In 2016, 200+ counties that had voted twice for Obama flipped and voted for Trump. The reasons are complex & nuanced. Here's why they're gonna vote for Trump again
Hi Walter, I am hoping this article could be helpful as people do their own outreach leading up to the election. It's helpful, I would think, to better understand the cultural frame that people you are trying to persuade are coming from. Much like the linguist George Lakoff once tried to explain how conservatives think as a vehicle for thinking about how to counter their arguments. So I would say...share away!
Fascinating article. Exceptions in any system help us more deeply understand that system. 200+ counties in a country of over 3,000+ counties suggests that the once-common party "patronage machines" have been reduced to 7% in the U.S. through good government reforms. Still work to do, but an encouraging result.
Interesting point James. Glass half full (more than -- 93%). The only problem is that in our Winner Take All system thru which Americans express their electoral preferences in our 50-50 nation, that 7% often plays the crucial role of swing voters who decide the close contests. Such as president and key Senate and House races that will determine who controls the Congress in this Nov's election. That's actually kind of a frightening prospect, it seems to me.
This post is interesting because it engages with the political economy and social systems of places that generated unexpected results. My argument was not that parties have “declined.” It’s more about how to think through electoral-system design in a period of declining party loyalty.
OK Jack, I think I understand your distinction. Though I've seen statements of yours such as "Recent years have been hard on the two-party system. More than 40 percent of Americans now identify as 'independent.' Thirteen percent of those who do identify with either party have changed their affiliation in the past five years– a rate of party switching not seen since the turn of the 20th century." Based on those and other statements (that I don't have handy, probably from your book More Parties or No Parties), it seemed to me you (like Lee Drutman) have been arguing that parties have "declined" or "weakened." And that Top 4/5 will weaken them further. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This discussion raises a lot of methodological questions that I don't see being addressed at all by the proponents of this thesis, such as: how do we measure decline or weakness? What is the criteria? And compared to what? European parties? Is that a sensible comparison since they are elected via such different electoral systems? Or parties from the late 19th century? Is that sensible, given the rise of mass media, digital platforms, plus the integration of race into our politics in a major way?
Without some way to actually measure this, we are stuck with each person's own perceptions and undefined value judgements over whether weakness/decline has in fact occurred. My own view observes that the decline or weakening of parties depends a lot of where you look, i.e. whether on the national, state or local levels. In CA, Democratic Party is extremely powerful. In San Francisco, where I live, Dem Party is extremely powerful. In other parts of the country, GOP is powerful. Sure, the role of the parties has changed and shifted over the decades, no doubt, but the proponents or the decline/weakness perspective seem to set up the late 19th century as some kind of gold standard, and throw fusion from that era into the mix to complete this "gold standard."
Sorry, I find this viewpoint farfetched and based on too much cherry-picking of facts and history. From a reform perspective, it's a political dead end. The overriding reality that is driving reform politics today is the increasing number of independent voters who are suddenly becoming aware that they are shut out of many closed party primaries, which is where most elections are decided. And they want to be included, even as they don't want to have to permanently affiliate with one of the existing parties. When I look at it from their POV, I can't say that I blame them. These voters were ignorable when there were so few of them. As their numbers have grown, it's harder to ignore.
And no amount of theory or historical analysis or critique that "you are doing reform all wrong" is going to change this enormous tide of passion that is driving this reform moment. Trying to do so is "finger in the dike" time. We will see what happens this November, and what the public is willing to vote for. Thanks, all the best.
Ending your comment with “all the best” does not change what Walter rightly observed about the spirit of your post. I am not going to discuss my work with you in its comments section. In fact, I have unsubscribed repeatedly from this publication, only to be mysteriously re-subscribed each time.
OK, I tried to seriously engage but you apparently are not interested. So then why are you commenting here at all? I have no idea how you keep getting re-subscribed. I am certainly not re-subscribing you, the Substack platform does not allow me to resubscribe someone who has unsubscribed.
Hi William, good to hear from you. Hope all is well. I don't have any data that answers your question, but one of the co-authors whose work I cite in the article said this: "Then all these places we studied in 2016, I should add, remain loyal to Trump in 2020." That's from their interview at this link https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-did-staunchly-democratic-counties Hope that helps.
Wow. Such a disturbing piece. I was thinking of sharing it, but it might be too discouraging this close to the election.
