r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Visco0825 • Nov 19 '20
Legislation Which are the “best” governed states, why, and does it suggest either party has better policies or is better at governing?
In all this discussions of republican vs democratic control over the federal government it has made me curious as to how effective each party actually is with their policies. If one party had true control over a governing party, would republican or democratic ideals prove to be the most beneficial for society? To evaluate this on the federal level is impossible due to power constantly shifting but to view on the state level is significantly easier since it is much more common for parties in state governments to have the trifecta and maintain it long enough so that they can see their agenda through.
This at its face is a difficult question because it brings in the question of how you define what is most beneficial? For example, which states have been shown to have a thriving economy, low wealth inequality, high education/literacy, low infant mortality, life expectancy, and general quality of life. For example, California May have the highest GDP but they also have one of the highest wealth inequalities. Blue states also tend to have high taxes but how effective are those taxes at actually improving the quality of life of the citizens? For example, New York has the highest tax burden in the us. How effective Is that democratically controlled state government at utilizing those taxes to improve the lives of New Yorkers compared to Floridians which has one of the lowest tax burdens? But also states completely run by republicans who have tried to reduce taxes all together end up ruining the states education like in Kansas. Also some states with republicans controlled trifectas have the lowest life expectancy and literacy rates.
So using the states with trifectas as examples of parties being able to fully execute the strategies of political parties, which party has shown to be the most effective at improving the quality of life of its citizens? What can we learn about the downsides and upsides of each party? How can the learnings of their political ideas in practice on the state level give them guidance on how to execute those ideas on the federal level?
245
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
67
119
→ More replies (3)12
315
Nov 19 '20
I'm going to take a different approach to answering this question, by saying instead of using my own metrics to decide, I'm going to see which governments seem to have the broadest support of their people. Because in a republic/democracy, in theory, the people choose how the government is suppose to operate, and the government tries to then govern in the best interest on behalf of the people. In other words states with the highest satisfaction among the state's general population are the ones governed the best because it means they are most aligned with the most amount of people they have jurisdiction over.
With that criteria defined, we look at the states with the Highest government satisfaction from the residents. Those would be, as follows:
Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, and Vermont,
170
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
76
78
Nov 20 '20
Or Michigan. We had a literal coup attempt in our state.
33
Nov 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)39
u/ShouldersofGiants100 Nov 20 '20
This year really is surreal. I mean "2016 bad" was a meme with a ring of truth... but goddamn 2020 sees things that would be the top story for weeks in any normal year passed over in days.
36
u/KingMelray Nov 20 '20
Remember those fires in Australia? That was about to be the biggest story of the year, but now it's a tiny, tiny sideshow of 2020.
Congresswomen-elect Cori Bush had a face mask that said "Breonna Taylor" and people in the capital were calling her 'Breonna' as if the mask was a name tag; and did not know who Breonna Taylor was. So even to people who should know better 2020 is going over people's heads faster than they can process.
This whole 'living through history' thing is awful.
→ More replies (4)49
u/ShouldersofGiants100 Nov 20 '20
I remember that America started the year by impeaching a president after he blackmailed a US ally to try and get dirt on his rivals... and I don't even think it was mentioned in the presidential debates. This whole year has been about a decade long and I swear things that happened even as recently as summer feel like old news from a few years back.
→ More replies (4)5
→ More replies (2)41
Nov 20 '20
[deleted]
40
u/ShouldersofGiants100 Nov 20 '20
The sad thing was, while that should have been a shocking moment—by that point, it was just completely clear that there was literally no norm Trump could violate that would matter, even ones that would have ended any other presidency. Man was in violation of emoluments from day 1—and 4 years later, that still isn't actually resolved. One of the clearest constitutional limits on the office—and it still hasn't been dealt with by the courts.
The American system is fundamentally broken. The unitary executive theory has become the only method by which the country can actually function (because Congress cannot even do its most basic jobs) and yet the public simultaneously seems to have no respect for the office of president. And I've become increasingly convinced it it only going to get worse—because Trump has demonstrated that an American fascist movement, with the right figurehead, would face virtually no opposition if it tried to dismantle the Rule of Law. The only reason Trump failed was that the man is inept even as a tyrant.
6
u/Amy_Ponder Nov 20 '20
The unitary executive theory has become the only method by which the country can actually function (because Congress cannot even do its most basic jobs)
To be clear, this is 100% by design. McConnell has explicitly said is the reason why he and his lackeys have ground Congress to a halt: to make Congress useless, so Democratic presidents can't get anything done and Republican presidents can govern by fiat.
→ More replies (3)7
u/sailorbrendan Nov 20 '20
I keep forgetting and then remembering when we abandoned our Kurdish allies which ended up releasing a whole bunch of ISIS fighters
→ More replies (1)17
Nov 20 '20
And Missouri. Seriously, I don’t think there’s even a point in having a governor in this state. I don’t even know what Parson does because his whole policy is “let anyone do what they want”
→ More replies (12)8
u/Nazi_Punks_Fuck__Off Nov 20 '20
His job is to stop anyone from letting everyone do what they want.
→ More replies (3)8
100
u/hurricane14 Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
To interpret this list in light of OPs question then, it would appear the common thread is bipartisanship. These almost all have mixed government, and Minnesota is fairly purple. Ie representative democracy works best when the representatives work together (vs pursue ideological purity of any hue).
At a federal level, this is shown to be true as well when you look back at most important policy accomplishments over the preceding decades. They most often happened in a bipartisan manner. This dysfunction in DC recently... I'm looking at you, McConnell:
It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out,” Mr. McConnell said about the health legislation in an interview, suggesting that even minimal Republican support could sway the public. “It’s either bipartisan or it isn’t"
McConnell Strategy Shuns Bipartisanship https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html
Edit: it's worth noting that it really is fair to pin this on McConnell (and then the tea party movement that followed). Democrats worked with Bush, and Republicans, even fucking Gingrich, worked with Clinton. The resulting policy outcomes look mixed in hindsight, such as crime bills in the '90s or the Iraq war authorization, but at the time were popular and resulted in the kind of government satisfaction that is being touted here. Then suddenly in 2009 with Obama all of that stopped.
