1

Iowa is a weird state. There is only one other state like it in this respect, and that state is Ohio. I mean this as in these states voted for Obama and Trump by relatively wide margins. (Florida doesn't count because its swing status is due to narrow margins of victory.) Obama won both of those twice, and Trump also won both. I am curious about the swing voters. Why does Iowa seem to have such a high concentration of swing voters relative to the rest of the country?

Note: There was a place called Howard County within the state that recorded a 40 point swing towards Trump, much larger than the national effect. This was due to people changing their votes. Nationally, the shift was due to the Democratic vote total staying roughly flat compared to 2012 and the Republican vote total increasing by 3%.

4

This isn't my particular field of interest, but this article from MerionWest is worth reading. They put Iowa's current swing-state status down to a diverse ethnic history, an ongoing rise in both urban and suburban populations, and a mix of agricultural and industrial aspects to its economy.

| improve this answer | |
0

To be accurate, Iowa is a rather centrist state.

They believe in limited-scope but strong and responsive government fiscal policy that does not aggressively impose on personal liberties. This places them as pretty much opposed to both major parties, but in a drastically different way than any other state.

Specifically it is a manner that puts them opposed to each party on different issues and favoring each party on different issues.

Then, there is the fact that they are the first state to use a system other than winner take all for electoral votes and caucus votes.

The fact is that almost every state is fairly evenly split. The bias to one side is usually 0-15 points. Furthermore, about 75% of the population disapproves of both candidates to some degree in any given race, for 50-65% of the people this is to the point of not voting.

In all honesty, neither party has a major lead ANYWHERE in this country despite appearances otherwise. Our system is just rigged to gerrymander out those who aren't in the majority.

Because Iowa's system is a little more fair, they end up with the even split.

| improve this answer | |
  • Re "...neither party has a major lead ANYWHERE...": that interesting claim would be improved if it included a reference. – agc May 1 at 6:52
  • 1
    The difference in the popular vote for president in 2016 can be accounted for by California alone. – Drunk Cynic May 2 at 15:58
  • 1
    Technically true. But, you have to understand how heavily populated states have more people, it makes sense and this does not violate any mathematical rules. – Number File May 14 at 15:51
  • I probably shouldn't say "anywhere" a handful of states have a substantial lead of one party or another in specific elections, mostly due to the roughly 33% swing voters leaning one way or another in that election. nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president If electoral votes were actually split like Idaho, most states would only be giving at most a 40/60 split one way or another. This excludes a handful of west-central US states and California. Those two chunks neutralize each other. – Robert Wm Ruedisueli May 15 at 16:44
  • Drunk Cynic, if the electoral votes were split by actual vote, this would not reflect the same way. The Founding Fathers wanted electoral votes set by district. That his how it was done until the Whig party changed the practice in a power play to try to remove the Federalists by rigging the system to favor exactly two parties. The reverse happened instead and the Whigs were removed. – Robert Wm Ruedisueli May 15 at 16:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .