# America's many different 'nations'...discuss



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Nothing like painting with broad brush strokes, but it's interesting nonetheless:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Interesting. Is there much of merit in the views expressed?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

A lot of people with all kinds of backgrounds and political beliefs live in every state; there is some "pocketing" of people.

I catch myself thinking this is someone who wanted to pat himself on the back about how he knows it all. This is very oversimplified - - a bit of liberal pseudo-intellectualism. (That's okay; if a thread starts about Donald Trump, I'll say what I think about him, too.)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Pure rubbish! Perhaps in the 19th century but anymore I don't see people considering themselves in such a light. 

This is the geographical equivalent of a horoscope. Please also note how the Northeast in general is characterized by such virtues as working for the common good, sheltering the persecuted and valuing education.

I recall John Smith and the Mormons being run out of the same region in the 19th century before finding a home in Utah.


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

This was write along the lines of satire; stereotypical, but funny. Remember, news corporations classify themselves as "entertainment".


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Interesting. Is there much of merit in the views expressed?


There is some. I've read a number of articles, for example, that argue that if one looks at voting patterns and politics, the north-eastern part of the US, if it were an independent nation, would closely resemble Western Europe with respect to many policies, including the welfare state. We'd have trains and healthcare, etc. Gun control. Similarly, lots of people have written about how distinctive the former Confederacy still is with respect to a whole host of matters. The best assessment I've read says the most important difference between the NE and the South is religion, not just how religious people are but the way they are religious, and the religions themselves. If I recall the argument correctly, the NE went through a religious revival in the 18th century called the Great Awakening, which basically meant that the NE Protestants took a different turn from their southern coreligionists (plus the actual religious make up was different, with the Puritan and Congregationalist influence strong in New England, etc.) The different turn, among other things, made devout northern Christians more likely to be anti-slavery--hence the abolitionist movement. Southern Christians went the opposite way, and over the course of the 19th century, as Southern Christians became more involved in pro-slavery apologetics, they moved further away from the northerners...the Churches themselves split in two organizationally...supposedly the differences are still meaningful. I'm not talking about slavery, but the idea is that protestantism, generally speaking, took on a different outlook in the South.

Anyway, I'd say that while I think there's some truth to the generalizations, a number of caveats are on order:

1. How do you prove these regional divisions? What's the data? The Tufts Magazine article linked to in that Washington Post thing didn't provide much detail about the data. I've read too many articles about this subject that cherry pick data, usually to say bad things about the South, for example. Us Northeastern Yankees do think highly of ourselves and perhaps are prone to doing studies that demonstrate what we think are our virtues.

2. Any data-driven argument will have to account for the incredible diversity one finds in any American community, let a lone a state. I'm pleased that the map went county by county, rather than state by state. State-by-state comparisons are garbage.

I grew up in surburban Philadelphia, where everyone was, well, bourgeois and well educated, and judging from my FB feed, most of my classmates are Democrats. Obama won solidly, both times. But maybe 50 miles to the west of my town is (or at least was) rural...once in high school out of curiosity I went with two friends (one black) to watch a Ku Klux Klan rally. Pennsylvania, not Alabama. We--and the Klansmen (I presume)--were Pennsylvanians. The rally was in a town called Ephrata. Google maps says it's 67 miles from the Philadelphia city limits. (It also says the town is 96% white...and founded in 1732 by some weird German sect (check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephrata_Cloister)).

Also, none of my classmates was religious, although each had a different religion--my classmates associated with every Protestant sect one can imagine (Swedesborgian, anyone?), plus the Catholic Church, Muslims, Jews, Bahai, etc. etc.. Then, I spent one summer at an agriculture program at the State University. My classmates there were from all over the state, one or two per county, I think. Actually, I was the only one from my county, perhaps because no one there cares about agriculture, and I applied on a lark...Come Sunday morning, the dorm was empty because everyone had gone to church. Different churches, but still, church. The data has to deal with that reality as well as my bourgeois, atheist, leftist surburbia. And how, really, does one distinguish between Pennsylvania religious and Alabama religious? I suppose there are scholars who can do that. Religious studies experts and sociologists. I can't.

3. The categories in that article suggested a remarkable demographic and cultural continuity between, say, 18th century settlement patterns and today. Is that valid? Given migration and immigration, are Southerners the same people demographically, ethnically, culturally, etc., they were 150-200 years ago? How much continuity is there, really? The answer could be "a lot," but still, one has to wonder.

My family has only been in the US for about a century; my children are growing up in a different state than the one I grew up in (actually, my kids are growing up in DC, which is not a state); I grew up in a different state than my father; I don't even know where my father's father grew up. His father grew up in the Russian Empire. Anyway, the point is that we got around, and most of the people I grew up with have similar stories. Only when I went to that agriculture program did I meet Pennsylvanians whose roots went back in Pennsylvania for more than a century. But maybe that's the case for most people, and my personal experience is the minority one?

Chouan, please keep reporting the view of your class. I think it's fascinating, and it sounds like your doing a great job.

Also tell them this about Americans: They have no idea just how diverse a bunch we are. Appearances, especially those provided by the media, are deceiving. It's astounding we get along as well as we do.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

This<https://dsl.richmond.edu/historicalatlas/> might be a place to start to have an informed discussion of the regional characteristics of the US.

The article under discussion is not necessarily wrong, nor is it "rubbish." It is a very superficial, lightweight journalistic puff piece, with some generalized truthfulness.

The problem is that thematic treatments of history are apt to be misleading because they rely on an overarching theme or thesis on which the author hangs his arguments.

Wright's atlas, which I have not seen, let alone touched, for at least 40 years, suffers from this deficiency, which, when the first edition was published ca. 1932, was not a fault, but rather the style of pre-war academic writing. The updated digitized version appears much improved.

There are a number of thematic regional treatments of the US/North America.

Chouan, If the atlas, the current version of which is digitized and presumably accessible and appealing to your students, is useful, please let me know and I'll try to provide a few more references. You could do worse than to stare with Tocqueville's book on the United States, as well as one he wrote on Latin America. Likewise, Alexander von Humboldt's works are a good start.

Something more up to date that comes to mind is Rebecca Solnit's "Savage Dreams," which describes her participation in anti-nuclear protests in Nevada, and the pretense that Native Americans and white residents were irrelevant to the testing program. In the second half of the book she ties this theme in to the actions of the Mariposa Batallion, which, under a Colonal Savage, cleared the Yosemite Indians out of the Valley in the 19th Century. Solnit brings the Yosemite Indians' story into the latter part of the 20th Century, and explains how the Indians didn't just disappear as it was expected they would. Solnit writes well, and often thinks like a geographer.

The Solnit book reveals, among other things, continuity of local, almost vernacular, history and the continuity of habitation of various locales by families and peoples (European and Native American) dating back to early European settlement.

Hope this is helpful,
Gurdon

PS: We still have regional accents.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> There is some. I've read a number of articles, for example, that argue that if one looks at voting patterns and politics, the north-eastern part of the US, if it were an independent nation, would closely resemble Western Europe with respect to many policies, including the welfare state. We'd have trains and healthcare, etc. Gun control. Similarly, lots of people have written about how distinctive the former Confederacy still is with respect to a whole host of matters. The best assessment I've read says the most important difference between the NE and the South is religion, not just how religious people are but the way they are religious, and the religions themselves. If I recall the argument correctly, the NE went through a religious revival in the 18th century called the Great Awakening, which basically meant that the NE Protestants took a different turn from their southern coreligionists (plus the actual religious make up was different, with the Puritan and Congregationalist influence strong in New England, etc.) The different turn, among other things, made devout northern Christians more likely to be anti-slavery--hence the abolitionist movement. Southern Christians went the opposite way, and over the course of the 19th century, as Southern Christians became more involved in pro-slavery apologetics, they moved further away from the northerners...the Churches themselves split in two organizationally...supposedly the differences are still meaningful. I'm not talking about slavery, but the idea is that protestantism, generally speaking, took on a different outlook in the South.
> 
> Anyway, I'd say that while I think there's some truth to the generalizations, a number of caveats are on order:
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to write such an interesting post; I will indeed keep you in touch. 
The only thing that they all invariably cannot understand is the electoral college idea for electing the President. Not one student has ever been able to fully understand why this system is still used.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Thank you for taking the time to write such an interesting post; I will indeed keep you in touch.
> The only thing that they all invariably cannot understand is the electoral college idea for electing the President. Not one student has ever been able to fully understand why this system is still used.


Me, neither. And it produced George W. At least now some progress is being made against Gerrymandering.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'd suggest instead of hurling insults and throwing up your collective hands at attempting to understand the electoral college, you actually read about it.

The electoral college also helped elect the current president!

The purpose of the electoral college, in brief, is to make the lesser populated states relevant in national elections. 

Without it, candidates would only campaign and pander to the large population centers without taking into account rural areas. 

Imagine our politics if the concerns of New Yorkers and Los Angelians were the primary concern followed by other large cities. 

We are a collection of states brought together in a republic. Those states, both big and small, should and do have a voice within the federal system. The electoral college is one such safeguard against the tyranny of larger cities.

P.s. There's nothing wrong with gerrymandering as the designation of districts is a purely political act.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Who's hurling insults? We're having a nice civil chat. And your points re the electoral College are well taken.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ _*I'd suggest instead of hurling insults and throwing up your collective hands at attempting to understand the electoral college, you actually read about it.
> *_
> The electoral college also helped elect the current president!
> 
> ...


Who was throwing up their hands? It is a difficult concept for outsiders to understand. It appears to be unnecessarily complicated, and I don't see how the process achieves what you say that it is designed to.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

It is crucial to distinguish between the original method of electing presidents and vice presidents, and the current process (a bastardization of the Framers' original intent as specified in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and altered by the 12[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment).

Originally, "electors" - chosen by States in whatever manner that each State legislature decided - actually elected both president and vice president. For instance, if a State had ten electoral votes (that number is based on the number of federal senators [always two] plus the number of federal representatives the State had in the House of Representatives [based on the State's population]), the State legislature could simply choose ten people to be electors (one hopes they were chosen based on qualities such as intelligence, integrity, knowledge, and State advocacy, but assuredly that wasn't always the case!). Those ten electors could vote for anyone they wished to be president! Most States did exactly that. Notice how that marginalizes - nearly eliminates! - the public from the process. The Framers were generally opposed to democratizing this process.

Why? The Framers (and of course, the States that ratified the Constitution) wanted the most knowledgeable people to elect the chief executive, and believed that each State (via its legislature) would be best equipped to determine who those electors should be. The average person in the 18th century was in no position to know the political philosophy, ability, and character of executive candidates. (Is it any different today, when the majority of our population does not seem to know or care about their government or the salient political issues facing the United States?) Why would any prudent person want an apathetic and ignorant general population to elect the president?

In addition, and probably more importantly, the idea was for the States - in keeping with the foundational concept of federalism which sought to balance political power between the States and the general (federal) government - to have a crucial role in selecting the chief executive, not the general public.

This all changed as States began to allow the voting public to choose "electors" via popular elections. (Notice how a modern ballot has the names of presidential candidates, but the ballot states that voters are choosing "electors.") Each political party has a bunch of potential "electors" linked to their presidential candidate, so whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in a given State, the "electors" pledged to that candidate will be the ones who cast their vote for president in the "electoral college." Whether for or against the democratization of electing the chief executive, the modern process is very different from what the Framers and the ratifiers of the Constitution initially conceived.

Hope that helped!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Who was throwing up their hands? It is a difficult concept for outsiders to understand. It appears to be unnecessarily complicated, and I don't see how the process achieves what you say that it is designed to.


