Princeton Election Consortium

A first draft of electoral history. Since 2004

Politics & Polls #27: Who Will Rebuild the Democratic Party? (spoiler: you)

January 19th, 2017, 2:37pm by Sam Wang

In episode #27 of Politics & Polls, Julian Zelizer and I interview leading political scientist Theda Skocpol about her recent article in Vox: “A Guide to Rebuilding the Democratic Party from the Ground Up.” In the piece, Skocpol outlines how the Democratic Party can be rebuilt from the ground up, beginning at the state and local levels.

Link to P&P #27:

Previous P&P #26: Indivisible. (a description is here)

→ Post a commentTags: U.S. Institutions

A New Project on Partisan Gerrymandering

January 17th, 2017, 9:09am by Sam Wang

This is a big year for partisan gerrymandering. Recently, star litigator Paul M. Smith has cleared the decks for voting-rights cases in the courts. That’s just one move of many that assures that voting rights will be in the spotlight in the coming Supreme Court term.

The effects of partisan gerrymandering are plain in the graph above. Up until and including the election of 2010, seats the U.S. House were related to the national vote as indicated by the shaded gray zone. The redistricting of 2010 led to a jump of about a dozen seats away from recent historical trends. The suddenness of this change, along with my statistical analysis (Stanford Law Review) reveals how this jump arose from partisan redistricting efforts in a handful of states. The jump comes from the fact that more advantage was gained by one side (NC, PA, OH, MI, VA) than the other (IL, MD). This net change can vary by decade, and depends on who controls the legislative process.

Today, I am pleased to announce that starting in 2017, I will take my work on partisan gerrymandering to a new level. I am now looking for full-time help for the next one to two years. [Read more →]

→ 10 CommentsTags: Redistricting

Readings for the Inauguration

January 19th, 2017, 10:40pm by Sam Wang

Needless to say, the best outcome would be if the worst fears expressed about the new Administration never came to pass. It could happen if the press faces up to the threat they face (see Josh Marshall), if progressives rise to the occasion (see Indivisible), and if conservatives of conscience make it clear that many issues transcend party (see Evan McMullin). If these three groups succeed, it would be a testament to Churchill’s statement that Americans can be relied upon to do the right thing, after trying all the alternatives.

In the meantime, here are some of the fears.

→ Post a commentTags: President · U.S. Institutions

I’m joining The American Prospect!

January 17th, 2017, 6:52pm by Sam Wang

I’m pleased to announce that I have agreed to join The American Prospect as a contributing editor. As many of you may know, the Prospect has a history of taking on political writers at the start of their careers: Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall, Jamelle Bouie, and others. It is an honor to join the latest generation of contributors, especially at a pivotal time in history. By the way, you should support the Prospect by subscribing or donating.

I will continue to write here. I’ll use the Princeton Election Consortium to post more technical analyses, kick around data-in-the-public-interest ideas for my new class, and go into depth on matters of statistics, law, and elections.

My first piece at the Prospect[

→ 3 CommentsTags: 2016 Election · President

Preventing 2017 America from becoming like 1934 Germany: A watchlist

January 15th, 2017, 7:30am by Sam Wang

In The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik has an excellent piece pointing out the true threats to U.S. democracy, which transcend partisan concerns. As patriotic Americans, can we recognize these threats, separately from policy outcomes we like or dislike? What bright-line events would be difficult to remedy by sitting passively until the next election? [Read more →]

→ 15 CommentsTags: President · U.S. Institutions

Politics & Polls #26: Indivisible!

January 12th, 2017, 10:03am by Sam Wang

Since the election, Democrats have struggled with how to respond to a Donald Trump presidency. But one group is starting to get some traction – the authors of an online guide that is going viral: “Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda.”

In episode #26 of Politics & Polls, Julian Zelizer and I discuss Indivisible with two of its co-authors: Ezra Levin and Angel Padilla, former Democratic Congressional staffers. In 2010, they saw the impressive power of Tea Party activists as they swept through the halls of Congress. Ezra and Angel describe how those staffers occupied offices, yelled through mail slots, and even spat on one of them. They recommend that Democrats take a page from the Tea Party book – minus the spitting of course.


→ 5 CommentsTags: House · Politics · Senate · U.S. Institutions

House ethics rules change reversed…by citizen phone calls

January 3rd, 2017, 3:32pm by Sam Wang

On the first day of the new Congress, the House Republican Conference reversed its proposed rules change, in which an independent ethics commission would have been weakened. However, a public onslaught of phone calls was able to stop the change.

Always remember: phone calls are most effective, far more than email. Look up your Congressman/woman here. Or call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be transferred to your Representative or Senator.

→ 12 CommentsTags: House

The “Indivisible” guide makes its national debut

January 3rd, 2017, 8:29am by Sam Wang

In today’s NYT, the Indivisible guide makes its national debut. Essential reading for the opening of the new Congress. Might help give Democrats some backbone that may need reinforcing.

→ 4 CommentsTags: U.S. Institutions

Polarization Removes the Ability to Make Distinctions

January 3rd, 2017, 3:25am by Sam Wang

Bruce Springsteen has questioned Donald Trump’s competence to be president. His opinion is typical of the majority of Americans. How could voters have elected someone who is so widely seen as unready for the job? One answer is that polarization impairs the inclination of voters to act upon such problems.

In a Gallup poll released yesterday, about half of Americans expressed pessimism about Donald Trump’s readiness for the Presidency. This is a 30-point deterioration from the previous three presidents, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.

Trump’s success in 2016 was made possible by partisan polarization. The net favorability of major candidates, whether winners or losers, has declined precipitously over the last sixty years.

It is amazing to think that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would attract such opprobrium. Stepping far back from partisan politics, their accomplishments and personal qualities are admirable. Yet by Gallup’s measure, candidates Clinton and Romney were seen as negatively as Barry Goldwater and George McGovern.

This phenomenon is closely related to the polarization that has gripped U.S. politics for the last several decades. Increasingly, voters see the opposition as totally unacceptable. Under such conditions, it becomes harder to detect genuine differences – or to act upon them. High negatives make crossover voting unthinkable.

Also, with such high negatives for both Clinton and Trump, many voters saw both candidates unfavorably, despite the fact that only one of the candidates (Trump) had his/her competence for office seriously questioned. Today, majorities of Americans do not express confidence in Trump’s ability to prevent major scandals, use military force wisely, or handle an international crisis. Trump’s extreme low scores in these domains are concerning for the coming year.

→ 5 CommentsTags: 2016 Election · President

Ideas for the Press in 2017

January 1st, 2017, 3:00pm by Sam Wang

For one of your first reads of the year, here are two excellent pieces by Jay Rosen, NYU journalism professor. In the first piece, he describes the negative prospects for the press in 2017 – many of which are somewhat self-inflicted. However, on the up side, he has a second piece. In it he lists actions that the press can take to do better in 2017. Even if you are not a journalist, please read these – and hold your favorite (or un-favorite) members of the press to these standards.

→ 3 CommentsTags: U.S. Institutions