What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

America the Purple

November 13, 2012, 2:01 PM
Screen%20shot%202012-11-13%20at%207.44.20%20am

Looking at the electoral college map, it’s easy to imagine that the U.S. is a sharply divided country. The northeastern and western coastal states are all blue, while a broad band across the country is mostly red. But that’s an artifact of our winner-take-all electoral system, which paints small electoral differences in broad primary colors.

Consider Florida, where neither party won an outright majority and where the difference between red and blue was about half a percentage point. States where the margin was larger still generally had both red and blue counties. Princeton professor Robert Vanderbei’s map of the presidential vote, which colors individual counties along a spectrum from red to blue according to the percentage of votes for each party, shows pockets that are very red or very blue. But most of country is fairly mixed, with Democrats and Republicans living together side by side. The truth is that America is largely a purple country.

In fact, while Obama won more than 50% of the votes that were actually cast, neither party won an outright majority of the voting-eligible population. As Andrew Gelman points out, just 30% of the total electorate voted for Obama. Another roughly 30% voted for Romney. The other 40% of the eligible voters simply didn’t vote. More people didn’t vote, in other words, than voted for either of main candidates. Some eligible voters—a disproportionate number of whom were minorities—faced obstacles to voting. Others may have calculated that their vote wouldn’t make a difference in their state. But it’s probably safe to say that as a group this non-voting 40% didn’t have strong enough feelings about the race to get to the polls.

In general, our electoral college system has the effect of exaggerating the differences between us. As Nate Silver says, right now it probably works to the advantage of Democrats. Democrats may have won the presidency and added seats in both the House and the Senate, making this a decisive victory by contemporary standards. Long-term demographic trends—the electorate is becoming more urban, less evangelical, and less white—may also favor Democrats. But Republicans still managed to win a majority of seats in the House. With a strong candidate or another recession they could easily win back the presidency. As John Sides says, this was not a fundamental electoral realignment. The shift in the electorate between George W. Bush and Barack Obama was just a shift of a few points.

We are not really such a divided country. We are, by most standards, a moderate, politically centrist country. But we are also—as we have been throughout our history—a changing country. Republicans lost this election because it is hard to unseat a sitting president while the economy is improving. But they also lost because they were reluctant to accept or acknowledge the changing concerns of voters in the middle of the electorate. And if the Republican Party doesn’t adapt its platform on issues like immigration, reproductive rights, and marriage equality they are likely to lose again four years from now.

Electoral map image courtesy of Robert J. Vanderbei under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License

 

America the Purple

Newsletter: Share: