Geographical location

 

                The second long-term factor to consider is geographical location. In terms of presidential elections, there are a number of states that could be described as relatively safe for one party or the other. For instance, the state of California has voted for the Democrat candidate in each presidential election since 1992. Similar observations can be applied to congressional elections. The last time the state of Wyoming elected a Democrat to the Senate was back in the early 1980s. Given current voting trends, it seems unlikely that California would support a Republican candidate for President or Wyoming would endorse a Democrat for the upper chamber. Neither state is viewed as contestable during a presidential election, although a conservative Democrat could perhaps gain a congressional seat in Wyoming and a liberal Republican might do the same in California.

                As with much else in the field of psephology, there are certain caveats to consider. Firstly, it is entirely possible for a presidential election to be won by a landslide. This last occurred in 1984, when Ronald Reagan won an astonishing 49 out of the 50 states. His Democrat opponent only managed to capture his home state, and then only by a small margin. Similarly, Richard Nixon won all but one of the 50 states in 1972. Given the trend towards ideological polarization, it seems increasingly unlikely that a candidate could do the same when the country is fairly evenly split between red states and blue states in regards to presidential elections.

                Studies into voting behavior seek to explain why people vote the way they do. Although this is difficult to identify in regards to geographical location; it is possible to put forth some observations. For example, the North-East has long been considered more liberal than the Bible Belt. This would surely explain why North-Eastern states are overwhelmingly Democrat whereas the Republicans dominate in the Bible Belt. Similarly, it is the Republicans who best capture the mindset of Middle America.

                In terms of congressional elections, both parties have their safe constituencies. Whilst gerrymandering of House districts undoubtedly helps, this does not in itself explain why the Democrats tend to represent inner-city areas whereas congressional Republicans are more likely to represent rural parts of the country. Once again, the rational choice theory of voting behavior casts valuable light on our understanding. Republicans are more closely associated with an agenda that reflects the concerns of rural dwellers; which could be characterized as the three G’s (support for gun ownership, opposition to gay rights and an emphasis upon religious values). Similarly, an inner-city area is likely to be poorer on average than surrounding areas. It is also more likely to have a higher proportion of ethnic minorities.

                The shades of purple within American congressional and state elections are of obvious interest to our studies. A red constituency in a sea of blue is likely to be a relatively wealthy area with an overwhelming majority of white people, whereas a blue constituency in rural America is likely to be a University town, relatively poorer than the average and/or more ethnically diverse than those constituencies which surround it. Yet for a country which prides itself on democratic values, there are a surprisingly small number of contested seats – particularly during a congressional election for the lower chamber. Either way, the changing demography of a particular location should be of interest to those who seeks to properly understand voting behavior. As such, let us consider the following case study.

Back in 2002, the academics Ruy Texeira and John Judies claimed that demographic trends would favor the Democrats. It seemed a bold prediction given the fact that the GOP controlled both chambers and a Republican was occupying the White House. Although the GOP won the next presidential election, their predictions have largely been proven correct. Texeira and Judies cited an increased number of Latinos (due to their relatively high birth rates), a declining number of white voters, an increased number of LGBT voters (in part due to greater tolerance within society) and so on. That said; there are demographic factors which might favor the Republicans – not least the increased number of EC votes and congressional seats to red states due to a population shift from the rust-belt to sunnier climes. Alas, predicting voting behavior will always be problematic. Regardless of the depth of research, it is nearly impossible to adequately identify future trends in voting behavior. Inevitably, one will always be hostage to fortune. For example, the argument put forward by Texeira and Judies assumes that the GOP cannot properly reach out towards minority groups such as Latinos. If however the Republicans moderate their stance on immigration and affirmative action, there is every possibility that they can regain support from Hispanics throughout the union. This may also require a key role for prominent Hispanics within the party (such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio).