I wanted to follow up on Andrew Gelman’s post on the Monkey Cage yesterday about the political implications of redistricting following the new census. As has been reported in the media, if Obama carries the exact same states he did in 2008 again in 2012, he would end up with six fewer electoral votes. Interestingly, though, this means that if you rank the states in order of largest margin of victory for Obama, the same state that guaranteed him the presidency in 2008, Colorado, would give him the presidency in 2012, although with bare minimum of 270 electoral votes (instead of 276 in 2008). Put another way, Obama could still be reelected without winning Virginia, Ohio, Florida, the 2nd CD in Nebraska, Indiana, or North Carolina. Moreover, it is clear that there are now going to be more House seats in states that tend to send more Republicans to the House of Representatives.
That being said, what I have not yet seen is a good explanation of exactly who is accounting for the growth in population in the South-West of the United States. It may be the case that it is Northerners and Easterners who are moving to the South-West. However, it may also be the case that the Latino population of these states is growing faster than non-Latino populations in the rest of the country. If this is the case, then there is less of a chance of the cross-pressure mechanism that I described in the previous paragraph changing people’s political behavior, as we do not expect members of a growing Latino population to face different cross-pressure from the existing Latino population.** Then we would be heading toward a scenario much like the one Ezra Klein suggested: more electoral votes in states that tend to vote Republican today, but a hastening of the day in which these states (read especially: Texas, Arizona) may no longer be reliably Republican.
Furthermore, it is not a priori known that all of the new House seats in the South-West will automatically go to Republican candidates. For example, as the AP reports today
Boyd Richie, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, said Hispanic and black population growth account for the additional seats, and he vowed to fight for a redistricting plan that takes their numbers into account.While Republican domination of the Texas legislature probably makes this unlikely to happen, it is important to remember that the opposite effect may be at work in the North-East: Democratic legislatures may seek to make sure that seats that are lost are seats currently held by Republicans.
All this is to say that the simple narrative of “Republicans gain from census redistricting” certainly masks a more complex reality, and it is going to take quite a while before we can write the final chapter on the political implications of the 2010 census.
No comments:
Post a Comment