Population density versus political affiliation

[Jeff250]

Why is there such strong positive correlation between population density and political affiliation? I.e., why do large population centers tend to be blue and rural areas tend to be red? Does being exposed to more or less people change your political affinity, for better or for worse?

[Spidey]

Well if people in higher density populations can more easily spread their ideas or tend to have more “group mentality” for whatever reasons, perhaps survival or community, then you can see why one concept might dominate over another.

If you then looked into why people think one way or another in the first place, such as being poor working class as a beginning of the population in that area, you might get some of the answers.

I know for a fact it is much easier for Democrats to express their ideas in my area then Republicans.

I don’t really know, that was all off the top of my head.

[Foil]

...people in higher density populations can more easily spread their ideas or tend to have more “group mentality”...

I'll agree; I think that's true to some extent.

On the other hand, I think people in higher-density population centers are generally more exposed to a much wider variety of cultures, which tends to attract more blue types.

For example, in my hometown, there's a definite cultural/diversity gradient as you move outward from downtown. If my wife and I go downtown, we often 'people-watch' because there are so many different kinds of people/languages/cultures there; but if we end up going out to a rural area, the culture and ethnicities get more homogeneous, which seems to attract more red types.

[Note: The "cultural gradient" effect doesn't seem as strong to me now as it did ten or fifteen years ago, which tells me that the cultural divide may be waning. My wife, who has the sociology degree, could probably expound better than I.]

[Pandora]

interesting question. its the same in germany. rural is conservative, more liberal in towns.

I wonder whether conservatism fits better to rural life where self-sufficiency is important and a daily aspect of life, and where people (want to) self-organize in small communities without much outside interference?

[Tunnelcat]

I think it comes down to one explanation, they don't like being in large groups of people. I mean think about it. If one desires to live in the country, one is obviously is self sufficient and not requiring, or desiring, a lot of interaction with strangers. They don't want strangers telling them what to do or who to help. They're not as open-minded or as tolerant of change. They like their little slow paced ruts. Yet conversely, they like interacting and working with family and local neighbors they know.

If one chooses to live in a city, being around a lot of other strangers either doesn't bother them, or is required for their social well-being. Living amongst large groups of total strangers is definitely something a person would have to enjoy, or at least be able to tolerate in some form. In a city, one can become anonymous and somewhat private very easily and ignore the neighbors and be just another face in the crowd. Since they have to live in close proximity to one another, they're also more likely to permit things that benefit the group instead of the individual. Stress is higher in cities as well. One has to constantly put up with people they don't know.

Now mind you, there are also variations and a spectrum in between these two extremes, so no one will fit cleanly into the molds of city or country. There's also suburbia, a blend of city and county, but when it comes down to it, suburbia is really more city than county.

I like this guy's take on the subject:

http://www.survivalblog.com/2006/12/cit ... ets_a.html

[Spidey]

Ha, that makes it all sound like personal choice, where people are born in some neutral place, then asked…where would you like to live. No people don’t like to be alone or like to live with strangers, that’s what’s natural for them, because it's the environment they were raised in.

Most people live where they do because that’s where they were born. Not some choice “hey let’s go live with strangers”.

People live in cities for one basic reason….WORK, people migrated into the cities for work, people stay in cities when there is work, and people leave cities when there is no longer work.

Small more spread out communities seems to be a much more natural state then big cities, but don’t get me wrong, there are definitely people who actually enjoy and prefer to live in the city.

But more or less you become accustom to the environment you were born into, and that’s the environment you think is normal, not so much a choice.

[flip]

I can somewhat agree with TC on her point. When I was in Seattle walking around I was the country mouse in the city. I seemed to be alot more aware of others around me than they were of me, for the most part anyways. I had a great time there just observing.

[Spidey]

Sounds like you are also making my point…grew up in the country…right?

[flip]

Yeah, for the most part. Lived in the suburbs of Atlanta until I was around 10-12 I guess, but it wasn't very populated at the time either. In fact, we moved to the country around that time and I remember I had never seen a traffic jam in Atlanta until I was around 20 I guess. It's not as bad here as it is just over the line in Alabama though. You can't ride down the road over there with both hands on the wheel, because you got to wave at everybody you pass . I laugh but I actually prefer it that way.

