r/MapPorn Jun 15 '21

US representatives by membership in the main ideological caucuses – an easy way to tell how far left/right is your representative.

Post image
83 Upvotes

19

u/412transplantt Jun 15 '21

You really need to zoom in to figure out which districts are stripy

8

u/westgate_2 Jun 15 '21

New Mexico looks like the Haitian flag

4

u/PFTCommenting Jun 15 '21

Why would no caucus be considered more centrist than a blue dog democrat?

1

u/SempressFi Jun 16 '21

I'm assuming the intention is neutrality and/or if a member doesn't want to get pressured into siding + voting with a group when they don't share many opinions and beliefs.

Hoping that makes sense, need some sleep and was really struggling to figure out how to word that for some reason lol then again I live in GA and just looking at a couple of the districts is exhausting right now 😆

8

u/Peakay100 Jun 15 '21

Ah yes Austin the most liberal city in Texas being represented by several Republicans and 1 Democrat, fuck these Texas republicans and their gerrymandering

-1

u/Fatass445 Jun 17 '21

Omg I’m so edgy

-2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21

American politics is extremely skewed to the right and basically every house member other than the progressive caucus are right-wing or right-leaning. The commonly-considered “left-wing” democratic party is rarely to the left of right-wing Dutch people’s party. Obamacare, the so-called “radical left” healthcare system is inspired by the same groups which advised Reagan. In Europe, right wing parties enact laws for single-payer public healthcare. The corporate tax and income tax are extremely regressive compared to what they were before the 70s and have remained essentially unchanged. As for Bidens “radical” proposed increase to 28%, it is 20 points less than what the corporate tax was under the “moderate” Kennedy. A left-wing party would support ideas such as a federal bank, effective public transportation, sustainable development, drastic military spending cuts, a foreign-policy overhaul ending support for countries such as Saudi Arabia and IMF loans, an inheritance tax and so many other things both parties invariably fail at.

-9

u/TitaniumShadow Jun 15 '21

Any political spectrum that has far right/right wing on one end and doesn't have far left/left wing on the other end almost always shows the political bias of the author more than the true distribution of left/right that is being presented in the graphic.

12

u/Glif13 Jun 15 '21

1) This caucuses are not mirrored versions of each other and the farthest left of Democrats do not has their own caucus, but share their places with more moderates progressives so in average their caucus is just Progressive. Freedom caucus is twice smaller, so they do not share it with more moderate representatives and thus in average further right.

And I don't understand why do you think that progressives is not left-wing.

-4

u/TitaniumShadow Jun 15 '21

I never said nor implied that the caucuses are "mirrored versions of each other", nor did I critique your groupings. I pointed out that you used Right-wing on one end of the spectrum but not Left-wing on the other and how that is almost always an indicator of the bias of the person presenting the data. In almost all cases, bias does not make for reliable data.

If you agree that progressives are left wing, why did you not put Left-wing Progressive in the legend for the chart like you put Right-wing populism?

5

u/Glif13 Jun 15 '21

Because progressives are left-wing by default, but populists can be left-wing, right-wing, centrist & general, so unlike progressives it requires specifications.

4

u/FollowtheLucario Jun 15 '21

Eh, US politics in general are very skewed to the right. Some weirdos will call welfare capitalism "communism"

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '21

[deleted]

7

u/jonesjeffum Jun 15 '21

China is communist in name only. More like capitalism with a big and powerful government

3

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Comparing countries is generally wrong in the sense that most countries participate in the same global market and are thus extremely interrelated. This is why Marx believed strongly that any revolution is strictly global (Marx himself never identified as “left wing” in the French Revolution sense, calling La Montagne and Robespierre “a tragedy”, but he is nowadays considered the basic example of “left wing”). In a Marxist Socialist system the world is skewed to the left and in a neoliberal system it’s skewed to the right. In the social democratic systems of 40 years ago it would be somewhat skewed to the left.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

“Not real communism” is not a stupid argument to anyoone who has read Marx or Engels. Communism itself is a system which Marx only considers to be possible in a future where all jobs can be automated. The type of socialism promoted by the communists is markedly different from that of China or any other country. If you read this you can see many misconceptions debunked, e.g that Marx and Engels supported a violent revolution (in a speech Marx specified that in England, where at the time workers didn’t even have voting rights, a peaceful revolution through democracy was possible, whereas in Germany and France where the situation was notoriously unstable a violent revolution seemed necessary, but today both are far more democratic). It’s also notable that China as well as Russia were both extremely poor countries whereas the communists believed the centre of any global revolution would be the so-called “civilised” countries of the UK, France, Germany and the (northern) USA.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

I generally agree. My point is that the concept created by Marx and Engels was completely different to that of China and other “socialist” countries. Although, result-wise the Soviet Union and China saw increases in quality of living afterwards, that doesn’t negate their tyranny and failures.

1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

I don’t think you understood my reply. The “ideal results” are not different, the means, process and general substance was completely different. The means of revolution, for example, is not a “result” of a system, it’s the cause of it. Because it was so different in China, it was from the start something completely different to what the philosophers described. If I were to say that the “results” of neoliberalism were Pinochet’s murders, that doesn’t automatically mean neoliberalism in the current sense is a fascist dictatorship (not that it’s great either). Many modern neoliberals have a fundamentally different ideology to Pinochet and their philosophy is the same in name only.

1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Europe is much more left wing. There’s free healthcare, inheritance tax, public transport etc. which enjoy bipartisan support, and of which none are supported by either US party. Meanwhile in Japan there‘s literal income limits for CEOs of companies and the employer has an obligation to cover the employee for the rest of their life.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Union membership is much higher in many European countries which have no de facto minimum wage meaning in practice almost everyone gets above a certain amount. In any case, the vast majority of EU countries do have one, only 21% don’t.Joe Biden is against a single payer healthcare system.

Japan is mixed, because Jiminto, the permanent governing party, is generally very right-wing and most certainly is not the stringest ally of the working class. Nevertheless, working hours are the same as the USA and there is also a very low consumption tax which makes the taxation system more progressive than most of Europe or North America. Not that Japan is the dictatorship of the proletariat or whatever, but it is generally not “more right wing” than the USA, at least in every aspect.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Single-payer means public healthcare, which Biden is openly against.
Here are Biden’s positions on healthcare. Here’s another example of Biden being against public healthcare
Talking about every country includes the entirety of the global south, and in many of these countries such a system would obviously be impossible or in some cases unfavourable for the ruling dictatorship.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Here’s a definition. It’s not just universal healthcare, it’s a universal healthcare system where one entity collects all healthcare fees, which usually means the state. That’s why it’s called “single payer”.

1

u/acreativeusername- Jun 15 '21

Do Australia and New Zealand not exist?

-8

u/WrongPurpose Jun 15 '21

You live in America, you do not have a far left wing. Full Stop! No matter what you belive, you just dont have any. Your furthest left Senator is old Bernie Sanders who would be a regular center left social Democrat in Europe.

Here is the difference:

Bernie calls for single payer government Healthcare, free college, and regulations of Private Business.

A True far left politician would call for putting all Billionaires and CEOs on the guillotine, nationalize all housing and all large company's, and enforce no more than a 2x paydiffetence between the highest and lowest payed employees.

See the difference? A moderate left politician calls for a social safety net, free education and regilated private business, a far left winger calls for the violent revolution of the Prolateriat against the Bourgeoisie and all out Communism.

7

u/SeattleSeahawksBest Jun 15 '21

I am tired of this "america is authright" thing

-1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

According to the creators of the Political Compass (which is the origin of the term ”AuthRight”), it is

4

u/SeattleSeahawksBest Jun 15 '21

and i should believe them because?

0

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Well you can read their explanatory note. My point was that they invented the origin of the term you used, not an all-purpose authoritative source.

