DiscussMormonism.com

I've been thinking about the relationship between urban/rural voting patterns. I ran across a statistic that is rather astounding:

The median Republican Congressional district now has a population density 11 times smaller than the median Democratic district.

I didn't think the difference would be that large, but the idea makes sense to me. People who live in crowded cities are going to have a greater appreciation of the importance of infrastructure provided by government, and that infrastructure will have a greater impact in their lives.

If you live in the country, you're going to have a greater sense of self-reliance. You're going to see initiative as much more important than cooperation. You're going to have a different perspective on guns if more deer than people are shot where you live.

When Sarah Palin's acceptance speech scoffed at the idea of Barack Obama being a community organizer, I think it was in some ways a function of being from Wasilla. And when Obama made his comments about small town people clinging to guns and religion definitely comes from a Chicago perspective.

So I guess the rule of thumb is, if you can hear your neighbor, he's probably a Democrat. If you have to drive to your neighbor, he's probably a Republican.

Obviously there are many exceptions (Salt Lake City, Big Sur, Sedona), but the statistical correlation is pretty stunning.



http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2011/01/population-density-and-political.html

Much is made of the red state vs. blue state divide in our current political era, but if you look at county by county breakdown of vote totals, this clearly is an issue of urban vs. rural since Bush vs. Gore.

This is Bush vs. Gore county by county:



Here's a satellite photo of the US's light pollution at night:



So, yeah, I think the premise of this thread is dead on. However, I think the analysis is a bit superficial and doesn't necessarily follow. After all, the 1920's political era had a rural vs. urban conflict going on, only the roles of Democrats and Republicans were reversed. But on issues of economic assistance and expansion of government infrastructure, it was the Democrats who still favored it more. Being out in the boondocks doesn't have to breed a sense of self-reliance and desire to avoid government interference.

This is why if some nation nukes some of our coastal cities, it would be no great loss.

bcspace wrote:This is why if some nation nukes some of our coastal cities, it would be no great loss.

Yes, nuclear holocaust is a hilarious prospect for the future. I can't wait for countless innocent people being vaporized either.

Seriously, you're sick.

A oceans rising due to Global Warming isn't fast enough (plus GW may not be real according to the latest thread). There are few legitimate alternatives.

bcspace wrote:A oceans rising due to Global Warming isn't fast enough (plus GW may not be real according to the latest thread). There are few legitimate alternatives.

You are either completely clueless or a troll. As such, I will take no chances and not (possibly) feed you again.

EAllusion wrote:So, yeah, I think the premise of this thread is dead on. However, I think the analysis is a bit superficial and doesn't necessarily follow. After all, the 1920's political era had a rural vs. urban conflict going on, only the roles of Democrats and Republicans were reversed. But on issues of economic assistance and expansion of government infrastructure, it was the Democrats who still favored it more. Being out in the boondocks doesn't have to breed a sense of self-reliance and desire to avoid government interference.

You are right, the dynamics of the division have changed. I think there are several factors:

1. The destruction of the family farm: Agriculture is now Agribusiness.

2. The great migration in the first half of the 20th century of African Americans from the rural south to northern cities. The general transformation of America from a rural to an urban country. In 1900 39% of the country was urban. In 1990 it was over 75% urban.

3. The breakup of the Roosevelt coalition, culminating with the Civil Rights act.

The other thing I would argue is that self reliance for many red state voters is the mythos of the Right, a matter of perception, not reality:

From TaxProf Blog:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

Apropos of the topic, I found this cartoon in the Oct. 8th issue of the New Yorker:

Kittens_and_Jesus wrote:

bcspace wrote:A oceans rising due to Global Warming isn't fast enough (plus GW may not be real according to the latest thread). There are few legitimate alternatives.

You are either completely clueless or a troll. As such, I will take no chances and not (possibly) feed you again.

Could he be completely clueless AND a troll? Seems a better fit...