What’s in the data

Regarding the data posted yesterday, I used the same methodology that I used when analyzing the overall voting applied to each seating in the House, Senate and Presidency. For 1952, the numbers reflect the elections for the candidates for the 1952 House, 1952 President, 1952 Senate, 1950 Senate and 1948 Senate. All of the winners were expected to be seated in the federal government in 1952. Then I broke that down by state. I then did the same for the people currently in our national government as a result of the 2016 election.

As an added bonus, I calculated the best statewide participation in each of those elections. So, I determined which of the four elections under consideration in each state had the highest turnout and calculated the percentage of the population based on the most recent census.

Lastly, I decided which state was truly red or truly blue in terms of federal voting. I called it red or blue if: 1) that party received about 55% of all the votes under consideration; 2) chose a Senator and a President from that party; and 3) went for that party with 55% or more of House votes. That felt pretty strict.

Why compare those?

Seemed like a good idea?

Republicans won the Presidency succeeding a Democrat that did not run for the office. The leader of the Republican party in both cases had toyed with the idea of joining either party. The Republican party appeared ascendant in some of the lower races. Of course, data accessibility mattered. I wanted enough time to have passed that changes within states would be meaningful.

Let’s start with participation

I want to start with a string of epithets. Look at the participation numbers for 1952! Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia are all below 20%! That’s the best they could muster! Four of those states went blue. None went red. Arkansas and Louisiana didn’t make 25% and they also both went blue. National participation came in at just over 40%. Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Nevada, Massachusetts, Illinois, Delaware and Connecticut all peaked out above 50%.

By 2016, nationwide participation was above 44%. Louisiana was the champion and only state to exceed 60%. Considering their miserable record in 1952, that is downright astounding. No state fell below 30%. Hawaii and Texas probably ought to do something to improve participation, however.

So, the heinous results appear to have waned. Honestly, if your participation is below 20%, then it looks like shenanigans are afoot. I’m not sure that we can feel good about a situation in which over half the population has no say in the election, but we do show improvement nationwide and at the state level over 60 years.

In eleven Senate races across 1948-1952, the Democratic candidate face no Republican opposition (Alabama, Arkansas(2), Georgia(2), Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia). That happened twice for the Republicans (California and Florida). No Republicans received votes in the House races in Georgia. Across 2012-2016, that happened for the Democrats once (California) and the Republicans twice (Alabama and Kansas). In Vermont, the Republican did not face a Democrat and still lost. Also in Vermont, the House candidate was an unopposed Democrat.

Moving on to party loyalty

Using my methodology outlined above, eight states were strongly Democratic in 1952. Fourteen were Republican. In 2016, the Democrats have increased their states to 14 and the Republicans to 17. That means that we have gone from 56% of the states being arguably in play to 38%.

As discouraging as that sounds, 36 states changed their alignment between 1952 and 2016. In the scheme of things, that does make the situation seem fluid. Four states were Republican in 1952 and remained so in 2016: Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and Utah. Six states went from blue to red. Three went the other way. The rest included going neutral in the mix.

Perhaps that is the most important message. Change may seem glacial in terms of a lifetime, but change does appear inevitable for the political landscape.

Tomorrow, I will wrap up with some thoughts about what all this data and analysis might mean. Just as importantly, the fact that change is inevitable does not mean that we have no impact on the nature of that change. I may have some thoughts about the direction that we want to guide the change.

Part 1 of the series is where all this begins

How red and blue are the states?

Here’s some data comparing overall voting 64 years apart. The “PART” column is the voting participation from the best turnout of the prior current House, and Presidential elections as well as the two Senate elections.