It may be difficult to understand but a concept that can be understood with some research.

As indicated in detail by Tiger, we are a republic made up of individual states. The purpose of an electoral college is to give less populated states a voice in the election of the President and the make up of the federal government. Otherwise, large population centers would determine the priorities of the federal government and it's expenditures.

It's somewhat the same concept as with the Senate and House of Reps. Whereas the house is made up of representatives of the people, the Senate represents the states. That's why each state, regardless of land mass or population, has 2 senators to represent it's interests at the federal level. This provides balance so that smaller states have a voice in the government.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> Who's hurling insults? We're having a nice civil chat. And your points re the electoral College are well taken.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The quip about GW. Not sure what that was supposed to mean. Your tone implied that his election was some sort of aberration in the normal course of how our politics is supposed to function. If I'm wrong then I apologize.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I guess it represents a compromise. It's undemocratic in the sense that it skews power away from the real majority and gives disproportionate power to states with tiny populations. On the other hand, it's democratic in that it's a compromise that helps keep the system working and stable. One sacrifices some democracy to preserve democracy.

It sort of works in my favor as a DC resident: we get three College votes even though we have no real Congressional representation. That means my votes cancel out those of Wyoming. Wyoming, by the way, has a smaller population than DC.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I think the essence of our Republic is that the larger population centers don't get to set the agenda for the country. 

I don't think it skews the balance in favor of smaller states, which by the way are not homogenous but all have their own individual concerns and interests. Rather is balances out with the interests of larger cities and states.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> I guess it represents a compromise. It's undemocratic in the sense that it skews power away from the real majority and gives disproportionate power to states with tiny populations. On the other hand, it's democratic in that it's a compromise that helps keep the system working and stable. One sacrifices some democracy to preserve democracy...


Please keep in mind that many believed (and still do!) that each State was equal, regardless of population, so there wasn't a disproportionate distribution of power from that perspective. Yet, in order to recognize that some States did have significantly larger populations than others, those States received more electoral votes (based on the formula I described earlier).

So, there is a compromise here, mirroring that of the Connecticut Compromise in Philadelphia in 1787. In any event, I prefer the original method over the modern way - not only do I really believe in its superiority, but I'm also a human anachronism!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I think the essence of our Republic is that the larger population centers don't get to set the agenda for the country.
> 
> I don't think it skews the balance in favor of smaller states, which by the way are not homogenous but all have their own individual concerns and interests. Rather is balances out with the interests of larger cities and states.


If one looks at the presidential popular vote by county in certain states - PA, IL, NY and others - one finds that a candidate could win in excess of 80% of the state's counties, but lose the overall popular vote in that state, because the biggest cities - Philadelphia, Chicago, and New York, for example - vote so monolithically. This is part of the problem with the way the electoral system is used today.

Makes one wonder: exactly what should constitute a "majority" - the majority of voters? Majority of States? Majority of counties? Majority of congressional districts?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Makes one wonder: exactly what should constitute a "majority" - the majority of voters? Majority of States? Majority of counties? Majority of congressional districts?


But isn't the electoral college system supposed to smooth that out? At some point we're not able to parse and part. I mean, it would make no sense to award electoral votes based on how each neighborhood in Chicago votes.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> But isn't the electoral college system supposed to smooth that out? At some point we're not able to parse and part. I mean, it would make no sense to award electoral votes based on how each neighborhood in Chicago votes.


Not sure I understand your point, SG_67. But, in the scenario mentioned above (a candidate winning 80% of a state's counties but losing the electoral vote in that state):

1) Under the original electoral system, this could never happen, because it wasn't predicated on the popular vote.
2) Since today's bastardization of the electoral system is a "popular vote winner-take-all electoral votes of the state" one, the above scenario occurs frequently!
3) My point about majorities was that there are many ways to define "majority." Simply looking at popular vote in a state gives large cities far more power than the rest of the state's counties _*combined*_. In effect, win the big city, win the state's electoral votes. Why give a damn about the entirety of New York State, when often just winning the New York City vote might be enough to win every New York State electoral vote? If states defined "majority" as "largest number of counties" as opposed to "most popular votes," results could/would be very different. Note: I understand the difference between "majority" and "plurality."

