In my last two posts I scrutinized the tendency for voters, the media, and politicians to use flip-flopper critiques indiscriminately. Common usage is indiscriminate in part because it seems to accept without question that position changes by candidates are always a result of pandering, when in fact other, justifiable reasons may be the cause in any given case. Common usage is also indiscriminate because it denounces position changes by candidates for office without paying attention to how the constitutional features of the office influence the validity of the changes.

Given these defects, why does the flip-flopper critique remain so common? I have a few guesses:

First, perhaps voters and the media use the critique in an attempt to simplify the candidate selection process. Position changes complicate candidate identities, and complexity makes it harder to brand and distinguish candidates. By discouraging position changes, the critique facilitates voter choice.

Second, perhaps voters use the critique because they know that electoral mandates are difficult to enforce intra-term. If a candidate elected on one platform changes her position on a matter once in office, it is always possible for the electorate to vote her out upon the expiration of the term. But there is little that can be done until then. And in the meantime the official may work to create laws that reflect her new, unpopular position. Maybe voters scrutinize candidates for position changes to reduce the risk of this scenario. The flip-flopper critique, in other words, fulfills a vetting function, weeding out those candidates who are most likely to change positions in an unforeseeable manner.