Skip to main content

The Deepening Rural-Urban Divide


When considering some of the largest causes for divides within the United States’ electorate today, many would look towards race, education, age, and sex. However, one cleavage remains seldom discussed yet may be the most important in correlating to increased polarization between America’s two parties. The factor of rural versus urban electorates has remained a strong sorting mechanism between the two parties throughout the last century and has only increased in recent years. Though not much can be done to stop this attributing factor of party polarization, its effects will continue to have significant consequences for the American electorate in the coming decades.
            The rural and urban divide in the United States was quite insignificant back at the time of its inception. Thomas Jefferson was well-known for his disdain of city life back in 1803 when he wrote that cities were evil, dirty and possibly monarchist compared to the virtue and wisdom inherent to an agrarian lifestyle. This penchant for pastoralism was undoubtedly quite popular during a period when 94 percent of the US population was located in rural areas. However, by 1920 a majority of the US population for the first time was considered as living in urban areas, causing discourse to change with examples like journalists describing Republican President Warren G. Harding giving speeches to “small town yokels … low political serfs.” (Grier 2018). Rural and urban divides have only increased in today’s political climate and have exacerbated unequal representation within the national government due to using a system that attempts to balance rural and urban interests even at the cost of “penalizing the party with the more concentrated base of support.”
            It is well known in contemporary politics that “urban areas tend to vote Democratic, while suburban and rural areas often lean Republican” and is known as the geographic constituency for a member of Congress (Adler, Jenkins, and Shipan pg. 82 2019). These geographic constituencies may go back centuries, as seen in Figure 1 below, which shows the correlation between the distance of old railroad junctions during industrialization in the 19th Century and Hillary Clinton’s vote share in the 2016 election. The farther away a voter is from these rail nodes, the less likely overall they are to have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016.

Figure 1.
This correlation also has large impacts on which candidates are chosen in these districts as well as their representation. Due to Democrats living in ultra-homogenous politically affiliated districts compared to less solid but more numerous Republican-leaning districts, America’s winner-take-all district system leads to “the more concentrated party losing out on transforming votes to seats” (Florida 2019). Another consequence of this is that “Democrats end up winning substantial majorities in their core districts my margins like 80-20 or 70-30” while Republicans can win more districts while having less of an edge as a majority in the district (Florida 2019). These large Democratic vote margins can encourage more radical candidates, which overall does more harm to the party platform in the long run within states, as noted by Andrew B Hall’s “What Happens When Extremists Win Primaries?” The increased potentiality of creating more extreme candidates of either party “causes severe damage to the party’s electoral prospects, … makes the party much more likely to lose the general election today and … makes the opposing party much more likely to win two to four years later” (Hall 2015).
            Solutions to this issue may involve alleviating partisan gerrymandering of districts in an effort to negate the homogeneity of Democratic voters within a state's districts. One such clear example was Pennsylvania in the 2012 general election, as even though "Democratic candidates for Congress won 51% of the votes state-wide [they] came away with majorities in only 28% of the districts." However, even with a computer program that tried to rectify this imbalance of votes to party seats, these "party blind" plans nevertheless still gave Democrats a disadvantage (G.E.M. 2019). Party polarization seems to not be abating anytime soon but author and Stanford political scientist Jonathon Rodden did note that suburbs are key to becoming the possible solution to this clear divide. “In the long run, perhaps the changing populations and greater mixing of the suburbs may help us overcome some of the extreme polarization that plagues us today” (Florida 2019). 


Works Cited

Adler, Scott, Jeffery A. Jenkins, and Charles R. Shipan, The United States Congress, (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019), 82.
Brown, Patrick, “Why Democrats Lose,” 31 July 2019, accessed at https://www.city-journal.org/urban-rural-electoral-divide, 15 Oct 2019.
Florida, Richard, “Why Cities Are Less Powerful in U.S. National Politics,” 26 Sept 2019, accessed at https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/09/jonathan-rodden-why-cities-lose-book-interview-us-politics/598693/, 15 Oct 2019.        
G.E.M., "How America’s urban-rural divide shapes elections," 3 June 2019, accessed at https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/06/03/how-americas-urban-rural-divide-shapes-elections, 15 Oct 2019.
Grier, Peter, “The deep roots of America’s rural-urban political divide,” 26 Dec 2018, accessed at https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2018/1226/The-deep-roots-of-America-s-rural-urban-political-divide, 15 Oct 2019.
Hall, Andrew B., “What Happens When Extremists Win Elections?” Feb 2015, accessed at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000641, 15 Oct 2019. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TABOR & Proposition CC: Providing Context to Colorado's Tax Problem

Edward Baisley Prof. Matthew Hitt POLS 304 Dec. 2019 Blog Post 3 (TABOR and Proposition CC) Colorado's tax system is very unique in comparison to pretty much every other state in the U.S. Arguably the biggest aspect of the tax system that is unique is the amendment to the Colorado Constitution known as TABOR or the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. This amendment which was drafted into law in 1992, has many implications for Colorado's state and local governments. One of the main implications is that TABOR requires the state and local governments of Colorado to acquire voter approval before any tax increase can be implemented. Some other more less known implications are detailed by Denver Post author Anna Staver, she explains that TABOR: “ Limits how many tax dollars governments can keep … It’s called the TABOR cap, anything a government collects above the cap gets returned as a TABOR tax refund … (TABOR) Limits when lawmakers can ask voters to raise taxe...
1 comment
Read more

The Flawed American Electoral System

A free and fair election is one that is inclusive to all of the population. A democratic state requires active citizen participation to ensure equal representation. The framers of the constitution originally wanted the United States government to only be governed by educated white men. It was not until 1920 that the 19th amendment was passed that allowed white females to vote in America. Then it was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allowed African-Americans the right to vote freely. There were many amendments and reforms throughout history that has changed our election system. Different changes to state election process will ensure an equitable election system. This is a highly debated legislative issue that goes back and forth for the past decade and into the 2020 election. It is crucial for such a powerful and free country to protect its proud democratic values.  There are still issues with the American election systems. There are a lot of holes in represe...
1 comment
Read more

The Ballot Initiative in Colorado

    One of the most distinctive features of the legislative process in Colorado is the prevalence of the ballot initiative. In the election this November, voters had the opportunity to approve their own laws. One of these laws included a proposition that would legalize sports betting.     This is not the first time that voters have had the ability to make hugely influential decisions. Voters have voted to legalize marijuana. In Colorado, they even approve tax increases because of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, or TABOR. This means that, unlike in other states, Colorado voters have legislative power of their own.      One of these most recent initiatives involved sports betting. Colorado would legalize sports betting, but sports betting would be taxed. This revenue would be used to fund plans to address Colorado's water problem. However, according to the Colorado Sun, the money from sports betting will not generate any money to address these water iss...
Post a Comment
Read more