Texas will turn Blue by which election year?

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, Texas was reliably a Blue state.  Reagan changed a lot for the state.  But the influence is waning.  Every year, Texas receives more immigration from Blue states (especially California).  Every year, the state gets younger, less white, and more urban.  Income inequality is also expanding here faster than in a lot of places.  I think the demographics make it a sure bet Texas will flip back to reliably Blue in my lifetime. 

Anyone else seeing the same thing?  Care to weigh in with your target year?

[BicycleB]

I see a lot of factors, including a variety of Latinx voters with big influence (could go either way), party choices about policy and presention, questions about whether the current identity-polarization war mode of politics will persist, and so on.

No idea when someday is, though. 2024 or 2044? Can't tell!

[John Galt incarnate!]

Not so long ago in the grand scheme of things, Texas was reliably a Blue state.  Reagan changed a lot for the state.  But the influence is waning.  Every year, Texas receives more immigration from Blue states (especially California).  Every year, the state gets younger, less white, and more urban.  Income inequality is also expanding here faster than in a lot of places.  I think the demographics make it a sure bet Texas will flip back to reliably Blue in my lifetime. 

Anyone else seeing the same thing?  Care to weigh in with your target year?

Before I read your poll choices my off-the-cuff answer was 2030 so I'll stick with it.

[PDXTabs]

Keeping in mind that you have the presidential vote, governor, US house, US senate, state house, and state senate - that's a lot. Whenever it is, it'll be purple well before it is blue.

[Noodle]

Long enough for the older voters to pass. The Texas Republican party isn't growing its younger voter base or its base with women. (The GOP state chair said so himself.) ON the other hand, the stagnation of the economy and the energy sector in particular will slow down in-migration.

I would have said that 2020 would continue the encroachment of blue--maybe a couple of House seats, some state legislature seats, etc but no massive change.

The big issue is what Coronavirus will do. The state is opening really early and the governor isn't letting the major cities tweak plans based on their circumstances. If this blows up in his face, a lot of people may choose to punish somebody at the ballot box (not him, he's not up for election and probably pretty damn happy about it). The other issue is that Texas has been stubborn about vote-by-mail. If there's a fall wave, it's Republican voters who are more likely to have to stay away from the polls (again, older).

[talltexan]

I don't think it will happen any time soon. (disclosure: the last Texas election in which I voted was 2002)

The Latinx that seem to be the core argument for Democrats' ascendancy: many of them are small business owners, pro-gun, and people of faith; many others are participating in the energy economy. Whatever happens with Trump, it's going to be very hard to get them to switch parties.

[Fireball]

I think it turns purple in 8-10 years and blue in about 2x that amount of time.  So 2036-2040.

[bacchi]

Didn't Cruz barely squeak by? Cruz isn't well liked by anyone, true, but it's a sign.

We'll know more this fall with Cornyn's race but we do know that Republicans are losing urban and suburban voters.

[talltexan]

Isn't COrnyn's seat rated as "safe R"?

[Telecaster]

Isn't COrnyn's seat rated as "safe R"?

It is rated as "likely R" by most pundits:

https://www.niskanencenter.org/negative-partisanship-and-the-2020-congressional-elections/

I would still be surprised if it flipped though.   ^ The above article is an interesting, but unconventional analysis that suggests some pathways to flip the Senate.   

[LWYRUP]

I think things flip flop more than people expect.  Nixon carried 49 states in 1972 and then was removed from office later on.  Reagan was a California republican.  Blue collar voters in the Great Lakes used to be reliable Democrats.

So maybe Texas becomes solidly blue in 10 years, and then somewhere else we don't expect (Illinois?) becomes solidly red.  Maybe the Democrats sweep 49 states for a decade or so and then there's a huge corruption scandal and the Republicans or some new party comes roaring back.

I will assume Texas will flip at some point because that's how it's trending right now and I think it's foolish to assume the status quo will just remain constantly.  But when and how and for how long I don't know, and what that will mean in the long run, ditto. 

