Slashdot Mirror
The Demographic Future of America's Political Parties
HughPickens.com writes: Daniel McGraw writes that based on their demographic characteristics the Democratic and Republican parties face two very different futures. There's been much written about how millennials are becoming a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but there's been much less attention paid to one of the biggest get-out-the-vote challenges for the Republican Party heading into the next presidential election: The Republican Party voter is old—and getting older and far more Republicans than Democrats have died since the 2012 elections. By combining presidential election exit polls with mortality rates per age group from the U.S. Census Bureau, McGraw calculated that, of the 61 million who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, about 2.75 million will be dead by the 2016 election. About 2.3 million of President Barack Obama's voters have died too but that leaves a big gap in between, a difference of roughly 453,000 in favor of the Democrats. "I've never seen anyone doing any studies on how many dead people can't vote," laughs William Frey, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in demographic studies. "I've seen studies on how many dead people do vote. The old Daley Administration in Chicago was very good at that."
Frey points out that, since Republicans are getting whiter and older, replacing the voters that leave this earth with young ones is essential for them to be competitive in presidential elections. "Millennials (born 1981 to 1997) now are larger in numbers than baby boomers ([born] 1946 to 1964), and how they vote will make the big difference. And the data says that if Republicans focus on economic issues and stay away from social ones like gay marriage, they can make serious inroads with millennials." Exit polling indicates that millennials have split about 65-35 in favor of the Dems in the past two elections. If that split holds true in 2016, Democrats will have picked up a two million vote advantage among first-time voters. These numbers combined with the voter death data puts Republicans at an almost 2.5 million voter disadvantage going into 2016.
Frey points out that, since Republicans are getting whiter and older, replacing the voters that leave this earth with young ones is essential for them to be competitive in presidential elections. "Millennials (born 1981 to 1997) now are larger in numbers than baby boomers ([born] 1946 to 1964), and how they vote will make the big difference. And the data says that if Republicans focus on economic issues and stay away from social ones like gay marriage, they can make serious inroads with millennials." Exit polling indicates that millennials have split about 65-35 in favor of the Dems in the past two elections. If that split holds true in 2016, Democrats will have picked up a two million vote advantage among first-time voters. These numbers combined with the voter death data puts Republicans at an almost 2.5 million voter disadvantage going into 2016.
One assumption that this summary makes is that people do not switch party affiliations throughout their life. I used to be Republican, but have wised up as I've gotten older. However, I understand that typically as folks get older they tend to do the opposite of what I did (though I have no source to cite for this). Nonetheless, if true, it would mean that Republicans have nothing to fear from the changing demographics. Unless the article addresses this, the information presented is meaningless.
Agreed... I was born and raised republican, but left the party a long time ago. I'd have become a democrat if the democratic party were anything like it was during the JFK years. Glad there's more choices, and no, I don't feel like I'm throwing my vote away.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
These trends are not new. The sole reason there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the massive gerrymandering that took place in the last decades. Democrats have consistently won the "popular" vote for the house, but districts are tactically set to favor Republicans almost across the board.
The districts are this way because while Millennials do indeed skew heavily liberal/Democrat/progressive, they tend to NOT get involved in state and local politics. Republican governors and state legislatures used the last gasps of the dying generation to secure powerful gerrymandered districts ensuring the GOP holds onto the house, at least until the next census.
An interesting side effect, however, is that these artificial superdistricts are such that the Republican is practically guaranteed to win it in the general election. Thus, far-right tea party nonsense candidates can appeal to their local base without much fear of throwing the actual election over to the Democrats. The safer these districts are for Republicans, the further right, racist, sexist, and old they'll skew for the foreseeable future.
Until young people get active in local and state politics, then it literally is a game of just waiting for the current old set in those places to die of old age.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Just because dead people are registered to vote doesn't make it voter fraud (it makes it registration fraud, but that's completely different). Now, if you had dead people actually voting (setting IL aside), then you might have a problem. However, the linked article says:
There's little evidence that this has led to widespread voter fraud, but it has raised concerns that the system is vulnerable.
