How many people...?

DallasDad

Graduate Poster
D
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
1,126
How many people would need to relocate to rural areas to change some of the red states to blue?


Take Wyoming, with approximately 577 thousand residents. Get 500 thousand Californians to move (some anti-particle Koch could fund it). California's voters' map would be essentially unchanged, but Wyoming would flip.


How many states could we flip? Is this a realistic way to effect change?
 
The Libertarians were actually talking about this maybe 25 years ago, and specifically targeting Wyoming.

In 2016, Trump won Wyoming by about 174,000-56,000. That's about 120,000 more Democrats you'd need to turn the state, and that's without any margin for safety. Basically that would require increasing the state's population by about 20%, assuming only adults move there; if they have kids, it would be more.

And there is always the risk that they will go renegade once outside the liberal coastal bubble.
 
Libertarians ultimately chose New Hampshire for the "Free State Project." Some rabid folks even moved to a specific town for the "Free Town Project." Long-time residents resented the carpet-baggers. Local conservatives thought it was nutty to abolish government snow-clearing services and legalize cannibalism.
 
Cain said:
Libertarians ultimately chose New Hampshire for the "Free State Project." Some rabid folks even moved to a specific town for the "Free Town Project." Long-time residents resented the carpet-baggers. Local conservatives thought it was nutty to abolish government snow-clearing services and legalize cannibalism.
Click to expand...

Cannibalism was already legal here, but only of bodies that had died of natural causes. But it was the snow-clearing thing that got them tarred, feathered and run out of the state on a rail.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
The Libertarians were actually talking about this maybe 25 years ago, and specifically targeting Wyoming.

In 2016, Trump won Wyoming by about 174,000-56,000. That's about 120,000 more Democrats you'd need to turn the state, and that's without any margin for safety. Basically that would require increasing the state's population by about 20%, assuming only adults move there; if they have kids, it would be more.

And there is always the risk that they will go renegade once outside the liberal coastal bubble.
Click to expand...


Funny thing is that for Wyoming in 2016 while 107% of registered voters turned out, only 57% of voting age adults did. So it's hard to make such assessments based on votes cast when almost, up to and often over as many eligible people again just don't vote. Not real sure how to interpret the 107%. Does it mean that 16,856 of the votes counted were not registered or that because they weren't registered 16,856 votes cast were not counted. the latter of course seems the more likely.


https://soswy.state.wy.us/Elections/Docs/VoterProfile.pdf

ETA:

Turns out the 107% is because Wyoming allows registering at the polls.
 
Last edited:
Do those numbers mean that only half of Wyoming's adult population was registered to vote? Probably some of those are ineligible for some reason or another, but it's still a low number.
 
Brainster said:
The Libertarians were actually talking about this maybe 25 years ago, and specifically targeting Wyoming.

In 2016, Trump won Wyoming by about 174,000-56,000. That's about 120,000 more Democrats you'd need to turn the state, and that's without any margin for safety. Basically that would require increasing the state's population by about 20%, assuming only adults move there; if they have kids, it would be more.

And there is always the risk that they will go renegade once outside the liberal coastal bubble.
Click to expand...

Or some of those conservatives will be turned when they meet people who grew up outside the Fox News/Koch propaganda bubble. After all, they are very suggestible.
 
Cain said:
Some rabid folks even moved to a specific town for the "Free Town Project."
Click to expand...

We had something fairly equivalent to that happen in North Dakota not too long ago with some White Supremacists. They tried to vote themselves into city council in a town with about 18 registered voters. They ended up getting kicked out of the town because of some gun restrictions.

This can be done, but as Brainster mentioned you're going to lose a >0% of those people when they move to rural areas and meet the people. Maybe you'll snag them for one cycle, but the rural areas have a way of changing minds.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That'd run the chance of instead converting these voters to Republican.
Click to expand...

Not if they move en masse and don't lock into the FOX News bubble. Remember, conservatism in our time is about being "anti-" everything. Its purely reactionary. What happens when the people moving in are the ones you are supposed to be "anti-" ? You expect them to makes themselves the "other"?
 
Donal said:
Not if they move en masse and don't lock into the FOX News bubble. Remember, conservatism in our time is about being "anti-" everything. Its purely reactionary.
Click to expand...

My point is that one's outlook is in large part due to their environment and upbringing. En masse, maybe, but otherwise the effect might be cancelled out with a generation or two.
 
DallasDad said:
How many people would need to relocate to rural areas to change some of the red states to blue?


Take Wyoming, with approximately 577 thousand residents. Get 500 thousand Californians to move (some anti-particle Koch could fund it). California's voters' map would be essentially unchanged, but Wyoming would flip.


How many states could we flip? Is this a realistic way to effect change?
Click to expand...

Probably better to go after states that are already vulnerable like PA, FL, OH, CO, AZ, NM, GA, and, dare I say, TX. These states are already either purple or starting to tilt that way. I think Mississippi can be a surprise if we can do something about the NeoJim Crow laws. As much as we like to bag on some of these states, there are a lot of people there who get screwed by the white supremacist rule and just need someone to fight with them.
 
Belz... said:
My point is that one's outlook is in large part due to their environment and upbringing. En masse, maybe, but otherwise the effect might be cancelled out with a generation or two.
Click to expand...

You're more likely to see the people currently in power try to consolidate further and restrict the voting rights of the new comers.
 
We Wyoming people command more electoral ballots than the rest of you by right. We are your betters, and you clearly admit that by your stooped submission to us, for all your muttering and shuffling.

And half of what's wrong with the US of A goes back to that Jew bastard Frankling Roozefelt!
 
Brainster said:
And there is always the risk that they will go renegade once outside the liberal coastal bubble.
Click to expand...

It depends on where they go. If they all go to Laramie they won't see much of a change.

If they get out of the cities and are in smaller depressed areas I agree about the bubble, just that someone so into the idea of being liberal to move is more likely to radicalize leftward once they see how much of mess these areas are, but who knows.

That is the thing: Liberals wanting to move to smaller states almost always have choices that aren't going to be all that much different as what they left behind. They don't have to go all pith helmet explorer and move into the sticks. The political divide is more urban/rural than it is based strictly on the state.
 
Suddenly said:
It depends on where they go. If they all go to Laramie they won't see much of a change.

If they get out of the cities and are in smaller depressed areas I agree about the bubble, just that someone so into the idea of being liberal to move is more likely to radicalize leftward once they see how much of mess these areas are, but who knows.

That is the thing: Liberals wanting to move to smaller states almost always have choices that aren't going to be all that much different as what they left behind. They don't have to go all pith helmet explorer and move into the sticks. The political divide is more urban/rural than it is based strictly on the state.
Click to expand...

Which is why certain states like Mississippi have their own mini electoral college. You have to win the popular vote AND the majority of counties to win the higher offices like governor. Otherwise, it goes to the state legislature. Which is already tilted to favor the county selection rather than the popular vote. This is why a bunch of liberals moving to these states isn't really going to flip anything for a while.
 
Donal said:
Which is why certain states like Mississippi have their own mini electoral college. You have to win the popular vote AND the majority of counties to win the higher offices like governor. Otherwise, it goes to the state legislature. Which is already tilted to favor the county selection rather than the popular vote. This is why a bunch of liberals moving to these states isn't really going to flip anything for a while.
Click to expand...

Right, since often what you have to flip first (either way) is the state government. As they are the ones who set how voting takes place.
 
That's why I think it is better to start with the purple states. Once you have them, you can also start to pass federal voter protections. It would be a bigger stick to wing at the suppression laws.
 
DallasDad said:
How many people would need to relocate to rural areas to change some of the red states to blue?


Take Wyoming, with approximately 577 thousand residents. Get 500 thousand Californians to move (some anti-particle Koch could fund it). California's voters' map would be essentially unchanged, but Wyoming would flip.


How many states could we flip? Is this a realistic way to effect change?
Click to expand...

People in other states hate Californians enough, don't contribute to the cause.
 
Donal said:
Which is why certain states like Mississippi have their own mini electoral college. You have to win the popular vote AND the majority of counties to win the higher offices like governor. Otherwise, it goes to the state legislature. Which is already tilted to favor the county selection rather than the popular vote. This is why a bunch of liberals moving to these states isn't really going to flip anything for a while.
Click to expand...

I had to look that up. As described that is clearly an illegal system. It turns out they use state legislative districts, which are at least proportioned to population which doesn't clearly violate the 14th amendment. There may be an equal protection argument against it if the districts are drawn to lessen the effect of the black vote, which knowing how Mississippi works I'm gonna suspect there is an issue there.

But yes, that is a wrench in that plan.
 
Donal said:
That's why I think it is better to start with the purple states. Once you have them, you can also start to pass federal voter protections. It would be a bigger stick to wing at the suppression laws.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. I think that Wyoming comes up solely because there aren't that many people there.
 
DallasDad said:
How many people would need to relocate to rural areas to change some of the red states to blue?


Take Wyoming, with approximately 577 thousand residents. Get 500 thousand Californians to move (some anti-particle Koch could fund it). California's voters' map would be essentially unchanged, but Wyoming would flip.


How many states could we flip? Is this a realistic way to effect change?
Click to expand...

You would need to do ideological tests on the emigrants from California to make sure you are not shipping out conservatives. There are people in California who are not happy with its' Democratic Party dominated government, and who would move given the means. The net effect on national politics would be a shift to the right by making purple states more red.

There are already people moving out of California and New York in substantial numbers. It would be interesting to see the effect that has had on the states they move to (other than increasing housing costs and traffic congestion).
 
Last edited:
Interestingly there was already an attempt to get liberals to settle in Wyoming in the 1970s. It was called the Wyoming Project IIRC, but never went anywhere. I don't know why exactly but I can imagine a lot of reasons.
 
Pope130 said:
You would need to do ideological tests on the emigrants from California to make sure you are not shipping out conservatives. There are people in California who are not happy with its' Democratic Party dominated government, and who would move given the means. The net effect on national politics would be a shift to the right by making purple states more red.

There are already people moving out of California and New York in substantial numbers. It would be interesting to see the effect that has had on the states they move to (other than increasing housing costs and traffic congestion).
Click to expand...

I've read these are older people who don't like paying high taxes and are the real reason Texas and Florida are still voting red. Apparently, the folks who are born and raised in these states have been moving purple for a while.
 
BStrong said:
People in other states hate Californians enough, don't contribute to the cause.
Click to expand...
We used to have bumper stickers around here saying "Don't Californicate Washington".
And what are all those Californians supposed to DO once they get to Wyoming? It's not like there are a whole lot of jobs there. That's why there are so few people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom