Will the trends of geographic polarization continue?

[Calthrina950]

As many of us should know, geographic polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans has increased substantially over the last twenty years or so, especially since 2010. What I mean by that is that Democrats are increasingly concentrated into smaller urban/suburban enclaves, while Republicans are spreading out over more and more rural areas. This trend can be seen most clearly in the presidential elections. Barack Obama won ~875 counties in 2008; this dropped to 693 in 2012. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 490 counties.

The same trend is also happening in gubernatorial and senatorial elections across the board; Republicans now win more counties on average in almost every state than their Democratic rivals, and in most every election at every stage. Democrats, however, now thoroughly dominate the most highly populous counties.

My main question is this then: will this trend continue? In what form? Is it possible that it will reverse? And how will this further impact things such as gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Rural/Urban divide will cause Va, CO, WI, Pa, MI, NH, NM, MN to become more Democratic. While OH and Iowa more rural and GOP. The GOP has a 230 advantage in the House for gerrymandering. Those remaining districts in AZ, TX and FL might have to wait until 2020, despite a GOP gerrymandering advantage in those states
 With a national Democratic president

[DC Al Fine]

As many of us should know, geographic polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans has increased substantially over the last twenty years or so, especially since 2010. What I mean by that is that Democrats are increasingly concentrated into smaller urban/suburban enclaves, while Republicans are spreading out over more and more rural areas. This trend can be seen most clearly in the presidential elections. Barack Obama won ~875 counties in 2008; this dropped to 693 in 2012. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 490 counties.

The same trend is also happening in gubernatorial and senatorial elections across the board; Republicans now win more counties on average in almost every state than their Democratic rivals, and in most every election at every stage. Democrats, however, now thoroughly dominate the most highly populous counties.

My main question is this then: will this trend continue? In what form? Is it possible that it will reverse? And how will this further impact things such as gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc?

Re gerrymandering: it does the GOP's work for them. No need to gerrymander if your opponent's voters have already self-packed. Seriously, look at New York. A 50/50 result pretty much has to favour the GOP due to NYC.

[Politician]

As many of us should know, geographic polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans has increased substantially over the last twenty years or so, especially since 2010. What I mean by that is that Democrats are increasingly concentrated into smaller urban/suburban enclaves, while Republicans are spreading out over more and more rural areas. This trend can be seen most clearly in the presidential elections. Barack Obama won ~875 counties in 2008; this dropped to 693 in 2012. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 490 counties.

The same trend is also happening in gubernatorial and senatorial elections across the board; Republicans now win more counties on average in almost every state than their Democratic rivals, and in most every election at every stage. Democrats, however, now thoroughly dominate the most highly populous counties.

My main question is this then: will this trend continue? In what form? Is it possible that it will reverse? And how will this further impact things such as gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc?

Re gerrymandering: it does the GOP's work for them. No need to gerrymander if your opponent's voters have already self-packed. Seriously, look at New York. A 50/50 result pretty much has to favour the GOP due to NYC.

Then when the GOP gerrymander states such as Pennsylvania. was the reason Democrats couldn't win because the Dems all lived in Pittsburgh and Philly? No, it was because they were packed into 5 districts.

[RINO Tom]

Continue until when?  If you're asking if I think we'll have a clean urban-rural divide for 100 years, then absolutely not.

[Calthrina950]

Continue until when?  If you're asking if I think we'll have a clean urban-rural divide for 100 years, then absolutely not.

I am asking if these trends will continue into the foreseeable future, say the next twenty years or so.

[DC Al Fine]

As many of us should know, geographic polarization between the Democrats and the Republicans has increased substantially over the last twenty years or so, especially since 2010. What I mean by that is that Democrats are increasingly concentrated into smaller urban/suburban enclaves, while Republicans are spreading out over more and more rural areas. This trend can be seen most clearly in the presidential elections. Barack Obama won ~875 counties in 2008; this dropped to 693 in 2012. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won just 490 counties.

The same trend is also happening in gubernatorial and senatorial elections across the board; Republicans now win more counties on average in almost every state than their Democratic rivals, and in most every election at every stage. Democrats, however, now thoroughly dominate the most highly populous counties.

