So the 2010 Census data is out, and it’s bad news for Democrats, because the declining population shifts of residents in states like New York and Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and the increasing trends in Texas and Florida, mean House seats will be re-calculated in favor of The Reds. Which means the U.S. population, which now sits at 308,745,538 (or a 9.7 percent increase from 2000’s data), which already has a group of politicians moving slower on social issues than they are, will be governed even more by people who think You People are second-class.
data dump
Your Census Data Is Turning America Into Redcoats
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
ChiGuy76
Before we start playing “Taps” for liberalism, let’s remember that when populations shift like this, Blue State liberal transplants normally take their voting patterns with them. This has happened with Californians who have moved into the Mountain States (Colorado and Nevada are now swing states). Northern Transplants to Texas and Florida are turning these states Purple. Such population shifts could actually be disastrous for Republicans. As conservative districts in the Blue States (more aptly named “less liberal”) are merged with very liberal ones, Republicans may lose recent electoral gains there. And as more districts are created in Red States to accomodate the Blue State influx, traditional concervative politician may well find themselves in for tough fights to keep their jobs if they do not move more to the left. Short-term electoral gains for conservatives could very well spell long-term losses for the GOP.
SteveC
Um – the way to resolve this is to introduce democracy to the US. By that I mean Proportional Representation.
If 10% of the population vote for the ‘Abortions for Everybody Party’ then surely the ‘Abortions for Everybody Party’ should receive 10% of the seats.
Brutus
@SteveC: That would require abolishing federalism.
SteveC
Why would it abolish federalism?
PR can be applied on a state by state basis, and the outcome derived from the combined totals.
Chuck
@ChiGuy76: Nice theory, but I fear Florida will be lost for a generation as all the Tea Party types continue to retire there. They just elected a convicted criminal Tea Party governor. I don’t see Obama having a chance there in 2012 with all the old farts sitting around watching Fox News as they spend their Social Security checks and vote against their own interests.
Scott
I wouldn’t worry. Weather disasters are becoming more frequent and God’s target is conservatives. They have so many twisters that they’ll be visiting Dorothy over the rainbow. They don’t know how to deal with snow and that’ll take out more that don’t get hit by the twisters. The northeast is fairly well protected and adapted to bad weather so real estate is going up, up, and up, so that only people with money (the gays) can afford it. Notice how the colder states are blue-er. That’s because people need to depend on each other more in the cold no matter what neighbors think of each other.
GlacierGuy
Remember now….in 2012 all the so called “Reaping” is going to take place. All the dedicated, conservative, money donating, gay bashing and loyal Christians will be sucked off our planet and joined in “heaven” with the big mighty guy, Jesus Christ!! So, no worries fellow liberals and non-Christian like peeps…..we’ll soon run of the ship once again! LOL!! The pendulum will swing the other way eventually…..until then just sit back and enjoy the show!! It’s going to be quite the social spectacle!! Blue states, hold on to your asses we’re in for a hell of a ride.
Chandler In Las Vegas
This is a stupid map based on counties. If you look at Nevada, 90% of the population resides in the two BLUE counties. Nobody and a bunch of cows are what is in all those red counties.
damon459
I agree with ChiGuy76 what makes people think that when someone moves they will automatically change parties? I was a Democrat when I lived in my home county and when I moved to a different county I continued to be a Democrat. I’m planning to move out of state and when I get to my new home I’ll still be a democrat. It seems like these “news” stories are just cooked up to try and create an issue that doesn’t really exist. Regardless of where someone lives Democrats will still be Democrats, Republicans will still be Republicans, Tea Parties will still be crazy and “swing” voters will continue to “swing” lol.
Jeffree
When people move from a blue state to a red state, it’s not that their political affiliation necessarily changes. Since House seats are apportioned by the size of the population, when the population expands or contracts, that state gets more or fewer Reps.
So if a democrat moves into a majority “red” district, their vote for a fellow Dem is outmatched by the overall Repub. population of that district.
So when someone moves from, say a “blue” Massachusetts district to a predominantly “red” one in Texas, that district will remain Repub. until the Dems outnumber them.
Greg
Floridians passed two amendments to the state constitution in the 2010 elections – they require congressional districts to be drawn along real boundaries (rivers, canals, streets, etc) and should make it far more difficult for gerrymandering. We’ll see how it goes when they draw up the new districts this year.
Daez
@damon459: What you fail to realize is that this is more about the disappearance of traditionally red or blue districts. In Ohio, it will be up to the Republican governor and state congressional body to redistrict. That will end with even more skewed lines (if you ever look at a district map in a state you will see just how skewed they are). Ohio will lose two traditionally Democratic seats and be redistricted to gain power and sway in two traditionally Republican seats.
That means, two current Democratic congress people will be going home when this process is finished.
BenR
What most talking heads are quick to point out, but has been ignored here, is that a large part of the growth of this country, particularly in states like Texas (which gained 4 House seats) is coming from growth among the Hispanic-American community, which votes 2-1 for Democrats, as well as other traditionally non-Republican demographics. Regardless of where the population is growing, it’s far more important who is actually there. We’ve known for a long time that the demographics which vote overwhelmingly Republican – white people, older people – are being essentially eclipsed and replaced by demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic – younger people, people of color, second-generation immigrants.
The real bad news for liberals is that the redistricting process in many states is currently in the hands of Republican-controlled state governments, which means they will basically get to gerrymander things any way they want. That’s the real farce of representative government – when partisans get to decide whose vote goes for which district, they essentially control who’s going to get elected for the next decade. How else do you think freaks like Michele Bachmann go unchallenged in a moderate-liberal state like Minnesota? She only wins because her entire district is made up of white flight suburbanites of the Twin Cities metro area, who are vastly more conservative than either actual city dwellers or the rural communities.
Some states have updated their redistricting process so that it is controlled by a non-partisan commission. Most still leave it to the whims and fancies of whoever happens to be in charge of their state government. Anyone who cares about representative democracy should be worried about a system in which players on one side or the other get to decide the rules of the game before it even starts.
Don Edwards
I think that it should be noted that just looking at the map can be a little misleading. More rural and relatively sparsly populated counties (counties are the units of measure on the map) are geographically much larger than the more densely populated urban counties. Therefore in terms of population representation, there is disproportionately more red surface area showing on the map than blue surface area. What can be concluded is that people in more rural and somewhat more homogeneous, insulated (or more isolated) areas typically in the interior of a country tend to be more conservative (or more narrow minded) in their views than those who live in more heterogeneous centers of commerce typical of large cities on the coasts where there is considerably more exposure to people with different cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds. The more one is exposed to people who superficially may appear different, the more one realizes that in general they are no different or more threatening than the guy next door. In my graduate school studies in Geography, it became clear to me that while these patterns may oscillate from time to time, they generally exist in almost all countries throughout the world and throughout human history.
reason
@ChiGuy76: I think you are right, but it will take more time for that to bear fruit. The growing Hispanic population will also put Texas in play in coming presidential elections, but probably not by 2012.
Daez
@BenR: However, the question really comes down to rather these people would actually remain Republican if the Democratic party was on the side of the working man.
The Democratic party has proven time and time again that they are absolutely against the working man. They seem to think that raising taxes on self made millionaires and families that make over $250,000 a year (those that work hard for a living and didn’t piss their wife away) to help welfare mothers is a great idea.
Given that fact, I wouldn’t even vote Democratic if the Republicans were even remotely gay friendly. If gays obtained all of their rights, I would most likely never vote Democratic again and the Democrats know it.
Daez
@reason: The growing Hispanic population is also the growing Pope Loving Catholic population. To think that these people actually support gay rights is insane. I wouldn’t be counting on them to save you any time soon.
Actually, if the Democrats catch on that these people are actually more important to them getting elected than the gays, chances are even the Democrats will do only the minimal effort for gay rights.
AL
@Daez: Exactly! Hispanics are generally conservative on social issues, but they vote Democratic because of welfare, promised Dream Act, and other “free” government handouts. If Republicans were in support of “free stuff”, Hispanics would definitely vote Republican and throw your gay ass under the bus. Just look at Hispanic countries. They are all overwhelmingly homophobic with the exception of Argentina and Spain (the last one is predominantly white, of course). Silly liberals. Somehow, liberals are fooled into believing that “people of color” are expected to be more progressive and tolerant. That’s a biggest lie on the planet. I deal with illegal immigrants on daily basis and I can say with absolute certainty that homophobia is rampant among them. Do you really want them to become your fellow citizens? Well, if it adds more votes for “free” services, then I guess you wouldn’t mind them to become Americans.