With New York in the books Hillary Clinton has tightened her stranglehold on the democratic nomination. There's been much analysis of how the wealthy, elderly and non-white, especially the Black south, have supported Hillary while the white, liberal working class has supported Bernie. These demographics have made the race fairly predictable to this point. However, there's another correlation that hasn't received much scrutiny, yet it provides an eerily prescient way of predicting election results— the health of a state's democracy. Democracy likes Bernie Sanders.
The Center For American Progress Action Fund (CFAPAF) ranked each state on the health of their democracy. These measurements were split into 3 sub-categories: Accessibility of the Ballot, e.g. the presence of voter ID laws; Representation in Government, e.g. felony disenfranchisement; and Influence in the Political System, e.g. Limits on Campaign Contributions. There is a strong (negative) correlation between a state's Health of Democracy (HoD) and Hillary Clinton's support.
There are many factors that determine how well a candidate does in certain states and so they results are clearly not proof of causation, but the trend is too strong to ignore. Ponder this: Of the six states in the top ten HoD that have voted so far Sanders has won all of them. Of the 10 states in the bottom 12 who've voted so far Clinton has won them all, including Alabama— the worst state in the country by HoD— by a four-to-one margin. If you look at the center of the HoD rankings the three states closest to center who've voted thus far were virtual ties decided by less than two percent of the vote. Looking at the HoD as two halves the Clinton trend continues (how couldn’t it with her taking the bottom 10). Sanders won four of the 22 states who've voted on the bottom half of the HoD spectrum. Hillary won 18 including the three virtual ties that she technically won. Conversely, Sanders has won 10 out of the 14 highest HoD states to vote thus far.
Of course no reasonable person would argue that these numbers aren't a result of a dynamic system, however, there are reasons to believe that a healthy democracy is in Sanders favor. Sanders message is directed towards the poor and working class who have been exploited and misrepresented. Unsurprisingly, Sanders has been consistently doing well among that part of the electorate. However, large swaths of this population have been disenfranchised. Felons who are barred from voting are also extremely likely to be poor, unable to find work, get an education or pay their medical expenses— tailor made Sanders supporters. The working class is the heart of Sanders base, but many working class people are disenfranchised by a lack of sufficient voting times, absentee balloting or convenient registration (registration in NY needed to be in by 2015 when most working class people in NY could hardly tell you a thing about Bernie Sanders, let alone register/change registration for him). And states with the most restriction on campaign finance are likely to benefit a candidate like Sanders who's campaign runs on small donors. The Sanders campaign's strength is also its weakness, it appeals to the disenfranchised.
Clinton will likely take D.C. and Maryland so Sanders won't sweep the top ten healthiest democracies. And with Pennsylvania and Indiana coming up Sanders may take two of the most mangled democracies from Clinton, but as of now democracy likes Sanders and disenfranchisement favors Clinton.
