Firstly, I think you’re talking about the Wisconsin SC. Secondly, that remains to be seen. Thirdly, Wisconsin’s Senators illustrate the problem with this hypothesis - they seem capable of electing both Republican and Democrat Senators (and Governors) depending on the winds of the political moment.
Moving to Wisconsin won’t tilt the state blue because you’ll be exposed to all the same socio-economic forces everyone else in Wisconsin is enduring.
As you might have guessed I’m not a voter in those states but the point I was making about it remains pretty much the same.
In this specific case it will remain to be seen, but in general this type of election matters at tackling the problem of gerrymandering is the main point I was getting at, I believe it is important not to lose the forest for the trees on this.
Gerrymandering is one of the problems, turn out is another, disenfranchisement is another, ease of voting is an additional problem, clerical errors when voting is another problem as well. There are many specific problems and it is important that we try to address each of them.
Having politicians that people feel are looking out for their best interests matters as well. You can be the perfect candidate on paper, but maybe you’re not great at messaging to your local voting base or not using the right communication channels to reach your audience. Many of these things matter when trying to get people out to vote.
If more people that lived in deep red or blue states moved to a state from Wisconsin for instance and moved to a swing district, then it could substantially help shift the tides of the subsequent elections.
A person that votes blue moving to Wisconsin can be another blue Wisconsin vote. I’m not saying a random person moving and voting without preference, but someone that wants to make a difference moving.
I think state politics are a bit different from federal as well if we want to be more grand scale. States currently aren’t wanting to go into debt or ignore a debt limit to help their state grow economically or to provide wide safety nets. Mind you it is risky for a state to do that since it works a lot better on a federal level as you’re not directly competing against other states for lost business, assuming some corporations leave when you increase the corporate tax rate on a state level.
Firstly, I think you’re talking about the Wisconsin SC. Secondly, that remains to be seen. Thirdly, Wisconsin’s Senators illustrate the problem with this hypothesis - they seem capable of electing both Republican and Democrat Senators (and Governors) depending on the winds of the political moment.
Moving to Wisconsin won’t tilt the state blue because you’ll be exposed to all the same socio-economic forces everyone else in Wisconsin is enduring.
As you might have guessed I’m not a voter in those states but the point I was making about it remains pretty much the same.
In this specific case it will remain to be seen, but in general this type of election matters at tackling the problem of gerrymandering is the main point I was getting at, I believe it is important not to lose the forest for the trees on this.
Gerrymandering is one of the problems, turn out is another, disenfranchisement is another, ease of voting is an additional problem, clerical errors when voting is another problem as well. There are many specific problems and it is important that we try to address each of them.
Having politicians that people feel are looking out for their best interests matters as well. You can be the perfect candidate on paper, but maybe you’re not great at messaging to your local voting base or not using the right communication channels to reach your audience. Many of these things matter when trying to get people out to vote.
If more people that lived in deep red or blue states moved to a state from Wisconsin for instance and moved to a swing district, then it could substantially help shift the tides of the subsequent elections.
A person that votes blue moving to Wisconsin can be another blue Wisconsin vote. I’m not saying a random person moving and voting without preference, but someone that wants to make a difference moving.
I think state politics are a bit different from federal as well if we want to be more grand scale. States currently aren’t wanting to go into debt or ignore a debt limit to help their state grow economically or to provide wide safety nets. Mind you it is risky for a state to do that since it works a lot better on a federal level as you’re not directly competing against other states for lost business, assuming some corporations leave when you increase the corporate tax rate on a state level.