Why were there so many extremely close elections in the 2000s?

[It's Perro Sanxe wot won it]

I’ve noticed that a lot of elections all over the world were decided by narrow margins during the 2000s, even by ridiculously small ones in many cases. Here are some examples:

Germany 2002: SPD beats the CDU/CSU by less than 10.000 votes, Red-Green retains a slender majority in the Bundestag.

Germany 2005: CDU/CSU emerges as the largest party by an unexpectedly close 1% margin.

Austria 2005: In a reverse of the German result, it is the SPÖ that beats the ÖVP by 1%.

Italy 2006: Romano Prodi’s center-left Olive coalition wins by 0.1%, defeating Berlusconi 49.8-49.7.

Greece 2000: PASOK obtains a narrow 1% edge over New Democracy.

United States 2000: Bush infamously carries Florida and the presidency by just 537 votes.

Hungary 2002 and 2006: 1% wins for the MSZP.

Norway 2005 and 2009: Red-Green coalition obtains slim majorities, while narrowly losing the popular vote to the opposition.

Mexico 2006: Closest presidential election in the country’s history, it is decided by less than 1%.

Taiwan 2004: Chen Shui-bian wins reelection 50.1%-49.9%

Any ideas why all these races were such nail-bitters? Is there no common root?

[vitoNova]

In a macro sense, probably has something to do with the steady trickle of darks moving to the Global North.    The Global War on Terrah.   And subconscious tribalism kicking in.  

[Estrella]

In a macro sense, probably has something to do with the steady trickle of darks moving to the Global North.    The Global War on Terrah.   And subconscious tribalism kicking in.  

What's that got to do with the price of bullets in Aleppo?

I mean, we've seen an increase of tribalism since then, but also plenty of landslide wins or losses in countries mentioned here.

The real answer is probably "coincidence".

[Samof94]

It seems like a coincidence.

[Del Tachi]

Most elections are close.  Politics is naturally competitive, since it is to the advantage of a political party to appease no more than a majority of voters at any given time. 

[Agonized-Statism]

Peak neoliberalism and the authoritarianism of the War on Terror narrowing the scope of political debate, as well as a computer-driven shift in electoral tactics toward microtargeting. The latter, coined in 2002 by political consultant Alexander Gage, played a big part in strengthening and stabilizing partisan affiliation, which turned elections into battles of inches over swing states/provinces.

By the 2000s, the international left had almost universally adopted a 'third way' policy, where social democrats responded to the fall of communism by accepting capitalism. The admission of China to the WTO in 2001 made it clear that China's shift to the right was permanent, and even the Keynesian "left" died in the US with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council. Combine that with a consensus on the necessity of the War on Terror until about 2006, and there was a huge amount of sameness between the parties, so no one was egregious enough to lose in a landslide. Then came the Great Recession and the coopting of grassroots leftist and rightist movements by the major parties.

It will be interesting to see how the mounting crises of the 2020s effect the closeness of elections worldwide. We're in a second big recession and we're going to get more migrant crises from one of these flashpoints in the Middle East and climate change. There's currently a kind of popular front strategy between neoliberals and the reemerging left epitomized by the neo-Keynesian claims of "Bidenomics", but the two will either synthesize like they did in the 1930s to create New Dealerism (more or less the wishy-washy middle Elizabeth Warren occupies) or the left will get tired of being treated like junior partners (see Pelosi vs. the Squad). It's hard to see the Republicans getting many more close elections if they continue to cultivate identitarian politics. Europe, on the other hand, could potentially start electing identitarians in landslides.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Most elections are close.  

Great news for Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale!

[darklordoftech]

Media polarization.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Most elections are close.  Politics is naturally competitive, since it is to the advantage of a political party to appease no more than a majority of voters at any given time. 

Wasnt true for the US or even the UK in the 20th century(For the UK really wasnt true until 2010)

[Chips]

Media polarization.

Ding! ding! ding!. I think you hit it here.