Progressive Legislation, Elections in Rural America, and the Future of Democracy in America
Nate Reul, New Leaders Council Capital District NY
THE FUTURE OF PROGRESSIVE LEGISLATION IS IN RURAL AMERICA
A recent study projected that, by 2040, almost 70% of the US population will live in just sixteen states.[1] Of those sixteen states, a majority are states that always or almost always vote for the Democratic candidate in presidential elections. Indeed, twelve of these states are currently represented by at least one US Senator from the Democratic Party. In the current 116th Congress, every state on the West coast and ten out of the fourteen states that border the Atlantic Ocean have at least one Democratic US Senator.[2]
It is obviously difficult to project current political trends so far into the future, and it is unreasonable to think that every state that consistently votes for either the Democrats or the Republicans in 2019 will do the same in 2040. However, despite what changes may occur to the political strengths and weaknesses of the Democratic and Republican Parties nationally and in individual states, it is inarguable that, politically, the projected geography of the 2040 American population presents a profound crisis for the strength and vitality of representational democracy in the United States.
The United States Senate is composed of 100 Senators, two for each State. If these population estimates are accurate, and 70% of the country does end up living in only sixteen states by 2040, that means that a supermajority of over two-thirds of US Senators will be elected from states representing only one-third of the national population. In other words, regardless of their future voting preferences, a distinct minority of the country will have at least the ability to both enact legislation unsupported by most Americans, and/or block legislation supported by the larger majority. Furthermore, it is quite plausible that this future minority population will consistently be able to elect a majority of US Senators while the House of Representatives and the Presidency is consistently able to reflect the political will of the majority of the population, making the recent trend of gridlock, political stagnation, and hyper-partisanship a permanent feature of American politics.
In fact, this hypothetical future is actually our present. For the past several years, Americans have been living in an age of minority rule, at the national level, and in many states. US Senators representing states whose combined population are a minority of the country confirmed two justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. And these justices were nominated by a president who himself was not voted into office by a majority or even plurality of voters. This is the first time in American history that this particular voting pattern has occurred, though it very well may not be the last.[3]
The potential for a minority of voters to permanently exert political power over the will of the majority is something that should be taken seriously by all Americans. There are many factors that can lead to the decline and fall of democratic societies; one of the causes can be that many people in those societies did not feel that their voices, or votes, were represented. There has always been a disproportionate influence of states with smaller populations in the US Senate, but there has never been such a large gap between states with large populations and small ones as is projected to be the case in just a few decades. Some contemporary thinkers have analyzed this very situation, and despaired at the potential for our future American society to fall apart.[4]
But this issue is especially important for the young progressives of today, who have seen the frustration that can arise on an issue such as gun violence or climate change, when large majorities nationwide support policies that, in the end, do not become laws. If today’s progressives are serious about the need to enact substantial, long-lasting progressive legislation, they need to figure out how to win statewide elections in the states where much or most of the population lives in rural areas.
As the past several years have shown, it is not enough to elect a president, or even a simple majority of US Senators, to get legislation enacted. If the progressive movement cannot find a way to consistently elect progressive candidates in the largely rural states that will be so important to forming a majority in the US Senate in the future, they will have no ability to actually enact true, long-lasting, progressive policies.
PROGRESSIVES AND RURAL STATES
So far, in the twenty-first century, the Democratic Party has been able to get one or more of its own elected to the US Senate from traditionally strong Republican states like Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Montana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia and West Virginia. Recent political science research has shown that, regardless of which states Republicans represent, they are all almost uniformly the same ideologically.[5] The same is not true of Democrats, and the Democrats that have won statewide office in these states have been a mix of moderate, conservative, and liberal.
While it is impressive that these Democrats have won statewide elections in so many states with large or majority rural populations, from the point of view of the progressive movement, it has not been nearly enough. The Democratic Party is currently able to cobble together a functioning majority in the US Senate by electing moderates and conservatives from such consistently Republican states, but that means that the most progressive legislation that can be passed into law is only as progressive as the least conservative Democratic senator. If every Democratic senator that represented a largely rural state were a political progressive, the ramifications for political power and progress in the United States would be earth-shattering.
As it is, however, barring major (and rare) outside circumstances, progressive candidates have simply been unable to get elected to statewide office in largely rural, conservative states without very large populations such as Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho, Kentucky, Utah, Mississippi, and Kansas. As long as states like these do not elect progressives, or only occasionally elect conservative Democrats, then the future is quite bleak for progressivism as a political movement.
POLITICAL REFORM, PROGRESSIVE CHANGE, AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN POLITICS
Clearly, there is extreme disparity in voting power for the US Senate that, at this time, largely benefits conservative legislators. Certain reforms have been proposed that, while they would not completely counteract this conservative advantage, would go a ways towards helping balance the situation so that Democrats and progressives were not at such a disadvantage.
One potential reform is to make Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and potentially other US territories that currently cannot vote into states, who would almost certainly elect two Democratic senators each. Another proposed reform would be to amend the Constitution, such that US Senators are elected more in proportion with population, so that the small-state bias would at least be lessened.[6]
These proposals, while well-intentioned, face an uphill battle to becoming enacted. In reality, the process of making territories into states is complex, would have unintended consequences, and given the current and foreseeable political climate, be strongly resisted by conservatives. As well, a Constitutional amendment would require the assent of at least 35 states, many of which would be voting to purposefully weaken their political strength and ability to shape national legislation. Put simple, this is just not going to happen.
The obstacles standing in the way of such reforms are formidable, and not likely to change no matter how many years go by. While political and structural reform should certainly remain an option for progressives, the simplest, most efficient way to gain and maintain the power to enact real, lasting progressive change at the federal level is for progressives to find ways to get elected in conservative-leaning, largely rural, and smaller population states. It is taken for granted that these states will always vote strongly for conservative politicians. But progressives can and should offer these regions a true political choice, and real political solutions for the issues facing rural Americans.
Because, at the end of the day, it does not matter that there is a minority of voters that currently have the ability to elect a majority of US Senators, the President of the United States, and therefore a majority of justices on the Supreme Court, without the backing of most of the population — what matters is that this minority wins elections and uses the resulting political power from those elections within the political system as it exists. In order to fight back, enact lasting change, and maintain the strength and vitality of our representative, democratic republic, progressives need to find ways to first contest, and then win, statewide elections in every state in America.
A 2019 NLC Fellow with the Capital District NY Chapter, Nate currently works in New York State government. He has extensive campaign experience at the state and federal level, and has previously engaged in community organizing and public interest advocacy after a stint in the U.S. House of Representatives. In his former time at a national non-profit in the Washington, DC area, Nate helped to successfully advocate for and pass into law several bipartisan pieces of national legislation.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/.
[2] This includes Senator Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with the Senate Democrats.
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/10/were-living-in-an-age-of-minority-rule/.
[4] See Matthew Yglesias’ article at Vox, entitled “American Democracy is Doomed.” https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed.
[5] For more on the differences in ideology between the Republican and Democratic Party, see Matt Grossmann and David Hopkins, “Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats: The Asymmetry of American Party Politics.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 13, no. 1 (March 2015), pg. 119–139.
[6] For a more in-depth explanation of these reforms, see https://www.vox.com/2018/7/3/17379766/trump-norms-democracy.
