The 50 Flavors of Cronyism: A Unified Theory of Red vs. Blue States
Ah, America: land of opportunity, freedom, and endless arguments about whether blue is better than red. It’s a debate so stale that even C-SPAN audiences are nodding off. But let’s flip the script. Just like Baskin-Robbins boasts 31 flavors of ice cream, America serves up 50 distinct flavors of cronyism. The toppings may vary—BBQ in Texas, legal weed in Oregon, or artisanal sourdough in California—but the base is always the same. No matter where you go, it’s all about playing on the “popular” team—or losing.
And trust me, I know a thing or two about losing. I’ve spent years traveling across the continental U.S., living in Florida, Oregon, New York, Texas, Idaho, California, and Nevada. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that the “Us vs. Them” dynamic isn’t just a game—it’s the only game. Red or blue, heads or tails, this country loves a binary choice. If you’re not on the winning side, well… let’s just say you might want to brush up on your “team spirit” chants. Spoiler alert: I don’t chant.
Red vs. Blue: The Tired Narrative
We all know the script by now: red states cling to conservative values, blue states flaunt their progressive ideals, and everyone pretends their side is the morally superior one. Cue the BuzzFeed ‘think’ pieces (if you want to call that ‘thinking’) and Twitter wars. (And by “Twitter,” I mean whatever Elon’s calling it now—SkyNet Beta (dead names don’t die))
Take Texas, for example—a state where “freedom” reigns supreme as long as you’re aligned with the right kind of freedom. Contrast that with New York, where progressive values mean you’re free to debate the ethics of gentrification while sipping a $9 oat milk latte. Both sides are busy shouting about how different they are, but the end result is the same: power concentrated at the top, and everyone else left scraping the crumbs.
The Real Similarities
Let’s talk about what red and blue states actually have in common: cronyism so deeply ingrained, it’s practically a national pastime. Consider these highlights:
- Healthcare: Blue states love to brag about expanded access, but try navigating their bureaucratic mazes without breaking your spirit (or wallet). Meanwhile, red states chant “freedom of choice” while rural hospitals crumble faster than my will to exercise when I lived in Florida humidity.
- Economic Disparities: Whether it’s Silicon Valley in California or the oil fields of Texas, both red and blue states allow urban wealth to skyrocket while rural areas get the scraps. In Idaho, I saw firsthand how rural communities are often left behind, stuck with crumbling infrastructure and a palpable sense of being forgotten.
- Tribalism: Red or blue, the rule is the same: you’re either with us or against us. Step out of line, and you’ll be eating political leftovers for dinner. Trust me, I’ve tried, and the taste is somewhere between cardboard and regret.
Personal Experience
As someone who’s lived in seven states, I’ve had a front-row seat to this spectacle. Whether it’s navigating Florida’s chaotic voting systems, Oregon’s eco-chic lifestyle, or Nevada’s surreal mix of libertarian and progressive policies, the message is clear: if you’re not on the “popular” team, you’re nobody.
Take Idaho, for instance. A place where I discovered that, politically speaking, “freedom” often means something very specific—and if you don’t fit that definition, you’re going to feel it. Then there’s Nevada, where the political culture is as unpredictable as the slot machines. Some days, it feels like you’re betting on sanity itself.
And let’s not forget California, the land of dreams and astronomical rent. Sure, it’s progressive, but only if you can afford the price tag. Everywhere I’ve lived, the underlying dynamics have been the same: align yourself with the local power structure, or prepare to be marginalized.
A Wider Perspective: The Global Context
Let’s zoom out for a moment. Many nations—Canada, Germany, Scandinavia—function under multi-party systems. It’s like they got the deluxe package while we’re stuck with the demo version. When one party spirals into chaos (as they do), the other parties step in to stabilize things. It’s messy, sure, but at least it’s not a political coin toss every election cycle.
Contrast that with the U.S., where our two-party system forces voters to choose between two options: the one you hate slightly less, and the one who will probably haunt your dreams. It’s heads or tails, but the coin is so worn down, you can’t even tell who’s on which side anymore. And yet, here we are, flipping it anyway.
Ranked-Choice Voting: A Step Toward Change
Enter ranked-choice voting (RCV), Oregon’s shiny new toy. RCV lets you rank candidates by preference, so even if your first choice is a long shot, your vote still matters. It’s like building your dream ice cream sundae—if chocolate doesn’t win, at least you’ve got vanilla and strawberry to back it up.
RCV encourages candidates to appeal to broader audiences and opens the door for third parties to compete without the dreaded “spoiler effect.” Imagine a system where compromise is rewarded and extremism is left to fade into obscurity. Oregon’s leading the charge, and honestly? It’s about time someone did.
Conclusion: Beyond Heads or Tails
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from traveling and living across the U.S., it’s this: no matter where you go, the flavors of cronyism might change, but the game stays the same. The real challenge isn’t red vs. blue—it’s breaking free from the binary altogether.
