| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Overall, the states that voted for Gore last time have lost citizens, while those that voted for Bush have gained citizens. Due to reapportionment, this has cost blue states electoral votes.
From AP:
Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes – one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.
Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush’s states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore’s are worth just 260.
Via mousemusings, here are details of the specific states that have lost electoral votes:
WOODRUFF: Let’s talk about some of the state’s that lost representations, that lost numbers in the electoral count. Which ones are they?
SMYTH: There were two Gore states that lost two electoral votes. those were New York and Pennsylvania. New York, which is a Democratic strong hold, Pennsylvania which was a close battle ground in 2000. Those were the only two states that lost two electoral votes. There were several states that lost one vote. Michigan was one, Connecticut, Illinois for example.
WOODRUFF: And what about the states that picked up electoral votes?
SMYTH: Well there were four states that picked up two electoral votes. And all four were Bush states. Texas was one, Florida, Georgia and Arizona.
Could this be proof that the liberal policies of those blue states have failed—in that they are driving their citizens away?
And in the beautiful tradition of American democracy, driving them to red states, thereby increasing red state electoral votes?
Update 7-29-04. Welcome, Carnival of the Vanities readers! This article was honored to be included in the latest Carnival of the Vanities, hosted this week by Jeff Doolittle.
Update 12-23-04: The trend appears to be continuing.
#2A very good point.
Political policies have a great effect on the economic well-being of a state. For example, in California, anti-business workman's compensation policies have been driving businesses out of state (something Schwarzenegger has been working to correct.)
I would very much like to see economic data from these states, so that we could look into whether any downward trends are the result of government policy.
#3A couple other things may also be going on, though. If the people moving from blue states are being shuffled because of jobs requiring them to move to more successful locales (because of Republican policies), it might still be liberals moving. This would explain the moderation appearing in some of the red states, e.g. Virginia, Arizona, New Hampshire. Giving more electoral votes to a state while decreasing its conservative influence isn't necessarily a gain for Republicans. If you give more electoral votes by pushing it over the edge to go Democrat, that's not good for Republicans. I'm not ocnvinced that something like this isn't happening in some of the red states.
#4I think Jeremy might have a point. I used to live in New Hampshire. The small town got a large influx of people moving over from Massachusetts because of the tax situation, so they said. The first town meetings after that the newcomers from Massachusetts started trying to get a lot of the policies that caused Massachusetts to have high taxes on income installed. Luckily the locals weren't having any of it. I heard some of the locals telling them that if they wanted thoses things then why did they ever leave Massachustts. This town is located close to Concord but is really only an hour from Boston in rush hour.
The towns closer to Massachusetts have already had this same problem. I just wish the liberals would stop trying to make the states that have been successful without their liberal policies from having to change and not for the better.
#5That's an amazing anecdote. Thanks very much for posting!
#6[ A couple other things may also be going on, though. If the people moving from blue states are being shuffled because of jobs requiring them to move to more successful locales (because of Republican policies), it might still be liberals moving. This would explain the moderation appearing in some of the red states, e.g. Virginia, Arizona, New Hampshire. Giving more electoral votes to a state while decreasing its conservative influence isn?t necessarily a gain for Republicans ]
Huh? Arizona, Texas, Georgia, N.C, Virginia, and California are getting more and more immigrants. That's your so-called "moderation appearing."
#7David, look back at what I said. Key words:
"may also be going on"
"might still be"
"some of the red states"
"isn't necessarily a gain for Republicans"
In the light of that, your comment makes absolutely no sense. Pointing out that other red states might have other things going on says nothing about what might be going on in some of the ones I mentioned.
#8we moved fromm massachusetts to florida, reason being.
High taxes, the govt doesn't listen to it's people, look at the gay marriage , made law by judges, people then voted to have the state vote on it knowing most people don't want gay marriage and the govt tried to stop it getting on the ballot. insane liberal policies like illegal immigration, taxes, the weather is awful the roads are awful.
Best move we ever did
#9Thanks for this great post, Mike.
I would be interested in seeing some economic statistics from these states. Jobs are the number one reason most people relocate. I doubt very many people move only because of politics. The average person simply can't afford to be picky.