Total 1952 Federal

	Dem	Rep	Total	1950 Population	Part
Alabama	910,296	203,245	1,153,833	3,061,743	13.92%
Alaska	14,219	10,893	25,112	128,643	19.52%
Arizona	477,979	473,483	951,463	749,587	34.76%
Arkansas	1,054,225	229,044	1,285,810	1,909,511	21.20%
California	5,730,604	11,446,133	17,934,264	10,586,223	48.57%
Colorado	1,066,530	1,119,969	2,196,956	1,325,089	47.55%
Connecticut	1,924,618	2,180,841	4,145,874	2,007,280	54.65%
Delaware	314,618	339,610	656,107	318,085	54.71%
Florida	1,231,106	1,426,511	2,659,156	2,771,305	35.70%
Georgia	1,627,302	198,979	1,826,861	3,444,578	19.04%
Hawaii	58,445	67,748	126,193	499,794	25.25%
Idaho	386,678	565,993	956,434	588,637	46.93%
Illinois	7,823,932	8,498,060	16,357,399	8,712,176	51.43%
Indiana	3,284,482	4,094,756	7,435,730	3,934,224	49.70%
Iowa	1,792,268	2,457,607	4,270,864	2,621,073	48.41%
Kansas	1,184,926	1,835,255	3,055,551	1,905,299	47.04%
Kentucky	1,733,654	1,611,975	3,355,536	2,944,806	33.73%
Louisiana	1,276,291	374,017	1,651,317	2,683,516	24.29%
Maine	342,253	687,467	1,046,331	913,774	38.50%
Maryland	1,490,022	1,711,651	3,215,129	2,343,001	38.50%
Massachusetts	4,314,361	4,741,789	9,187,885	4,690,514	50.81%
Michigan	4,924,980	5,478,218	10,453,759	6,371,766	44.28%
Minnesota	2,566,736	2,784,076	5,375,340	2,982,483	46.54%
Mississippi	792,691	118,990	911,681	2,178,914	13.10%
Missouri	3,595,282	3,300,758	6,901,011	3,954,653	47.84%
Montana	475,397	523,508	1,004,403	591,024	44.84%
Nebraska	735,886	1,484,581	2,239,596	1,325,510	46.00%
Nevada	146,613	159,024	305,637	160,083	51.34%
New Hampshire	366,015	564,579	943,075	533,242	51.19%
New Jersey	3,889,417	4,913,519	8,923,245	4,835,329	50.04%
New Mexico	457,950	441,861	900,588	681,187	35.19%
New York	10,725,908	13,792,747	26,491,948	14,830,192	48.07%
North Carolina	2,333,425	1,309,081	3,645,996	4,061,929	29.81%
North Dakota	242,377	657,046	925,934	619,636	43.59%
Ohio	5,849,266	7,461,349	13,385,436	7,946,627	46.57%
Oklahoma	1,764,259	1,452,297	3,222,428	2,233,351	42.49%
Oregon	844,377	1,504,969	2,363,176	1,521,341	45.69%
Pennsylvania	8,160,138	8,930,390	17,166,507	10,498,012	43.63%
Rhode Island	839,040	713,875	1,553,185	791,896	52.34%
South Carolina	637,640	20,378	816,403	2,117,027	16.11%
South Dakota	370,205	705,748	1,075,953	652,740	45.08%
Tennesee	1,794,925	970,339	2,827,385	3,291,718	27.12%
Texas	5,264,683	1,474,651	6,752,087	7,711,194	26.92%
Utah	551,142	695,893	1,247,850	688,862	47.84%
Vermont	148,780	400,537	549,822	377,747	40.78%
Virginia	1,219,457	606,187	1,996,223	3,318,680	18.67%
Washington	1,926,790	1,976,649	3,922,705	2,378,963	46.35%
West Virginia	1,848,126	1,558,485	3,388,611	2,005,552	43.71%
Wisconsin	2,471,637	3,411,061	5,896,925	3,434,575	46.80%
Wyoming	219,137	267,911	487,548	290,529	44.78%
Total	103,201,088	111,953,733	219,168,262	150,523,620	40.89%
	47.088%	51.081%