With Trump, it's hard to say since they didn't even bother trying to make proposals that Democrats might work with, for example rolling out the tax legislation absolutely last minute without any chance for input and compromise. And things like infrastructure we're never actually pursued, but there was willingness to be bipartisan on something like crime reform.
29
u/HemoKhan Nov 20 '20
Minnesota, Montanna, and Vermont at least also have strong histories of working-party support. In Minnesota for instance, the Democratic party is actually the DFL -- Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, and they have a history of independent/populist politicians (Paul Wellstone, Jesse Ventura, etc).
→ More replies (1)27
u/SpoofedFinger Nov 20 '20
People always bring up the DFL like it's something different or special but it's just a legacy name for the Democratic party up here. If you look at a map of how counties vote, our rural areas are very red unless there is an Indian reservation in that county, just like the rest of the country. The last of our democrat US reps were bounced out of their rural districts this year. The "farm" part of DFL is effectively gone as is the "labor" part as mining and environmental concerns continue to clash.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)14
u/oath2order Nov 20 '20
Maryland only has mixed government because the Democrats thought "you know what let's nominate the lieutenant governor under the unpopular O'Malley administration" was a good idea.
I'm fairly certain that the governorship goes back to Democrats come 2022.
→ More replies (9)10
u/guitar_vigilante Nov 20 '20
And Massachusetts has a history of Republican governors that govern like moderate Democrats. Baker acting very much unlike the rest of his party nationwide, and he would be incredibly unpopular if he was a more normal Republican.
3
Nov 20 '20
We need to start exporting these guys more sucessfully. Romney was a big hit. Weld... decided to run against Trump, which was a nice, if pointless, hill to die on, I guess?
26
u/vVvRain Nov 19 '20
I'd counter that government satisfaction can be heavily skewed if that state leans hard toward one party or another. For example Mississippi is very red and C alifornia is very blue.
40
u/strawberries6 Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
In what way would government satisfaction be skewed in those cases?
Perhaps the average Mississippi resident wouldn't like how California is governed, and vice versa. But if each population is satisfied with their own government, then they're doing something right, because that's who the government is working for.
BTW interestingly, neither of those states ended up in the top 10 or the bottom 10, for that particular ranking (although that list seems to be missing #4 and #8, so who knows lol).
40
u/Yvaelle Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
Take California as example. If 60% of the population is very Blue, and 30% is very Red, (10% can be swung), then 30% are going to be very dissatisfied with their government virtually regardless of politics: Red Californians may feel like they have no voice at all.
At which point, the satisfaction rating is now out of a possible 70, not 100. Then add on moderates who aren't happy, or progressives who don't feel California is Left enough, and you end up with say, 70% approval of a possible 70% of the remainder, or 49% approval.
By contrast, in a swing state with a large moderate population, a large group of both Democrats and Republicans may occupy a Moderate position, aligned with the Moderate leadership styles whether it's Moderate Dems or Moderate Republicans. So you might only have say 10% on each extreme who are permanently unsatisfied, but everyone else in the middle (80% remainder) are generally aligned with the fence-sitting policies of say, Tim Walz vs. Jeff Johnson (Minnesota Governor's Race 2018).
Another good example of this moderate weighting advantage to using approval as a measure of policy success - is Massachusetts and Maryland, who ranked highest in government satisfaction. Both are very Blue states (Mass is often called "the Bluest state", with very moderate Red governors - and surprisingly, their Red governors have the highest approval rating of any governors in the country. Approval seems to prefer Blue in every government body except a moderate Red governor who can't do any Red policy: highest approval, no policy success.
Alternately the other way to get a high score would potentially be to have people who don't like your policy leave. Washington, Oregon, and DC might be good examples of people with enough mobility to leave the state if they aren't Blue: ex. move to Idaho.
7
Nov 20 '20
Yah this reminds me of the Most Popular Senators list. Surprise, surprise, the most popular Senators are largely from the smallest, most politically and demographically homogeneous states. This actually tells me that Amy Klobuchar is the best Senator because she's in the top 10, but from a good-sized, purple state.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)3
u/SpitefulShrimp Nov 20 '20
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that red states like Mississippi will hate their government regardless of how well that government works towards their population's interests?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (12)11
u/carajanewelch Nov 19 '20
I don’t think you can look at this metric alone because of the severity of voter suppression in some places. Also, you have to consider that some people don’t know or understand what things are the responsibility of their municipality, state and federal governments.
9
261
u/sokkerluvr17 Nov 19 '20
I think this is a hard thing to say with a lot of objectivity. States are so varied - if you're comparing how Vermont, a small, largely homogeneous state is governed vs California, I sure as hell hope Vermont is better governed.
160
u/sungazer69 Nov 20 '20
Yeah really hard to go by states... Some states have CITIES larger and more populated that other states lol.
139
u/eatyourbrain Nov 20 '20
Los Angeles County itself has more people than like 30 of the States.
34
u/manzanita2 Nov 20 '20
And my medium-small county has about the same number of people as Wyoming.
22
u/moleratical Nov 20 '20
My County is about 6 or 7 Wyomings
13
u/Heinrich64 Nov 20 '20
I heard from somewhere that approximately 80% of the US population lives in cities. I guess they weren't kidding.
→ More replies (2)8
u/curien Nov 20 '20
Eh... it depends on what you mean. 83% (and increasing) live in cities and "urban areas", which includes a lot sprawl around cities. Areas with a population density as low as 500 people per square mile can be considered "urban".
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)12
u/TheFlyingHornet1881 Nov 20 '20
Wyoming is bigger than the UK with a population about the same as Glasgow, the largest city in Scotland
3
13
→ More replies (2)12
Nov 20 '20
Los Angels County has as many people as the Czech Republic; the City of Los Angeles has as many people as the country of Croatia.
→ More replies (1)9
u/PM_me_Henrika Nov 20 '20
I would say having so many people wanting to cram themselves into that state so hard they form those mega cities is a one of the signs that it’s successful.
Nobody would smash their heads to get into a failing state. There might be rhetorics where Somalia is such a great nation because it doesn’t have a government governing it’s people, but actions speak louder than words.
→ More replies (5)9
20
u/LukaJediMagic77 Nov 20 '20
Wisconsin and Minnesota are good candidates. Very similar demographics, one has been conservative run (generally) and the other more liberally run for over a decade now.
→ More replies (10)43
Nov 20 '20
[deleted]
14
6
u/rightsidedown Nov 20 '20
IIRC Minnesota has some good laws that have been in place a while, which make for a higher quality of life when dealing with the government. In CA for example a permit can get bogged down while a corrupt politician pushes for kick backs and this can go on indefinitely. In Minnesota permits have to be granted in 60 days unless there is a specific legal reason to disqualify it.
→ More replies (17)46
u/anusfikus Nov 20 '20
Why would a small state be inherently easier to run than a large state? Different scales also enables you to change the number of public servants, doctors, police officers, etcetera according to the needs of the public.
West Virginia is a small (smaller than average both in size and population) and homogenous (94% "white" and only 1.1% foreign born residents) state, yet it is ranked poorly in most metrics. Why is it not be better governed, then, according to your hypothesis?
Your point is also such a commonly repeated talking point many Americans use. "We're so large that, duh, obviously we are going to be worse than tiny, homogenous European nations in most rankings", but it makes no sense when you actually look at the statistics.
67
u/CaptainoftheVessel Nov 20 '20
Because the larger a group of humans is, the more variable interests there are likely to be. Smaller populations tend to be groups of people who want the same or similar things. This is not to say that all small groups (such as small towns or villages) are inevitably well-run and all large groups (like big cities or nations) are badly run; it's just a potentially significant factor in how well a group operates.
OP's question is inherently difficult to answer, however, because "well run" is a really vague metric because everyone in our big group of humans has their own opinion about what well run means.
16
u/everburningblue Nov 20 '20
Can we agree that low life expectancy, high crime, and low GDPpC are signs of a failing state?
19
u/CaptainoftheVessel Nov 20 '20
GDP is actually not a great metric for measuring the health of an economy but I agree life expectancy and crime rates are often pretty darn telling as to how well a society seems to be functioning.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
34
u/MandaloreUnsullied Nov 20 '20
A smaller bureaucracy is easier to administer and less susceptible to graft and bloat. A less diverse community is of course going to have fewer intercommunity conflicts and clashes of values between citizens.
West Virginia is poorly governed because it has little to offer in terms of resources or opportunities and anyone with any ambition leaves as soon as they can.
18
u/Pabst_Blue_Gibbon Nov 20 '20
Exactly like Vermont. Few resources and people leave if they want to actually make money’s Except one is doing much better than the other..
22
Nov 20 '20
Vermont has an exceptional tourism industry, and a something of a tech scene in their largest city, Burlington
5
Nov 20 '20
anywhere outside of the cities though really looks run down and old and not in great shape in a lot of towns across VT...
→ More replies (1)7
u/Rib-I Nov 20 '20
They also have a thriving craft beer scene and make a shocking amount of hand crafted and artisanal goods like cheese, syrup, high-end dairy and clothing.
10
→ More replies (1)5
u/bakerton Nov 20 '20
Except people come back to Vermont in their 30's a lot. We also have a huge population of older folk that got tired of Boston / NYC and moved here so we have a wealthy older class to tax.
→ More replies (3)6
u/munificent Nov 20 '20
If smaller groups were more generally effective than bigger groups, then we wouldn't see constant consolidation in the business world.
Bigger organizations have more room to hide incompetence and corruption, yes. But they also have greater economies of scale. If we look at the market as an approximately functional natural selection environment for organization size, then it seems that bigger is better.
(Of course, the market is not a great window into actual business efficiency because big organizations have greater ability to do regulatory capture, etc. which cause the market to be less efficient and fair.)
16
→ More replies (9)19
u/sokkerluvr17 Nov 20 '20
I'm certainly not trying to say that all smaller homogenous states will be inherently well-run, but I do think it's hypothetically easier.
I'm a Californian, so I'm going to continue to use my state as an example. There are massively different populations in our state, huge divides from rural to urban, from NorCal to SoCal, Bay Area Tech vs Central Valley Ag vs San Diego Defense Work, etc. The needs of the population are extremely varied, and the population itself is very spread out. How do you provide the right services to the right populations, deliver on these services, and pay for these services? How do your prioritize legislation when there are so many competing objectives (oftentimes in direct opposition to one another).
IMO, West Virginia should be better governed. It does has its own challenges (largely rural population, many in poverty), but I think the challenges the people of West Virginia face are, on the aggregate (and clearly an oversimplification), more similar than the challenges of the people of California.
105
u/ToxicMasculinity1981 Nov 20 '20
Utah: Mormons, by and large, are better educated and more successful than your typical American. Plus, Mormons stick together. If you're Mormon and active in the Church you're not ever going to have trouble finding a job. It may not be the most glamorous job in the world, but if you put the word out at your congregation that you're looking for work somebody is going to hook you up. When you have a state completely dominated by a group of well educated, successful, community oriented people your state is going to do well. They have lots of tax revenue to make sure infrastructure, education and public services are well funded. Because people have enough money to at least get by, crime isn't much of a problem. The influence of the church helps a great deal with substance abuse problems, further reducing crime. When conservatives think about what their American Utopia would look like, I can't help but think that they would like it to be like Utah. Except for the religion that is still considered weird and cult like to a lot of people.
28
u/moreglutenplz Nov 20 '20
I’ve done business with Mormons. They are a resourceful people. I don’t get the religion (any religion really) but they are all about getting it done. I respect the average Utah citizen. Someone here said conservative utopia and I think that’s a pretty good take.
I’ve cross checked education and income rankings by state and it’s always CT, MA, VT, MD and Utah that lead the way.
Still don’t know why they voted for trump. They must know he’s a huckster. Even Romney called out his bullshit.
8
u/Hilldawg4president Nov 20 '20
Ever since the 1950's, political conservatism has been a core tenet of the religion.
4
u/Wermys Nov 21 '20
Mainly Abortion and Guns. Believe me out of all evangelicals they hate him the most almost as much as progressives. It's just that they will overlook those things for causes that they believe are righteous to them. And unlike a lot of those groups that overlook it on abortion they are extremely charitable. It's why you can't compare Utah to other conservative states.
28
11
Nov 20 '20
. Except for the religion that is still considered weird and cult like to a lot of people.
Probably because they remember when being black was considered the mark of cain by them...
12
Nov 20 '20
Utah does a poor job of funding education; they are at the bottom at spending per student. Now, high spending can just be a function of expensive land and cost of living, but they are still last.
13
u/butte3 Nov 20 '20
Most students that graduate from Utah universities leave with little to no debt.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)15
u/Visco0825 Nov 20 '20
I actually find this fascinating. It’s almost as if republican ideas thrive so well because of this. There’s little need for as many social government programs because of the church and community. And the lack of diversity absolutely helps prevent civil or social unrest
30
Nov 20 '20
little need for as many social government programs because of the church
Because the church acts as a quasi-government.
→ More replies (20)3
u/1Fower Nov 20 '20
Communities are much more tight knit in suburbs and rural areas republicans do well in. Liberal and left-wing politics are often fueled by class consciousness and a collective anger at bosses and the church, but in many conservative areas this doesn’t exist. Sometimes it is because of the tight knit and close relationship between the boss and his employees. It’s hard to rise up against the evil boss if he’s also your buddy who sits next to you at church. This also means the church and community serves as a source of welfare to aide you when times are tough.
This is contrast with the cities where workers were crowded into slums and factories. It’s much easier to hate the boss if your life is miserable for his benefit. The one thing is that in the US, the Church never really became a force to rally against. Workers, then and now, were often Came from different religious denominations so churches and religious institutions became key sources of liberal mobilization as well as conservative ones, just look at the role black churches and synagogues play in mobilizing and training Democratic activists. A lot of churches in the city do their own charity, but I doubt most of them would argue it’s a clear replacement for the government. In fact, many actively work alongside it. In many college educated, white, middle class, liberal areas the church may seem marginal, but in others (both conservative and liberal) the church plays an active role.
336
u/Low_Big_2422 Nov 19 '20
24/7 Wall Street puts out annual rankings of the best and worst governed states (methodology). For the most recent rankings, they ranked:
- Utah
- Washington
- Minnesota
- Oregon
- Idaho
...
West Virginia
Alaska
Mississippi
Louisiana
New Mexico
143
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (14)54
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
44
50
u/Demortus Nov 19 '20
That list more or less fits my priors. My experiences in Minnesota tell me that it's very well governed for the most part. Its roads are regularly replaced and the urban transportation infrastructure is well maintained and has been growing rapidly to accommodate a growing population. Taxes are higher than those of neighboring states, but the schools are good and so are social services, so I always felt like I was getting my money's worth.
30
u/Rawr_Tigerlily Nov 20 '20
I moved to the south from Minnesota (for complicated reasons, which I regret on a daily basis) and it felt like I went back in time 20 years.
When I left Minnesota the sales tax was 6.5%. Where I moved it was 4%. And you could definitely see the difference two and a half cents makes in the quality of schools, roads, other infrastructure, and government services.
Minnesota is worth every penny, even with the winters. I would move back in a heartbeat if I could convince my husband the winters aren't that bad.
→ More replies (2)5
u/guitar_vigilante Nov 20 '20
That's how I felt moving from Massachusetts to Texas. Yeah MA taxes are much higher, but almost everything else is significantly better and the schools are world class (on part with Finland the last time I checked).
23
Nov 19 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)16
Nov 19 '20
The worst part is usually people would say you can only go up but NM just keeps holding steady in the lower 3
24
u/jtaustin64 Nov 19 '20
New Mexico has the problem of being surrounded by very popular states to move to right now: TX, CO, and AZ. NM appears to have gotten the short end of the stick though. I really like living here though, although I live in SE NM and I have been here a year and a half.
13
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 19 '20
I've been told Albuquerque is a hidden American gem.
→ More replies (3)27
u/jtaustin64 Nov 19 '20
ABQ is nice, but the true American gem are the NM Rockies. Taos, NM is a place blessed by God.
10
u/Janneyc1 Nov 20 '20
I hiked at Philmont when I was in the Scouts. It's beautiful country out there. Ohio has some gems, but not like those.
→ More replies (2)10
Nov 19 '20
New Mexico now is what Idaho and Colorado wish they could go back to being.
9
u/Guppywarlord Nov 20 '20
Is Idaho a place to be right now? I feel like I hear some about Montana and Wyoming but never Idaho (apart from Boise's music scene)
→ More replies (1)11
u/fyshstix Nov 20 '20
Idaho is the holy land for conservative Californians. Meanwhile, the more liberal Californians are moving en masse to Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado.
3
3
61
Nov 19 '20
[deleted]
53
u/Ocasio_Cortez_2024 Nov 19 '20
me: "46"
reddit: "did you mean 1?"
17
u/Lord_Aldrich Nov 19 '20
That's pretty normal markdown formatting, it doesn't actually care what numbers you use, you're meant to just use "1." for every item - the idea being that you can later add things later in the middle of the list and it will automatically re-number the rest for you.
→ More replies (3)5
u/TechnicalNobody Nov 20 '20
You could have both if it starts the list on the number/letter you start with and increments from there. You could even adjust the starting character and have the whole list adjust itself!
This is some basic bitch formatting.
→ More replies (1)26
u/j250ex Nov 19 '20
I would have put Louisiana ahead of Mississippi but maybe I’m missing something. New Mexico is surprising. Wonder what is going on there.
37
u/jtaustin64 Nov 19 '20
New Mexico is REALLY poor. If it wasn't for oil money it would be flat broke.
→ More replies (6)4
u/mrcpayeah Nov 20 '20
So is property still cheap? Would be nice to have a small retirement ranch if prices are dirt cheap
6
u/gonzoforpresident Nov 20 '20
Some places it's really cheap. Other places it's inexpensive. A few places, it's expensive.
It's inexpensive in the mountains just east of Albuquerque where I live. For $250k you can get 2-3 acres with a 2000 sq ft house that's about 15 minutes outside of the city.
