As long as migration tends to benefit states that apply the winning formula of low taxes, light regulation, and limited government, every census cycle should see the systematic Democratic advantage in the Electoral College erode a little bit more.

Tweet

Is there a more under-appreciated aspect of America’s constitutional design than the 10th Amendment? By reserving for the states all powers not explicitly delegated to Washington, it created a powerful brake on big government: competition.

With states free to set wildly varying policies, citizens get a choice: When your government gets a little too comfortable taking advantage of you, you can always pick up stakes and head for greener pastures.

While that dynamic has been at work since America’s founding, it’s becoming more acute in the modern age. These days, it’s not especially expensive, logistically difficult or time-consuming to move to another state — at least not in comparison to generations past.

With the nation’s economy becoming increasingly decentralized — more independent contractors, more telecommuters — the relationship between where someone lives and what they do for a living is becoming more attenuated by the day.

While that’s good news for citizens, it’s ominous for Democratic politicians. According to the American Legislative Exchange Council’s 2015 “Rich States, Poor States” report, the vast majority of states facing a net loss of citizens from 2004-2013 were Democratic strongholds committed to big government and high taxes.

The five worst offenders — New York, Illinois, California, Michigan and New Jersey —  were practically laboratories of liberalism. Unsurprisingly, the story was a little different in the states that saw the largest population increases. The five biggest success stories —Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia — all have Republican governors and state legislatures completely controlled by the GOP.

Amazingly, there’s precious little evidence that Democrats feel chastened by these developments. Rather than offering reformist alternatives, the Left has stood by while tough-minded Republicans have swept into the governor’s offices in Illinois, Michigan and New Jersey (California and New York may be beyond rehabilitation).

And to look at the Democratic presidential field — the candidates in which hail from deep blue Vermont, Rhode Island, New York and Maryland — is to look at a party completely out of touch with the economic dynamism occurring in the Sun Belt states of the South and the West.

There’s an interesting political dynamic at work here: With liberalism now having become largely cabined to the West Coast, the Northeast and a few safe havens in the Upper Midwest (Minnesota, for instance, is the only state in the nation that never voted for Ronald Reagan for president — don’t expect them to come to their senses any time soon), Republicans have made big gains in state legislatures, governorships and congressional seats. That doesn’t mean, however, that winning back the presidency in 2016 is a foregone conclusion.

The problem is that while blue states may be hemorrhaging people, they’re still large in absolute terms — and they still go a long way towards picking the president. By themselves, the Democrats’ big three — California, New York and Illinois — provide 104 electoral votes, nearly 40 percent of the total needed to put a candidate in the White House.

Illinois and California haven’t gone for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. New York hasn’t done so since 1984. Because the distribution of electoral votes (the total number of which is fixed at 538), is only reallocated every 10 years (when new census numbers are released), that dynamic is not going to change anytime soon.

That has two implications for Republicans with their eyes on the White House. First, the handful of remaining swing states in the nation (the redoubtable Larry Sabato says there are only seven left — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia) are crucial. Putting forth a candidate who doesn’t have a shot at winning over voters in those places is a recipe for electoral suicide.

Second, time is on the GOP’s side. As long as migration tends to benefit states that apply the winning formula of low taxes, light regulation, and limited government, every census cycle should see the systematic Democratic advantage in the Electoral College erode a little bit more.

Pro-growth states like Texas and Florida will see their number of electoral votes increase while big government basket cases like New York and California will see theirs decline.

It turns out that the GOP has stumbled onto a virtuous cycle: Govern the states well and you’ll attract more citizens. Attract more citizens and the road to the White House will be much easier to navigate. Though it takes awhile, the system eventually rewards excellence. It’s almost as if the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.