Read this NPR article on how the term 'red' and 'blue' states came to be and answer the following questions:
1. How has the media played a role in establishing this red/blue dichotomy? Why would they do this?
2. Do you think it is useful/fair/justified/offensive to 'paint whole states with an ideologically broad brush?' Why or why not?
3. Is this oversimplification dangerous to the political process? Does it create animosity where there might otherwise be more compromise? Explain your answer.
21 comments:
1. The media is what started the red state blue state situation. It was originally used simply to show which candidate had won in each state during an election, however, after much use, red became the republican color and blue became a color to represent democrats. The media most likely did this simply to show who was winning elections, but also to help categorize the states and predict which candidates would win where.
2. I don't think we should "paint whole states with an ideologically broad brush". It kind of reminds me of pre-civil war when there were slave states and non-slave states. Obviously, red states and blue states are less extreme, but the idea is still the same. There were people in slave states who were against slavery just like there are people in supposed red states who are actually democrats.
3. This oversimplification is dangerous to the political process because many people may feel like their vote doesn't matter because their political party is the minority in their state. Also, many candidates may begin to neglect certain states and only try to get votes from states of the opposite color. It may also lead to tension between state and the minority and majority political parties in individual states.
1. The media shaped red and blue dichotomy because networks like CBS, NBC, and ABC wanted to show which candidate was winning in an election. The media was trying to inform the American audience by using red and blue states. Overtime the Republican color changed from blue to red, and the Democrats went from red to blue.
2. I think it's justified to paint or view a whole state one color because it's what the networks have been doing for years, and it's an easy and engaging way to illustrate a states political opinion. However I don't think it's very useful or fair because a whole state is not going to be occupied by just one political ideology and people that only identify with one party. It leaves some citizen's opinions unaccounted for. Painting states with an ideological broad brush only gives a generalization of a states opinions.
3. Labeling states red and blue can certainly cause tension and limit compromise because policy is looked at as black and white, and individuals of both parties view policies and passing legislation in a stark manner. Legislatures think they must vote and pass certain policies affiliated with their party all the time, and voters develop the concept that they must always vote for their party I.D., not for a certain candidate or policy. Labeling states limits individual thinking. As both parties talk about coming towards the middle, no state has been labeled "purple" and this makes coloring states not beneficial to political socialization because media viewers think there is only two sides to every political issue when individual candidates can have helpful resolutions, regardless of party affiliation.
1. The media started using red/blue dichotomy in telling their viewers which states voted republican or democrat for elections. It makes it easy to clearly see which states swayed which way, and is pleasing to the viewers.
2. It's not justified because not every body in one state agree with the ideology that they are stereotyped with. It overgeneralizes the views of the people and can make them ignored.
3. It is dangerous because a lot of people may feel that voting is pointless because a majority of the people vote dissimilarly to those that decide voting is useless, and so the outcome is against their favor. It also makes it harder for compromise because the parties are seen to the public as complete opposites, and that having a bill means it can only please one parties ideals and values.
1. They were the ones that originally started coloring the map when color TV came out. They did this to make it easier to see which party won the election.
2. I think it is not fair to ‘paint whole states with an ideologically broad brush’ because it does not show the whole representation of the people in the State.
3. No, it is not a danger to the political process as it is a representation of the political election. I do not think it create animosity because people don’t talk about being blue or red. I may be biased because I am from Florida because it is a swing state so I do not hear about it as much.
1. The red and blue colored states come from the presidential election of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. The colors just mean what states majority leans more towards as a whole. This has been a major thing ever since 2000, people wanting to know which states will vote for which party more or less.
2. I am neutral to the idea. Honestly, it is not even opinion based, it is straight facts. If the majority of the state leans more towards republicans, then those are the statistics, doesn’t mean that everyone in the state is republican, but the majority is. This goes back to one of the older blogposts; people who are politically like-minded will all live together in the same area.
3. I don’t think that labeling states as a political party so to speak is a bad thing. The only thing that this is doing is letting the country know what the state feels is the most important and how they feel on major topics. I don’t think that this would create animosity rather than compromise.
1. The media initially started the use of red and blue states in order to show which candidate won in each state.
2. I do no think that painting a whole state with and ideologically broad brush is necessarily a bad thing. It is used simply to show which party each state leans to. This obviously means that not everyone will agree with the color their sate is "painted" with.
3. Labeling red and blue states is not dangerous to the political process because I do not feel as though it effects the views of American's or effects the way that they vote.
1. I think that the media began the whole idea of red and blue states to make it easier if a republican or democrat candidate had won in the state. Over years of using this method of simplification to determine red and blue states, certain states have been identified as usually red or usually blue like Texas which is almost always red and Massachusetts which is usually blue.
2. I think that it makes sense for states to be painted with an ideologically broad brush since what really matters is the majority ideals in the state. Also with knowing which state has a certain ideology it is often useful in determining which state will go which way especially useful in presidential elections.
3. It could be dangerous especially when states are constantly simplified and generalized as a specific ideology since not everyone within the state probably feels the same way. This could lead potential voters feel that since their state always votes in a particular fashion that their one vote won’t make a difference in all of the others. Overall though it is an effective system that can lead to fairly accurate predictions on a particular race.
1. The media has played a role in establishing the red/blue dichotomy by showing which candidate won in each state after the election.
2. On one hand it is not justified because not everybody in one specific state agrees with the ideology that the state is affiliated with. On the other hand it is used to show what ideology the people in the state lean more toward.
3. I dont think it is dangerous because it just gives a representation of what ideology the people in the state leans more toward.
(1B)
1. The media are the ones who established the red/blue maps so that it would be an easier representation of whether a Republican or Democrat won the state or not.
2. I do not think it is fair for the member of the minority party because they get misrepresented. But on the other hand, it is a good way to show people which party dominates each state.
3. I do not feel labeling a state red or blue is dangerous because I do not feel like it makes people change their political ideology.
1.) States originally began to be labeled red or blue by television networks to show their audience whether the majority of the people in the state voted democrat or republican. Television networks would show maps with states highlighted red or blue.
2.) It definitely is not fair to generalize everybody's political views of a state into one. A state will be labeled a red or blue state if the majority of the population votes a certain way. But just because the majority votes one way there could still be a massive amount of people that think differently. Those people's votes still count so we should not group them into something that they are against. It is useful to paint the state all one color though for representation and the ability to communicate trends of voting to the audiences of the news networks.
3.)I think the oversimplification is dangerous. For a few reasons, the first is that is creates massive stereotypes. Some stereotypes that everyone from texas is a gun slinging republican and everyone from Cali are prius driving democrats. These stereotypes can be used as insults and could create problems. Also if states are learned to be dominated by a certain party people within the states could start to feel their votes are useless. Political efficacy is a huge part of the voting process and if it is lost it could danger the political process.
The media most obviously has played a role in establishing the red and blue representation of the political state majorities by first introducing it. Various media sources then unified the color system (firmly deciding that red = Republican, blue = Democratic and not the other way around or using other colors), and then implemented the color system amongst every political map. I think that they would do this simply out of convenience, and also to give people certain impressions of certain states.
While it may be useful and in some ways justified, I don’t think that it’s fair to paint a whole state a single color just because of the majority of votes, because it doesn’t truly represent the votes of a population. It 51% of the stated voted Republican and 49% Democrat, labeling the state as a “red” state clearly isn’t indicative of the true votes and opinions of the citizens living there.
I think that the oversimplification affects the political process, but not enough to call it dangerous. People may see a red state and not relocate there because the majority of the state’s political ideals are not in line with theirs and therefore assume that there are a certain type of people in that state based on typical partisan stereotypes, but I don’t think that it’s as big of a problem as people make it out to be. There really isn't a way to prove that it is or isn't harmful. I do believe that because a state is red or blue, people from that state will be approached with a preconceived notion of their general ideals and mindsets which will create unwanted animosity as opposed to compromise resulting from having an open mind.
1) The media has played a role in the red and blue situation. When the first color came out in television, they took advantage of this. They most likely did this to make everything clearer for people voting and help see what states would pick which candidate based on their political views.
2) I think it is unfair to "paint whole states with an ideologically broad brush." Some people could be left out and their views and ideas will not be heard because they are not part of the majority.
3) It is dangerous because they are only focusing on people who agree with them and not the minority who may have different views. It creates some animosity because they will feel pointless and will fight to get their word out. Politicians will think everyone in their area will vote for them and just shut them off at once.
(1B)
1)The role the media plays in establishing red/blue dichotomy has been presenting which states are red and blue, or republican and democratic. The media will document, picture, and inform, about political standings through interviews, graphs and pictures. This informs the people in a more entertaining way and makes it easier for candidates to be promoted.
2)I guess it can be fair and unfair, justified and unjustified. Some political views reflect “some” of the actual citizens views in that state. However what about the thirty percent that has a different view. So, it helps those with that view and hurts others without that same ideology.