I'm not advocating for any form of this; as mentioned earlier, I prefer the original electoral method...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

By the way, in Illinois in 2012, President Obama won 57% of the state popular vote, thus capturing all twenty Illinois electoral votes in this "winner-take-all" system. (I think Nebraska and Maine are the only states that don't follow this methodology.) Yet, Mitt Romney captured 78 of 101 counties - 78% of Illinois counties! Clearly, Cook County (i.e., Chicago) was the difference. This probably holds true in NY and PA, too. So, depending on how one defines "majority" - and one can make a case for either definition here - dictates who wins the (entire) state electoral vote!

I think the Nebraska and Maine method of dividing up electoral votes by winner of congressional districts (I think this is how they do it) is preferable to the "winner-take all" system. Imagine losing California by a popular vote of 50.1% to 49.9%, and getting *zero *electoral votes, while your opponent received *all 55*! How the heck is that even remotely proportionate - or equitable?

Full disclosure - I did not vote for either Obama or Romney in 2012...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

My students pointed out that if, for example, one is a Democrat in Alabama there is no point in voting as all the electoral votes will be Republican. Similarly, if one is a Republican in Rhode Island there is no point in voting either.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> My students pointed out that if, for example, one is a Democrat in Alabama there is no point in voting as all the electoral votes will be Republican. Similarly, if one is a Republican in Rhode Island there is no point in voting either.


I believe that is correct, although there are no doubt counties in Alabama that are heavily democratic. Urban ones, I'd wager.

I vote in DC; absolutely no point.

The problem also expresses itself in local office elections. The mayoral race here is decided entirely among democrats, so the election that matters is the primary. Republican friends wish they could vote in the primaries, and I think they should have that right. I dislike the primary system very much. But that's a whole other topic.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> My students pointed out that if, for example, one is a Democrat in Alabama there is no point in voting as all the electoral votes will be Republican. Similarly, if one is a Republican in Rhode Island there is no point in voting either.


This is another one of the salient problems with the "winner-take-all" system of state electoral votes that 48 out of 50 states employ. My "California" example above is another.

Note: In the 2012 Presidential Election In Pennsylvania, Republican Mitt Romney won 84% of all counties, yet Democrat President Obama won 52% of the popular vote and thus all of Pennsylvania's electoral votes). The city of Philadelphia determined the race, marginalizing all other counties.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> My students pointed out that if, for example, one is a Democrat in Alabama there is no point in voting as all the electoral votes will be Republican. Similarly, if one is a Republican in Rhode Island there is no point in voting either.


Perhaps for POTUS but such elections usually have associated with them multiple other offices both federal, state and local so not voting, though a choice, is still not wise if one really cares about the concept of self governance.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Chouan,
Have you discussed with your class the differences between the British parliamentary system and the American presidential system? 

The salient distinction, in my view, is that your system concentrates power in the hands of the party which prevails in the general election. Ours separates the executive and legislative functions and allows them to be controlled by parties in opposition.

This sometimes/often makes it hard to get things done here, but necessitates compromise if governance is to be carried out. Underlying our division of powers approach is a strong distrust of politicians and a concern that power not be concentrated in one party. 

Hope this is helpful,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> Chouan,
> Have you discussed with your class the differences between the British parliamentary system and the American presidential system?
> 
> The salient distinction, in my view, is that your system concentrates power in the hands of the party which prevails in the general election. Ours separates the executive and legislative functions and allows them to be controlled by parties in opposition.
> ...


Yes. In Y12 they look at the constitutional structures of British government and the electoral system, at all levels, parish, town, county, national and supra national (the EU). In Y13 they do the same but looking at the US.


----------

