Google Ads


Site Stats

Polarization: Past and Present

by: Inoljt

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 2:33 PM EST


A number of commentators have lamented increasing polarization in Washington. Conventional wisdom has it that America is as divided and partisan as it ever has been. Sectional divisions are tearing this country apart and preventing problems such as the deficit from being addressed; the differences between blue America and red America, in this view, are rapidly approaching crisis point.

There is some justice to this view. Polarization has probably increased, by a number of metrics, over the past few elections. Indeed, I previously noted something to this exact effect.

Let's take another look, however, at the hypothesis, using a different type of measurement. Do blue states elect Republican representatives, and vice versa? In a polarized nation, this would probably not be the case.

Here is the House today:

Polarization: Past and Present

Here is 1894:
Polarization: Past and Present

As this stark contrast illustrates, perhaps polarization ain't so bad as it used to be.

More below.

Inoljt :: Polarization: Past and Present
The 2008 image is a fascinating map in that it almost perfectly matches the 2008 electoral college. One sees the Republican corridor of strength in the South and Mountain West. Most of the map is blue since Democrats have a 255-178 majority, the result of two previous Democratic landslides.

Here is a map of a House with a Republican majority:

Polarization: Past and Present

This House was the result of 2002 congressional elections. Republicans had done well in the wake of 9/11, and they had a 232-201 majority.

In the map there are relatively few states with 80-100% of representatives from one party. Blue states elect Republicans; red states elect Democrats. Moreover; for some states (e.g. Delaware, the Dakotas) it is mathematically impossible to be less than 100% Democratic or Republican.

Let's move back several decades:

Polarization: Past and Present

The date is 1960; President John Kennedy has just been elected. Democrats hold a 258-177 majority, almost identical to that today.

There are a lot more "one-party states" compared to the current map. Sectional division is far more pronounced; there is a line between North and South that simply does not exist in today's House. In 1960 - especially in the still-standing Solid South - blue states generally did not elect Republicans, and vice versa.

Polarization grows even worse if one goes back further. Here is 2002, once again:

Polarization: Past and Present

Here is 1894:
Polarization: Past and Present

Republicans have just won 130(!) seats. They hold a 254 to 93 majority.

In this incredible map, there are only six states with congressional delegations less than 80-100% from one party. In it one can literally trace the battlefields of the Civil War.

This is real polarization, the results of a nation so divided it had literally torn itself in two. This is the type of polarization that results from scars so deep that they took more than a century to heal.

Perhaps today America is indeed growing more polarized, more divided into red states and blue states. But when one compares the present situation to past ones, there is literally no comparison. The United States has a long way to go before it gets as polarized as it did during the latter half of the 19th century.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Regional polarization
Has given way to party polarization. Biggest difference between 1894 and today being far fewer conservative Democrats and hardly any liberal Republicans.

Agree 100%
And that's bad (IMHO). When i began to follow US  politics  closely Jacob Javits was Republican Senator, and Larry McDonald - a Democratic congressman. And it was much less predictable and, as a result - much more interesting...

[ Parent ]
Idaho in the 111th congress
Is so misleading.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)

Yeah...
You sometimes get that.

I mean, Mississippi is a fairly blue shade, while Delaware is pure red.

But generally the congressional compositions reflect the state's partisan leanings.

http://mypolitikal.com/


[ Parent ]
On all of the modern maps, you can see
the impact of partisan redistricting. Texas stayed light blue longer than it "should" have, for example.  

[ Parent ]
In Texas
 Many of the congressmen were also pretty entrenched.

for more election analysis, visit  http://frogandturtle.blogspot....




17, CA-06,  


[ Parent ]
Thanks, Bill Sali!


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)


[ Parent ]
Here's a question:
Why have all the plains states remained Republican for so long (Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, etc)?

I know the Republican Party way back when was considered the more progressive of the two party system (I know its probably more complex than that, but work with me here). Now that the binary has changed, they still vote Republican.  I also remember reading about how North Dakota NPL politicians from that era had a lot of ideas that could be construed as pure socialism, but now the state votes Republican by default.

Does anyone here have insight into this?  


Plainly put, social issues
The Plains states are actually quite conservative on social issues (Nixon's southern strategy actually played really well in the not very diverse plains states).

My mom actually grew up in rural Nebraska (and I still have family there) and what's happened is that the social conservatism has bled into being more conservative on other issues (a lot of it is contempt against more urban areas, which is pretty hilarious considering that urban areas are pretty much subsidizing rural areas, but that's off-topic).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]
Yeah,
While I haven't read "What's the Matter with Kansas," I do know the thesis of it is basically what you said; they really don't care about economic issues.  It's amazing how an area that produced people such as William Jennings Bryan, George McGovern and George Norris has heaped on the crazy in recent years.

[ Parent ]
William Jennings Bryan is probably best compared to someone like Mike Huckabee
Yeah, he was an economic populist, but don't forget the role he played in the Scopes Monkey Trial (he was a fundie, even by the standards of the times).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox