I'm curious about the answer to this! I don't have a good intuition for it.
The impact of individual votes is called "voter power," and in US presidential elections is mostly related to how evenly matched a state is -- which means it tends not to correlate to things you think it would, like small states vs. large states.
In simple terms, voters in swing states have more impact, which is why people try harder to win their votes. In mathematical terms, voter power is the probability that a given voter's vote will decide the election. You can measure a given state's voter power by asking, "what is the smallest coalition of voters, including voters from this state, who could have changed their minds to change the outcome of the election?" The smallest coalition that includes Texas voters is a lot bigger than the smallest coalition that includes Florida voters, so Florida voters have more voter power.
There are some measures of voter power based on polling from before the election, but I don't know if there's a post-election calculation around:
It's not obvious that denser or less dense states would be more evenly matched, and thus have more voter power. But maybe there's some other effect involved that would create a correlation?
I think the left would respond that urban populations are diverse & educated. And the right would respond that it's hard to preach conservative values of individual liberty and personal responsibility (e.g., leave me alone, i'll leave you alone) when people are living on top of one another.
"individual liberty and personal responsibility (e.g., leave me alone, i'll leave you alone) "
Those are not conservative values, those are libertarian values, we might call them 'liberal' in the rest of the world (well, kind of, using that phraseology like 'leave me alone, i leave you alone' is kind of a American colloquial/populist or crude way of expressing it - in fact it doesn't describe classical Liberalism very well at all, but nevertheless someone with that ethos would definitely fall under this camp, and not Conservatism)
Classically Conservative 'values' (though not necessarily politics) are more: family, community, responsibility towards community, faith, tradition, duty etc..
Conservative and Libertarian values clash distinctly in the are of 'community' - one is individualist, one is instinctively though often not obviously community oriented.
'Duty' is generally a conservative concept you don't hear much in the Libertarian leaning crowd.
But it's moot as far as this article is concerned: The data in this article is highly problematic due to the fact that most newcomers move to the cities, and so it entirely skews the data.
It's not an argument of 'disperse vs. dense' - it's really just a proxy for ethnography.
From the link in the comment above [1]: "population density and percent black will do a lot to obliterate many a suggestively-patterned map of the United States. Those two variables aren’t explanations of anything in isolation, but if it turns out it’s more useful to know one or both of them instead of the thing you’re plotting, you probably want to reconsider your theory."
As a libertarian voter, in the USA, I find this kind of position to be juvenile. They are conservative values, that happen to overlap with libertarian goals. Libertarian values are neither fundamental (old enough to be the basis for any other system) nor complete enough to be considered a value system at all. They are just rough applied values (eg limiting government is a general preference, not an ideology). Trying to exaggerate libertarian values to mean something absolute shows a deep misunderstanding of the movement.
Americans often do not understand their own political ideologies, the basis for them, and use completely the wrong words in describing them.
Libertarianism is ultimately an American flavour of (Classical) Liberalism, which is quite an old political tradition.
'Freedom of expression' is absolutely not a conservative value, it's fundamentally Classicaly Liberal.
Capital 'C' Conservatives in the USA may be big on 1st amendment type things, but it's really not conservative at all.
Liberals would have wanted to abolish the relationship between Church and State, conservatives would generally not want that, historically.
Liberals pushed for centuries for certain people to be able to have certain rights, conservatives would have been generally opposed to such things on political grounds, less so on the basis of values. 'Values' based politics is a more modern thing.
Even free markets - this is not a conservative thing, it's a Classical Liberal / Libertarian thing, which is why the term 'neoliberalism' is sometimes used to describe super capitalist/free market types. None of that is conservative.
In terms of 'values' - 'freedom of choice/expression' is fundamentally at odds with communitarian values and it's more easily understood in issues like the draft: A conservative would believe that in the event of (legitimate) war, everyone should do their best, basically sign up to fight. The draft would be seen as the rational duty of citizens. A libertarian would never accept such a transgression of their rights - joining the Army under any circumstances would have to be a matter of conscience.
Angela Merkel is mostly conservative. In larges swaths of Europe they have compulsory military service even though they are politically more progressive - it's because they are culturally fairly conservative. Most European nations have state Churches, i.e. official religions.
In Europe, the 'free market / big business' folks are not called conservatives (because they aren't), they're called 'Liberals' - which is what they are. The left has Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism. The right usually has Christian/Agrarian Democracy and then maybe some kind of nationalist movement in there.
