3

I've seen in news articles and places on this forum that the legislation enacted by states following the overturn of Roe, and striking down NY's gun permit requirement will lead to a greater migration of progressives to blue states, and conservatives to red states. This seems to follow logically, but is there historical evidence to back up what seems to be "commonly thought". Dr. Ryan D. Enos in the NY Times said

As states become more red or blue, it’s politically easier for them to pass legislation. Does that create a feedback loop where more sorting happens? That’s the part we don’t know yet.

Given "a Harvard political scientist who studies partisan segregation" states "we don't know yet" I would assume there isn't historical precedent. Is there evidence to support the "common sense" theory this will happen?

Improve this question
6
  • 1
    I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for. The expert says "we don't know". If there were any evidence to suggest that the common thought were right, the expert should know about it. They'll certainly know better than Random Stack Overflow User #12345, anyway.
    – Bobson
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 19:17
  • 1
    @Bobson One expert isn't a consensus, and there could be instances in the past showing it has happened regardless of one expert's opinion now(affected by current events). Just because I've researched doesn't mean I've researched extensively. A single conflicting expert opinion would lend credence to the ideas outlined here: philarchive.org/archive/FINWED - multiple experts or evidence in agreeance, or the opposite would alter the accepted "facts". I've found many SE users, that while not experts themselves, are extraordinary when it comes to compiling expert opinions.
    – TCooper
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 19:34
  • Since 1970 black proportion of populations in southern US states has grown. I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened without Supreme Court rulings on civil rights.
    – DJClayworth
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 19:45
  • Not that "shifts" and "sorting" are not the same thing. The answer below denies net influxes, but bidirectional population movements in the US far exceed those. In other words, sorting can happen (at least in theory) without any net shifts.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 22:13
  • Have a look at econweb.umd.edu/~kaplan/big_sort_APSA.pdf But honestly tying any one particular SCOTUS ruling to the sorting observed (as opposed to more general political trends) is going to be hard.
    – 264 champagne bottles on ice
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 22:22

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I would hazard a guess that this won't move the needle that much, as recent shifts tend to be driven by personal economic prospects rather than social political prospects. Traditionally Blue states of late have seen population drops while red states have seen gains with the most common factors being a high tax state to low tax migration. Texas and Florida seem to be the biggest gainers with zero income tax (and pretty decent weather). But Colorado (Blue but low tax) also seems to be making gains. Likely we won't know for about decade as the next census will be held in 2030 and the results will not be readily known until 2031.

Edit: It certainly doesn't look like socital issues are the core concern of Americans in this recent AP poll. According to respondents, Inflation (40%) and Gas Prices (33%) are their number one concern. Gun Issues are at (30%) (Note, the phrasing does not indicate if respondents are pro or con on Gun Control), but then comes Immigration, Economy (general), Education, Environment, all before Abortion (16%) is ranked first by respondents.

In the political break down, among the top five concerns, Economic (Inflation and Gas Prices) issues take first and second priority of the top five spots of Republicans and Independents, with both sharing Gun Issues as the 5th priority. The only difference is Republicans are more concerned about Immigration (3rd) than the General Economy (4th), while Independents reverse these concerns ranks for these two fields respectively.

Among Democrats, the break down is Gun Issues (1), Inflation (2), Environment (3), Education (4), and Abortion (5th).

From this it tends to show that there might be motivated self-interest to move based on gun laws between states, but money is more consistent motivator for all three major groups.

Improve this answer
6
  • Thanks for taking the time to answer - I've reframed the question to hopefully make it suitable for the site. However it certainly changes the perspective of an answer as well. Just a note if you want to update if the question is re-opened
    – TCooper
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 17:14
  • 1
    Answer is not changed as historically migration in the United States is done for economic opportunity rather than political motivations (Goldrushes, Boom and Bust towns, westward expansion, and periods of movement from farms to cities to suburbs) and motivated self-interests, rather than collective social interests.
    – hszmv
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 17:25
  • Definitely don't disagree, only meant the perspective it's written from (answering if it will happen now vs if it's happened in the past) - purely pedantic, still have my +1 for solid info/POV either way
    – TCooper
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 17:28
  • Even doctrinal migrations such as the Pilgrims to Plymouth, Mass. or the English Catholics founding Maryland were motivated more by self-interest. At the time those colonies were founded, the sects were under religious prosecution in England. It wasn't so much as "God told me to move" as "I want to live!"
    – hszmv
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 17:33
  • 1
    What about migration of Blacks to northern states, as claimed by Warmth of other suns? That seems to count as a mix of economic and social/political reasons.
    – Italian Philosopher
    Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 20:50

You must log in to answer this question.

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