Think beyond current politics on this one…
(Written by kencraw)
I just had an odd thought that while political, I don’t intend it to be a liberal/conservative thing… it’s a theoretical process thing:
Fact: Party A wins popular vote and party B wins electoral college in presidential election
Conclusions one should be able to make:
- Because electoral college biases towards statehood, we must conclude that in the presidential election large populous states go to party A, but a bunch of smaller states go to party B. (actually true)
- Because the senate biases towards statehood, we must also conclude senate will have more members of party B. (actually true)
- Because the house of representatives biases towards population, we must also conclude house will have more members of party A. (*NOT* true)
The question for my readers: Why is #3 not true?
(Warning: All comments that are some form of “because party B is full of jerkwads” will be deleted. I’m not looking to start a political flame-war. I’m trying to better understand the dynamics of our political system at a theoretical level.)
September 24th, 2018 at 9:59 am
Two points:
1. The House is more reactionary than the Senate due to the term lengths, and therefore is more susceptible to voter enthusiasm gaps (aka a voter backlash against whomever is in charge [and yes, I believe people are too quick to blame the people in charge for all the ills in the world, when actual policy changes tend to take years to be implemented and actually have an effect on the country]).
2. Gerrymandering. The party in charge has been more aggressive over the last decade in maintaining that control via gerrymandering.
September 24th, 2018 at 10:14 am
Since the makeup of the House is decided on a district-by-district basis, Party B can win a majority of districts while losing the House popular vote if Party B’s votes are used more efficiently. For example: Party A racks up a large advantage in the total vote count by winning a minority of districts by a very large margin. Party B wins a a majority of districts, and their sum margin of victory in these districts is not enough to overcome Party A’s larger margin of victory in a fewer number of districts.
There are multiple potential reasons that could explain why one party’s votes end up being used more efficiently. One reason is indeed gerrymandering, but another is voter self-sorting. If voters for party A concentrate themselves (either though changing their party affiliation to match their neighbors or moving to an area that better matches their party affiliation) to a higher degree than voters for party B, this can result in the sort of structural disadvantage against party A that results in point #3 not being true.
Voter self-sorting can make gerrymandering an easier task, so it can be difficult to judge the relative importance of either factor. David Wasserman and Ally Flinn of the Cook Political Report have made one recent attempt to disentangle the two:
“As it turns out, gerrymandering wasn’t as much of a factor in the House’s polarization as some redistricting reform advocates might argue. Of the 92 “Swing Seats” that have vanished since 1997, 83 percent of the decline has resulted from natural geographic sorting of the electorate from election to election, while only 17 percent of the decline has resulted from changes to district boundaries.”
https://www.cookpolitical.com/index.php/introducing-2017-cook-political-report-partisan-voter-index
September 24th, 2018 at 10:33 am
I support the prior two statements — gerrymandering, and more importantly, voter self-sorting explain the situation. How gerrymandering occurs is obvious — party B take over of state legislatures.
So that leaves why are voters self-sorting in favor of party B? In short, the answer is a reshuffling of party B around a strong, impactful message.
Since the 1988 presidential election, party B has moved toward messaging that strongly motivates certain voters. Party B has made major changes in its ideology and has changed the geographic makeup of their support. The result has been the very effective voter self-sorting Kyle described.
It’s about the message.
September 24th, 2018 at 10:43 am
Todd’s theory #1 would make a lot of sense if the house does indeed flip back this fall, as it often does after a presidential switch. What that would suggest is that the reason #3 doesn’t “follow the rules” is that we select our house members by a different criteria (at least partially so), that what we want is someone who’s the counter-weight to the presidency.
I’m suspicious of the gerrymandering theory. Usually I hear of gerrymandering causing not a different makeup of the house, but safer districts for each party. Additionally, since it is the party A states that hold the states with the majority of house seats, if both sides were using gerrymandering to their favor (which I believe to be true), it would be party A who would have more seats to win in their favor through the use of gerrymandering.
The self-selecting theory is interesting. I’ll have to mull that one over more.
More thoughts and comments welcome…
September 24th, 2018 at 11:31 am
The group of states that support the parties today has changed dramatically since the Carter/Ford contest of 1976.
Comparing 1976 to 2016 — only 25% of the electoral votes cast in each election came from the same state. That means 3/4 of the electoral votes swapped parties — like Texas and the entire South, the West and the Northeast.
It’s because party B started to change their message moved forward by 1988 presidential campaign manager Lee Atwater. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on Atwater. It explains how the messaging changed and why.
The messaging had its intended results — and most voters begin their self-sorting into the other party with party B being the net winner.