| >Is immigration actually meaningfully impacting party demographics? Yes. I will edit in a few examples from several countries in a moment. It's worth noting, however, that interest displacement/dilution is still an issue even if it doesn't force/induce party clustering.
Individual parties shifting policy priorities/implementations/strategies to cater to new voter bases to win power results in a relative deprioritization of citizens. The fundamental dynamics at play still apply. If the largest demo in a nation only occupied, say, 40% of it's voter base, a coalition of the other demos can override them and (if the competition is polarized enough) will eventually realize the dominant strategy is to actively reduce that groups numbers and power to secure the position of the coalition and the individual power of each of it's members. Its entry level conflict theory in practice. Edit:
Sources. Overall trends in party affiliation(USA):
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/26/what-the-... Immigration trends in party loyalty (USA):
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... Trends in immigration settlement patterns:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/20/key-findi... Trends in voting patterns by settlement region:
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-... The takeaway here is that immigration flows to areas with shared want/need profiles and elevate the national power of those demand slates, displacing power from alternative slates.
Whether this good or not depends on if the demands of immigrants overlap with your own demands. If they do, you are empowered. If they do not, you are disempowered. |