Comments on: A Century of Voting Patterns

By: Umlud

Umlud — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:58:00 +0000

What I find interesting is that 2008 and 2012 are really the first set of elections in which 1950s and 1960s Southern Democrats – as a major political voting group – have effectively disappeared. The only two times that the Dems won the South (since LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act and Jim Crow laws were overthrown) was with Carter (1976) and Clinton (1992 and 1996), who were both former governors of Southern states (Georgia and Arkansas, respectively) and still had major groups of people that had voted Democratic previously. In the 32 (or 36) years since Carter’s election and the 16 (or 20) years since Clinton’s election, the number of Southern Democrats have diminished significantly. This significant diminution was seen in 2010, when Southern Democrats were swept out of power in Washington as well as in state capitols.

What’s interesting (at least for me) is that neither Obama nor Biden are from the South (contrast this with 2004 when Kerry brought Edwards onto the campaign – with many saying it was to court Southern voters), and it’s the first Democratic ticket that didn’t include a Southern candidate since 1984 (when Mondale and Ferraro ran futilely against Reagan’s massive sweep, and you have to go back to the failed 1968 Democratic bid of Humphrey and Muskie for the next; yes, I’m including Maryland as a Southern State, which is why I didn’t stop at McGovern/Shriver in 1972).

What’s also interesting is that Obama and Biden didn’t need to win any Southern states in 2008 to win (contrast with Carter and Clinton); MD, NC, VA, and FL could all have gone for McCain/Palin, and Obama/Biden would still have won.

By: Umlud

Umlud — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:30:00 +0000

I think that mandatory voting also has an impact on increasing the power of minority parties. Or – to put it in the case of the US – recognizing that there is “no real benefit” in voting for a minority party means that you’ll likely not vote, since you don’t have to.

As a thought experiment, it would be an interesting thing to see what would happen if voting in the US were mandatory. As an actual undertaking, though, it would give a whole lot of people who are happy with the way things are right now a whole lot of trepidation.

By: LynneSkysong

LynneSkysong — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:58:00 +0000

I didn’t know that about Australia! That’s awesome. Our Green party presidential candidate would abolish the electoral college and implement direct voting with a instant runoff voting on audit-able paper ballots. Sad thing being is that the voting system she would implement would need to be in a place to really give a 3rd party a chance.

By: Terry Hickman

Terry Hickman — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:06:00 +0000

I agree, the colors chosen could have been better to more clearly illustrate what they stand for. Also, I would find it more useful if the video came forward through time, instead of going backward. As it is I’m not sure this showed me much. Good effort, maybe needed some tips from a more experienced person in graphical representation of data.

By: Sass

Sass — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:48:00 +0000

That’s how our votes are counted in Australia. We still have two major parties, but we also have the Greens and some Independants who are able to have influence and provide alternatives to those not wanting to vote for Labor or the Liberals. We can also choose to vote above the line where there’s a list of parties that you can choose to number, or just write 1 in the box of your first choice. Or you vote below the line where each person standing is listed under the party they represent, so if you don’t want to vote for the entire Liberal party but want to support one particular person you can choose to do that. It just takes ages number everyone. All our voting is done on paper ballots by the way, and it’s been done this way for a bloody long time so it’s definitely do able.

By: fss

fss — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 00:53:00 +0000

It appears that the darker the color, the LESS overwhelming the vote was for that party, if the scale in the video is any indication. The more overwhelming votes are represented by the state being more saturated with its respective color.

By: LynneSkysong

LynneSkysong — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:36:00 +0000

We have an inherently flawed voting system in my opinion. It’s called first past the post or “winner takes all.” In this system, you always ended up with two main parties. The “best” a strong third party can do is take votes away from the main party that is closest to them on the issues. Then the other main party can win an election with a plurality (50% of the vote), they eliminated the votes for the party with the fewest picks (and for the people that voted for that person, they go to their #2 pick) and re-tally the votes. Repeat until you have a majority winner. It’s a more complicated system, but with today’s technology, it would be possible and feasible to use it.

By: A CENTURY OF VOTING PATTERNS « Welcome to the Doctor's Office

A CENTURY OF VOTING PATTERNS « Welcome to the Doctor's Office — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:01:32 +0000

[…] from SocImages […]

By: Levi Breederland

Levi Breederland — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:35:00 +0000

There’s more than just two parties! You don’t have to choose just one or the other! Why don’t people get that?

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:26:00 +0000

Would be fun to compare it against measured philosophical and policy changes among the electorate, and see how much the people changed versus how much the parties changed.

By: AndyinChicago

AndyinChicago — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:25:00 +0000

This series neglects third parties to the point of irrelevance. Dixiecrats carried states in ’48. In ’12, the Bull Moose Party carried more states than the Republicans. Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in ’92. This binary as a historical record delegitimizes current third parties in pretending that third parties haven’t played an important role in shaping our current system.