Protest Numbers Matter

There is so much information out there that it is mind-boggling.  Everything gets amplified but I question how many are part of the amplification.

When the kids were in EH-12, I sat on the executive board of the school.  It was an honor.  Although the downside is I knew more than I really wanted to.  More times than I would have liked, the school reacted to loud voices complaining.  I referred to these voices as the minor majority.  They were loud but they weren’t the majority, they only seemed like the majority because they were so loud.  Nobody comes in the Principals office to say what a great job they are doing.

We are certainly in strange and pivotal times.  One of the rights we have as citizens is to protest.  I am so impressed with the groups around the country protesting around causes that they care about.  The inspiring young students from Parkland High School in Florida, where 17 students were killed, have spurred on a movement of protests around anti-gun control throughout the country.  They have been extremely grassroots and very focused.  It is awe-inspiring.

This past week the gun rights groups of the same age put on a group of protests to counter these efforts.  The numbers of people that showed up to those rallies were extremely small vs what was expected.  That says to me that the minor majority around no gun control (aka not changing the way it is now) is in fact minor.

This up and coming generation wants to live in a different world.  They have more liberal views on social issues.  I am not sure I believe all the supposed data that changes constantly on media channels.  All you have to do is read the numbers of people who show up for protests.  Politicians should take note.

Comments (Archived):

  1. Pointsandfigures

    Most of us on the right are too busy working to protest. : )

  2. Semil Shah

    Another number that matters is the electoral college. If the newer generations are moving to the Top 10 U.S. cities (often on the coasts), their numbers may be large but I fear from an electoral standpoint the median voter will not live in an urban environment or left-leaning state. That’s the danger.

    1. JLM

      .Haha, that’s just another example of the genius of the Founding Fathers and the Electoral College. You are, also, wrong.The Electoral College is apportioned based on a total of 538 electors — 100 corresponding to the number of Senators and the remaining 438 corresponding to the number of Reps in the House of Representatives. Currently, a Rep district is approximately 700,000 persons.So, if more people move to a particular city, that state will theoretically increase the number of electors. It is, however, not that simple.The data is clear. Look below at the growth rate from the 2010 Census to the 2017 Census Estimate. You will note that the national average growth rate is 5.50% with Texas showing the highest state growth rate at 12.56%. [DC, not a state, has the highest growth rate at 15.33%.][The same numbers with a shorter timeframe – say the last 5 years – are even more pronounced. The trend is accelerating.]To put this in perspective, the addition of more than 3MM Texans drives the re-apportionment of 4 Reps in the House of Reps and 4 additional electors. [Note, also, that means somebody loses Reps – talking about you Illinois.]California grew at a rate of 6.13%. This added 3 Reps and 3 electors. Remember, they had a much bigger base against which to apply their growth rate.…It is worthy of noting that Texas with 28MM people and California with 39MM people have different impacts. Texas is smaller, but growing at a rate more than 2X California. It is a numbers game and most people don’t understand the numbers.The real magic is in the districting of new Congressional seats. Therein, the state legislature re-draws the districts with each party trying to create districts which are a majority of the controlling party. Gerrymandering is a real thing and has been since the dawn of our country. This is done on the heels of the Census – next Census is 2020. The party which controls the state legislature will ensure their party is the beneficiary of districting. More state legislatures are controlled by the Reps than ever before.Geographical concentration and similar thinking are not supposed to disproportionately impact Federal legislation or to blunt the voices of the smallest states.In state, county, and municipal governance, population rules, but in the construction of the Congress — House of Reps and Senate — and in the election of our President, the Electoral College ensures fairness.The bottom line is that the Founding Fathers and the evolution of the Electoral College have accomplished exactly what they intended to do — blunt undue power from the big states, ensure the voices of the small states are not blunted, and to choose leaders who must appeal to both sizes.There are a great number of people who do not characterize the impact of growth in left-leaning states as a “danger.”I used the example of Texas and California as they are a very good polar comparison of how different states can be governed. Governance is the determining factor when it comes to tax policy, business environment, and growth. Tax policy and business environment are drivers of growth. One has only to look at the numbers to convince oneself of the truth of that statement.Elections have consequences, but the apportionment of Congressional districts and the corresponding number of electors drives elections. Unless there is some tectonic shift in the flow of people in the US, we will continue to evolve into a coastal and heartland political concentration.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Semil Shah

        We are making different points.

    2. Gotham Gal

      For sure!

  3. Kirsten Lambertsen

    A fitting day for this post.