It gives more weight to their vote. It doesn’t change their situation by itself inherently, but if enough people make these types of moves it could shift the political landscape of the country.
Functionally, a lot of legislation is held back by not having enough votes in both the House and Senate, more so the Senate than the House. Personally, I would want to see the House and Senate rebalanced in the future to be a minimum of five representatives and senators per state, but then scaled up based on population. Assuming we have also changed the voting system in each state to be more representative through ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting then each state will do a much better job of actually reflecting the population’s voting preferences.
Functionally, we should build a media system that people want to engage in. Changing the voting system is a core part of changing the media system as well. As you risk alienating potential voters if you demonize the other side, this would at the very least move politics aware from hyper-partisanship.
To change the media ecosystem, we need the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to social media. This can happen to some extent on the state level, but we functionally need it on the federal level to see a lasting impact. Democrats/progressives need a majority of seats in the House and Senate to even attempt to pass something like the Fairness Doctrine. Ideally, you would want a 3-5 seat majority in the Senate and at least 10 seat majority in the House to pass a majority of the legislation you want to pass. You need a 10 seat majority in the Senate if you want your legislation to be filibuster proofed.
Economic incentives reward more left leaning politics imo. Left leaning politics is good for the people and good for businesses as well in the long run.
It depends on the state if we’re talking about legislatures that have a big enough majority that they can change the district maps quickly enough to disenfranchise voters. Those new maps usually need to be approved by the courts though. If the courts deem the new maps are gerrymandered, they can at least force the election to be off the old map used in the previous election. I would recommend doing research ahead of time if your goal is to make a voter impact. Encouraging others in your community to turn out to vote can make a difference as well.
Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections. While maps can be redrawn, those maps need to be approved by the courts to be able to be used. The reason I mention researching ahead of time is because you will be a new arrival in the state, the legislature doesn’t have a record necessarily of how you personally will vote. Even if they do, then you could be in a sea of voters from other political parties. Your vote can make a difference still on the city level, school board elections level, governor level, and the federal level. The state level is the most likely to be affected by gerrymandering, but you can try to not group to a left leaning area that’s easier for legislators to gerrymander out.
Functionally, moving to a purple state makes a notable difference. The reason the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered so much was because of the courts confirming potentially gerrymandered maps. If enough people move to purple states that they shifted blue, then it could impact Federal elections which could potentially impose legislation against gerrymandering at a federal level. They could even potentially withhold federal funding, in some instances, should states refuse to use non-gerrymandered maps.
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.
It gives more weight to their vote. It doesn’t change their situation by itself inherently, but if enough people make these types of moves it could shift the political landscape of the country.
Functionally, a lot of legislation is held back by not having enough votes in both the House and Senate, more so the Senate than the House. Personally, I would want to see the House and Senate rebalanced in the future to be a minimum of five representatives and senators per state, but then scaled up based on population. Assuming we have also changed the voting system in each state to be more representative through ranked robin voting, STAR voting, or score voting then each state will do a much better job of actually reflecting the population’s voting preferences.
Functionally, we should build a media system that people want to engage in. Changing the voting system is a core part of changing the media system as well. As you risk alienating potential voters if you demonize the other side, this would at the very least move politics aware from hyper-partisanship.
To change the media ecosystem, we need the Fairness Doctrine back and expanded to social media. This can happen to some extent on the state level, but we functionally need it on the federal level to see a lasting impact. Democrats/progressives need a majority of seats in the House and Senate to even attempt to pass something like the Fairness Doctrine. Ideally, you would want a 3-5 seat majority in the Senate and at least 10 seat majority in the House to pass a majority of the legislation you want to pass. You need a 10 seat majority in the Senate if you want your legislation to be filibuster proofed.
Economic incentives reward more left leaning politics imo. Left leaning politics is good for the people and good for businesses as well in the long run.
It depends on the state if we’re talking about legislatures that have a big enough majority that they can change the district maps quickly enough to disenfranchise voters. Those new maps usually need to be approved by the courts though. If the courts deem the new maps are gerrymandered, they can at least force the election to be off the old map used in the previous election. I would recommend doing research ahead of time if your goal is to make a voter impact. Encouraging others in your community to turn out to vote can make a difference as well.
Moving to a purple state or a disenfranchised state/district could impact future elections. While maps can be redrawn, those maps need to be approved by the courts to be able to be used. The reason I mention researching ahead of time is because you will be a new arrival in the state, the legislature doesn’t have a record necessarily of how you personally will vote. Even if they do, then you could be in a sea of voters from other political parties. Your vote can make a difference still on the city level, school board elections level, governor level, and the federal level. The state level is the most likely to be affected by gerrymandering, but you can try to not group to a left leaning area that’s easier for legislators to gerrymander out.
Not when enfranchisement is dictated by the entrenched government.
Functionally, moving to a purple state makes a notable difference. The reason the Michigan Supreme Court race recently mattered so much was because of the courts confirming potentially gerrymandered maps. If enough people move to purple states that they shifted blue, then it could impact Federal elections which could potentially impose legislation against gerrymandering at a federal level. They could even potentially withhold federal funding, in some instances, should states refuse to use non-gerrymandered maps.
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.