In 2018 I wrote a post for the blog entitled "Blue dot in a red state," illustrating how the metropolitan areas of Minnesota voted overwhelmingly blue (Democratic), while the rest of the state voted overwhelmingly red (Republican). The phenomenon clearly exists nationwide.
This week the StarTribune reported the results of a statewide poll that covered a variety of topics, but most importantly the upcoming midterms. I've embedded one salient chart at the top. Hennepin and Ramsey counties comprise the bulk of the metropolitan Minneapolis/St. Paul area. Tim Walz is the currently-seated Democratic governor. His support is intense in the cities, but not in the rest of the state.
This is also interesting - and perhaps surprising:
The 100th meridian is roughly Winnipeg through San Antonio. 250 million Americans live in the wetter east of the line and 80 million in the dryer west. From the 80 million subtract 50 million living along the wetter west coast. The dry area with its 30 million Americans encompasses 8 states and parts of 9 more. That’s 16 + Senators for less than 10% of the population. 10 of the 30 million live in Phoenix, Denver and Vegas. Another 5 million live in Salt Lake, Tucson, Albuquerque, El Paso, & Boise. So half the 30 million dry area folks live in a city or burbs.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
"Blue dot in a red state"
ReplyDeleteLand doesn't vote. People do.
Also, people in cities interact more with people they don't know and are therefore more tolerant of others.
"Also, people in cities interact more with people they don't know and are therefore more tolerant of others."
DeleteHa, ha, ha, Good one. Oh wait, you weren't being sarcastic? Oh...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/red-state-blue-city-how-the-urban-rural-divide-is-splitting-america/265686/
Delete(note paragraph three)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic%E2%80%93Farmer%E2%80%93Labor_Party
ReplyDeleteThe biggest issue with this trend is that states without the smallest population will be in control of the Senate. This urban/rural divide will provide a durable problem to passage of legislation.
ReplyDeletePull quote: It is estimated that 83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas, up from 64% in 1950. By 2050, 89% of the U.S. population and 68% of the world population is projected to live in urban areas."
https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/built-environment/us-cities-factsheet#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%2083,to%20live%20in%20urban%20areas.
I wpuld argue this fufills the intent of the founding fathers. You don't really want it to be too easy to pass legislation.
DeleteMaybe so. I also don't think much of our governance today would be understood by the founders. Ladies vote! Jefferson wrote about new constitutions being drafted every 19 years. I think that, in historical review of the timing of amendments, we find the the kernel of this thought. The Constitution is an amazing documents.
Deletehttps://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whether-the-american-constitution-is-binding-on-those-who-were-not-born-at-the-time-it-was-signed-and-agreed-to-1789
You don't really want it to be too easy to pass legislation.
DeleteWhy not?
Don't you want a responsive government?
Wyoming, with less than 600,000 people, has just as much power in the Senate as California with almost 40,000,000. It is ridiculous to call the U.S. a democracy with that kind of government structure. All of the other ironies and peculiarities of urban vs. rural, rich vs. poor, etc. pale in comparison. It is the American version of the House of Lords.
ReplyDeleteThe US is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. If it truly was a democracy, all major decisions would be made by New York, California and Illinois, where the majority of population is. Since I live in Fly-over country, I would not like that situation.
DeleteThe Senate provides equal representation for each state, while the House provides representation by population. This is why Wyoming only has one representative in the House, and California has 52.
The House *used to* provide representation by population. That changed with The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. California is now grossly underrepresented in the House in comparison with Wyoming.
Delete"California is now grossly underrepresented in the House in comparison with Wyoming."
DeleteUsing that reasoning, one could state that Delaware and Idaho are grossly underrepresented in the House compared to California.
In fact, according to the 2020 census, the average population per constituent in the 50 states is 761,169. This number practically matches the average per representative number in California (39,613,000/52 = 761,788). There are 25 states with a higher average than California, 24 with a lower average. California has 11.93% of the US total population and 11.95% of the members of the House of Representatives.
Hard to argue that California is underrepresented when they have 52 votes on any proposed spending bill and Wyoming has 1.
Your numbers, while correct, don't dispute my statement. For California to have equal representation in the House vis a vis Wyoming, it would have to have 68 reps to Wyoming's 1. The point is, capping the House at the arbitrary limit of 435 was a bad idea and should be repealed.
DeleteAbout the flyover country mentioned above: I don't recall anyone ever calling Texas and Florida flyover states, and they are the center of recent extremist shenanigans. They both have bigger populations than New York and Illinois which were specifically pointed to. Facts matter.
DeleteRegarding the "[n]ot sure how to explain that" comment, 800 people isn't a very big sample size. It's easy to imagine all sorts of sources of sampling error and, wihtout seeing a distribution of how those 800 are spread across these age ranges, that shouldn't inpsire much confidence in drawing strong conclusions from this data.
ReplyDeleteThe stated error on its own, for instance, virtually eliminates confidence that there's been any demographic change for men and/or for the 35-49 age range.
800 people isn't the problem. Dividing any number of people into four arbitrary age groups would need explanation to pass through peer review. I'm a public health researcher, and I'd expect to be asked to: show the distribution of respondents by age; stratify those respondents according to their representation in the population (which I assume here is the population of just one state); and justify my use of the age-range cutoffs. Especially following a pandemic that's had disproportionate impact according to age, this kind of data presentation is what you get in the press but wouldn't fly in a professional journal.
Delete" But support for legal recreational cannabis has also fallen among those age 18-34 and 35-49 years of age, while rising among older Minnesotans. Not sure how to explain that. "
ReplyDeleteIt hurts growing older.
Cannabis and CBDs help alleviate some of this, where as western meds cost a lot and can have serious side effects
The reason younger people aren't for legalization is that they've seen what legalization of marijuana like playing cards on a sinking ship. Whilst older people are just coming around to the idea and not so worried about what it leads to, considering they aren't gonna be around to see what happens.
ReplyDelete