Using this as a basis for demanding IDs to vote is completely dishonest and disenfranchises far more people from voting than you'd catch or prevent at voter fraud. My town sends out a yearly census that you fill out and send back in. Verify your registration details, sign, and send back in (you can probably also deposit it by hand at town hall or fill out the forms there). Not filling it out implies they'll take you off the voter rolls, and seems to be a good compromise if there's no reply after a few years.
I'd become a REPUBLICAN if the Republican party were anything like it was in the JFK years. There were Hawks and there were Doves, but they weren't exclusively in one party or the other, and outside of their opposing views on war and expansionism, they could be civil to each other. It was only the Cold War and Nuclear Armageddon, not like the very foundations of the Universe were at stake.
Now everything's a pledge and a "litmus test" and the loonies run the asylum.
A modern JFK would be labeled pro-war; the party would complain about wasteful spending trying to outdo Russians; JFK was more conservative than most conservatives are today - and yet not ultra religious, racist, and bigoted the way most republicans come off (whether they are or not). JFK was for a stronger economy and realized that you needed successful businesses to do it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
...decide to back legalizing pot and abandon their sex war against abortion, contraception and gays and probably pick up a lot of voters who might otherwise go Democratic.
Backing pot legalization would probably be popular with white collar swing voters who probably like the Republicans on taxes and ultimately take a lot of the harassment heat off blacks by stripping the police of one of their major repression avenues. They might even temper it by announcing that they're going to repurpose those resources being even more law and order on other criminal justice issues to mollify the cops and the law-and-order segment of the electorate.
Ending the anti-sex campaign against women may be even more beneficial. I've read that a lot of middle class women tend towards a certain conservatism and if you stop acting completely anti-woman this could be a major source of support.
Both parties are so close for the most part that it seems like only semi-radical changes on a handful of small issues is necessary to move swing voters. And both of these issues are big from a publicity perspective but probably less meaningful to the corporate guys who fund them.
Republicans could still be the anti-tax/pro-corporate party, pro-military and keep most of their base intact. They may alienate born agains and some law and order cranks with those changes, but who are those people going to vote for anyway? They're not going to vote for tax-hiking, gun-grabbing, affirmative action Democrats (intentional facetious remarks) no matter what.
It's harder to see the issues on which Democrats could being "radical" on. About the only one I can think of is giving up on their general penchant for gun control. They might consider bring more pro-labor when it comes to issues of immigration/H1-Bs but this runs counter to their larger embrace of multiculturalism and also gets them in trouble with Silicon Valley money that wants more tech immigrants.
Right.. and people become Democrats once there are no jobs (a BA is the new HS diploma, fetch my coffee senior barista), and they become Democrats once their kids can't afford education and healthcare in unattainable.
It's happening, and there's nothing you can do about it. I've got a net worth in seven digit territory, and even I vote Dem because even with a mill or two stashed away, these days you can still find yourself easily fucked and depending on social safety nets. In addition, you disenfranchise everybody else long enough, and they're going to look at what YOU have.
This guy gets it.
Welcome to the US where everything is given as two artificial choices. Seriously... I was approached a couple of days ago and asked if I believe laws should be based on the Bible? When I said no the person quickly accused me of wanting a "muslim theocracy (his words)". I guess the current constitutional republic wasn't one of the two choices he considered for his argument.
I'm not big supporter of either party. I'm like most of the US and just vote for the lesser of the two evils.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
1) Hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.
2) People who are willing to be associated with hate-crazed science-denying racists and homophobes.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
Came here to say this, and you said it quite well. Millennials will never have the money to make voting Republican look like anything approaching a decent idea, so most are going to be Leftists 4 Lyfe. There's a downside to impoverishing a whole generation that the conservatives didn't see coming.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Capital-L Libertarians or lower-case-L libertarians? The two are not even remotely comparable.
Most people I know (I'm in my early 30's) have grown utterly disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats and are now more-or-less libertarians. I think it's a trend that will grow as more and more people realize that both Republicans and Democrats have utter contempt for civil rights and personal choice.
And how precisely would libertarians defend civil rights and personal choice, other than for those with the most money and power who would be free to shit over everyone else without any checks or balances?
Don't forget, "most people" aren't going to be in the top 1% (or 0.1%).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Libertarian is just short hand for 'Bring on the post-apocalyptic waste-land. I'm tired of paying taxes and I have enough weaponry to impose my will on others.'