Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Politically SegregatedFollow

#1 May 31 2008 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I listened to an interview with Bill Bishop, the author of a new book called The Big Sort.

He claims that Americans have become politically segregated. The effects of this being a lesser ability to govern through compromise.

He claims we've actually migrated to areas where we are surrounded by like minded people, however, seems to me we could just have easily, over time, melded into like minded communities just from hanging around each other. Either way, his proof is in the numbers and locations of landslide election results.

The Big Sort wrote:
Competitive elections provided a more accurate picture of where Republicans and Democrats were living. The 1976 election between President Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter took place at the time after WWII when Americans were most likely to live, work or worship with people who supported a different policital party. Just over 26% of the nation's voters lived in landslide counties.

Then the country began segregating. In 1992, 37.7% of American voters lived in landslide counties. By 2000, that number had risen to 45.3%. There was a difference between the elections prior to 1976 and those that came after. In the polarizing, and close, 1968 elections between Nixon and Humphrey, 37.2% of voters lived in landslide counties. The last five presidential elections have all had a higher percentage of voters living in landslide counties than in 1968. Beginning in 1992, the percentage of people living in landslide counties began an upward, stairstep progression. And by 2004, in one of the closest presidential contests in history, 48.3% of voters lived in communties where the election wasn't close at all.


Are we politically segregated to the point that it's hindering our ability to govern fairly and efficiently?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 May 31 2008 at 7:57 AM Rating: Default
no we are not politically segregated, but the poll setters (or what ever the people are called who create the voting areas) are segregating the voters by all kinds of things including race, income, education, etc...

IIRC there was major news a few years back in TX about just this thing.
#3 May 31 2008 at 8:06 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,212 posts
No we arent segregated. Not yet. I dont know the name of it but after the 2004 election someone used a map to show how diverse the voting patterns really were. Took the meaning of a "blue" or "red" state and blew it up, in more than one way.

could it be the pink or purple map?
#4 May 31 2008 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Jonwin wrote:
No we arent segregated. Not yet. I dont know the name of it but after the 2004 election someone used a map to show how diverse the voting patterns really were. Took the meaning of a "blue" or "red" state and blew it up, in more than one way.

could it be the pink or purple map?
There will always be people voting for all the parties, but it can't be denied that in certain areas the large majority of people will vote for a particular party. There is probably a bit of both ideas at play. The social economic environment in which we live does indeed affect us, but given state policies, people are likely to move to states that follow an ideology they agree with.

The place I've noticed the segregation, if you can call it that, is in the way we vote. I live in Canada and so have to deal with a few more parties, and it saddens me that the individual qualities of the candidates have such an extremely minor role in getting elected compared to the party they belong to.

Edited, May 31st 2008 1:49pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#5 May 31 2008 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
It was the purple map. I would say the problem has to do with the Media wanting to break voting patterns into the simplest sound bites possible.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#6 May 31 2008 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
The place I've noticed the segregation, if you can call it that, is in the way we vote. I live in Canada and so have to deal with a few more parties, and it saddens me that the individual qualities of the candidates have such an extremely minor role in getting elected compared to the party they belong to.

Wow, not only do I disagree with you, I complain about the reverse process happening in Australia.

Since the party as a whole largely determines the direction of policy and legal movement, I think the quality of the PARTY is usually more important than the quality of an individual candidate.

And it frustrates and angers me no end when a party with REALLY good and beneficial policies is turned away from by the public because the candidate or leader is somehow uncharismatic.
#7 May 31 2008 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
These might be some of the maps you're referring to. It's pretty cool.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#8 May 31 2008 at 11:03 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,225 posts
Elinda wrote:

He claims we've actually migrated to areas where we are surrounded by like minded people, however, seems to me we could just have easily, over time, melded into like minded communities just from hanging around each other. Either way, his proof is in the numbers and locations of landslide election results.
...
Are we politically segregated to the point that it's hindering our ability to govern fairly and efficiently?


It's only natural to want to surround yourself with like-minded people so I really don't see what's either surprising or bad about this situation.

Is it hindering your ability to govern efficiently or fairly? No. If you're surrounded by like-minded people then they who are chosen to govern will also be like-minded. The problems come when the masses disagree with government - look at Tibet or Zimbabwe for examples.

As for voting for the person or the party, I think every politician will have crises of conscience at one time or another and vote against his/her party. There have been media stories about Barack Obama for having done this. In the UK, Clare Short was well known for having a backbone and voting against her own party.

I'd much rather that politicians have personalities and to be known for it. That way you're more likely to know what your voting for because they "represent" your views for the next 4-5 years.
#9 May 31 2008 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
The fact that we aren't Communists makes us politically segregated.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#10 May 31 2008 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
As an outsider i think a two party stae is politically unhealthy.

Hell in the UK we are a three party state and I find it almost imposible to find a reason to vote for any of the parties because they all want to occupy the middle ground and all three party's policy's reflect this.
#11 May 31 2008 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Baron von tarv wrote:
As an outsider i think a two party stae is politically unhealthy.

Hell in the UK we are a three party state
No we're not.

Pedantically, we're a multi-party state. In reality, we are a 2 party state like USA.

If you want to discount the minority parties (Green, UKIP, BNP etc.) then you should equally discount the Liberal-Democrats.

____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#12 May 31 2008 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Single transferable vote would likely help or solve the problems.

As for my state, California, I think having dramatically fewer state legislators would increase their power and visibility and thus get more people to pay attention to them. Having small districts drawn up by politicians has created totally noncomeptitive elections. We have term limits, so the whole action is in the primary of the party who "owns" the district.
#13 May 31 2008 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,212 posts
It was the purple map. thanks xsarus.

Yossarian, haveing fewer delegates means that power is more centralized, and can open the door to non representative government. Here in Baltimore we just went from 7 districts with 3 council members each to 18 districts with 1 reap each. fewer reps but now they have to pay more attention to what is going on in their district. Here in Md. we effectively have a single party and it is Democratic. No Republican mayor since 1967, and only 2 republican govenors.

I think it was an early politician who said "all politics is local."

#14 May 31 2008 at 7:56 PM Rating: Good
***
3,053 posts
One of them named Agnew

Maryland where we love our corrupt politicians and the funny things they say.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#15 Jun 01 2008 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Jonwin wrote:


Yossarian, haveing fewer delegates means that power is more centralized, and can open the door to non representative government.


We have a bi-cameral legislature with 80 in the assembly (think house) and 40 in the senate. Centralizing power and getting people to actually acknowledge that their state legislature is important would help. I'd say a single body of 50 people would be plenty.

I would not advocate fewer US federal reps.

But the deeper problems with California state government go way, way deeper.

Single transferable vote instantly makes all political parties far, far more equal and allows you to vote for anyone you like, since then your vote transfers to the next person on your list if your first choice isn't going to win.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 377 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (377)