I always roll my eyes now when one party wins a 51% election and then goes banging on about having some permanent mandate and how things have now forever changed.  They drink their own kool aid and then get thrown out in the next election and some new politician does the same thing. 

[nereo]

I don't think it will happen any time soon. (disclosure: the last Texas election in which I voted was 2002)

The Latinx that seem to be the core argument for Democrats' ascendancy: many of them are small business owners, pro-gun, and people of faith; many others are participating in the energy economy. Whatever happens with Trump, it's going to be very hard to get them to switch parties.

This. The Latinx argument misses a lot. For starters they aren’ta monolithic voting bloc, but have been pushed into one only in the last cycle by some truly hostile actions and rhetoric

Many may vote Dem now but aren’t comfortable within that party either. On average they are not conservative, more religious and more skeptical of large governmental programs than the center of the Democratic Party. Ones that immigrated here legally are also (in general) supportive of measures to prevent illegal immigration and deport those who did not come here following all the rules.

I’ll also echo what LWYRCP said; basically no state had remained one single color through five presidents. Seems foolish to assume any particular one will for another five. It’s just s as conceivable to me that Texas could vote blue by 2028 as California voting Red. Maybe not likely (>50%) but certainly not inconceivable.

[Norioch]

I'll believe it when it happens.

[Fireball]

A lot of polls are showing Biden and Trump in a dead heat in TX right now. I think Trump's support there is probably +3-4%, but even if that's true, it's a pretty big drop in 3 years.  I wonder if that's indicative of more leftward leaning since 2016 or just a referendum on Trump himself. 

[ChpBstrd]

If we look too far in the future, we have to consider that the political parties themselves could change. They seem to straddle each side of whatever the middle is at the time. The positions Democrats held in the 1990's on things like gay marriage, etc. would make them Republicans today (see criticism of Biden for being a 1990s Democrat). So, what if the Republican party changes in a way that captures the middle of Texas' future demographics? Or what if the Democrats change in a way that does so in a shorter time frame?

Arguably, had the Democrats frozen their politics in the 80's or 90's, they would be palatable to a majority of Texans today. Not saying they should have, but pointing out that the national scene involves giving up certain states to seize others.

[BicycleB]

If we look too far in the future, we have to consider that the political parties themselves could change. They seem to straddle each side of whatever the middle is at the time. The positions Democrats held in the 1990's on things like gay marriage, etc. would make them Republicans today (see criticism of Biden for being a 1990s Democrat). So, what if the Republican party changes in a way that captures the middle of Texas' future demographics? Or what if the Democrats change in a way that does so in a shorter time frame?

Arguably, had the Democrats frozen their politics in the 80's or 90's, they would be palatable to a majority of Texans today. Not saying they should have, but pointing out that the national scene involves giving up certain states to seize others.

Wow! Serious thoughts. Multiple things I hadn't thought of before.

[talltexan]

If we look too far in the future, we have to consider that the political parties themselves could change. They seem to straddle each side of whatever the middle is at the time. The positions Democrats held in the 1990's on things like gay marriage, etc. would make them Republicans today (see criticism of Biden for being a 1990s Democrat). So, what if the Republican party changes in a way that captures the middle of Texas' future demographics? Or what if the Democrats change in a way that does so in a shorter time frame?

Arguably, had the Democrats frozen their politics in the 80's or 90's, they would be palatable to a majority of Texans today. Not saying they should have, but pointing out that the national scene involves giving up certain states to seize others.

Last state-wide office won by a Democrat in Texas was in the early 1990's.

[nereo]

Last state-wide office won by a Democrat in Texas was in the early 1990's.

Ah... the 90s.  Remember them?  Flannel and grunge and the feeling that 'the next millenium' was just around the corner?  Y2k?  Our problem and social angst seemed to quaint now, in comparison. 

[partgypsy]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

This is a good point but not relevant to the poll which is intended to cover state wide offices or POTUS voting.  Most recent polling as noted by 270 to win shows that the Presidential election is within a point of the margin of error of being a toss-up.

[Noodle]

Didn't Cruz barely squeak by? Cruz isn't well liked by anyone, true, but it's a sign.