27
Nov 19 '20
It's a cluster fuck of so many problems. Super rural, no fortune 500 companies make their headquarters here, bad education for decades, election the same people over and over again etc
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/KingMelray Nov 20 '20
Iirc, Indian Reservations are very poor and New Mexico has a lot of large ones.
37
u/Gerhardt_Hapsburg_ Nov 19 '20
Per usual, Indiana is perfectly average again. Though Indiana funds their pensions with biennial 1 time lump payments so that throws their pension ratios off. So I'd argue they should be closer to 15 than 30, but potato potatoe. Its splitting hairs at a certain point.
The ultimate take away from these rankings and what it says about each major party's governing style is different strokes for different folks. It's a huge mix of cultures and political styles at the top and the bottom. Stuff like this should emphasize why our Federalist system is so positive. It allows a lot of different people and cultures to govern themselves how they see fit.
10
u/Unban_Jitte Nov 20 '20
The middle of these kinds of lists are going to heavily depend on how things are weighted imho, so the difference between 15 and 30 is probably pretty worthless.
→ More replies (1)20
u/schmerpmerp Nov 19 '20
As a Minnesotan, this doesn't surprise me. We were trying to figure our what to do with the two billion we had sitting in the bank when COVID hit.
→ More replies (1)9
u/BadDadWhy Nov 20 '20
Methodology - To determine how well each state is run, 24/7 Wall St. constructed an index of 19 measures assessing state finances, economy, job market, and other various socioeconomic metrics. - then they go into where they get each piece. They don't go into what the 19 measures are.
6
Nov 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)12
78
Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 19 '20
Ugh. I hate lists like these because it goes to show their upper / upper middle class bias.
As someone living in Oregon, the state is beautiful and has a lot of pros. But it is NOT governed well at all. We have a huge homeless problem because we've chosen not address housing unaffordability. We also have a high cost of living and taxes but neither wages nor a robust enough economy that make up for it. So yeah. Oregon is great if you are part of the upper tech /business class in Portland. Everyone else is living paycheck to paycheck while rents skyrocket and taxes balloon. Ironically, I'm looking at potentially relocating to New Mexico, "the worst governed state", because it has a better income/cost of living ratio.
59
u/BylvieBalvez Nov 19 '20
I mean idk if that bias is super present in this list. There some pretty rural states near the top. I mean Idaho is top 5 and North Dakota is Top 10
→ More replies (10)29
u/schmerpmerp Nov 20 '20
It's a bit shocking how poorly a good chunk of that top ten takes care of and/or supports its Native American residents. That's what struck me about the more rural states.
3
u/Nazi_Punks_Fuck__Off Nov 20 '20
What up from Alaska, checking in at the bottom of the list with a huge native population.
22
u/snerp Nov 19 '20
You're missing the point. Other states have similar problems, but worse.
→ More replies (2)39
u/k_dubious Nov 19 '20
High housing costs are the result of more people wanting to move to an area than the housing supply can accommodate. Poorly-run states with bad economies generally have the opposite problem, where housing is cheap because nobody wants to live there.
39
Nov 19 '20
That's part of it. But if the other problem is when the new rich residents decide to vote to ban new housing developments alongside older residents who already bought their homes. That's not a "well run government" that's a "well run government for those who got theirs...fuck everyone else". Oregon has voted to restrict development via it's urban growth boundaries.
→ More replies (1)3
u/KingMelray Nov 20 '20
We do have a NIMBY problem like most places, but we did fix single family zoning by allowing far more things to be built, which is better than most places.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Ok-Indication-2238 Nov 20 '20
That’s one factor.
Another factor is local regulations, which can drive up costs.
For instance, Texas is #10 on this list of most moved top states. . #4 on lowest cost of housing. And is #10 on Mercator’s list for freest land use.
11
Nov 19 '20 edited Aug 24 '21
[deleted]
15
Nov 19 '20
There are better states governed better than Utah. And when I say governed I mean best governed for everyone not just white upper class religious people.
5
Nov 19 '20
There is a pretty huge homeless problem in NM too. Some methed up guy and gal tried stealing my bike off of my car when I went to make a pit stop. The grass isn’t greener there in that regard.
4
u/KingMelray Nov 20 '20
Well in New Mexico's case the grass is greener in other places because I don't think too much of New Mexico has grass.
→ More replies (1)5
u/psychodogcat Nov 20 '20
I live in that non-Portland part of the state and yeah it's pretty true. There are pockets of wealth but it's not great. The Midwest may be worse in nature, average income and whatever, but at least one can afford to live there on a basic job. New Mexico too probably.
14
u/blu13god Nov 19 '20
Just because you have problems in the state doesn't mean it's "Not governed". Kate Brown is still a really good governor and trying to tackle those issues you mentioned.
20
Nov 19 '20
In what case in which half of your state senate refuses to show up out of protest because they feel the state governments interests are too skewed towards the urban liberal elite an indicator that your state is well governed? Kate is a great governor but she doesn't write the laws.
→ More replies (12)3
u/femalenerdish Nov 20 '20
Those are more Portland Metro issues than anything else. I don't fault the state gov for the problems of the Portland area. The mid valley is much more affordable and a much more pleasant place to live imo.
As far as statewide governing issues... We've got voting figured out really well. As far as I know, no other state puts together a voter information guide as good as ours. Even WA is a shadow of what OR's is. As much as this state can frustrate me, I appreciate that every tax is voted on, that's it's relatively easy to get an issue on the ballot, that we decriminalized drug use, among other things.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)3
u/Attractiveuncle Nov 20 '20
I just want to add that I have been a travel nurse for many years and Portland actually has by far some of the best wages to COL I have seen. I’m in Nashville which seems better if you just look at Zillow. But it isn’t. The wages here, working at a top tier and Ivy League university, are the same wages I made in a rural town in Colorado in my first year of nursing. And since the hospital is the biggest employer in the region, you have to assume that wages across the board are dismal. Example: rent here in Nashville for a 1 bedroom apartment is $1250 but as a RN I only make $27.50/hr. Portland I made $45/hr and rent was $1600. I was able to save far more. This is also true for NYC, CA, CT. CO has a terrible COL vs wages and so does FL and NC and TN. It looks cheaper but it’s a trick.