3)Oversimplification is dangerous to the political process because of people that may sense or feel that voting is useless and makes no sense because the majority of people vote towards another viewpoint or ideology making their opinion worthless and making no change to the end result. Animosity is created as a result where compromise would have been because of party views. Sense one party wins everyone against that party feels that there ideas and only their ideas are to be passed, because the majority of the state wanted them. Which means some people on the “losing” side will try to prevent bills and ideas from being passed as a result of spite.
1. The media has played a huge role in establishing this red/blue dichotomy by indicating in a "quick way to describe the vote in given state in a given election". Media would do this because they just want to show who was leading in certain states.
2. It is useful to paint states with one color because it gives the majority a sense of unity. Even though the opposites of that party may not agree with the idea, they are right to believe that painting their state just one color is not fair because it does not equally represent the whole state's beliefs.
3. This oversimplication is not dangerous to the political process because it labels what the majority of the state believes in.
1. Media has played a huge role in the red/blue dichotomy, in the article it stated how it all started and how it was used to indicated which candidate won in each state.
2. I am not for or against this idea, I'm more so neutral. However, I do find this useful for the purpose of letting citizens know which state is leaning towards what party.
3. Indeed, there is a potential of this oversimplification being dangerous and can in some ways affect the political process, for example: if a state is labeled red and there are voters who vote blue, they might feel as if their vote does not count and it can lead to trouble in the voting process,
1. The media has played a vital role in establishing the red and blue dichotomy by showing the political stance of each of the states, in this case, republican or democrat.
2. I don’t think that it is fair to make the huge generalization that one state agrees with the whole idealology of being democratic or republican. Everyone has their own personal beliefs and stances.
3. Labeling the states as red or blue in my opinion, is not dangerous to the political process because it is just an overview of how the majority of the states feel.
1. The media's role in establishing the red and blue dichotomy began early on on television when it was used to represent which state was republican or democrat based on the candidate results. As many news stations and viewers began to see the color pattern it carried on and consisted throughout all of media and sort of became a label for both of the parties. It was an easier implication of representing the parties individually.
2. In a way it is fair because it resembles the majority party of the states population and it easily identifies each state as a specific party but then it also isn't fair because many people who are not part of that specific party go unrepresented of their political preferences.
3. I dont believe this is dangerous to the political process because it is just one minor way of representation, therefore it doesn't really carry any big impact on the political matter of the state.
1. The media has played a role in establishing the red/ blue dichotomy through the statistics and graphics that are shown on news broadcast and political ads. The media can persuade and inform people of what a particular candidates past and plans for the American government.
2. I think that it’s fair to paint an overall view of a state a certain color depending on the views of each citizen in that state. Although there may be some people who might disagree with the majority, I feel that if the majority is red then the state should be red and vice-versa.
3. Yes it is dangerous because it only sees those who agree with their particular party and not the rest of the state’s population that doesn’t agree with that particular party.
The red/blue started when NBC started color programming and it was originally used to see if the republican incumbent would win(which would be in blue) or if the democrat would win(which was red), soon after this the colors were switched around
I think that it is fair to paint a whole state red or blue because in order to win the election the candidate needs a majority of votes from the people to win. So if the majority votes democratic then the state should be blue, and if a majority of voters vote republican then the state should be red.
Labeling states as blue or red is not too dangerous because it is essentially a poll for the voters to see how an election went and to see who won. The colors make it easier to see who won
1. The media basically color coded candidates according to their party in order to make it easier to identify which party won in each state during an election. Eventually, it became the norm to refer to each party as red or blue for Republican or Democrat.
2. I think it is very useful but not fair. It's useful because it's easier to see the majority of the state's ideology. It's unfair because it doesn't represent everyone in the state.
3. This oversimplification can be dangerous because it'll cause less votes. As said before, it's unfair to those who are not the same color as their state. So for someone who is a Democrat in a red state, they may end up not voting because the state has already been categorized as a red state. This also causes more of a division among the U.S. as a whole. This causes an increase in political polarization.
1. This was originally used by tv networks to show which candidate was winning the election. Eventually, as more networks started catching on and more people were willing to use them, the media and their audience reached a consensus on color designation to a specific party. Red for republicans and blue for democrats. It was an easy and quick way to convey the information in elections.
2. I don't think it is unjustified because it is just a method of presenting statistics on a state.
3.I think it does play a factor in swaying voter's opinions so it might be dangerous in the sense that it limits individual thought.
Post a Comment