I admit though 'personal responsibility' is both a conservative and Libertarian value. To a conservative, personal responsibility is a community obligation, righteous members of the community are hearty, productive, and fyi generous. Christian Democrats ideals are fundamentally communitarian (charity with no expectation of return is a requirement) and are totally incompatible with this 'Ayn Rand' stuff about not necessarily having an obligation toward others. (There's a hint there: you absolutely cannot be a Christian and Objectivist at the same time, Christians 'serve God' by behaving morally and by building the community, possibly through self-sacrifice and charitable work, putting God and the 'greater god' above oneself, whereas Objectivists pursue their own happiness as a moral obligation - charity is a choice, not an obligation) Libertarian personal responsibility is more a matter of individual pragmatism: 'Take care of yourself nobody else will (or should)'.
It's obviously a weird paradox in America that some conservatives value community and duty (think boy scouts, military service) and at the same time this penchant for 'absolute freedom'. I believe this is reconciled if you consider 'democracy' really as the form of freedom they aspire for people of other nations and that Americans wish for this basic opportunity for all people - to the point wherein they are willing to fight/sacrifice themselves for that 'greater good'. And of course on the left, you have artists/creative types who on one hand talk about sexual liberation and being 'open minded' and yet who are in 2018 the vanguard of the very illiberal policing appropriate language, and controlling what is acceptable culturally (i.e. only transgender actors should play transgender roles), opposing academic views which are hostile to some ideas etc. etc.. It's definitely weird. Anyhow , in America, Liberals are often not very liberal, and Conservatives are often not very conservative at all.
> Libertarianism is ultimately an American flavour of (Classical) Liberalism, which is quite an old political tradition.
"Ultimately" being a weasel word for redefining it again to meet a particular ideology.
This is not correct, nor is historical cherry picking a compelling argument for the viewpoint.
He goes off on yet another tangent after trying to justify the interpretation, through parallel interpretation. They will continue to be one of the many people who are convinced they are right, deriding others with more rational and moderate position, trying to get into arguments to try to justify their beliefs.
I was replying to a non-factual ad-hominem attack, so I thought it required more explanation.
Now I'm being attacked again, with a non-factual personal slander.
Lovely.
My post is basically textbook politics, it's not my opinion. I think my examples are pretty reasonable.
'Libertarianism' is an extension of Classical Liberalism, it's not a conservative movement (in terms of political ideology) and there's no debate about that.
'Republicanism' is 100% a Liberal ideal by definition. There's no wiggle room there. To be a 'Republican' literally means to be against the Monarchy or even Constitutional Monarchy, which is right at the core of Liberalism.
'Pursuit of Liberty' is not a conservative objective, it's Liberal, i.e. 'Classically Liberal'.
The only debate is what some of those words have come to mean through the lens of pop culture media, and that's all pretty foggy.
'Republican', the party, has little to do anymore with 'Republicanism'.
In particular, 'Liberal' has come to mean 'Left Wing' and 'conservative' usually 'right wing'. And since there are only two parties in America (and they are both more or less Liberal), and because party allegiances have changed, and because Americans don't ever learn political theory in school, and because the American press confuses the issue even further - it's a mess.
It's nuance, but it's not that complicated.
European political parties especially their naming - are generally more consistent and clear. When you look at the European political landscape for a bit, things are easier to grasp. Things start to make more sense.
The "right" - if we are referring to Repubs/Trump voters/Fox News Watchers/etc - are in no position to claim "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" as their motto.
I'm saying that the laws that the "right" in the US seek to enact are not consistent with "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" philosophy.
Anti letting women choose to get an abortion, anti gay marriage, anti marijuana, anti separation of religion and government (via tax exemptions and taxpayer funding of religious schools) , subsidizing specific businesses with taxpayer funds, pro warrantless surveillance, pro police state, etc.
Personally I feel like the issue of abortion is different from the rest of those. There is so much between the moment a guy puts a condom on and when the baby is crowning. It's clear to me that those who are against birth control and in favor of abstinence are extreme. At the same time, it would be criminal to abort a baby as it is crowning. (Btw, is making this criminal anti woman?)
There are moderates who approve of plan b and who understand that the latter case is unjust.
Now for the rest of us we have to decide on a month/week/day or development milestone to figure out exactly when it no longer becomes ok to abort. Who has any right to decide the precise step in development process where it becomes unethical to abort. Yet we must draw a line.
Personally on this issue I am surprised people can feel so confident about what the right thing is to do.
It depends on the proportionality for one. High population states have absurdly diluted voting power for senate. The offices available also give some voting power - if the population is 125 and the only positions available are dogcatcher, sherriff and coroner there is less influence than say a big city mayor capable of building schools, subways, and say deciding to buy vaccines in bulk to give away for free for the sake of public health.
