Red states and blue states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further information: Electoral geography of the United States

Summary of results of the past four Presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004)      States carried by the Republican in all four elections      States carried by the Republican in three of the four elections      States carried by each party twice in the four elections      States carried by the Democrat in three of the four elections      States carried by the Democrat in all four elections

Composition, by party, of the 110th United States Senate

Red States and Blue States refer to those states of the United States of America whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates, respectively. The term began to emerge in mainstream political discussion following the 2000 presidential election. Since then, usage of the term has been expanded to differentiate between states being perceived as liberal and those perceived as conservative. A blue state may therefore be any state leaning towards the Democratic ticket while a red state may be any state leaning towards the Republican ticket.

This unofficial system used in the United States of America is in stark contrast to the color system used in the vast majority of other nations. In most other parts of the world, blue represents right wing and conservative parties, while red represents left wing, communist and socialist/socially liberal parties.

[edit] The divide

Composition, by party, of state delegations in the 110th United States House of Representatives.

Although the Electoral College determines the Presidential election, a more precise measure of how the country actually voted may be better represented by either a county-by-county or a district-by-district map. By breaking the map down into smaller units (including many "blue counties" lying next to "red counties"), these maps tend to display many states with a purplish hue, thus demonstrating that an ostensibly "blue" or "red" state may in fact be closely divided. Note that election maps of all kinds are subject to errors of interpretation as described below.

These county-by-county and district-by-district maps reveal that the true nature of the divide is between urban areas/inner suburbs and suburbs/rural areas. For example, in the 2004 elections, even in "solidly Blue" states, the majority of voters in most rural counties and a smaller majority in most suburban areas voted for Republican George W. Bush, with some exceptions. And in "solidly Red" states, a majority of voters in most urban counties voted for Democrat John Kerry. And an even more detailed precinct-by-precinct breakdown demonstrates that, in many cases, large cities voted for Kerry, but their suburbs delivered their respective county to Bush.

Results by income demographic of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, representing percent of total vote per income group and the split of the income group between John Kerry as blue, George W. Bush as red and Ralph Nader as green.

Red states and Blue states have several demographic differences from each other. The association between colors and demographics was notably made in a column by Mike Barnicle, and reinforced in a controversial response from Paul Begala (though the association between demographics and voting patterns was well known before that).

In the 2004 elections both parties received at least 40% from all sizable socio-economic demographics, according to exit polling. In 2004, college graduates were split equally at 49% for both Kerry and Bush; those with postgraduate degrees voted for Kerry by a 10% margin and those with Bachelor's Degrees voted for Bush by a 6% margin. For household income, Kerry got a majority of households with less than $50,000 in annual income, and Bush got a majority households consisting of married couples and those with greater than $50,000 annual income. Bush held the more suburban and rural areas of both the red and blue states, while Kerry received the large majority of the urban city areas in all the states. Ralph Nader did not win any electoral college votes yet received 1% of the vote from high income households and holders of graduate degrees.^[1]

SOURCE: CNN Exit polls 13,660 surveyed^[1]

[edit] Purple States

2004 United States presidential election results by county, on a color spectrum from Democratic blue to Republican red

A purple state is a state that is more or less equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats.^{[citation needed]}

The demographic and political applications of the terms have led to a temptation to presume this arbitrary classification is a clear-cut and fundamental cultural division. Given the general nature and common perception of the two parties, "red state" implies a conservative region or a more conservative type of American, and "blue state" implies a liberal region or a more liberal type of American. But the distinction between the two groups of states is hardly so simplistic. The analysis that suggests political, cultural, and demographic differences between the states is more accurate when applied to smaller geographical areas. Pennsylvania, for example, shows "red" characteristics in the Westsylvania interior, but "blue" characteristics around the urban centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Democratic political consultant James Carville has described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between," suggesting that Pennsylvania, like several other blue states, would be solid Republican without its major cities, due to its remainder's religious and rural (thus socially conservative) nature.

Cartogram of the United States, showing each county with a size proportional to its population. The colors reflect 2004 presidential election results.

Traditionally, the practice of designating a U.S. state as "red" or "blue" is based on the winner-take-all system employed for presidential elections by 48 of the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. (Electoral law in Maine and Nebraska makes it possible for those states to split their electoral votes; however, to date, neither has actually done so.)

