘acceptable losses’ while the campaigns focus on solidifying their leads in states that are all but guaranteed wins (Johnson, 2005). This results in “wasted votes” where voters are essentially wasting their vote on a candidate that has either already lost or won the public voter majority in that state. While this does bolster the candidate’s public voter numbers, ultimately they do not incur any additional electoral votes for their candidate, rendering the votes meaningless after a certain threshold has been reached (Ardoin & Parsons,
The meaning behind this theory is that campaigns focus towards key states that hold more electoral sway rather than states that where a majority of constituent voters may already be dedicated to a certain candidate. This political bottlenecking levels an uneven amount of focus towards those chosen states, while other states may remain unaddressed. The concern being that by implementing such a strategy a campaign deems certain states ‘acceptable losses’ while the campaigns focus on solidifying their leads in states that are all but guaranteed wins (Johnson, 2005). This results in “wasted votes” where voters are essentially wasting their vote on a candidate that has either already lost or won the public voter majority in that state. While this does bolster the candidate’s public voter numbers, ultimately they do not incur any additional electoral votes for their candidate, rendering the votes meaningless after a certain threshold has been reached (Ardoin & Parsons,