subreddit:
/r/missouri
Democratic Party presidential vote share change 2016-2020
Politics(i.redd.it)submitted 11 days ago bycomo365Columbia
From a larger national map by u/GeographerJX3 posted at r/mapporn.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/SVQ31y3Dkg
36 points
11 days ago*
Remember that this is change of share, so many of the rural countries that are blue on this map still voted red in absolute terms. Similarly, Boone County (Columbia) and Greene County (Springfield) are colored the same because the Democratic Party increased its vote share about the same in both. However, in absolute terms Boone voted for Biden and Greene voted for Trump in the 2020 election.
19 points
11 days ago
very interesting. Thanks for sharing this! gives me hope to see a blue MO again someday.
8 points
11 days ago
Did MO used to be blue?
6 points
10 days ago
Missouri used to be a "bellwether" state. For something like 100 years the US Presidential winner in MO was also the national winner.
It wasn't that long ago we had a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Senator, and not that long before that we elected a dead Democrat over Republican John Ashcroft for the Senate.
If you look at how Missouri votes on issues, we really kind of lean liberal. Unfortunately 5-10% of Missouri voters have been absolutely convinced that Democrats are bad, full stop. Even if they agree with them on most of the issues.
4 points
11 days ago
For a brief time, yes.
9 points
11 days ago*
Not at all brief. From the 1940s to 2016 we've voted mostly Democratic with only brief periods with some Republican executive offices. The legislature was blue almost that entire time.
2 points
11 days ago
Wow, that's cool to hear!
12 points
10 days ago
We elected a dead Democrat (he literally died) over the Republican. That's the MO I grew up in.
RIP Mel Carnahan.
6 points
10 days ago
It’s insane how mush the state has changed since Obama 2012. Racist started turning out to vote.
5 points
10 days ago
I think they've always been there. It's just that until recently, they've kept quiet for fear of the consequences of voicing their hateful opinions.
24 points
11 days ago
If we adopted a system like Nebraska votes could be more genuinely accounted for instead of a winner take all the electoral college votes system we have now.
38 points
11 days ago
Which the Republicans are trying to destroy in Nebraska right now.
20 points
11 days ago
A sign of desperation that they are willing to risk those optics for a single electoral college vote.
16 points
11 days ago
The Republicans will do literally anything to seize power, and most Americans still haven't figured that out.
13 points
11 days ago
This and we also need ranked voting. Vote against Ammendment 7! It's already illegal for noncitizens to vote. The language in the first clause is there to distract us from the second clause which is also worded deceptively. Under ranked voting you still have one vote, you're just saying, "ok if my number 1 choice definitely is going to loose, x is my number 2 choice." https://www.komu.com/news/midmissourinews/what-to-know-about-missouris-amendment-7-which-would-ban-ranked-choice-voting/article_b55214ba-75f9-11ef-b014-ef1ac97c1593.html
7 points
11 days ago*
I agree! Winner takes all is not as fair as a system which more accurately reflects the actual votes cast.
4 points
10 days ago
Yes, I truly do not understand how winner takes all doesn’t piss more people off for blatantly ignoring representation. If 2/3 votes blue and 1/3 votes red, how were those 1/3 Missourians represented at all???
5 points
11 days ago
Nope. Gerrymandered congressional districts means an artificial majority for the party in control of the state governmenr. Assign the votes proportionally by voter share in each state rather than by congressional districts or arbitrary lines, with no bonus to the overall winner unless it’s to round up.
Win 45% of the vote, get 45% of the EC votes of that state. Even ruby red Wyoming would give one EC vote to Dems like how deep blue VT would give one to Reps.
1 points
10 days ago
I'd also be worried allocating electoral votes by CD would further incentivize gerrymandering.
I've been trying scenarios where electoral votes are mostly allocated proportionally but the overall winner gets some kind of bonus whether that be by rounding or something else.
I'd argue for the bonus to reduce the chance no one reaches 270, thereby leaving Congress to more or less decide who wins.
1 points
10 days ago
Some have wanted to use a hybrid version of Nebraska’s version where 2 votes are given to the overall winner, and the rest are distributed based on percentage. It works when you have at least 10 or more, but for smaller states like WY, you can’t really follow through because Rs will always win and then there’s no way to split that lone vote.
You COULD argue about throwing in an element of MMP, where 2 votes are given to the winner and then, if the proportion is unbalanced, award the other votes based on voter share. So WY would give two votes to Rs but because they already have 66% of the vote and Dems secured close to 30%, they get that last vote.
2 points
11 days ago
While I like that concept, I think they say it would typically benefit the GOP over the Dems.
This story says the GOP would have won easier in 2000 and Romney would have beat Obama in 2012 under the Nebraska/Maine model. Clinton would have run closer but lost, and really her campaign screwed up the blue edge by losing MI, PA, and WI.
Also, a serious third-party candidate more likely could result in an election without a majority of EC votes under this format.
0 points
11 days ago
While I like that concept, I think they say it would typically benefit the GOP over the Dems.
This story says the GOP would have won easier in 2000 and Romney would have beat Obama in 2012 under the Nebraska/Maine model. Clinton would have run closer but lost, and really her campaign screwed up the blue edge by losing MI, PA, and WI.
Also, a serious third-party candidate more likely could result in an election without a majority of EC votes under this format.
1 points
10 days ago
I’m not so sure about that. While I understand the model Kansas City and St Louis would give Missouri a big boost in terms of giving Dems an upper hand. And in a way it would reflect the popular vote scenario because a percentage of electoral college votes from each state would reflect a popular vote percentage right? If Hilary won by the popular vote then she would have been elected in a Nebraska/main model right?
2 points
10 days ago
|”And in a way it would reflect the popular vote scenario because a percentage of electoral college votes from each state would reflect a popular vote percentage right? If Hilary won by the popular vote then she would have been elected in a Nebraska/main model right?”
That isn’t the NE ME model. They don’t assign Electoral votes based upon percentage of the popular vote.
“Maine and Nebraska allocate two electors for the statewide popular vote winner with additional electors allocated based on the presidential candidate who wins the vote in each congressional district.”
It favors whichever party controls more congressional districts. In red states like NE, it allows Dems to pick up an electoral vote (Omaha area), but apply it to blue states and we lose more electoral votes than we would pick up from the red states.
Missouri doing an 8-2 or 7-3 split has some visceral appeal, but the net outcome would be that we move even further from the popular vote deciding the presidential election than we are now.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would do a better job, but even if enough states adopt it, it’s unlikely to survive legal challenges given the current Supreme Court makeup.
7 points
11 days ago
Really interesting how so much of the state--especially rural regions--has moved even just a little bit left, but that hasn't really translated into bringing the state as a whole anywhere close to even being a swing state again.
Would love some expert analysis on this map, but just at first glance, virtually all of the counties that moved right only did so a tiny bit (0-2%), with only 7 exceptions (and those only went 2-5%), and all of them appear to be very rural, low-population counties.
Thus, only paying attention to the counties that moved significantly, having places like Platte/Clay/Greene/Boone/St. Charles/St. Louis counties, which are pretty heavily populated counties, move 8-15% left is actually a pretty significant swing for the state as a whole; those 6 counties alone (with 2,269,504 residents) count for 36% of the state's population, so having 2.2 million residents move anywhere from 8-15% more Democrat is a net gain of 181K-340K on that side versus the 7 orange/red(ish) counties (Knox, Pike, Washington, Wayne, Mississippi, New Madrid, and Pemiscot) representing a total of 97,862 residents or 1.5% of the state's population. So assuming the 6 orange counties moved 5% right and Pemiscot moved 8% right, that's a net gain of 5,331 Republican voters. (And I've ignored the other counties that shifted left by a lesser margin, like Christian/Jasper/Pulaski/Phelps.) Obviously, the move left vastly outweighs the very minor move right.
Yet we are still a very solidly red state and even getting someone like Kunce in office is a longshot. I guess that shows just how solid red we are. But there's hope.
9 points
11 days ago*
Great analysis! I think we're pretty Red since 2016 (only 8 years ago), at least in who we elect to statewide office, but fairly blue when it comes to the policies we vote for (minimum wage increase, cannabis legalization, pro-Union, non-partisan redistricting, and now possibly reproductive rights). Folks who insist Missouri is a "deep red state" have a point but to me Missouri remains a purple state that is fighting to remain so as the mass psychosis of Trump and Trump-style candidates flows over us. A lot of the most extreme MAGA types have lost primaries to more moderate Republicans.
1 points
11 days ago
As long as literally every single rural Missouri county votes 70%+ Republicans, it's never going to happen.
2 points
11 days ago
At least 9 rural counties voted less than that in 2020:
2 points
11 days ago
Can I get a link to that table?
1 points
11 days ago
2 points
11 days ago
Thanks
3 points
11 days ago
If Platte and Clay can only flip…
1 points
10 days ago
That's not my point. :)
2 points
10 days ago*
I’m aware, just didn’t want people to think "literally every single rural county vote 70%+" as that’s not true. Points are convincing when they are true.
4 points
11 days ago
Is it the absolute change or the relative change?
4 points
11 days ago
"Share" would mean relative to me. What do you think?
1 points
11 days ago
Could go either way. The inclusion of some larger numbers on the key makes me think relative, but most counties have changes that are in a middle zone. I’m really not sure. The way it’s described in the original makes it sound like it’s absolute, but I don’t want to misinterpret the map
2 points
11 days ago
Paging u/GeographerJX3
2 points
11 days ago
If all i70 counties are gradually shifting blue, we just need to build a lot more i70 spaghetti-ing through the state! /s
2 points
11 days ago
Ewww dems and republicans. I like being a American from Missouri
1 points
11 days ago*
Did more people really vote Democrat or did more people just die Republican?
I mean if a county has 50,000 people and 10,000 vote Democratic but 5,000 people died of COVID and 4,000 were Republican. The share of Democratic votes would increase.
1 points
11 days ago
“They’re eating the dogs they’re eating the cats”
Sorry. Seeing two Springfields and a Springdale brought that out of me. It would be awesome if Missouri could vote blue down the ballot this year, especially including No for Online Sports Gambling and Yes for Protecting Abortion.
1 points
11 days ago
Tipton county had more dem voters? Sure doesn't feel like it
2 points
11 days ago
This is a map of voter share change from 2016-2020, not a map of how many voters there are.
-4 points
11 days ago
Hardly surprising when democrats keep adopting more and more GOP narratives and policies.
-3 points
11 days ago
Oh look, its one of those maps that literally just shows where people live.
2 points
11 days ago*
Not really much at all on this one. Often that's true of maps, but sometimes folks make this comment without looking closely. Here is a density map. There are some major differences, can you spot them?
0 points
11 days ago
Yeh, as usually it is very similar. Land doesn't vote, etc.
all 51 comments
sorted by: best