Despite the prevalent winner-take-all practice, the minority always gets a sizeable vote. Because of this, a third term has emerged, referring to these closely-divided states as purple states. Furthermore, it could be argued that all states are "purple" to varying degrees and that the "red vs. blue" division is far from an accurate description of US culture.

All states were consistent in voting for George W. Bush or his opponent in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections except for three: New Mexico (Gore in '00 and Bush in '04), Iowa (Gore in '00 and Bush in '04) and New Hampshire (Bush in '00 and Kerry in '04). The 2004 election showed two of these three states to be true to the presidential preferences of their respective regions, creating a greater regional separation; thus, an argument that the country is more divided from the 2000 election. All three of those states were very close in both elections.

[edit] Polarization

Cartogram of Electoral College results (votes as of 2008) of the past four Presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004)      States carried by the Republican in all four elections      States carried by the Republican in three of the four elections      States carried by each party twice in the four elections      States carried by the Democrat in three of the four elections      States carried by the Democrat in all four elections

The division between red states and blue states has triggered a pronounced introspection among blue staters and red staters. Feelings of cultural and political polarization, which have gained increased media attention since the 2004 election, have led to increased mutual feelings of alienation and enmity. These attitudes have led to the often jocular suggestion that a red state-blue state secession is in order. The Jesusland map is one such joke, a satirical map that redraws the U.S.-Canada border to reflect this sociopolitical schism.

The polarization has been present for only two close elections (2000 and 2004). In the 1996 election, 31 U.S. states were "blue" and 19 "red" (though at the time the current color scheme was not as universal as today). One trend that has been true for several election cycles is that states that vote Republican tend to be more rural (thus having fewer electoral votes) than states that vote Democratic.

Viewing the nation as divided into two camps ignores the largest single group of Americans, namely, those who don't vote at all. In the 2000 election only about 54 percent of eligible voters actually turned out to vote. In 2004, despite expensive get-out-the-vote campaigns by both ideological camps, the percentage who voted rose only a few points from the previous election. In fact, in 2004, an all-time record was set when more than 80 million eligible voters failed to vote; this number was far greater than the votes secured by either Bush or Kerry, by a substantial margin.

In fact, no Republican or Democratic nominee has attracted as much as 30 percent of eligible voters since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

[edit] Map interpretation problems

There are several problems in creating and interpreting election maps that should be taken into account. Popular vote data is necessarily aggregated at several levels, such as counties and states, which are then colored to show election results. Maps of this type are called choropleth maps, which have several well known problems that can result in interpretation bias. One problem arises when areal units differ in size and significance, as is the case with election maps. These maps give extra visual weight to larger areal units, whether by county or state. This problem is compounded in that the units are not equally significant. A large county or state may have fewer voters than a small one, for example. Some maps attempt to account for this by using cartogram methods, but the resulting distortion makes such maps difficult to read.

Another problem relates to data classification. Election maps often use a two-class color scheme (red and blue), which results in a map that is easy to read but is highly generalized. Some maps use more classes, such as shades of red and blue to indicate the degree of election victory. These maps provide a more detailed picture, but have various problems association with classification of data. The cartographer must choose how many classes to use and how to break the data into those classes. While there are various techniques available, the choice is essentially arbitrary. The look of a map can vary significantly depending on the classification choices. The choices of color and shading likewise affect the map's appearance. Further, all election maps are subject to the interpretation error known as the ecological fallacy.^[2]

Finally, there are problems associated with human perception. Large areas of color appear more saturated than small areas of the same color. A juxtaposition of differing colors and shades can result in contrast misperceptions. For example, an area shaded light red surrounded by areas shaded dark red will appear even lighter. Differing shades of red and blue compound this problem of perception. Because of this problem, cartographers have traditionally limited the number of classes so that it is always clear which class a color shade represents. Some election maps, however, have broken this tradition by simply coloring each areal unit with a red-blue mixture linked to voting ratio data. These "purple maps" are useful for showing the highly mixed nature of voting, but are extremely difficult to interpret in detail. The lack of clear classes make these purple maps highly prone to the problems of color perception described above. All these points should be taken into account when looking at election maps.

