With the Virginia Marriage Affirmation Act just recently passed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11262-2004May8.html , I am finally moved from complacency to some action. But what can I do?? In the middle of the night I came up with this hairbrain scheme.
If gay couples nationwide sent one partner to live in a particular state for the required residency period for voting, would it be possible to elect gay advocates as senators, representatives, local officals? Would it be possible to elect enough officials nationwide to “swing the balance”. Would a moving electorate be mobile enough to have a meaningful impact. After installing a friendly candidate, would it be feasible to install another canditate in another state with enough consistency that the elected candidates re-inforce the effort (as opposed to getting one elected in state A, but by the time you get one elected in state B, the one in state A being replaced).
For instance rather than targeting a more populous state like Virginia, would it be possible to move a large enough gay population to North Dakota, or any sparsely populated midwest state to control which candidate would be elected? It seems like the senator positions in sparcely populated state should be the target. Could a plan be developed by the 2006 elections to seriously affect the make-up of Congress? How many people would it take?
If such a plan were coordinated A)Would it be possible to elect gay advocates? B) Would it be possible to elect enough gay advocates to make a difference even if it took multiple elections (say 2006, 2008, 2010, etc.)? C) How many elections would it take (if possible)? D) Is the acceptance of gay rights inevitable and therefore an organized plan of this scope unnecessary?
I, for one, would be willing (and able) to support or be supported my partner of 7 years, even realizing that it would mean time apart and would mean we’d have to re-think retirement.
Although your reasons for proposing this “moving electorate” may be geniune and humanitarian, you also must consider how easily this process could be abused.
Gay rights activists are, as far as I know, a political minority. Giving small political minorities the power to dominate national (or even state) politics according to their agenda is very, very bad. Keep in mind how many “undesireable” political minorities there are. PETA, the KKK, Islamic Jihad, Socialists, trial lawyers, etc. etc.
While all of these groups deserve their say in politics, what you are suggesting could give each of these groups the power to enforce their agenda on the entire country.
It’s theoretically possible, I guess. If you have enough people who will vote as a block moving into a state or congressional district, they’ll be able to elect who they want. There are some problems, though.
You’re probably not going to get enough people involved to make a difference, especially on a state level. Most people probably won’t be willing to disrupt their lives that much.
Once you do get your gay-friendly candidate elected, you’re probably going to want to see him get reelected, and since the constituency that elected him are your gay migrants, they’re going to have to be there when he’s up for reelection again. So, they’re not going to be able to go to another state and elect someone else.
There are some places where gays and lesbians are already a powerful political force, like San Francisco, Boulder, and Washington, DC. If all the gays and lesbians there move to Boise, Boise might become really gay friendly, it means gays won’t have any political influence anywhere else.
Are you at all familiar with Virginia’s Marriage Affirmation Act, EsotericEnigma? Spare me the moral lectures when 2/3 of Virginia’s legislature passes laws disallowing same-sex couples to LEAVE PROPERTY to one another through wills, disallows same-sex couples to have Living Wills, etc.
The question stands. A lot of gay couples have a lot of discretionary income. Is there enough gay couples that could support a roving electorate that could make a meaningful difference.
According to this website http://www.areaconnect.com/population.htm?s=ND , North Dakota has a population of 634,110. Oh just figuring that 60% vote, yields 380466 voters (yes, I pulled that 60% number out of thin air). You really only need to guarantee 50% votes for your candidate. So to guarantee election results you need to infuse 380466 voters. Probably if you run a moderate on other issues, you wouldn’t need nearly that many voters. A senator’s term is for six years and staggered.
What is the magic number of voters needed to pull it off? How many legislators would a group have to install to have a meaningful voting block? Could it be done in multiple election years?
(apologies for not knowing how to format a table in a post)
According to this site, http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html , the US Population is at a bit over 293 million. If you assume that 3% of that total is gay ( a disputed assumption I know), and if you assume that 2% of that total actually has the resources to support such an endeavor, you arrive at a mobile population of about 105564. Certainly enough votes in my estimation to sway the results in quite a few of states listed (assuming you support a candidate who is mostly moderate but is definitely sympathetic to your issue).
Just an FYI, the Free State Project is one such already existing attempt to do exactly what you’re talking about for libertarians. Most observers are doubtful enough libertarians would participate to appreciably affect the government of the state, though, but since (I think) there’s a larger gay than libertarian population, perhaps it would have a better chance of success.