Value in Being a "Swing State?"

[Sisyphus]

Inspired by this:

 

It's not just that it's populous' date=' it's that it's populous and contestable.

 

(Something all states should aspire to, but that's another discussion I suppose.)[/quote']

 

Sir, I do feel obliged to defend my honor as a resident of solid-blue New York. Why is Florida more virtuous for having equal proportions of right-wing wackos and left-wing wackos? More fortunate, perhaps, inasmuch as Presidential candidates are FAR more likely to listen (or pander) to your concerns, but is it something to aspire to? I await your justification.

[ecoli]

as a New york resident, I will probably never be near a presidential campaign stop.

[Pangloss]

Ecoli hits one key point squarely on the head of the nail. But I think you make a good point as well, Sisyphus. Florida is certainly no more virtuous than New York (by any measure), and not more virtuous for its content of extremist wackos. But I don't think that's really what makes Florida a contested state.

 

Also I think New York is underrated in its contestability. For all its vaunted "blueness", it's somehow managed to elect a steady stream of Republicans to office over the years, from Teddy Roosevelt to George Pataki. Even better, those particular Republicans help smooth out the rough edges of partisanship and ideology that the Republicans the Southern states often represent.

 

I'd like to get into this some more (I know I haven't really answered you question, sorry about that) but I'm literally running out the door right this second to teach a class! I'll check back in later tonight.

[Sisyphus]

Also I think New York is underrated in its contestability. For all its vaunted "blueness"' date=' it's somehow managed to elect a steady stream of Republicans to office over the years, from Teddy Roosevelt to George Pataki. Even better, those particular Republicans help smooth out the rough edges of partisanship and ideology that the Republicans the Southern states often represent.

[/quote']

 

That's certainly true, but internal New York politics is really nothing like national politics. A "New York Republican" bears little resemblance to the mainstream Republicans we tend to loathe up here, and the GOP tends to nominate for President, for example. So while it's extremely unlikely that New York will vote for a Republican President anytime in the near future, we do have plenty of very successful Republican politicians, from Pataki to Giulliani and Bloomberg. Or, for that matter, Teddy Roosevelt, who was very New York. Of course, New York Democrats tend to share that uniqueness - Eliot Spitzer is a good example. (And, I guess, the other Roosevelt.) That Hillary Clinton got elected here is a bigger achievement than most people realize.

 

And what's true for New York State is doubly true for New York City. It's been said many times that there's no way any mayor of New York could possibly be elected to any other office, and likewise no outside politician could get elected as mayor. They have to be slightly crazy in several very specific ways, be they Republican or Democrat.

 

[/New York pride]

[Pangloss]

Thanks for the insight on that, I thought it was interesting. As a distant observer it's pretty hard to fathom the internal workings of another state's politics, but I still try anyway because I find the subject fascinating (for all the states, really). Somehow politics at the state level is just -- different -- from the national level. I'm not sure why, but it's certainly a recurring theme.

 

Anyway, getting back to your question, let me compare Florida with another state that happens to be both (a) easy to pick on, and (b) familiar to me, which is Georgia. I think Floridians reap a benefit that Georgians don't, because the state is "contested" rather than "solid". National candidates spend more time here, pay more attention to local issues, and spend more time listening to local input. They spend more money here (which in this day and age can be a very large amount!) which helps the local economy, and we get the national spotlight which means we get to show people "how it's done".

 

Of course when we screw up we get to reap the "benefits" of that as well. You take the good with the bad, I suppose. But on the whole, I'd rather be in a state where my vote actually matters, than one where it really doesn't.

[Aardvark]

Of course when we screw up we get to reap the "benefits" of that as well. You take the good with the bad, I suppose. But on the whole, I'd rather be in a state where my vote actually matters, than one where it really doesn't.

 

Wouldn't a sensible reform be to split the electoral college votes from each state acccording to the percentage of th vote rather than awarding all to the winner?

 

It would be fairer and give each state more value to politicians, rather than simply concentrating on marginal states.