[edit] Origins of current color scheme

Prior to the 2000 presidential election, there was no universally recognized color scheme to represent political parties in the United States. The practice of using colors to represent parties on electoral maps dates back at least as far as the 1950s, when such a format was employed within the Hammond series of historical atlases.^{[citation needed]} Color-based schemes became more widespread with the adoption of color television in the 1960s and nearly ubiquitous with the advent of color in newspapers. A three-color scheme -- red, white and blue, the colors of the U.S. flag -- makes sense, and the third color, white, is useful in depicting maps showing states that are "undecided" in the polls and in election-night television coverage.

Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1980 map showing Reagan's 44-state landslide as a "sea of blue"^[3], but this color scheme was also employed by most news magazines. CBS from 1984-1996, however, used the opposite scheme—blue for Democrats, red for Republicans^[4][5][6]. ABC was less consistent than its elder network brothers; in at least two presidential elections during this time before the emergence of cable news outlets, ABC used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. In 1984, ABC used red=Republican and blue=Democrat^[7]. As late as 1996, there was still no universal association of one color with one party.^[8] If anything, by 1996, color schemes were relatively mixed, as CNN, CBS, and the New York Times referred to Democratic states with the color blue and Republican ones as red, while Time Magazine and the Washington Post used an opposite scheme.^[9][10][11]

But in 2000, for the first time, all major electronic media outlets used the same colors for each party, most likely as a result of the official colors for the presidential candidates, with Gore's campaign using blue lawn signs and imagery and Bush's using red. Partly as a result of this near-universal color-coding, the terms Red States and Blue States entered popular usage in the weeks following the 2000 presidential election. Additionally, the closeness of the disputed election kept the colored maps in the public view for longer than usual. Journalists began to routinely refer to "blue states" and "red states," even before the 2000 election was settled. After the results were final, journalists stuck with the color scheme, such as The Atlantic's cover story by David Brooks in the December 2001 issue entitled, "One Nation, Slightly Divisible." Thus red and blue became fixed in the media and in many people's minds [1] despite the fact that no "official" color choices had been made by the parties.

[edit] Reaction

[edit] International

The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, communist, and/or liberal interests [2] [3], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged since the late nineteenth century. The Liberal Party of Canada has long used red and the Conservative Party of Canada has long used blue, and in fact the phrases Liberal red and Tory blue are a part of the national lexicon, as is Red Tory, denoting Conservative members who are social moderates. Similarly, the symbol of Britain's Labour Party is a red rose (and the socialist song The Red Flag is still sung at party conferences), while the British Conservatives are traditionally associated with the color blue. However, as the current US scheme is so ingrained in the American election system, foreign sources who cover US elections, such as the BBC, and El Mundo follow with the scheme red-Republican, blue-Democrat^[12][13] for US elections.

[edit] US

Moreover, the color scheme is so accepted that both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party's websites feature the colors red and blue, respectively, in their website banners and prominently on their sites overall. ^{[14] [15]}

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made use of the color scheme when it launched a national "Red to Blue Program" in 2006. [4] Otherwise the color scheme is unofficial and informal, but is widely recognized by media and commentators. Partisan supporters now often use the colors for promotional materials and campaign merchandise.

The scheme has found acceptance and implementation from the US Federal Government, as the Federal Elections Commission report for the 2004 US Presidential Election uses the scheme red-Repubican blue-Democrat for its electoral map.^[16]

[edit] Critiques

The paradigm has come under criticism on a number of fronts. Many argue that the usefulness of assigning partisanship to states is only really useful as it pertains to the Electoral College, primarily a winner-take-all system of elections (currently, Maine and Nebraska allow for electoral votes to be split between tickets if the vote tallies in individual districts are different).

The Republican and Democratic parties within a particular state may have a platform that departs from that of the national party, sometimes leading that state to favor one party in state and local elections and the other in Presidential elections. This is most evident in the Southern United States where the state Democratic parties tend to be more conservative than the national party. Arkansas and West Virginia were won by George W. Bush in 2004, but Democrats comprise the majority of officeholders in those states; similarly, North Carolina went solidly for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but its governor is a Democrat and both houses of its legislature have Democratic majorities. The converse can also be true, as in the case of Maine, which has two Republican senators but voted for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election.