I personally don’t “believe” them necessarily on everything they say but I appreciate the basic concept their going for.

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Karl Marx called for a democratic revolution that is gradual and global, so you’re wrong, but the essence of your argument (that both parties are right-wing and Sanders is centre-left) is right.

1

u/MyHouseisBoiningDown Jun 16 '21

No Democratic candidate can be considered far left, as most are either on minor parties or unelected

-14

u/NC4Life078 Jun 15 '21

And this is why the electoral college was created.

12

u/Glif13 Jun 15 '21

Eh... Why?

-23

u/NC4Life078 Jun 15 '21

The Electoral College was created in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states.

In other words, they don’t want an entire country, who is predominantly Republican, to be ran by the few places with a large population that’s blue.

Your map shows that clear as day.

23

u/elBenhamin Jun 15 '21

The country is not “predominantly republican”. There are more democrats than republicans and there are more independents than both.

The EC sucks and it means our presidents tend to represent the interests of swing states, not those of the median voter.

What the map doesn’t show clear as day is that very few people live in giant swaths of red land.

But keep pushing your right wing propaganda.

15

u/fireflyfly3 Jun 15 '21

In other words, they don’t want an entire country, who is predominantly Republican, to be ran by the few places with a large population that’s blue.

Land is not “predominantly Republican”. Land is just land. Land doesn’t vote. Land doesn’t belong to a political party.

And the “few places with a large population” are where most of the people live.

-11

u/SexualConsent Jun 15 '21

That's exactly the problem.

You don't want a few high population centres with no knowledge of issues facing the rest of the country deciding policy for everyone.

It's tyranny of the majority.

The EC isn't perfect, but definitely better than just a pure popular vote.

10

u/HurDeDerDeveloper Jun 15 '21

It's tyranny of the majority

As opposed to the tyranny of the minority where the presidential election is decided by a handful of swing states instead of the country at large. California cast more votes for Trump in 2020 than several deep-red states combined, but yet those votes didn't count.

-1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

With the electoral college, you can win just by winning the most populus counties in California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and New Jersey, which are all very urban areas consisting of just 25% of the population.

4

u/fireflyfly3 Jun 15 '21

With the electoral college, you can win just by winning the most populus counties in California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and New Jersey, which are all very urban areas consisting of just 25% of the population.

What a shame over 80% of Americans live in urban areas.

1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Of course yeah you’re right, but these specific urban areas are 25% (of the 75% of Americans whose vote wouldn’t count in this scenario, the majority would still be urban). These are just the most populous urban areas in the 11 largest states.

0

u/El_Senate Jun 15 '21

No dog in this fight, but this is a bad argument. Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which are by default used in these statistics, are widely unrepresentative of actual urbanized land. I live in a MSA of a city that I've never even been to, and is more than an hour's drive away. Saying that 80% of Americans live in urban areas is completely disingenuous. Some outdated statistics say the number is closer to 60% (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html) and I'd be willing to bet it's even lower now with the massive flight we're seeing from America's big cities after COVID and a summer of rioting.

2

u/fireflyfly3 Jun 15 '21

I live in a MSA of a city that I've never even been to, and is more than an hour's drive away.

So your CDP is an outer suburb, or maybe it is a formerly rural area that has become a bedroom community.

Saying that 80% of Americans live in urban areas is completely disingenuous.

I didn’t pull that number out of thin air.

Urban areas include suburbs. The majority of Americans live in suburbs surrounding cities. Thus, the majority of Americans live in urban areas, and all of the sources I can find estimate that number to be around or over 80%.

Sources I found in 30 seconds here, here, and here

Some outdated statistics say the number is closer to 60% (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html)

It appears this source is only referring to cities and not urban areas.

→ More replies

14

u/thundergunxpresss Jun 15 '21

Or people from rural areas who have no idea about many social issues that people face in more populated areas.

9

u/fireflyfly3 Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21

You don't want a few high population centres with no knowledge of issues facing the rest of the country deciding policy for everyone.

Yeah well I don’t want South Dakota to have a say in policy that affects me.

You make it sound like those “few high population centres” don’t contain most of the population. Let’s call them what they are: major metropolitan areas that contain the majority of people and GDP.

Now let’s call “the rest of the country” what they are: rural voters that make up like 20% of the population.

People live in cities, and land area shouldn’t count more than actual votes cast by people.

-8

u/SexualConsent Jun 15 '21

Those population centres and high GDP can only exist thanks to that "20% of rural voters" (which it isn't, because it's nearly 50% of the country that simply doesn't live inside big cities).

If you don't want SD to have a say in your life, then you don't want to live in the US. The whole point of the EC was to give less populated states more equal say in the country.

Without the EC they might as well just secede, along with all their resources and farmland that sustains the country, because LA and NYC are deciding everything for them.

This isn't about land voting more than people, it's about each state, which is comprised of people, each having their own diverse concerns which are vital to the healthy functioning of the country, being able to make their voices heard.

5

u/fireflyfly3 Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21

Those population centres and high GDP can only exist thanks to that "20% of rural voters"

So those vast swarths of sparsely populated land depend on urban areas buying their resources? Who woulda thunk.

(which it isn't, because it's nearly 50% of the country that simply doesn't live inside big cities).

No, the majority of the population actually lives in suburbs just outside those big cities. Suburbs =/= rural.

If you don't want SD to have a say in your life, then you don't want to live in the US. The whole point of the EC was to give less populated states more equal say in the country.

More equal than others, apparently. Votes should not be diminished because you live in one of those blue urban places.

Without the EC they might as well just secede, along with all their resources and farmland that sustains the country, because LA and NYC are deciding everything for them.

Cities contain people who vote. States are trying to make it easier to throw out election outcomes from major population centers.

This isn't about land voting more than people, it's about each state, which is comprised of people, each having their own diverse concerns which are vital to the healthy functioning of the country, being able to make their voices heard.

So should people decide elections, or should people decide elections?

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21

The way democracy works, you need to have broad appeal. There will never be a candidate with 100% appeal in urban areas and 0% in rural, so any comparison is inherently wrong. Unlike the common and mistaken narrative, the electoral college isn’t inherently undemocratic because it overrepresents small states, and nor does it overrepresent rural areas. It’s inherently undemocratic because it doesn’t consider margins or third parties. Therefore, winning by 1 vote is equivalent to winning by 100,000, and a small party with 20% gets the same electors as one with 0.1%. The reason the electoral college tends to favour the Republican party is that much of the democratic voter base is the racial minority of blacks in the South who give the democrats a stable percentage of Southern states which nevertheless almost always vote Republican, which is the choice of most white voters in the South. In any case, states where a party has more than 55% are rarely considered at all, because whether the party has 55% or 75% doesn’t matter, and therefore key demographic groups such as Rural voters in New York are completely ignored by both major parties, who only focus on the swing states. If electors were given proportionally (and a second round was held where neither candidate gets more than 270) the electoral system would be perfect without abolishing the electoral college. The founders, by the way, never expected the president to be at all important (initially most states didn’t even hold presidential elections) and allowed every state to decide its own electoral system. Because the major parties later came to the realisation that getting every single elector in the states that they control gave them an unfair advantage, the current universal FPTP system was gradually adopted (Maine now uses IRV, which also fails to distribute electors proportionally, as a closed list STV would system).

Oh, by the way, the truth is that originally, besides the fact that people identified with their state instead of their country, the largest state was only 4 times the smallest state. The difference is now 50 times.

4

u/Any_Patient_3415 Jun 15 '21

It’s more so that we are simply a federation of singular states, not a pure democracy

4

u/redditisgey69420 Jun 15 '21

50 States that vote on who the president will be. Not 350 million individual people. It's has it's ups and it's downs. At the end of the day, who the president is shouldn't matter as much as who your congressman is.

0

u/Any_Patient_3415 Jun 15 '21

Precisely. Glad to know that there are other people who payed attention in civics class.

0

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Do you honestly think the President has a smaller impact on the average American than your local MP? At the end of the day the states with the largest margins are unfairly underrepresented in the electoral college and the FPTP system also prevents third parties to have any impact. The President has more power over the life of the average American than every other political office.

-2

u/redditisgey69420 Jun 15 '21

MP? What kinda sad excuse of a country are you in? Canada? The UK? Whatever dude. Go worship your old lady overlord.

All the president is really there to do is be a diplomatic face of the nation, and to lead the military in time of war. Going to war and passing laws is done by an act of congress.

If you put all the power into the presidency then you get assholes like Joe Biden and Donald Trump doing whatever they can to help out their cronies while in power. The most powerful person in the country should be the speaker of the house.

-1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

I’m not from a monarchy.
The president signs executive orders and runs the executive, a crucial part of the governance of the country. War is declared by the president. Congress just approves it. The House only has legislative power and checks over the executive, this is the system the USA has functioned in for centuries. Also, the president can effectively veto all legislation.

2

u/El_Senate Jun 15 '21

No. How things have worked is very different from how things should be, as the above commenter is attempting to say. Executive Orders were never meant to be de facto laws, and the executive branch wasn't that important until Wilson (who ruined everything, for the record). War is declared by the Senate, not the President. The House has legislative power, sure, but they also control the power of the purse. The President can only veto what cannot be overridden, which is common enough in state legislatures.

The problem here is that presidents like Obama have thoroughly and (seemingly) irreversibly warped our conceptions of what an executive should be. As for the war bit, Bush is to blame for that too, launching permanent campaigns that we never should have been a part of.

2

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

I think that that’s not an entirely accurate analysis of the political system but the topic is complicated and any conversation would span hundreds of repleis.

→ More replies

-1

u/El_Senate Jun 15 '21

"Go worship your old lady overlord" ... spoken like a true (small 'r') republican! Thank you, for that. You've rekindled my faith in democracy. This comment in general is gold, some of which I would give if I were able.

1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

I am against monarchy and do not live in one. I don’t worship any overlord.

0

u/El_Senate Jun 15 '21

I thought it was a funny response to an group of people who often criticize the American system of government. I'd direct your comment to the person who called you a monarchist, not the guy who laughed at their reply.

→ More replies

1

u/redditisgey69420 Jun 15 '21

-1

u/El_Senate Jun 15 '21

That's why I said small r. As in not a member of the Republican, but someone who supports a republic as a system of government. Sigh. So easy to be misunderstood nowadays.

1

u/Matthew_Taur Jun 15 '21

This isn’t a presidential election map, it’s the makeup of Congress.

1

u/Knolgoose Jun 15 '21

Interesting how these vaguely align with vote share.

5

u/Matthew_Taur Jun 15 '21

Politicians in swing districts tend to be more moderate in most cases.

-3

u/El_Senate Jun 15 '21 edited Jun 15 '21

First past the post makes sure of that, extremist candidates are eliminated by merit of strategic voting and the swing voters in the center. For all its faults, a FPTP Presidential system has never organically produced an extremist candidate.

Edit: Please explain why I’m wrong instead of downvoting me, it provides an opportunity for everyone to rationalize their argument instead of shouting into a void.

4

u/Knolgoose Jun 16 '21

You’re not really wrong but the mentality of forcing everyone to empower two parties (effectively one is the government and the other is everything else, at least as far as votes go) to prevent “extremists” instead of forming a stable democratic system which allows voters to vote based on their actual opinions and proves to them the ineffectiveness of specific groups, be they moderate or extreme, and provides many alternatives instead of literally just one, isn’t a mentality I agree with.

(And I didn’t downvote your reply)

1

u/azu_rill Jun 18 '21

New Mexico lookin like the Haiti flag