« A Man Date And A Movie | Main | Subprime Loans »
December 03, 2007
Taking Density Seriously
It's interesting that it takes an economist to point out that the corollary of America being a low density country with large swaths of land where virtually no one lives is that virtually no one lives in those large swaths of land, and, when considering issues like broadband policy, we really don't have to wire Wyoming in quite the same way as New York. Look at this graphic:
That's the famous post-election map showing Bush's supposed dominance of the country. But what Bush dominated wasn't the ballots, but the total acreage. What's amazing isn't his advantage in counties, but that he could win all those counties and barely capture 50% of the vote. Sadly, we have an electoral system that makes it almost impossible to govern in a way congruent with our population patterns. What's more surprising is that, as a culture, we've somehow let "real America" be defined as the places where no one lives, but where lots of soybeans are grown.
December 3, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It's interesting how much more the Senate and the electoral college vote distribution block the exercise of majority sentiment much more significantly than the limits on government power in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I was also just thinking how unimaginable that electoral map would have been to anyone before 1964 (and even later). The assumption would almost automatically be that the red states voted Democratic and the blue states Republican. It is almost the exact opposite of voting patterns in most elections prior to 1932.
Posted by: Ben Brackley | Dec 3, 2007 3:28:52 PM
And corn! Don't forget corn, which deserves representation just as much as soybeans do! (And more than actual people living in a densely populated coastal state or non-whites, neither of whom are actually real Americans or real voters*.)
*Except Cubans living in Florida. We love you guys. We LOVE you guys!
Posted by: paperwight | Dec 3, 2007 3:30:16 PM
If the AmTaliban has their way, we're likely to see significant population density increases in the future - when fertilized eggs are declared people. Colorado is already trying to get an amendment to their state constitution.
I'm building up stash of "snowflake babies" - looking forward to a big tax refund for all of my new dependents!
Posted by: CParis | Dec 3, 2007 3:40:25 PM
The problem is not neccesarily the electoral college or the Senate. We could mitigate the outsized electoral impact of low population states by increasing the number of congressional seats available in the House of Representatives. For example, my Congressman in Ca represents over 600,000 people, close to double what Alaska's congressman represents. This would autmomatically increase the number of votes in the electoral college for large population states. What we have is a situation where our heavily populated states are ridiculously underrepresented. The problem is not the barriers to majority rule, it's that the majority isn't being counted accurately enough.
Just for the record, I realize we're not going to get the same ratio that we enjoyed at the founding. I'm simply pointing out that we need to increase our seats to better capture population increases, not adhere to a utopian standard.
Posted by: Hebisner | Dec 3, 2007 3:55:15 PM
What's most shocking is that when we're asked to name the most "rural" state, I'm sure few people come up with the most rural state: VERMONT.
Followed closely by...MAINE.
Then, it's West Virginia, Mississippi, and it's only when you get below 50% of the population living in rural areas that we hit our first midwestern state, North Dakota.
http://www.nemw.org/poprural.htm
Still, your point about soybeans is shockingly on point. Midwesterners aren't so rural as in other regions (like New England), but they do have a much higher percentage of farmers (up to almost 8%!).
Ironic that in a nation where about 1% of people live on farms, we imagine that that the family-owned working farm is the "real" America.
I blame Superman.
Posted by: anon | Dec 3, 2007 4:04:02 PM
Sadly, we have an electoral system that makes it almost impossible to govern in a way congruent with our population patterns.
On the contrary, the population-based representation of states in the House and population-based method of electing the president ensures that our government will be congruent with our population patterns, as does our devolution to state and local governments of much political power that in other democracies is held by the central government. True, state representation in the Senate is independent of population, but that's a feature, not a bug. It's one of the checks and balances on the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 4:17:39 PM
What's more surprising is that, as a culture, we've somehow let "real America" be defined as the places where no one lives, but where lots of soybeans are grown.
So "we, as a culture" is defined by what a few right-wing pundits say, is it? Perhaps Rush Limbaugh would say that rural communities are the "real America," but I think the vast majority of Americans--of both political parties--recognize that our big cities in California and the northeast are just as much a part of "real America" as a small town in Wyoming or Texas.
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 4:23:51 PM
It's one of the checks and balances on the tyranny of the majority.
Like judges! Oh, wait, that's only for property rights and white Christians! For anyone else, that's
Sorry, but the whole "tyranny of the majority" claptrap as applied to the Senate and electoral votes makes no sense. It was a deal cut to try to get ratification by states who had a fairly strong view of their own sovereignty. And of course, it creates a nasty path-dependency, where it's impossible to get anything done that the power brokers in the small states don't like, even if the majority of the country wants it.
I think the vast majority of Americans--of both political parties--recognize that our big cities in California and the northeast are just as much a part of "real America" as a small town in Wyoming or Texas.