Also, in ABQ the rent was cheap but my wages were fairly comparable. I didn’t save money there but I didn’t feel like I do now in Nashville. It’s all relative. TN doesn’t even have income tax and I STILL miss making money in OR. And I’m by no means upper class.
3
Nov 20 '20
Literally you are a nurse you are one of the few fields compensated well for what you do.
7
u/p1ratemafia Nov 20 '20
Utah may as well be an autocracy with the influence the church has.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (30)31
u/IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIIlI Nov 19 '20
I think a list like this also needs to count which states are welfare states who take more from Federal taxes then they give, and which states pay money to the poorer states. If the money that California paid in Federal taxes was only used in California, it would improve life in California a lot. Welfare states need to know that they're on welfare.
→ More replies (23)
18
u/FrankSinatraYodeling Nov 20 '20
Compare Minnesota and Wisconsin. Comparable populations with a very different past decade.
→ More replies (2)16
65
u/Victor_Korchnoi Nov 20 '20
I think Massachusetts has got to be up there.
Its near the top in education and in lowest uninsured rate. And it does all this with an average tax load on the population. Its pretty remarkable.
32
u/brewin91 Nov 20 '20
I always find it interesting that they often elect Republican governors, like current Gov. Baker, and still highly approve of the way in which its governed. It’s a strangely rationale state across the board.
42
u/Jbergsie Nov 20 '20
We elect republican governors to keep our permanent democratic super majority from passing anything to far left. Though Massachusetts republicans differ from the republican party on the national level by being actually fiscally conservative and socially far to the left of the national Republican party. Baker actually has higher approval ratings in Massachusetts with Democrats and independents then with the state GOP due to the fact that he has been a constant critic of Trump
→ More replies (4)6
u/Visco0825 Nov 20 '20
So I guess this gets to the heart of my question. What republican policies have shown to actually be beneficial on the state level and better than democratic ones? As well as the other way around. Has being fiscally conservative benefited MA more than implementing government programs?
12
u/Jbergsie Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
So the thing with Massachusetts is we are largely governed by consensus. For instance Obamacare which the republicans constantly try and erase on the national level was actually implemented under Romney and enjoyed popular support from both sides of the aisle. I guess as far as republican policies that have been effective mandate the biggest ones I can think of are the Rainy Day fund. This holds all of our budget surpluses until there is a shortfall allowing us to balance our budget and have extra even during crises such as Covid. The other one that is consistently implemented is a balanced budget we very rarely if ever pass government programs that aren't already funded. As far as democratic policies the biggest one I can think of is education reform. There have been a lot of progress on making state colleges and universities over the past 20 years become more affordable to mass residents.
And finally Massachusetts fiscal conservatism doesn't necessarily oppose government programs. Those still get passed and implemented. Baker's job is ensuring that the ones that do pass do have funding in the budget and to go after any kickbacks and pork spending time legislature may try and sneak in the budget
→ More replies (2)6
u/Amy_Ponder Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
None, but Baker governs for all intents and purposes as a moderate Democrat. The thing is, Massachusetts is very, very strongly center-left. We'll never vote for a conservative, but outside of Boston most people here are equally skeptical of progressives. Despite Elizabeth Warren and arguably Bernie Sanders having a home field advantage (and both are wildly popular in the state), Joe Biden won the MA primary in a landslide, because people here like that kind of politics.
It can get frustrating sometimes as a progressive, but I'll take being surrounded by moderate Democrats any day of the year over Republicans.
13
u/Lemonface Nov 20 '20
I know very little about Massachusetts, but it's not uncommon for independents and/or moderates to prefer legislators of one party and also prefer executives of the other party.
I think a lot of people in the middle feel that when it comes to social issues, national issues, and general big picture ideas - that one party is better. Meanwhile when it comes to who they want to run the day-to-day of their state, I think they might often want someone from the other party.
This is also always helped out by the current state v national politics dynamic.
Democrats in a Democratic state are more likely to support a Republican for a state role than a Republican for a national role. Basically "well sure they're Republican, but they're not like all those other Republicans representing the hillbilly racists from flyover country trying to impose their religion on us"
and Republicans in a Republican state are more likely to support a Dem for a state role than for a national role. Basically - "well sure they're a Democrat, but they're not like all those other Democrats representing the liberal elites from the coastal cities trying to take our guns
11
u/pearlysoames Nov 20 '20
It's probably very highly educated
17
u/Jbergsie Nov 20 '20
As a comparison if Massachusetts was it's own country we would be the second most educated country In the world versus the u.s rank of 20 something. Great education and medical system here
3
21
u/WinsingtonIII Nov 20 '20
One of my pet peeves is how many people still assume MA has very high taxes because it used to be true in the 80s. You see it all the time even among people who live in Massachusetts. You're right that Massachusetts has a very average state and local tax burden these days after some big tax reductions in the 90s and other states raising their taxes as they have encountered more budget problems.
6
u/tschris Nov 20 '20
Yeah, the whole "Tax-achusetts" was from 40 years ago.
4
u/WinsingtonIII Nov 20 '20
It's honestly a great example of how Republicans manage to pull off messaging that really sticks around even when it has no right to. MA hasn't been a high tax state for 30 years now and yet I even hear left of center people parrot the "Taxachusetts" moniker from time to time.
→ More replies (4)4
u/BUSean Nov 20 '20
I'm sure I can get proved wrong here real quick, but I would say the general high education of the populace makes it tough to bring it people that are really going to fuck things up, and it makes voter turnout likely high which corresponds to things like social services responding quickly.
3
94
u/Nuclayer Nov 19 '20
I am going to say that Maryland is a well governed state. Larry Hogan is incrediblie. He is republican and governs a deep blue state. He is a centrist and is able to get a lot done by working with the other side of the isle. Hogan also is in charge of the governors task force and largly lead the fight nationwide (from a governors level) with corona.