Some conservatives have also been wary of using the red state term to describe conservative or Republican-voting electorates, as the term had previously most often been associated with socialist states, like the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and East Germany.

In his keynote address before the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama rejected the division of the United States into red states and blue states, saying, "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. ... We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."^[17]

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain predicted that the 2008 presidential election would not follow the red state/blue state pattern, saying, "I'm not sure that the old red state, blue state scenario that prevailed for the last several elections works. I think most of these states that we have either red or blue are going to be up for grabs."^[18]

[edit] See also

• Swing state
• United States presidential election maps
• Purple America
• Jesusland map
• Political ideologies in the United States

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Red state-blue state divide

• Living Blue in the Red States edited by David Starkey
• Blue is the New Green Series of US maps showing the correlation of financial and socio-economic metrics to the blue and red states
• Purple States, Gives Americans -- of all backgrounds and beliefs, ages and affinities, red and the blue and the in-between -- a chance to experience and interpret politics for themselves.
• Maps and cartograms of the 2004 presidential election results, adjusting Red State/ Blue State maps for voting population rather than geographic area alone.
• City Ranks is a Google Maps mashup showing the correlation between population density and the Red State/Blue State phenomenon in an interactive map.
• One Nation, Slightly Divisible - David Brooks (subscription required)
• Washington Post series:
  • For a Conservative, Life is Sweet in Sugar Land, Tex.
  • A Liberal Life in the City by the Bay
• Federal Review Composite Poll - 2004 Electoral College Projection
• Washington Post "Elephants Are Red, Donkeys Are Blue"
• "One Fate, Two Fates, Red States, Blue States"
• CNN "Learn the signs of your political colors" from September 2001
• Election maps from December, 2000
• Choosing colors based on incumbent vs. challenger victory from November, 2004
• BlueStatesRedStates.com A Purple site for Red & Blue times
• www.sometimesredsometimesblue.com
• The Honky Tonk Gap: Country Music, Red State Identity, and the Election of 2004
• Blue States Website Blue States

v • d • e  United States topics History Timeline Pre-Columbian · Colonial era (Thirteen Colonies) · Declaration of Independence · American Revolution · Westward expansion · Civil War · Reconstruction · World War I · Great Depression · World War II · Korean War · Cold War · Vietnam War · Civil Rights Movement · War on Terrorism By topic Demographic · Industrial · Military · Postal Government     Law Constitution Bill of Rights Separation of powers Enforcement Department of Justice (DoJ) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Legislature House Senate Executive Cabinet Federal agencies Policies Judiciary Supreme Court Appeals Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) National Security Agency (NSA) Military Army Navy Coast Guard Air Force Marines Politics Political divisions · Political parties (Democrats · Republicans · Other) · Elections (Electoral College) · Ideologies · Scandals · Red states and blue states · Uncle Sam · Puerto Rico (Political status · Independence movement) Geography Territory · States · Cities · Counties · Regions (New England · Mid-Atlantic · Southern · Midwest · Great Plains · Northwest · Southwest) · Mountains (Appalachian · Rocky) · Rivers (Mississippi · Missouri · Colorado) · Islands · Extreme points · National Park System · Water supply and sanitation Economy United States dollar · Companies · Wall Street · Federal Reserve · Banking · Insurance · Standard of living (Personal / household income · Income inequality · Homeownership) · Communications · Transportation (Cars · Trucks · Highways · Airports · Railroads) · Tourism Society Demographics · Languages (American English · Spanish) · Religion · Social class (American Dream · Affluence · Middle class · Poverty · Educational attainment · Professional and working class conflict) · Media · Sports · Education · Holidays · Crime · Prisons · Health care · Health insurance Culture Music (Classical · Folk · Popular · Jazz) · TV / Film (Hollywood) · Radio · Literature (Folklore · Poetry · Transcendentalism · Harlem Renaissance · Beat Generation) · Visual arts (Abstract expressionism) · Cuisine · Dance · Architecture · Fashion · Flag Issues Abortion · Adolescent sexuality · Affirmative action · American exceptionalism · Anti-Americanism · Capital punishment · Drug policy / Prohibition · Energy policy · Environmentalism · Gun politics · Human rights · Immigration (United States–Mexico barrier) · Obesity · Pornography · Racial profiling · Racism · Same-sex marriage Portal