We'll know more this fall with Cornyn's race but we do know that Republicans are losing urban and suburban voters.

I think the level at which Ted Cruz is disliked combined with the fact that Beto O'Rourke was, at the time, an unusually compelling candidate made that race an outlier. John Cornyn is much better at avoiding headlines that raise people's hackles and his opponent is handicapped by the fact that the Democratic nomination is still in a (late, because COVID) run-off. I think the margin will be narrower than it would have been in the past, but I would be shocked if the Democrats grab that seat. Now, when Ted is up again in four years...that could be an interesting race.

[Telecaster]

A couple thoughts on the  change of political parties...

After the Civil War the southern states were nearly 100% Democratic.  From the governor down to the dog catcher, you almost couldn't get elected as a Republican.  The familiar liberal/conservative lines still existed, but it was essentially one party rule.  On a national level, this meant that many southern Democratic senators and congressmen could be, and often were just as conservative than typical Republicans.

This started to change in the 1970s with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which courted conservative southern Democrats, and started to take off in the 1980s with Reagan.  Two things really sealed the deal, one was the Democrats losing the House majority in 1994 at which point many remaining southern Democrats decided to switch parties, and the second was courting evangelical voters, who vote reliably anti-abortion.  Abortion is a classic wedge issue where people who feel strongly about that issue will vote regardless of other factors.  This lead to the near death of the NE liberal Republican.  George H.W. Bush for example was pro-choice, and Mitt Romney ran for senate as a pro-choice candidate. 

Enter Donald Trump. Trump keeps the abortion issue, along low taxes, and a few other things, but otherwise flips the script.  Trump is in favor of tariffs and a generally isolationist viewpoint, which appeals enough to white working class voters who had formerly mostly been Democrats, and wins the election. 

The Post-Trump Republican party faces some big questions.  The economically liberal (in the classic sense) wing of the Republican Party isn't compatible with the Trump wing.  The aggressive foreign policy wing isn't either.  I don't know how this plays out, but a different Republican Party will emerge from the post-Trump era.  And a different Democratic party will too. 

[Financial.Velociraptor]

@Telecaster , loved that.  Can I copy/paste into my facebook feed?

[Gremlin]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

[nereo]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

[Gremlin]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

I can see how it evolved.  It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy.  I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'. 

'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...

[Psychstache]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

I can see how it evolved.  It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy.  I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'. 

'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...

Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.

It reminds me of a poker tournament I was playing one time. We were down to the final 5 players and the tourney paid out to the top 4. The current levels of antes and blinds had gotten to be so high, whoever won the hand ended up being the chip leader by default. I noticed this and said hey this is a bit absurd, how about we all agree to split 80% of the pot between the 5 of us (essentially giving each of us a little over triple our entry fee) and winner takes the rest." everyone agreed except A, the current chip leader. So we played on. At the end of the next hand, B became the chip leader. A chimed in to say he wanted to do the split. We all said cool.....except now B objected, saying he didn't want to do it anymore. This went on for a while until I won a hand, became chip leader, then I offered the deal again. Everyone agreed.

Despite it being clear the 'advantage' of being chip leader being a joke, no one wanted to give up their edge.

[BicycleB]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

I can see how it evolved.  It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy.  I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'. 

'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...

Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.

It reminds me of a poker tournament I was playing one time. We were down to the final 5 players and the tourney paid out to the top 4. The current levels of antes and blinds had gotten to be so high, whoever won the hand ended up being the chip leader by default. I noticed this and said hey this is a bit absurd, how about we all agree to split 80% of the pot between the 5 of us (essentially giving each of us a little over triple our entry fee) and winner takes the rest." everyone agreed except A, the current chip leader. So we played on. At the end of the next hand, B became the chip leader. A chimed in to say he wanted to do the split. We all said cool.....except now B objected, saying he didn't want to do it anymore. This went on for a while until I won a hand, became chip leader, then I offered the deal again. Everyone agreed.

Despite it being clear the 'advantage' of being chip leader being a joke, no one wanted to give up their edge.