Do you live in the same country as the rest of us? Most American political vocabulary (Republican and Democrat) is built around the bullshit notion of the now nonexistent heartland yeoman farmer as the true voice of America.) Everyone talks about how Dems won't win without the city vote, without the black vote, without the whatever vote. Almost never do you hear anyone talk about how dependent Republicans are on the special interest group of White (Male) Conservatives.
Posted by: paperwight | Dec 3, 2007 4:30:34 PM
Whoops. That first bit should read: "For anyone else, thatt's judicial activism!"
Posted by: paperwight | Dec 3, 2007 4:33:50 PM
Look at the similarity of this electoral map from the Wilson-Hughes election of 1916. Wilson carried the red states.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1916&off=0&elect=0&f=0
Posted by: Ben Brackley | Dec 3, 2007 4:39:56 PM
Oh yes, paperwight. Why, just the other day I heard Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama suggest that "real America" is located in places like Laramie and Tulsa, and that cites like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles don't count.
What are you smoking?
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 4:45:02 PM
We must remember that if we use Superman as representing the "real" America then we are advocating that real Americans are hard working illegal immigrants getting by on forged documents provided by well-meaning senior citizens.
Posted by: Hawise | Dec 3, 2007 4:46:00 PM
Jason, I think the relevant distinction is that Clinton and Obama don't say or insinuate that any part of the country is more American than the rest (the way former presidential hopeful George Allen did with the "welcome to America" crack in the macaca video).
Posted by: kth | Dec 3, 2007 4:59:09 PM
Sorry, but the whole "tyranny of the majority" claptrap as applied to the Senate and electoral votes makes no sense. It was a deal cut to try to get ratification by states who had a fairly strong view of their own sovereignty.
Er, there were no states when the deal was cut. There were only colonies. The granting of equal statehood to colonies with very different populations reflects the importance of geography and community to American democracy. It's not just about numbers. The composition of the Senate is one manifestation of that.
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 5:08:44 PM
Jason, I think the relevant distinction is that Clinton and Obama don't say or insinuate that any part of the country is more American than the rest
Exactly. And Clinton or Obama will probably be our next president. "We, as a culture" have obviously not allowed our conception of "real America" to be defined by what people like Rush Limbaugh say.
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 5:15:17 PM
The notion that sparsely populated states like Iowa or South Dakota are better reflections of the majority of Americans is absurd of course. California, for example, has farmers, urban populations, vast suburbs adn exurbs, virtually all of America if you think in those terms. The same can be said for Florida or Texas if you want a Red State example. This notion is usually pushed by demagogues like Anne Coulter who wouldn't be caught dead more than 10 miles from an urban shopping district.
Posted by: Hebisner | Dec 3, 2007 5:52:27 PM
"Er, there were no states when the deal was cut. There were only colonies."
Er, the United States started in 1776. "The deal was cut" in 1787.
Posted by: Henderstock | Dec 3, 2007 6:03:15 PM
JasonR, the Constitution was signed in 1787 -- there were already states at that point.
Posted by: JBL | Dec 3, 2007 6:07:22 PM
Sorry for the redundancy.
Posted by: JBL | Dec 3, 2007 6:08:20 PM
For more fun with Election Maps, I always liked this set:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
which includes cartograms to weight for population. The county-level map seems to show a particularly stark Republican dominance.
However, the cartogram for the same data shows something much more balanced.
Note also the maps showing the margin of victory: distinctly purple; not a lot of clear red or blue in there.
Posted by: Andrew | Dec 3, 2007 6:15:53 PM
The problem is not the barriers to majority rule, it's that the majority isn't being counted accurately enough.
Yeppy. If you take Wyoming as the base level for congressional apportionment, California gets 75 reps out of a 600-seat House. It's one thing to have the small states over-represented in the Senate, but they fuck over the large states in the House as well.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 3, 2007 8:09:11 PM
Oh, why stop there, pseudo. Let's just get rid of representation by states and congressional districts altogether, and elect all our federal representatives by popular vote of the entire national electorate. No special privileges for underpopulated areas!
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 8:20:43 PM
You've already shown you have trouble with basic US history, Rsole, so I'd advise you to quit while you're behind.
Then again, one can understand why you're so big on the idea of giving voting rights to vast empty spaces.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 3, 2007 9:08:07 PM
pseudo,
I know you're a furriner and all, but you really ought to have learned by now that the states began to exist when the Declaration of Independence was signed, not when the Constitution was ratified.
Vast differences in population between states and other political subdivisions have always been a feature of American government. It was designed that way. If you don't like it, there's a plane back to dreary, crowded old Blighty with your name on it.
Posted by: JasonR | Dec 3, 2007 9:26:25 PM
JasonR, you were the one who said there weren't any states yet when the constitution was ratified. You said they were still colonies.
Posted by: mad6798j | Dec 3, 2007 9:38:15 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
