Candidate positioning or limited choice? Voter–candidate fit in the 2024 US election

When voters say neither major-party candidate represents them, the usual diagnosis is that the candidates stand in the wrong places. There is a second possibility: voters combine their views in so many ways that no pair of candidates could fit them much better. I test both with the 2024 ANES, using seven issues on which respondents placed themselves and both candidates. Setting Harris and Trump aside, I search for the two platforms that would sit closest to the same voters. Harris and Trump, as voters placed them, come close: the best pair found removes only 8.8% of the mismatch voters faced, and moving Trump alone gets most of that. More than nine-tenths of the mismatch remains, and it lies in the number of options. A centrist third candidate, the usual remedy, removes 18.4%. Letting all three options move does better: the best three-option menu removes a further 15.7% of what the best pair leaves, about 23% in all. Its middle option is cross-cutting: relatively conservative on defense and liberal on the environment. Under plurality, electing that middle option would fit voters better than electing either outer one. Better-placed candidates would help little; the larger problem is having only two. The PDF here is the author's accepted manuscript. The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 6 November 2026 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/17457289.2026.2755744.

@article{2026_voter_candidate_fit,
  title  = {Candidate positioning or limited choice? Voter–candidate fit in the 2024 US election},
  author = {Samir Varma},
  journal = {Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties},
  year   = {2026},
  doi    = {10.1080/17457289.2026.2755744},
}