Great (and informative) story, Pokerstache @Psychstache!

[talltexan]

@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :

Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.

Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.

[Telecaster]

@Telecaster , loved that.  Can I copy/paste into my facebook feed?

Please do.

[Fireball]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

I can see how it evolved.  It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy.  I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'. 

'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...

Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.

Fortunately, this is exactly what Democrats did in Virginia when they had their first majority in a generation. It can happen. Unfortunately, it will have to be on a state by state basis since the SC decided they had no authority to act on the issue.

[ChpBstrd]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

I can see how it evolved.  It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy.  I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'. 

'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...

Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.

Fortunately, this is exactly what Democrats did in Virginia when they had their first majority in a generation. It can happen. Unfortunately, it will have to be on a state by state basis since the SC decided they had no authority to act on the issue.

I think there's a good case for a constitutional amendment calling for a fixed ratio between the area of a district and its circumference. Yet there is no movement for such a thing. I suspect the issue is over the heads of most voters.

[BicycleB]

I think there's a good case for a constitutional amendment calling for a fixed ratio between the area of a district and its circumference. Yet there is no movement for such a thing. I suspect the issue is over the heads of most voters.

LOL.

I think it has a 1 in 3.14 chance of passing.

[partgypsy]

I think a lot depends on 2020 results, and redistricting. Frankly I would prefer for each state to have non parisan groups draw districting maps. I live in NC which by the number of people who vote republican and democrat voters, would be considered a purple state. But you would never know based on number of red/blue reps. What I'm saying it doesn't matter how many blue voters there are, if they are essentially disenfranchized. Not just gerrymandering, but eliminating places to vote, voter id laws, and making it difficult to register to vote or to vote.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/respect/diversity-inclusion/485906-long-voting-lines-in-texas-renew-accusations-of%3famp  httpss://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20190627/gerrymander-ruling-shifts-focus-to-texas-2020-elections%3ftemplate=ampart    personally, I think election day should be a national holiday. Much more meaningful than alot of these other holidays.

As an Australian, I still can't believe that a nation so steeped in rhetoric about being the "greatest democracy on earth" doesn't have independent districting and independent redistribution of electoral divisions.  This seems so fundamental to the idea of being a democracy to me...

It helps to know the history behind it.  The United States wasn’t founded on the idea that it was a single sovereign country, but a collection of independent states.  That came later. People even spoke about the US as plural for the first 80-some years (“the United States are...” instead of “the United States is ....”).  Heck, for the first 16 years each state had its own currency.

So:  Each state has control over its own districting (not at the federal level), and the same number of representatives in the Senate but loosely based on population for the House. Some states do a better/more independent job than others.  Most state constitutions allowed the elected (state) government to draw the districts, but this was established way before anyone realized one could draw maps to allow one group to unfairly hold onto power (i.e. gerrymandering).  And the unequal representation at the federal level has grown worse as the population has grown and the urban/rural divide has gotten so much large.  Not sure anyone in the 18th century could envision a country with 50 states and 330 million people back then.  When the constitution was drafted 96% of the US population were farmers.

FWIW I agree that the gerrymandering of districts and unequal representation is one of the biggest threats to the ‘will of the people’ actually mattering as it should. Just trying to give some context for how it came to be.  Both a strength and weakness of the constitution (depending on the circumstance) is how difficult it is to change, and how all laws and precedent are superseded by the constitution.

I can see how it evolved.  It is still inconsistent with probably THE most fundamental tenet of democracy.  I can see why the two political parties in the US stand to benefit from retaining the system, but to me it seems like 'the will of the people' is being subverted by 'the will of the party(ies)'. 

'The will of the party' is a phrase I tend to associate with an entirely different political system...

Yeah it is unfortunately shitty. It is more unfoirtunate that we are pretty much stuck with it as changing would require the party in power to choose to reduce their chances of remaining in power, whereas they instead can choose to use their position to increase their entrenchment.

Fortunately, this is exactly what Democrats did in Virginia when they had their first majority in a generation. It can happen. Unfortunately, it will have to be on a state by state basis since the SC decided they had no authority to act on the issue.