Total 2016 Federal

	Dem	Rep	Total	1950 Population	Part
Alabama	2,100,167	4,670,983	6,918,591	4,779,736	44.42%
Alaska	393,104	592,069	1,220,647	710,231	44.86%
Arizona	4,263,641	4,980,503	9,759,381	6,392,017	40.26%
Arkansas	1,226,617	2,586,090	4,154,239	2,915,918	38.77%
California	32,785,603	13,879,730	52,400,300	37,253,956	38.07%
Colorado	4,917,574	4,690,311	10,265,745	5,029,196	55.28%
Connecticut	3,689,408	2,398,539	6,328,143	3,574,097	46.02%
Delaware	865,227	571,951	1,495,852	897,934	49.18%
Florida	17,135,564	17,644,974	35,749,231	18,801,310	50.10%
Georgia	6,136,937	7,855,458	14,329,680	9,687,653	42.24%
Hawaii	1,406,076	566,126	2,042,629	1,360,301	31.65%
Idaho	738,580	1,591,212	2,487,962	1,567,582	44.03%
Illinois	10,843,842	8,266,665	19,873,588	12,830,632	43.15%
Indiana	4,526,155	5,557,887	10,685,973	6,483,802	42.18%
Iowa	2,371,468	3,128,718	5,752,322	3,046,355	51.41%
Kansas	1,124,380	2,557,984	4,402,251	2,853,118	41.51%
Kentucky	2,543,702	4,348,075	7,028,858	4,339,367	44.34%
Louisiana	2,892,477	4,445,749	7,462,928	4,533,372	60.56%
Maine	1,027,506	1,321,934	2,797,108	1,328,361	56.30%
Maryland	6,448,063	3,571,105	10,848,576	5,773,552	48.18%
Massachusetts	7,326,004	3,792,012	11,507,259	6,547,629	50.78%
Michigan	8,903,581	7,580,530	17,244,882	9,883,640	48.56%
Minnesota	5,710,106	4,375,838	10,629,980	5,303,925	55.52%
Mississippi	1,677,933	2,469,631	4,265,056	2,967,297	41.84%
Missouri	4,906,699	5,639,652	11,087,118	5,988,927	46.90%
Montana	767,935	996,358	1,860,870	989,415	51.33%
Nebraska	1,008,669	1,856,747	2,961,402	1,826,341	46.23%
Nevada	2,015,447	1,962,897	4,309,981	2,700,551	41.67%
New Hampshire	1,290,810	1,250,770	2,687,301	1,316,470	56.53%
New Jersey	6,999,547	5,264,266	12,581,560	8,791,894	44.06%
New Mexico	1,504,292	1,243,146	2,869,742	2,059,179	38.77%
New York	18,643,155	8,848,350	28,845,622	19,378,102	39.85%
North Carolina	7,837,793	8,628,592	16,946,436	9,535,483	49.73%
North Dakota	393,414	877,844	1,346,171	672,591	51.20%
Ohio	9,308,366	11,391,334	21,538,139	11,536,504	47.64%
Oklahoma	1,553,738	3,826,887	5,675,906	3,751,351	43.76%
Oregon	3,948,613	2,703,250	7,327,297	3,831,074	52.24%
Pennsylvania	11,437,974	11,528,143	23,540,727	12,702,379	48.14%
Rhode Island	1,010,876	560,773	1,630,750	1,052,567	44.10%
South Carolina	3,319,027	5,004,519	8,643,743	4,625,364	53.60%
South Dakota	436,864	871,141	1,389,134	814,180	45.46%
Tennesee	2,828,606	5,373,195	8,594,630	6,346,105	39.52%
Texas	11,830,717	16,864,320	30,010,932	25,145,561	35.67%
Utah	1,270,696	2,643,715	4,368,083	2,763,885	40.94%
Vermont	635,230	271,904	1,216,972	625,741	50.35%
Virginia	6,924,633	6,453,935	13,750,989	8,001,024	49.78%
Washington	7,248,335	5,169,899	12,829,484	6,724,540	50.05%
West Virginia	969,501	1,456,995	2,513,291	1,852,994	38.48%
Wisconsin	5,689,971	5,535,160	11,702,396	5,686,986	52.92%
Wyoming	213,835	637,399	920,877	563,626	45.39%
Total	245,048,458	230,305,265	500,800,734	308,143,815	44.24%
	48.931%	45.987%