Ranked-choice voting is a promising start. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step toward a system where we’re not stuck flipping a worn-out coin. Imagine an America with more than two flavors on the menu—a place where everyone has a chance to find their scoop. Now that’s a recipe worth trying.
Why Are You still Reading??
Ranked-Choice Voting: A Step Toward Change
Let’s talk about ranked-choice voting (RCV)—a concept that’s part electoral reform, part group therapy for a nation trapped in political gridlock. Oregon, where I’m moving soon, is among the growing list of states adopting this system, and honestly? It’s a breath of fresh air.
How RCV Works (and Why It Matters)
Here’s how it works: Instead of choosing just one candidate, you rank them by preference. If no candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to voters’ second choices. This process continues until someone secures a majority. It’s like a political relay race—if your first pick drops out, your vote keeps running.
Why does this matter? Because in the U.S., where most elections use a winner-takes-all system, candidates can win without appealing to the majority. In RCV, every vote counts—even if your first choice doesn’t make it to the finish line. It rewards broad appeal and ensures that elected officials represent a true majority, not just the loudest minority.
A Real-World Example
Let’s look at Maine, one of the first states to implement RCV statewide. In 2018, it elected a congressman who initially trailed in first-choice votes but won after RCV redistributed preferences from eliminated candidates. Critics called it “confusing,” but the system ultimately reflected the voters’ collective will—a stark contrast to elections where winners can take office with less than 50% of the vote. Imagine that: a system where the majority actually decides. Revolutionary, isn’t it?
Benefits of RCV
RCV has the potential to tackle some of the most frustrating aspects of our political system:
- Broad Appeal: Candidates need to appeal not just to their base but also to voters who might rank them second or third. This encourages dialogue and compromise rather than divisive rhetoric.
- Reduces Polarization: Extremists struggle in an RCV system because they’re unlikely to earn broad support. Instead, candidates with moderate, pragmatic platforms thrive.
- Elevates Third Parties: Finally, third-party and independent candidates have a shot without being labeled as “spoilers.” Your vote for a nonbinary-party matters unlike the vote ‘sumps’
- Positive Campaigning: With RCV, candidates are incentivized to stay civil. After all, they might need their opponent’s voters to rank them as a second choice. Less mudslinging, more cooperation.
RCV and Oregon: Leading by Example
Oregon’s adoption of RCV is a milestone in U.S. electoral reform. Known for its progressive policies, Oregon isn’t just setting the stage for local change—it’s proving that alternative systems can work at scale. In a state that already leads the nation in mail-in voting, RCV feels like the next logical step.
Of course, there are challenges:
- Educating Voters: RCV is intuitive once you see it in action, but it’s still a shift from the simplicity of “pick one.” Public campaigns will need to demystify the process for first-time users.
- Infrastructure: Upgrading voting systems to handle RCV’s ranked tallies takes time and resources. Oregon has the groundwork, but implementation isn’t instantaneous.
- Cultural Shift: Moving from “winner takes all” to consensus-based outcomes requires a mindset change—for voters and candidates alike.
But Oregon’s history of innovation gives me hope. If any state can lead the charge on RCV, it’s this one.
A Global Perspective
RCV isn’t just an American experiment—it’s a tried-and-true method used in democracies worldwide. Australia, for example, has used ranked-choice voting for over a century in its House of Representatives. The system has encouraged more diverse representation and reduced the dominance of major parties. Ireland uses RCV for its presidential elections, ensuring leaders are chosen with majority support. Even the Academy Awards uses a form of ranked voting to select Best Picture. If it’s good enough for democracy and Oscar winners, it’s good enough for us.
RCV in Everyday Life
To make this relatable, let’s think about voting on dinner plans. Imagine your options are pizza, tacos, and sushi. With RCV, you rank your choices: tacos first, sushi second, and pizza last. If tacos don’t get enough love, your vote moves to sushi. The final choice reflects the group’s overall preferences—not just the loudest “pizza or nothing” faction.
This simple analogy highlights the genius of RCV: it accounts for complexity and compromise, just like real life. It’s not about getting everything you want but about ensuring the outcome feels fair.
The Bigger Picture: What RCV Could Do for the U.S.
Ranked-choice voting won’t singlehandedly fix American politics, but it’s a start. By breaking the binary stranglehold of the two-party system, RCV creates room for nuanced conversations and diverse representation. It forces candidates to reach across the aisle—or at least stop burning the bridge.
Imagine a future where your vote isn’t just a desperate “lesser of two evils” decision. Imagine being able to rank your true preferences, knowing your voice will matter. Oregon’s adoption of RCV is a step in that direction, and I can’t wait to see how it unfolds.
Because let’s face it: life’s too short to live in a system that offers only two flavors—especially when both of them taste suspiciously like disappointment.
kiloblitz.net 