North Dakota vs South Dakota

[Gren]

I've just noticed that while ND passed a ban on same sex marriage and civil unions by 73%, SD did the same but with only 52%. North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 (2004) was approved in all 53 ND counties, but South Dakota Amendment C (2006) failed in 17 out of 66. Since both states have similar demographics, why do you think this happened?

[Hash]

SD's law is much more conservative in that it also bans civil unions, partnerships and a lot of other things which aren't usually banned with run-of-the-mill anti-gay marriage amendments.

[muon2]

The Black Hills also add an area in SD with some of the "old West" libertarian streak that ND lacks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The SD law was very poorly worded:

Amendment C: amends the State Constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the Legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex.

Since this could in theory affect some heterosexual unions as well it scared some voters off.

[Holmes]

When the majority restricts the rights of the minority, it's scary when they could possibly be affected.

[jimrtex]

I've just noticed that while ND passed a ban on same sex marriage and civil unions by 73%, SD did the same but with only 52%. North Dakota Constitutional Measure 1 (2004) was approved in all 53 ND counties, but South Dakota Amendment C (2006) failed in 17 out of 66. Since both states have similar demographics, why do you think this happened?

They really aren't that similar.  For example in 2008, McCain got 53.16% of the vote in South Dakota, but only 53.15% in North Dakota.

[Gren]

Thanks to everyone. I thought  SD might be the black sheep of the Great Prairies or something like that, but yeah, that small difference between both texts is for sure the cause of that falsely encouraging 52%

[Husker]

They weren't done in the same year and it's possible that many SD voters were tired of the socially conservative agenda. Western SD definitely has a more rugged libertarian approach while eastern SD has politics similar to that of MN. South Dakota is a very sparsely populated state with an economy heavily dependent upon agriculture, which explains most of its (and ND/NE/western IA) republican tilt.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really wonder why the idea to create two different States from the Dakota territory came to the mind of 1890s' administration...

[Joe Republic]

I really wonder why the idea to create two different States from the Dakota territory came to the mind of 1890s' administration...

The two population centers in the territory were hundreds of miles apart, plus the Republicans wanted to add more strength to their Senate caucus by adding four senators instead of two.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

An east/west split probably would've made more sense. Well today that would leave the population too tilted in favor of the east though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I really wonder why the idea to create two different States from the Dakota territory came to the mind of 1890s' administration...

The two population centers in the territory were hundreds of miles apart, plus the Republicans wanted to add more strength to their Senate caucus by adding four senators instead of two.

True, it mostly explains such decision.

[jimrtex]

I really wonder why the idea to create two different States from the Dakota territory came to the mind of 1890s' administration...

The original capital of Dakota Territory was Yankton which is on SD-NE border.  It was later moved to Bismark.  In 1890, 58% of the population of North Dakota was in the eastern tier of counties along the Red River, and 75% in the first two tiers.

The population in SD was more dispersed, but about 3/7 was in the SE corner in the 4 tiers north of the Missouri that look like they though it would end up like Iowa.  There was also some population in the Black Hills (Deadwood rather than Rapid City).

There were 640K in the 4 western states created in 1889-90 (WA, ID, MT, WY) vs. 540K in the 2 eastern states (SD, ND) and SD had about the same population as WA.  They would not have expected that the population growth would stall in 1910 and hit a peak in 1930.

[Joe Republic]

Why did the growth stall in 1910?

[jimrtex]

Why did the growth stall in 1910?

There was a severe drought in 1910-11.  Homesteads up to then had been a maximum quarter section (160 acres), and there was a belief that the "rain followed the plow", that cultivation itself would attract rain.  Precipitation generally declines as you go west, and the Dakotas are slightly west of Nebraska and Kansas, so that the area that can be farmed (as opposed to ranched) is smaller.  And the growing season is shorter the further you go north.

And since the settlement period was so short, and improved transportation, towns hadn't developed which could support early industrialization.  WWI, and a change in immigration policy cut off a source of homesteaders as did increasing industrialization in the east.   So basically, the Dakotas had all the farmers that they needed for the land available.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There were 640K in the 4 western states created in 1889-90 (WA, ID, MT, WY) vs. 540K in the 2 eastern states (SD, ND) and SD had about the same population as WA.  They would not have expected that the population growth would stall in 1910 and hit a peak in 1930.

Indeed, I guess that if people who drew the future state had been able to foresee the future we'd have had a very different US States map.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It was more popular to hate the gays in 2004, and 2006 wasn't exactly a good Republican year.