In liberal circles it has been common to hear various optimistic claims regarding the impact that changing demographics will have on the Democratic Party’s electoral fortunes in the coming years.
The simple version of this demographic argument claims that as the USA becomes more ethnically diverse, Democrats will perform better and better in elections, eventually becoming something of a permanent majority party because they reflect the country’s multi-racial future, whereas the Republican party reflects the country’s older and whiter past.
Optimists might point to states like Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina becoming purple as evidence of this trend.
Now there is clearly some truth to the argument. More Americans identify as Democrats than as Republicans, more Americans consistently vote for Democrats in the Senate and often the House, and most striking, Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one Presidential election in the past 30 years.
In addition, public opinion polls, while imperfect, do give a rough sense of popular opinion, and the country appears to be populist and left-leaning on many economic issues and also increasingly socially liberal, though still quite divided on that score.
So it ain’t total nonsense. But I’m here to dampen your liberal enthusiasm.
First of all, while a greater percentage of the country is nonwhite, and Democrat leaning, a greater percentage of white voters are voting Republican than in the past. Thus, Republicans have been making up for the shrinking share of white voters by winning a greater percentage of them.
As a simple illustration, imagine a town with 100 voters. In 2000, let’s say that 70 of the voters were white and 40 of them voted Republican. Now 20 years later, in 2020, let’s say that the number of white voters in the town has decreased to 60. But the percent of them voting Republican has increased, so instead of winning 57% of the white vote (40/70), the Republicans now win 66% of the white vote (40/60), thus retaining 40 votes, even as the number of white voters has shrunk. This is a stylized version of what has happened in America in recent decades and while the numbers above are hypothetical, they reflect the strategy that Republicans have used to remain electorally competitive. Indeed, this has helped them to become more competitive in some states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
But the biggest factor that undermines the demographic argument is the anti-majoritarian structure of the American constitution.The US Senate is the most unrepresentative electoral body on earth. Since each state gets two votes, the smaller states have hugely disproportionate power. And with democratic constituencies increasingly concentrated in urban centers in a small number of liberal states, they are at a huge disadvantage in the Senate. Small, white, rural, and heavily Republican states are overrepresented relative to their population and this trend is increasing. Contra the demographic optimism of some liberals, the Democrats may have an increasingly difficult time winning the Senate in the future. The current 50 Democrats in the Senate represent over 40 million more people than the 50 Republicans in the Senate. Again, given the geographic location of Democratic voters, this imbalance is likely to become more extreme in the near future.
The US House of Representatives, due to severe gerrymandering in some states and a more general concentration of Democratic voters and dispersion of Republican voters, means that Democrats are also at a disadvantage in the House. They can win more House votes and still lose the House, as has happened multiple times. And their victories, when they happen, won’t be as large. The 2018 Democratic House victory was larger, in terms of the popular vote, than the 2010 Republican House victory, and yet the Democrats gained 41 seats in the 2018 midterms while the Republicans gained over 60 seats in the 2010 midterms. Furthermore, with so many safe seats, control of the House comes down to whoever can win a handful of competitive districts. This means that control of the US House of Representatives will often be decided by a few thousand votes on a few toss-up seats, not national demographic trends or national popular opinion.
Add in the further disadvantage that turnout usually declines dramatically in midterm years, particularly among Democratic constituencies, leaving the midterm electorate older, whiter, wealthier, and more conservative than the population as a whole. This in turn impacts crucial seats at the Federal, state, and local level during non-Presidential years.
Finally, consider the electoral college. In the 21st century the Democrats have won the popular vote in five out of six Presidential elections (2000, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) but have only won the electoral college, and thus the Presidency, in half of them (2008, 2012, 2020). This antidemocratic institution is a huge impediment to Presidential victory for the Democrats, giving the Republicans something like a 3-5% boost relative to their electoral popularity.
First of all, this is deeply undemocratic and absurd. Presidential elections in the 21st century are not decided by the American people as a whole but by a small number of voters (tens of thousands, at most a few hundred thousand) in a few decisive swing states. Most states, on the left and the right, large and small, are effectively ignored.
Second, it hurts the Democrats and undermines the optimism of the demographic argument. As long as Republicans can win Presidential elections while winning a minority of votes, they will have no incentive to change. The same goes for their success in the House and Senate. And as long as the Presidency is decided by a small number of people in places like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, why would Republicans change?
Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump by nearly 7.1 million votes and yet his path to the electoral college came down a handful of voters in those states along with Arizona and Georgia. Thanks to the electoral college, the path to the Presidency lies not with persuading, winning, and representing a national majority but rather with motivating and turning out one’s base in those few states. The Democratic Party may represent the majority but in a system of anti-majoritarian institutions that is no guarantee of success, now or in the future.