Zac Schultz:
We turn now to an inside look at the polarized politics at the state legislature. Any old politician will fondly tell you stories about the good ole days when both sides could work together and solve problems and how that doesn’t happen anymore. A new study looks at whether there’s truth to that story. UW Green Bay Political Scientist Aaron Weinschenk joins us now from Green Bay. Thanks for joining us.

Aaron Weinschenk:
Thanks for having me.

Zac Schultz:
It turns out the good ole days were better, at least in terms of bipartisanship at the Capitol. Your study looks at roll call votes on the floor to see how often members vote with the opposite party and what does it show?

Aaron Weinschenk:
Yeah. Legislators in Wisconsin are very divided on the basis of political ideology. In fact, they’re further apart now than they ever have been in the data that we have.

Zac Schultz:
And how far back did you look? When does this trend start?

Aaron Weinschenk:
We have data going back to the mid to late 1990s and then every year since then up to pretty recently in 2016. So we have a pretty long time series where we can look at the ideological divide and it’s been growing pretty much every year in Wisconsin.

Zac Schultz:
Your study also looked at the rest of the Midwest. How does Wisconsin compare to some of the states surrounding us?

Aaron Weinschenk:
I was able to calculate the ideological distance between the parties in a bunch of our neighboring states. There again, we’re one of the most polarized states, relative to other Midwestern states. There’s only one state that’s more polarized than us, which is Michigan. We’re sandwiched in between Minnesota and Michigan.

Zac Schultz:
With the look at the roll call votes, is that the best way? Do politicians themselves agree with you that’s a fair way to judge polarization?

Aaron Weinschenk:
Yeah. That’s a pretty standard way of measuring it in political science. That’s what we’ve done to measure polarization in the U.S. Congress, which a lot of people hear about and is frequently reported on in the national news. It’s a pretty basic way of capturing ideology of politicians.

Zac Schultz:
For instance, in Wisconsin we just had the budget vote and the Democrats in the legislature all voted against the budget that was passed and yet they stood behind Governor Evers when he signed his partially vetoed version of it and Republicans are criticizing them saying, “You voted against this budget, now you’re standing behind it.” How would that vote influence their roll call votes? Showing more polarization even though they supported most of what was in that budget.

Aaron Weinschenk:
I think that’s an illustration of the legislators being pretty divided, but maybe a gesture by Governor Evers that he’s willing to work with Republicans. I’m sure that’s not his ideal budget. I think Republicans got a lot out of it. Maybe that’s him saying I’m trying to work with you. But I think that almost immediately afterwards there was motion or proposal put forward by Republicans to curtail some of the governor’s power and I think that’s polarization rearing its head again where it’s sort of trying to change the rules or limit the power of somebody in an institution who you maybe disagree with.

Zac Schultz:
In many cases in Wisconsin gerrymandering has created locked districts, where only one party can realistically win and the primary is the real race. The only way an incumbent can lose is to get “primaried” because they don’t follow the party line. How much does that have to do with polarization?

Aaron Weinschenk:
I think that’s a big part of it. These days parties want to control who runs for office. We hear a lot about parties challenging a person who’s a member of their party who doesn’t do exactly what they want or spending a lot of money to put up an opponent. So that definitely, I think, is an effect of polarization.

Zac Schultz:
Even if the next round of redistricting results in more competitive districts, there are still a lot of factors out there, cable news networks, news bubbles, increase in special interest money in elections. So in short, doesn’t look like polarization is going away anytime soon.

Aaron Weinschenk:
No. Definitely not. There’s a limit. Mathematically there’s a point where we can’t get any more polarized if every single person has a really extreme ideological position. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting pretty close. There aren’t very many moderates left in Congress or in state legislatures.

Zac Schultz:
The structure of the American political system really forces two parties to exist and doesn’t leave room for a third party. But if the parties keep drifting to the right and the left, does that open up room in the middle for a consistent third party to actually realize power as opposed to just being perhaps a spoiler in some elections?

Aaron Weinschenk:
Yeah. I think it’s going to be pretty difficult for a third party to emerge in American politics given the way that we operate our elections. I think that it does generate a lot of dissatisfaction and that may be why people are looking towards unconventional politicians or occasionally third parties. But I think it’s going to be difficult for a third party to win elections at the national level.

Zac Schultz:
Does this just create more cynicism for voters who are out there who may be in one of those districts where they don’t agree with the politician in power, but they have no way to get them out? Ultimately voters are the only ones that can change this, right?

Aaron Weinschenk:
That’s right. It is sort of a self-reinforcing cycle. I think voters sometimes withdraw when they think that things are really gridlocked and there’s nothing they can do about it or the same old people keep getting in. When you ask people who say they don’t like legislators or Congress what it is they don’t like, more than 50% will tell you something related to gridlock or being stuck or being too divided. So it definitely makes its way into how the public sees these institutions.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Aaron Weinschenk in Green Bay, thank you for your time today.

Aaron Weinschenk:
Thank you very much.