My main question is this then: will this trend continue? In what form? Is it possible that it will reverse? And how will this further impact things such as gerrymandering, the Electoral College, etc?

Re gerrymandering: it does the GOP's work for them. No need to gerrymander if your opponent's voters have already self-packed. Seriously, look at New York. A 50/50 result pretty much has to favour the GOP due to NYC.

Then when the GOP gerrymander states such as Pennsylvania. was the reason Democrats couldn't win because the Dems all lived in Pittsburgh and Philly? No, it was because they were packed into 5 districts.

This isn't an either or thing dude. Even in the new map, PA-3 has a lot of excess Dem voters that the party could put to better use elsewhere.

Heck look at Canada. The current map in Ontario is entirely non-partisan but the consensus is that the NDP would have had to have won the vote by 4% to actually win in the recent election because they ran up the results so much on downtown Toronto.

[Nyvin]

If the bigger suburbs trend Democratic like they did in 2016 it doesn't really matter.   A lot of state are reaching a point where Republicans are actually the more packed party in rural areas.   

[Calthrina950]

If the bigger suburbs trend Democratic like they did in 2016 it doesn't really matter.   A lot of state are reaching a point where Republicans are actually the more packed party in rural areas.   

What do you mean by this? That the geographical spread of Republicans is hurting them? I can believe that, given the margins which the Democrats derive from the most populous urban and suburban counties, and given how Trump still lost the popular vote by 2% despite winning over 80% of the nation's counties.

[DC Al Fine]

If the bigger suburbs trend Democratic like they did in 2016 it doesn't really matter.   A lot of state are reaching a point where Republicans are actually the more packed party in rural areas.   

What do you mean by this? That the geographical spread of Republicans is hurting them? I can believe that, given the margins which the Democrats derive from the most populous urban and suburban counties, and given how Trump still lost the popular vote by 2% despite winning over 80% of the nation's counties.

Agreed. Rural areas might be more packed than they used to but it still doesn't compare to the major cities. NYC, LA, Cook County and the entire Bay Area went 75% plus Democrat. That's millions and millions of voters packed in nto a few places. Exurbs voting 58% GOP doesn't really compare.

[Calthrina950]

If the bigger suburbs trend Democratic like they did in 2016 it doesn't really matter.   A lot of state are reaching a point where Republicans are actually the more packed party in rural areas.   

What do you mean by this? That the geographical spread of Republicans is hurting them? I can believe that, given the margins which the Democrats derive from the most populous urban and suburban counties, and given how Trump still lost the popular vote by 2% despite winning over 80% of the nation's counties.

Agreed. Rural areas might be more packed than they used to but it still doesn't compare to the major cities. NYC, LA, Cook County and the entire Bay Area went 75% plus Democrat. That's millions and millions of voters packed in nto a few places. Exurbs voting 58% GOP doesn't really compare.

And it is something that I find alarming. I wish that voters of both parties were more geographically dispersed, because to me, it is depressing that, election after election, the electoral map is awash in a sea of red (Atlas blue), against a smattering of blue (Atlas red). Geographic polarization is a visual example of how toxic the political system has become.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Single member districts are a real problem. There's no reason we should be confined to them.

[Calthrina950]

Single member districts are a real problem. There's no reason we should be confined to them.

A problem in what way?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Single member districts are a real problem. There's no reason we should be confined to them.

A problem in what way?

In that portioning the population into single member districts presents a problem in combination with demographic clustering that can't be solved along with preserving communities of interest, compact boundaries, etc. It's difficult to get anywhere near proportional with that set of conditions.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Yep, Dems look more and more confined to the cities.

[Calthrina950]

Yep, Dems look more and more confined to the cities.

Which is something that I am not too happy about.

[Calthrina950]

Yep, Dems look more and more confined to the cities.

Because Dem suburbs and Dem trending suburbs don’t exist.

But suburbs don't do much more to address the geographic imbalance that has developed between the two parties.

[Person Man]

Yep, Dems look more and more confined to the cities.

Because Dem suburbs and Dem trending suburbs don’t exist.

But suburbs don't do much more to address the geographic imbalance that has developed between the two parties.

Eventually more of the country will become developed. Or populations will go down and ge will go up.