That the supreme court decided they had no authority to act on the issue, is ridiculous. That is exactly the kind of circumstances where a ruling by the supreme court can insure all Americans have a right to vote, and more importantly their vote counts. It's a constitutional right.

[nereo]

The right to vote is granted by the constitution, but the manner in which elections are held and districts established are given explicitly to the states, thereby limiting SCOTUS’s authority to rule even on clearly unfair, partisan districting. 
...at least that was their interpretation.

[PKFFW]

The right to vote is granted by the constitution, but the manner in which elections are held and districts established are given explicitly to the states, thereby limiting SCOTUS’s authority to rule even on clearly unfair, partisan districting. 
...at least that was their interpretation.

Or to put it another way, SCOTUS ruled;

You have the right to vote and the State has the right to ensure your vote doesn't actually matter.

[use2betrix]

Currently in Texas the mayor’s of Houston, Austin, and Dallas, are all Democrats, with San Antonio’s being an independent.

This doesn’t really surprise me, however much of the rest of the state, especially the rural areas, are INCREDIBLY right.

[wenchsenior]

@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :

Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.

Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.

Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining. 

Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations.  Which worked out ok for them, I guess.

[talltexan]

They still are. Exhibits A-F are the abortion bans that are popping up in state after state.

[ChpBstrd]

@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :

Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.

Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.

Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining. 

Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations.  Which worked out ok for them, I guess.

Makes me wonder: If 20% of the population became well-organized radicals (e.g. like Hezbollah or the Taliban), would at least one of the major parties make this their new "center"? Would both parties shift in the radical direction?

Small radical movements make a big difference in a country where only half of us vote in major elections, and maybe a few percent in minor local elections.

[ctuser1]

@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :

Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.

Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.

Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining. 

Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations.  Which worked out ok for them, I guess.

Makes me wonder: If 20% of the population became well-organized radicals (e.g. like Hezbollah or the Taliban), would at least one of the major parties make this their new "center"? Would both parties shift in the radical direction?

Small radical movements make a big difference in a country where only half of us vote in major elections, and maybe a few percent in minor local elections.

Who needs 20%?

Think 3.5%. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

To be fair, the "3.5% rule" applies mostly to "revolutions" and such, and not to normal democratic processes. The point stands, however, that a sufficiently motivated minority << 20% can bring about large changes.

[wenchsenior]

@Telecaster and @Financial.Velociraptor :

Bush was pro-choice when he challenged Reagan in the 1980 primary. By the time he was running again in 1988, he'd become pro-life, acknowledging a rape/incest exception.

Where the Republican Party sits today, that rape/incest exception would make him a dramatic outlier.

Yeah, the complete capitulation of the GOP's leading officeholders to the evangelical base during the '90s is pretty striking. Bush Snr really disliked them. Famously, during the mid to late 80s, Neil Bush gave a speech on behalf of his father in Iowa(!) where he referred to evangelical Christians as “cockroaches" issuing 'from the "baseboards of the Bible-belt," which is a phrase that I still find very entertaining. 

Try to imagine that happening now. Or even a handful of years later, by which point the GOP was on its knees for the evangelical base to the eventual exclusion of nearly all other considerations.  Which worked out ok for them, I guess.

Makes me wonder: If 20% of the population became well-organized radicals (e.g. like Hezbollah or the Taliban), would at least one of the major parties make this their new "center"? Would both parties shift in the radical direction?

Small radical movements make a big difference in a country where only half of us vote in major elections, and maybe a few percent in minor local elections.

This is probably more or less what happened with the GOP.  Religiosity in the U.S. has been declining for decades ('nones' now comprise almost a quarter of the U.S. population).  But evangelicals have been growing as a proportion of that shrinking religious population, and currently comprise just over 25% of the religious population. And the GOP has shifted its policies further right as this shift happened. 

