“A whopping 14 million to 23 million Americans are planning to relocate to a new U.S. city or region due in part to the growing acceptance of remote work, according to Upwork’s Remote Workers on the Move report released Thursday.  …According to the study, 20.6% of residents of major cities are planning to move beyond normal commuting distances. The majority, 54.7%, want to relocate over two hours away or more from their current location, indicating they expect remote work to be a permanent option for them in the long term.”- Vast migration of over 14 million Americans coming due to rise in remote work, study shows by Lori Ioannou/CNBC; October 29 2020 

“If Democrats abandoned liberal enclaves and spread into Red America, they could more easily win elections… Given the okay to go remote, workers in expensive cities may use their freedom to move to cheaper metros where they can afford more space, inside and outside. In political terms, this would reallocate the Democratic bloc.” - The Workforce Is About to Change Dramatically Derek Thompson/The Atlantic; August 6, 2020

Before anyone assumes that remote workers moving from Blue to Red areas will change the politics of their new home, consider another possibility: their new home may change the Blue transplants even more. That’s because political views aren’t fixed for life and where one lives can have a big effect on how one thinks about politics. At least that’s according to Jeffrey Lyons, a political scientist who studies why people change their political views over time. The rest of this post summarizes Lyons’ findings on factors that make some people more likely to change their politics than others.

Place

People are more likely to change their political views when they live in states or counties dominated by the other party. That is, Democrats who live in a Republican-dominated state or county are more likely to change their political views than Democrats who live in a Democratic state or county. Ditto for Republicans living in Democrat-dominated areas. Objective dominance is what counts here, especially when supporters of the dominant party outnumber supporters of the other party by more than 20 percentage points. The mere perception of dominance is inconsequential.

So, how does the dominant political party exert its influence on unbelievers? Lyons found “robust evidence that both discussion networks and personality traits determine who is responsive to the political environment surrounding them. That is, it matters both who you are, and who you talk to.”

Social Networks

The social networks that matter are what Lyons calls “discussion networks” - that is, people we converse with: co-workers, neighbors, the friendly grocer, fellow congregants, other parents, etc. If we talk with enough people from the other side, eventually we’ll become better informed about their political views and more understanding of why they think the way they do. Some of us will find ourselves agreeing with them more and more. But not everyone is so easily influenced. For one thing, extreme partisans tend to be rather closed-minded about the merits of opposing political views. For another, our “micro-environment” of home and family may buffer us from outside political influence, as when a hardcore spouse sets us right whenever we begin to wobble. Personality also plays a role in how susceptible we are to the influence of discussion networks.

Personality

Lyons found that extroverts living in states dominated by the other party were more likely to change their political minds when exposed to opposing views in their discussion networks. Discussion networks seemed to have no effect on introverts in these states. This makes sense, as extroverts will speak more often and engage those around them on a much more frequent basis, while introverts tend to keep to themselves and are not exposed as much to the variety of opinions surrounding them.

People who scored low on “agreeableness” were also more likely to change their political views when exposed to different opinions in their discussion networks. The most agreeable seemed unresponsive to opposing opinions. As with introverts, agreeable people may simply not engage others with whom they disagree. They may nod and smile but shut down internally when faced with possible unpleasantness. The less agreeable may be more comfortable in situations where a range of political opinion is expressed. Over time, exposure to people with whom one disagrees may provide reasons to doubt one’s original candidate preferences, vote choices and policy attitudes.

A tendency to self-doubt may be the reason anxious individuals were also more likely to change their political views when exposed to people with different views. This is purely speculation on my part - Lyons did not provide much of an explanation, except that emotionally stable people are more stable in their opinions as well as their emotions.

That’s it: extroverts, disagreeable people, and nervous Nellies are the most likely to change their political minds if they live in areas where the Other Party dominates and they’re exposed to opposing views in their discussion networks. That’s a lot of people. America is in for a major shift in political attitudes as more city folk move to the suburbs and beyond. My guess is that Democrats who move to conservative areas will become more moderate in their views and the Democrat party will shift a bit to the center.

References:

Lyons, J. (2017), The Family and Partisan Socialization in Red and Blue America. Political Psychology, 38: 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12336 

Lyons, J., Sokhey, A.E. (2017) Discussion Networks, Issues, and Perceptions of Polarization in the American Electorate. Polit Behav 39, 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9387-7  

Lyons, Jeffrey. How Places Shape Partisanship. Dissertation (2014) https://scholar.colorado.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/br86b370j