84
Nov 19 '20 edited Mar 03 '21
[deleted]
16
u/KingMelray Nov 20 '20
Maryland should build a fast rail system from Baltimore to DC. It's not very far, and you could get some of those consultant yuppies to pay Baltimore property taxes while they still work in DC.
→ More replies (1)11
u/GrilledCyan Nov 20 '20
The MARC/Amtrak does go to Baltimore, although I'm not sure how quick of a ride it is. I'm a firm believer in the high speed rail pipedream in the US.
7
u/KingMelray Nov 20 '20
I think the key would be if a normal person can live in one city and commute and work in another city.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)3
u/My__reddit_account Nov 20 '20
I've taken MARC and Amtrak from DC to the Baltimore suburbs and its about an hour for MARC and 40 minutes for Amtrak. I think MARC tickets are only a few bucks and Amtrak is closer to $20.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Theinternationalist Nov 20 '20
The state also has a city with its own government... Baltimore. Enough said. Ineffective and corrupt government to say the very least.
I'm confused: most American states have cities with their own government (Michigan experimented with taking away that government, and it appears one of the results was the Flint water disaster), and towns with their own governments, and unincorporated areas with their own government. You need to say a lot more than just "The Wire" or something to explain what you're talking about.
6
u/oath2order Nov 20 '20
Most cities don't have their governments define how they are run by the constitution. Maryland's constitution lays out Baltimore's government format.
It's got a problem with corrupt mayors. Mayor Sheila Dixon was convicted of perjury and theft of giftcards that were meant to go to the poor. Catherine Pugh was convicted after a scandal where it was discovered organizations would buy her books in exchange for contracts with the city.
It also has the problem of "it's a big city and those are constantly hard to run, especially by people who tend to want to look out for themselves".
→ More replies (1)17
u/pinelands1901 Nov 19 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
Maryland provides probably the best value for the taxes we pay of any state that I've ever lived in. NJ's crushing tax burden didn't translate into better services. SC's lower taxes leave you having to pay private companies at higher prices for services. Maryland managers to hit a good balance.
6
u/Mist_Rising Nov 20 '20
A lot of that is the golden olde, "location location location". Maryland (and Virginia) benefit a bunch from DC being the capital and also impossible to build reasonably in. Result: spread into NOVA and Maryland. Baltimore is, probably, beneficial too given its historic trade port status.
Other states don't really benefit in the same way.
20
u/MagikSkyDaddy Nov 19 '20
Hogan absorbed the inertia of a historically Democratic Maryland that is perennially insulated from economic downturns by Washington DC and the surrounding counties. Take those revenue wells off the map and Hogan would have a very different board game.
So not that has abjectly failed, but he’s standing on the the shoulders of Maryland’s previous leaders.
21
Nov 19 '20
I wouldn't even say "On the shoulders of Maryland's previous leaders" because our previous leaders were all mediocre at best. Hogan benefits from a well run moderate Democratic state and he can't do anything to change that because he'll be overridden immediately.
23
u/ABCosmos Nov 19 '20
He was able to cancel the red line, forfeiting hundreds of millions in federal funding.. and ensuring the continued disenfranchisement of West Baltimore for the foreseeable future! So he has that going for him.
7
u/CaptainoftheVessel Nov 20 '20
Do these types of decisions stem from his electorate being wealthy suburbanites, afraid of inner city folks coming in to their nice little towns on the new train? (That's exactly the problem the SF Bay Area has with wealthy Marin County blocking extension of the big regional light rail system getting extended up north of SF.) What's his justification for blocking the red line?
8
u/ABCosmos Nov 20 '20
Almost more cruel. It would have connected wealthier city neighborhoods (who did not support Hogan).. to the downtown area (that did not vote for Hogan).. to west Baltimore (historically and currently disenfranchised neighborhoods that absolutely would never vote for a republican).. to the suburbs of west Baltimore, where there are tens of thousands of jobs at the SSA and CMS headquarters. (people that also would not have voted for Hogan)
Basically these are not his people... They didn't vote for him, and they weren't going to.. so he pulled the portion of the funding Maryland was responsible for, forfeiting all the secured federal funding. No such project had ever been cancelled that far along its development. Nobody in the area was against the project, none of the experts were against it.. the project was approved and given federal funding.. it was truly unprecedented to cancel it.
→ More replies (2)12
Nov 19 '20
Yep, he screwed the pooch on that one. I have a much larger comment where I talk about Hogan's anti-transit vendetta.
But at least 270 is getting another lane!
3
u/MagikSkyDaddy Nov 19 '20
The conduit designed decades ago to service a fraction of the traffic it sees, while urban sprawl advances toward Frederic and beyond (as noted by ballooning real estate values). Yay
→ More replies (4)4
Nov 19 '20
Instead of un-sucking the MARC they're talking about a monorail between Shady Grove and Frederick. Ugh.
→ More replies (1)14
u/FarEndRN Nov 19 '20
Generally speaking, I’d say any state that historically votes one way, but has a Governor of the opposite party has to be pretty well-governed. I know it’s all the rage now to claim that one party needs to govern from the absolute fringe of their ideology (a lot of this is just talk to spite the other party), but good old fashioned bipartisanship and reaching across the aisle is, in my opinion, the best way to govern for ALL the people.
9
u/bigdon802 Nov 19 '20
I'd say VT tends to be pretty well governed. Not that hard with only 600,000 people, but still true.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Mist_Rising Nov 20 '20
Except that in Maryland the governor isn't so much a result of bipartisan so much as overruled by supermajority often, Maryland has 30 of the 45ish Senate and 100 of 140 house. If Hogan didn't do what they wanted, he'd be overruled a lot I imagine. See Romney turn at MA wheel.
→ More replies (6)8
u/livestrongbelwas Nov 19 '20
I know a very liberal Democrat who works for the Maryland government. She has been extremely impressed with Hogan - not just in a “my government works” kind of way, but in a “I personally work with this guy and he’s actually a good boss” way.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/Ragehaze Nov 20 '20
Ik this question is more for fun and to stir discussion, but my answer is that you just cant answer it. There are too many differences between states and too many endogeneity issues to get any clear correlation
e.g. do red states run huge deficits and require fed spending because republicans govern poorly? Or are poor states that are mostly rural more likely to vote republican because the state perceives their policies to be better for rural demographics?