So essentially, you have about one-quarter of the population with very strong, 'radical' policy preferences (super conservative) running one party.  By default (b/c the Dem party isn't organized enough to do things on purpose IMO), you have the Dems representing (loosely) another one-quarter of the population, but a quarter that doesn't have nearly as strong or coherent a platform (b/c it is composed of far more variable group members).

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

[nereo]

Evangelicals are having their moment of political power right now.  I’m doubtful it will last for several more cycles though.  As a party (in this case the GOP) moves towards a group to garner their vote they risk alienating the rest of their party.  So far the GOP has been able to skate that line because Republicans have very deep identity politics - much stronger than Dems right now.  A whole lot of boomers can’t bring themselves to support anyone but the GOP, their identity is so strong.

But... catering to the evangelicals is turning off hoards of potential future voters. GenX’s haven’t shifted to the GOP the way their parents did around their age bracket (when taxes and regulations and wealth-preservation suddenly start to matter a lot more).  The younger generations are far less likely to consider themselves evangelical, and see a huge amount of hypocrisy in supporting a thrice-married serial adulterer that scorns most every lesson in the Bible and embodies at least four of the deadly sins.

[sherr]

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.

That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.

It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.

[wenchsenior]

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.

That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.

It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.

I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.

[LWYRUP]

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.

That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.

It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.

I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.

I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold. 

[ChpBstrd]

Evangelicals are having their moment of political power right now.  I’m doubtful it will last for several more cycles though.  As a party (in this case the GOP) moves towards a group to garner their vote they risk alienating the rest of their party.  So far the GOP has been able to skate that line because Republicans have very deep identity politics - much stronger than Dems right now.  A whole lot of boomers can’t bring themselves to support anyone but the GOP, their identity is so strong.

But... catering to the evangelicals is turning off hoards of potential future voters. GenX’s haven’t shifted to the GOP the way their parents did around their age bracket (when taxes and regulations and wealth-preservation suddenly start to matter a lot more).  The younger generations are far less likely to consider themselves evangelical, and see a huge amount of hypocrisy in supporting a thrice-married serial adulterer that scorns most every lesson in the Bible and embodies at least four of the deadly sins.

I've been hearing the generational argument for decades now. Truth is, evangelicals have and adopt more babies than liberals. They are willing to work, spend, and sacrifice to pursue their cause and to recruit more people. They own the majority of radio and TV stations/sites, and have their own national news network. Most importantly, they are organized, which is the only route to political power. Meanwhile, labor unions, civil rights organizations, and civic clubs have all been in steep decline for decades.

And if the discovery of networks of pedo priests/pastors/ministers who had been hypocritically telling everyone else how to live didn't run evangelicals out of their churches, I wouldn't expect Trump to bother them.

[ChpBstrd]

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.

That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.

It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.

I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.

I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.

IDK, evangelicals were pretty enthusiastic about the wars against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty sure the body count of those adventures in futility exceed Hezbollah and the Taliban put together.

The administration is also running "camps" for people of a certain ethnicity that are rumored to involve disease, rape, and squalid conditions, but we can't know for sure because the press isn't allowed in. These could develop into something. Who knows?

[ctuser1]

ETA: 'radical' in scare quotes b/c I'm not comparing the evangelicals in the U.S. to Hezbollah/Taliban. Not so far, anyway.  It's possible they could get there eventually.

I mean, 89% of White Evangelical Protestants believe that the Bible should have at least some influence on US laws, and 68% of them think that the Bible should take precedence over the will of the people.

That's the same underlying philosophy that Hezbollah/Taliban have, is it not? See for example the recent example of gay marriage, where they all very explicitly came out against allowing other people to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and for using the government to force "my version of my religion" down everyone else's throats.

It's more just a matter of degrees then it is any qualitative difference.

I was trying to be politer than I actually feel.

I suppose if you consider "murdering people who disagree with you" and "not murdering people who disagree with you" to be equivalent, these are rational views for you both to hold.

Hmmmmmm, are all evangelicals who ever ejaculated, mass murderers?

[LWYRUP]

I appreciate your feedback.  It doesn't seem like there's much appetite for an actual substantive discussion anymore so I'll leave you to your thread.