Abstract In the United States the color red has come to represent the Republican party, and blue the Democratic party, in maps of voting patterns. Here we test the hypothesis that voting maps...
Abstract
In the United States the color red has come to represent the Republican party, and blue the Democratic party, in maps of voting patterns. Here we test the hypothesis that voting maps dichotomized into red and blue states leads people to overestimate political polarization compared to maps in which states are represented with continuous gradations of color. We also tested whether any polarizing effect is due to partisan semantic associations with red and blue, or if alternative hues produce similar effects. In Study 1, participants estimated the hypothetical voting patterns of eight swing states on maps with dichotomous or continuous red/blue or orange/green color schemes. A continuous gradient mitigated the polarizing effects of red/blue maps on voting predictions. We also found that a novel hue pair, green/orange, decreased perceived polarization. Whether this effect was due to the novelty of the hues or the fact that the hues were not explicitly labeled “Democrat” and “Republican” was unclear. In Study 2, we explicitly assigned green/orange hues to the two parties. Participants viewed electoral maps depicting results from the 2020 presidential election and estimated the voting margins for a subset of states. We replicated the finding that continuous red/blue gradient reduced perceived polarization, but the novel hues did not reduce perceived polarization. Participants also expected their hypothetical vote to matter more when viewing maps with continuous color gradations. We conclude that the dichotomization of electoral maps (not the particular hues) increases perceived voting polarization and reduces a voter’s expected influence on election outcomes.
As a socially liberal person living in a very red state, let me be clear: My vote is less than meaningless. Doubly so in a presidential election. After dutifully voting for more than two decades,...
As a socially liberal person living in a very red state, let me be clear: My vote is less than meaningless. Doubly so in a presidential election. After dutifully voting for more than two decades, I recently decided to basically just opt out because since I stopped voting for Republicans in 2004, I haven't voted for a single winning candidate (in this state) since.
I will be voting in the upcoming Republican primary though. Anything to help curtail Trump's march to the Republican nomination. It also helps that since I live in SC, I figure Nikki Haley ought to at least have a snowball's chance here as she used to be our governor and was reasonably popular.
Kind of offtopic, but this got me thinking. Here in Canada, a trend that appeared during COVID was a lot of city and suburb dwellers seemed to be moving out into more rural areas... which...
Kind of offtopic, but this got me thinking. Here in Canada, a trend that appeared during COVID was a lot of city and suburb dwellers seemed to be moving out into more rural areas... which skyrocketed the housing prices in those areas, but also changed the demographics of those more rural communities to be slightly less conservative overall too.
Was the same happening in the US due to COVID as well? I ask because it has me wondering if it did, if that trend was significant enough to effect the upcoming elections in any way. Especially since I know quite a few traditionally red states (e.g. Arizona) have already been gradually turning more purple over the years due to demographic changes, and lots of people moving there from blue states due to its lower cost of living.
Notwithstanding its simplicity and antiquity, there are several major drawbacks to FPTP. As a winner-take-all method, it often produces disproportional results, particularly when electing members of a legislature, in the sense that political parties do not get representation according to their share of the popular vote. This usually favours the largest party and parties with strong regional support to the detriment of smaller parties without a geographically concentrated base. Supporters of electoral reform are generally highly critical of FPTP because of this and point out other flaws, such as FPTP's vulnerability to gerrymandering, the high number of wasted votes and the chance of a majority reversal (i.e., the party winning the most votes getting fewer seats than the second largest party and losing the election). Throughout the 20th century many countries that previously used FPTP abandoned it in favour of other electoral systems, including the former British colonies of Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.
First past the post is definitely fundamentally flawed and a huge contributor to the maintenance of a two-party system, but the US having esystems enshrined in law that explicitly skew people's...
First past the post is definitely fundamentally flawed and a huge contributor to the maintenance of a two-party system, but the US having esystems enshrined in law that explicitly skew people's voting power depending on which state they're from exacerbates the problem to an extreme degree.
well, yes and no. It's not like California isn't a more representative state than Florida in elections. But California has also been firmly Blue for 70 years and Florida swings every other...
In this country empty land has more political power than real people.
well, yes and no. It's not like California isn't a more representative state than Florida in elections. But California has also been firmly Blue for 70 years and Florida swings every other election. So it's clear which state to give more attention to even if it's half the points.
Abstract
In the United States the color red has come to represent the Republican party, and blue the Democratic party, in maps of voting patterns. Here we test the hypothesis that voting maps dichotomized into red and blue states leads people to overestimate political polarization compared to maps in which states are represented with continuous gradations of color. We also tested whether any polarizing effect is due to partisan semantic associations with red and blue, or if alternative hues produce similar effects. In Study 1, participants estimated the hypothetical voting patterns of eight swing states on maps with dichotomous or continuous red/blue or orange/green color schemes. A continuous gradient mitigated the polarizing effects of red/blue maps on voting predictions. We also found that a novel hue pair, green/orange, decreased perceived polarization. Whether this effect was due to the novelty of the hues or the fact that the hues were not explicitly labeled “Democrat” and “Republican” was unclear. In Study 2, we explicitly assigned green/orange hues to the two parties. Participants viewed electoral maps depicting results from the 2020 presidential election and estimated the voting margins for a subset of states. We replicated the finding that continuous red/blue gradient reduced perceived polarization, but the novel hues did not reduce perceived polarization. Participants also expected their hypothetical vote to matter more when viewing maps with continuous color gradations. We conclude that the dichotomization of electoral maps (not the particular hues) increases perceived voting polarization and reduces a voter’s expected influence on election outcomes.
As a socially liberal person living in a very red state, let me be clear: My vote is less than meaningless. Doubly so in a presidential election. After dutifully voting for more than two decades, I recently decided to basically just opt out because since I stopped voting for Republicans in 2004, I haven't voted for a single winning candidate (in this state) since.
I will be voting in the upcoming Republican primary though. Anything to help curtail Trump's march to the Republican nomination. It also helps that since I live in SC, I figure Nikki Haley ought to at least have a snowball's chance here as she used to be our governor and was reasonably popular.
Do you vote in local elections? Surprisingly often local elections have very tight margins, and in recent years some have ended in a tie.
Kind of offtopic, but this got me thinking. Here in Canada, a trend that appeared during COVID was a lot of city and suburb dwellers seemed to be moving out into more rural areas... which skyrocketed the housing prices in those areas, but also changed the demographics of those more rural communities to be slightly less conservative overall too.
Was the same happening in the US due to COVID as well? I ask because it has me wondering if it did, if that trend was significant enough to effect the upcoming elections in any way. Especially since I know quite a few traditionally red states (e.g. Arizona) have already been gradually turning more purple over the years due to demographic changes, and lots of people moving there from blue states due to its lower cost of living.
In my opinion it all comes down to first-past-the-post voting:
First past the post is definitely fundamentally flawed and a huge contributor to the maintenance of a two-party system, but the US having esystems enshrined in law that explicitly skew people's voting power depending on which state they're from exacerbates the problem to an extreme degree.
well, yes and no. It's not like California isn't a more representative state than Florida in elections. But California has also been firmly Blue for 70 years and Florida swings every other election. So it's clear which state to give more attention to even if it's half the points.