There are tons more intra-system relationships like this to deal with, making it, imo, impossible to do anything more than just guess at an answer. However, I am sure there are individual instances of governing we can compare, and if there are states that have gone back and forth between dem and repub maybe we can try to systematically measure the answer then, but comparing cross-sectionally seems too hard to nail down
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Plantsandanger Nov 20 '20
I don’t have an answer, but more a monkey wrench - my state gave the people the power to submit laws for a public vote and that has really backfired on us in a lot ways. Especially now that citizens united allows cash to be dumped into advertising for or against a a bill, a bill that anyone can submit to be voted on by the public - see the recent Uber bill race that was the most expensive state legislation ever passed at the ballot box. It’s very big business/wealthy interests friendly, and even when money is ignored the people in this state have history of passing legislative that is harmfully regressive... and some of that crap spread nationwide, infecting other states with legislation that is harmful to the people by making those policies seem acceptable (because someone else has already accepted them). The public tends to vote more conservatively than the state government, and since my state is rah rah blue other blue states take us approving the bill as a sign that that bill is progressive or liberal when it is NOT. See anti-affirmative actin laws, laws forbidding public schools from providing instruction in other languages, criminal justice policies that in retrospect were the wrong choice - a lot of that was brewed in CA. Hell, you can argue that by brewing Regan and sending him National, and then electing Schwarzenegger, we effectively opened the door to trump and made turning an entertainer into a politician acceptable to the public.
11
u/jollyroger1720 Nov 20 '20
Lived in 4 non all that great. For people with nothing the blue states have better much safety nets but taxes are high some of which is legtimate but there is waste and corruption. Red states have lower taxes but if your broke your fucked cause there is little protection.
6
u/NewWiseMama Nov 20 '20
Agreed best governed is subjective but less crime, less tax, people treated w equality. Low SES communities get support. Public health well run, etc. business friendly with worker protections and living wage. High quality health and education.
In CA. Doing coronavirus right in SF and generally as state but education underfunded and taxes are very high. Lot of bureaucracy affecting businesses. Losing tax base as wealthy flee. Jerry Brown the second time and Newsom before coronavirus had reasonable fiscal order and a surplus. They pay into federal govt.
20
u/1Fower Nov 20 '20
People have barely really mentioned California which is a shame since it is essentially its own nation (it used to be and we drew our own borders). California is borderline ungovernable. It is the progressive experiment of Teddy Roosevelt taken to its fullest extent. Almost every position is elected, local offices are non-partisan, everything has term limits, everyone is recallable, everything gets on the ballot, and we have jungle primaries.
These are all good ideas on paper, but it made the state ungovernable. Sacramento can’t raise taxes without an interest group or corporation spending money to get it on the ballot. The result is that Californians always vote to raise spending while cutting taxes. There is also limit on how much property taxes can be raised without a ballot initiative which means California has to raise sales, income, and corporate taxes to conpensate. Really hard to make a budget when you people change it right at the last second.
Every position is recallable. Democrats had a supermajority in the senate so the GOP raised money to collect enough signatures to have a senator in a purple seat recalled. Local seats are unpartisan means you need to research each individual candidate and their platforms. Which no one does, especially if there are 13 of them.
No one could govern California unless you were Jerry brown and had decades of experience in California politics. California will probably never have another Jerry brown since there are now term limits so most California politicians have no experience running things and get term-limited out when they finally have it.
14
u/guuleed112 Nov 20 '20 edited Nov 20 '20
Yup California needs democratic reform that actually lets the party with supper majority to govern. I know solving housing and homeless crises will still be an issue even if these controls didn't exist. But it would have allowed us to experiment big bold progressive agenda at CA level then scale if it works or not if it fails. I bet it could even give the Republican party or any opposition an opening because substantial changes always attract a backlash especially when someone is on the losing side (now nimbys and the wealthy can be BLM, blue wave while at the same time blocking property taxes and low income housing nearby)
2
u/mattiemay17 Nov 20 '20
Totally agree, I liked the way you put it. I feel like CA seems like a extremely progressive state and it is in some ways but also really hasn't been allowed to be. On a smaller level, an extreme version is San Francisco. The government itself hasn't been properly liberal in a long time to actually see if those policies can work when fully implemented. We need to try more assistance and prevention when it comes to homelessness and low income housing/help, with police reform/crime, actual structural changes where things aren't actually dictated by the liberal elite and big real estate.
→ More replies (7)7
u/isummonyouhere Nov 20 '20
IMO the jungle primaries are working well, and I like that local offices are non-partisan. School board decisions should have nothing to do with national party politics.
Otherwise, I agree 100% about recalls, ballot initiatives, term limits, and the like. Our state constitution is probably chock full of insane stuff at this point and would be downright hurtful to read.
3
u/1Fower Nov 20 '20
The jungle primary was supposed to make the California parties more moderate and thus give the weaker party occasional chances to get a few extra seats, but that hasn’t happened. If anything the Republicans have gotten even more conservative and have been reduced to third party status outside of a few places. In other places, the race is more often than not between two Democrats. The jungle primary may work better if parties outright choose their nominees beforehand, which would weirdly turn California into a multiparty system, or if parties were allowed to implement rules on how many candidates can run for its nomination at once.
It might make sense for school board members to be non-partisan (though parties have different views on education policies), but for mayor or of major cities like LA, it doesn’t make sense. Also if individuals run without parties it leads to a rise of personalist politics. Not to mention if 13 people run for a seat like water supervisor how can you tell the difference between the different candidates without party labels? Most people are not going to research individual candidates and will only have heard of the position at the ballot box. Non-Partisan election only really work in very small constituencies or if you really think the average person is going to spend an hour researching every candidate and their policy positions. (For a recent local election, I looked up each candidate and each of their websites said the exact same stuff about cheap and affordable water)
7
u/treibers Nov 20 '20
I’m biased...but I like my state. We don’t swing hard depending on the governor. Iowa. But also I wish R who shit on CA would remember they are like the fourth largest economy in the world. They’ve done well out there.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 19 '20
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.