In Unit 6, you learned about the Median Voter Theorem and how politicians will do best in the election if they identify the median voter’s position in whatever constituency they are appealing to. Why does this strategy sometimes result in a candidate seeming to change his or her positions when moving from a primary to a general election? Now, give an example of a situation where you think a candidate either attempted to follow the median voter, or a situation in which he or she did NOT attempt to move to the median voter’s position. Do you think the candidate in your example behaved strategically? Do you think he or she behaved ethically?

Explanation:

As per the Median Voter theorem expresses that " a greater part rule casting a ballot framework will choose the result generally favored by the middle voter". In this way, on account of essential political race which is intended to choose a gathering's possibility for position - being referred to .For this situation the Median Voter Theorem functions admirably in light of the fact that right now competitor need to appreciate the benefits of " Median voter Theorem" where as in the General political race which is intended to choose who possesses the position itself however in these sort of situations where a typical arrangement is accessible Median voter Theorem has it's constraints and all in all races each applicant needs to take distinctive situation on various subjects and general decisions are not uni dimensional and a large portion of the occasions these positions are politically spurred thus, that is the reason up-and-comer normally don't follow Median voter Theorem,

Example

Where up-and-comer either endeavored to follow the middle voter - Scenario where there is a nation wide or party shrewd agreement regarding a matter " Issues like battle against debasement" at that point competitor for the most part follow the Median voter hypothesis.

Second part where competitor didn't follow the middle voter hypothesis these are where applicant just need to please it's supporters or certain segment of society "Like reduction in the Tax on the well off" for these situation up-and-comer doesn't follow middle voter hypothesis.

Truly when a competitor chose to doesn't follow middle voter hypothesis applicant carried on deliberately ,in light of the fact that considering up-and-comer this diverse situation from middle voter hypothesis increment there opportunities to win or increment it's prominence in certain area of society .

To the extent the person carried on morally this absolutely has a place with the competitors claim moral standard which can not be summed up.

answer; protectionism fosters competition and keeps price regulated;

do you have options to your question?