In the center is the result of House elections, Nov. 6, 2018. The voting can be explained very well by two factors, neither of which is ideological:
- The coastal results are largely explained by population density. On the right is a map of population density, with the highest values in dark blue (really more like purple). These closely correspond the east and west coast results, but not the south coast. There is a bit of shifting around, with electoral results around the great lakes shifting a bit to the west of the population center, but including it. And some exceptions. The “rust belt” highly populated regions went Republican to the east of the Great Lakes, which was no surprise given current Republican policy of capturing these votes through pro-jobs initiatives directed at that region.
- The rest of the results are largely explained by poverty, such as South Texas (Rio Grand Valley), Indian reservations in Arizona and New Mexico, and the Mississippi region known as “the Delta” which is not the delta of the Mississippi river, but the area on the west side of the state which is flat low-lying delta of many tributary rivers between Memphis and Natchez, an area in which many former slaves have never “moved on” to other regions where there is more opportunity. There isn’t much opportunity for anyone there. I grew up there and left.
Why should people who live densely in cities, obviously preferring it, and some of whom (not all, presumably) choose to reproduce at high rates regardless of opportunity, be allowed to set policy for vast tracts of land sparsely filled with people who prefer greater wealth and more land? There is no rhyme or reason except that representation of states and districts was encoded in the constitution.
Why should people who prefer their traditional habitat (whether reservation or former slave territory) be allowed to set policy for more aggressive people who move to opportunity? This is in fact very counter-intuitive, and exists only for the same reason.
I say we change the constitution before policy becomes completely dominated by insect-like city dwellers and poverty-stricken traditionalists who will not move.
Shuler Research 