Leaning

	1952	2016
Alabama	D	R
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas	D	R
California	R	D
Colorado
Connecticut		D
Delaware		D
Florida
Georgia	D	R
Hawaii		D
Idaho		R
Illinois		D
Indiana	R
Iowa		R
Kansas	R	R
Kentucky		R
Louisiana	D	R
Maine	R
Maryland		D
Massachusetts		D
Michigan
Minnesota		D
Mississippi	D	R
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska	R	R
Nevada
New Hampshire	R
New Jersey	R	D
New Mexico		D
New York		D
North Carolina	D
North Dakota	R
Ohio	R
Oklahoma		R
Oregon	R	D
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island		D
South Carolina	D	R
South Dakota	R	R
Tennesee		R
Texas		R
Utah	R	R
Vermont	R
Virginia
Washington		D
West Virginia	D
Wisconsin	R
Wyoming		R

Part 1 of the series is where all this begins

National Elections on the Whole

One of the most intriguing approaches to analyzing the voting results of the past seventy years is a tabulation of all the votes cast to place a particular set of people in place across all federal elected offices. So, I took the total votes cast for each party’s presidential candidate and added the votes cast for each party’s Congressional candidates. I did the math for every two years.

For example, in 1970, I counted the votes cast in 1968 for the presidential candidates. I then added the votes cast for each party’s candidates in the 1970 House elections. Lastly, I added the votes cast for Senate candidates in 1966, 1968 and 1970. After all, they all held their seats during the 1970/71 term.

Election	Democrat	Republican	Total Popular Vote
President, 1968	31,271,839	31,783,783	73,199,998
House, 1970	29,080,212	24,352,657	54,258,885
Senate, 1966	12,358,323	13,169,332	25,798,900
Senate, 1968	24,976,660	23,588,832	50,691,952
Senate, 1970	25,402,791	19,326,064	48,478,460
Totals	123,089,825	112,220,668	252,428,195

 

Votes were cast for Democrats 48.76% of the time while Republican candidates received 44.46% of the votes. Neither party actually received a majority of the votes cast.

Futility

Of the 37 governments seated from 1944 to 2016, neither party has obtained an outright majority of the votes 24 times. The other 13 times, the Republicans obtained the majority three times (1952-1956). People liked Ike a lot more than they liked Adlai. Democrat success tied to young, well-presented candidates (Kennedy, Kennedy’s assassination and Obama) or temporary collapse of their opponents (Watergate). The best performance by either party over the time considered occurred in 1964 when the Democrats claimed 56.69% of all relevant votes to 42.56% for Republicans. Four years later, they both dropped below 50% once again.

Regarding recent times, the Democrats managed the last majority in 2008 with 52.49% to 44.14% for the GOP. Put in practical terms, out of 536 elected offices (1 President, 100 Senators, 435 Congressmen), the Democrats deserved to fill 281 of them while the Republicans earned 237 seats. In 2006, the Democrats broke through to a majority of one with 269 seats to 250 for the Republicans. You then have to go back to 1978 to find either party having received enough votes to earn a majority of elected representation.

Currently, the parties have hit 49.75% for the Democrats and 45.84% for the Republicans. Other seats should probably be rounded out by 3 independent candidates, 8 Libertarians and 2 Greens. That would make for some interesting efforts at finding common ground.

So?

Political commentators are prone to making wholesale generalizations which attempt to explain results retrospectively. For example, a common trope that arises when the results support it is that voters prefer different parties to control the federal legislative and executive branches. Like most after the fact analysis, it assigns intent where such cannot be found. For one thing, I suspect most voters do not enter the booth with a wholesale strategy that they have been managing for years. Voting against candidates seems like the one tactic pursued by voters followed closely by choosing people whose names sound familiar.

If nothing else, the inability of either party to dominate voting at the federal level suggests that voters continue to break down the middle even as voting numbers have dramatically increased and generations have passed. Moreover, even as dominance by one party wanes in a region, it apparently rises in another. Otherwise, the numbers would not remain even across the board.

Some might argue that the numbers suggest a need for a third party. The Libertarians look like the most successful currently. I find the idea appealing, but the challenge is seeing how that actually changes matters significantly. Mostly, I want to see the stranglehold of the two main parties broken. Perhaps that is also the true message of their inability to maintain real dominance. We require alternatives to extended power reigns.

Heading to the finish

In a couple days, I will post some concluding thoughts. Before then, I will share my last bit of data regarding the shifting party allegiance within certain states. Has the South really gone from blue to red? Spoiler- yes.

Part 1 of the series is where all this begins