The Peculiar Geography of the American Electorate

Two things are likely to occur in this year’s Presidential election. The first is that the race will be quite close, at least in the popular vote. The second is that, in the days after you will probably hear somebody say “I don’t know how Obama won, because I don’t know anybody who voted for him”, or vice-versa if Romney wins. There are reasons that both of these events will occur. The popular vote will be close because the candidates contort their positions to appeal to broadest spectrum of the electorate and there is an absence of viable third-party alternatives which would garner a significant portion of the voters. The reason for the second is that over time, we have segregated ourselves geographically into such like-minded clusters, that we are seldom exposed to people with differing political views.

Because the U.S. election is actually a series of state-level winner-take-all, rather than a national popular vote, at the state level, there are a number of reliably-red or reliably-blue states and small number of swing states. Many of the either blue or red states have established themselves as such decades ago and have remained that way. While the 2008 Presidential Election was seen as a watershed in American politics with the first election of an African-American President, the underlying geographic pattern of voting was actually rather similar to the several previous elections.

At the finer geographic scale of three thousand U.S. counties, there are even more reliably-red or reliably-blue counties, with often over three-quarters of the electorate in many counties casting ballots for one party. According to the Atlas of the 2008 Elections, reliably-red Republican counties are rural, small-population counties in the Great Plains, predominantly Mormon counties in Utah and neighboring states, and selected counties in the South. Reliably-blue Democratic counties can be found among black-majority counties across the South and Washington, DC and Indian reservations, counties with a major university, high-amenity counties on the west coast, large metropolitan counties, and the outlier state of Vermont.

 At an even finer geographic level of neighborhoods, political party preference would be even more skewed towards one party or another. A major explanation for this is the high rate of mobility of the American population and how we end up residing near other like-minded persons. Currently, one-in-eight Americans move each year, which is down from the 1970s when one-in-five people changed their place of residence.

 While there are a myriad of issues which cause people to vote for candidates from one party or the other, the range of issues can really be reduced to differing opinions as to the proper role of government in people’s lives, the place of the U.S. in the world, and a few moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage. People don’t usually select a place to live based on the political affiliation of neighbors but rather on lifestyle and other characteristics and amenities which then translate into political preferences. Knowing where a person stands one issue, one can with fairly reliably know that person’s political party affiliation and where they stand on a host of other major issues.

 A number of recent studies have parsed the different types of neighborhoods or clusters across the country and tried to explain how we have become so polarized. The most prominent was The Big Sort which showed how the sort, or segregation by lifestyle, was also a sort by political party affiliation and that this has become extreme since the 1970s. Not only are we self-segregating into like-minded cluster in the places we live, but also in the clubs we belong to, in the TV and radio stations we listen to, and in the newspaper and magazines we read. On TV, Fox News preaches to the converted conservatives while MSNBC occupies the same niche on the left, with CNN trying to hold onto viewers in the shrinking middle. We have become increasing less exposed to viewpoints which differ from our own as we don’t even know or associate with people who think differently from the way we do. Think of the last time you were at a party which was divided roughly equally between liberals and conservatives. Typically, any gathering of friends or acquaintances will result in ninety percent or more consisting of like-minded persons with similar views on a range of social and political issues. For the one or two oddballs who hold views which are opposite yours, you will not only not agree or understand them, you will likely question their mental stability.

 This same segregation into opposite ends of the political spectrum is taking place in Congress as well, certainly in the House of Representatives, where redistricting creates safe and extreme districts. This partially explains the downturn in votes across party lines and the failure to enact any meaningful reforms, let alone an on-time federal budget. But these are the people we voted for, so we have the Congress we deserve.

 The high levels of racial segregation in the U.S. seemed to have peaked and are subsiding but political segregation is increasing. One possible way to shift the political debate and expose to the country to different solutions would be to eliminate the Electoral College. This is unlikely to happen because of the high hurdle of needing a constitutional amendment to do so and vested interests in retaining it. However, eliminating the Electoral College and bringing more voters into the discussion could produce a different set of issues, different candidates, and different solutions. It’s something worth trying, since the current system doesn’t seem to be working.

 

Timothy Heleniak is the Director of the American Geographical Society.

Advertisements
Uncategorized

One thought on “The Peculiar Geography of the American Electorate

  1. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes – 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s