Hi Walter, I am hoping this article could be helpful as people do their own outreach leading up to the election. It's helpful, I would think, to better understand the cultural frame that people you are trying to persuade are coming from. Much like the linguist George Lakoff once tried to explain how conservatives think as a vehicle for thinking about how to counter their arguments. So I would say...share away!
Fascinating article. Exceptions in any system help us more deeply understand that system. 200+ counties in a country of over 3,000+ counties suggests that the once-common party "patronage machines" have been reduced to 7% in the U.S. through good government reforms. Still work to do, but an encouraging result.
Interesting point James. Glass half full (more than -- 93%). The only problem is that in our Winner Take All system thru which Americans express their electoral preferences in our 50-50 nation, that 7% often plays the crucial role of swing voters who decide the close contests. Such as president and key Senate and House races that will determine who controls the Congress in this Nov's election. That's actually kind of a frightening prospect, it seems to me.
Flagpole of Contradictions: The American Flag and Trump’s Banner Can’t Coexist
Claiming to love America while worshiping a man who undermines it is the height of hypocrisy.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150060037?r=4d7sow&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This post is interesting because it engages with the political economy and social systems of places that generated unexpected results. My argument was not that parties have “declined.” It’s more about how to think through electoral-system design in a period of declining party loyalty.
OK Jack, I think I understand your distinction. Though I've seen statements of yours such as "Recent years have been hard on the two-party system. More than 40 percent of Americans now identify as 'independent.' Thirteen percent of those who do identify with either party have changed their affiliation in the past five years– a rate of party switching not seen since the turn of the 20th century." Based on those and other statements (that I don't have handy, probably from your book More Parties or No Parties), it seemed to me you (like Lee Drutman) have been arguing that parties have "declined" or "weakened." And that Top 4/5 will weaken them further. Please correct me if I am wrong.
This discussion raises a lot of methodological questions that I don't see being addressed at all by the proponents of this thesis, such as: how do we measure decline or weakness? What is the criteria? And compared to what? European parties? Is that a sensible comparison since they are elected via such different electoral systems? Or parties from the late 19th century? Is that sensible, given the rise of mass media, digital platforms, plus the integration of race into our politics in a major way?
Without some way to actually measure this, we are stuck with each person's own perceptions and undefined value judgements over whether weakness/decline has in fact occurred. My own view observes that the decline or weakening of parties depends a lot of where you look, i.e. whether on the national, state or local levels. In CA, Democratic Party is extremely powerful. In San Francisco, where I live, Dem Party is extremely powerful. In other parts of the country, GOP is powerful. Sure, the role of the parties has changed and shifted over the decades, no doubt, but the proponents or the decline/weakness perspective seem to set up the late 19th century as some kind of gold standard, and throw fusion from that era into the mix to complete this "gold standard."
Sorry, I find this viewpoint farfetched and based on too much cherry-picking of facts and history. From a reform perspective, it's a political dead end. The overriding reality that is driving reform politics today is the increasing number of independent voters who are suddenly becoming aware that they are shut out of many closed party primaries, which is where most elections are decided. And they want to be included, even as they don't want to have to permanently affiliate with one of the existing parties. When I look at it from their POV, I can't say that I blame them. These voters were ignorable when there were so few of them. As their numbers have grown, it's harder to ignore.
And no amount of theory or historical analysis or critique that "you are doing reform all wrong" is going to change this enormous tide of passion that is driving this reform moment. Trying to do so is "finger in the dike" time. We will see what happens this November, and what the public is willing to vote for. Thanks, all the best.
Ending your comment with “all the best” does not change what Walter rightly observed about the spirit of your post. I am not going to discuss my work with you in its comments section. In fact, I have unsubscribed repeatedly from this publication, only to be mysteriously re-subscribed each time.
OK, I tried to seriously engage but you apparently are not interested. So then why are you commenting here at all? I have no idea how you keep getting re-subscribed. I am certainly not re-subscribing you, the Substack platform does not allow me to resubscribe someone who has unsubscribed.
How did these counties vote in 2020?
Hi William, good to hear from you. Hope all is well. I don't have any data that answers your question, but one of the co-authors whose work I cite in the article said this: "Then all these places we studied in 2016, I should add, remain loyal to Trump in 2020." That's from their interview at this link https://www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-did-staunchly-democratic-counties Hope that helps.