[Jeff250]

... which tends to attract more blue types.

... which seems to attract more red types.

I think it comes down to one explanation, they don't like being in large groups of people.

I agree with Spidey here. I think a small amount of it is political affiliation determining where people want to live, but by and large, people don't really have the luxury of choosing where to live based on politics. I think most of the phenomenon is where people are living (and its population density) determining their political affiliation.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Why is there such strong positive correlation between population density and political affiliation? I.e., why do large population centers tend to be blue and rural areas tend to be red? Does being exposed to more or less people change your political affinity, for better or for worse?

"More or less people" Heh. I don't care for your slant. It's ok. One of the differences I see is that people in rural areas enjoy more freedom and more self-reliance, and so value it more highly.

[flip]

I also don't think most of us are prepared to eat the dead either J/K, I think the sense of community is much higher in rural areas too. I also don't think you can really judge this by blue or red, unless your talking about this particular election. Aside from outright prejudice, which I've heard a great deal of (some expressed they would vote for anyone that is white), you also have people in rural areas that seem to have much stronger religious beliefs. Obama appears to them to be a threat to those beliefs I think or they are just easily swayed on one moral issue (abortion) instead of taking into account all of the issues. I myself am against abortion but it's also not something that is decided by a president. A great deal of people here took their stance against Obama on those grounds alone I think.

[vision]

The diversity in urban areas forces people to confront their prejudices more than rural areas. Tolerance is essential to success in large cities. Red states tend to be less tolerant of race, religion, sexual orientation, and even socioeconomic status, thus a perfect fit for the GOP platform. I think this is also in line with Jeff250's insightful comments about location influencing your preference rather than the other way around. If you grow up around diversity you are less likely to condemn those who seem different than you.

My opinion.


EDIT: I understand this seems to be the opposite of the poor, African-American stereotype who is racist, highly homophobic, deeply religious, and angry at rich folks. However, this is not true of all African-Americans, all poor people, straight people, and religious minded. There is definitely something exceptional about this subset of the African-American community that needs resolution.

[callmeslick]

agree with vision, completely, and this version illustrates why most major urban suburbs are turning 'Blue'. Those areas are becoming more diverse, notably with a huge influx of Asian professionals and more professional non-white North Americans as well. The force upon the residents to either be tolerant or fail is a huge driver, IMHO.

[Spidey]

If you think the big cities and large population centers in the US are bastions of liberal/progressive thinking…you might be in for a rude awakening.

Not everyone votes Democratic because they are a vanguard of progressive thinking.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The diversity in urban areas forces people to confront their prejudices more than rural areas. Tolerance is essential to success in large cities. Red states tend to be less tolerant of race, religion, sexual orientation, and even socioeconomic status, thus a perfect fit for the GOP platform. I think this is also in line with Jeff250's insightful comments about location influencing your preference rather than the other way around. If you grow up around diversity you are less likely to condemn those who seem different than you.

I was going to say that concentrated urban populations were degraded, dollar-driven, moral melting-pots too, but I didn't want to start something. Apparently that's a total plus for humanity, so it's a good thing I didn't get all negative about it.

[youtube]tpAOwJvTOio[/youtube]

It's so sad what a rural setting does to the mind.

[Tunnelcat]

Ha, that makes it all sound like personal choice, where people are born in some neutral place, then asked…where would you like to live. No people don’t like to be alone or like to live with strangers, that’s what’s natural for them, because it's the environment they were raised in.

Well, it probably is part choice, part environment, part genetics, but it may depend on how many people were around and how a person interacted with others when they grew up. Childhood experiences, good or bad, form and frame a person's sociological mindset.

If you think the big cities and large population centers in the US are bastions of liberal/progressive thinking…you might be in for a rude awakening.

Not everyone votes Democratic because they are a vanguard of progressive thinking.

Maybe not, but it's skewed blue in urban areas. You'll also find more blue and probably more progressive thinking in university towns.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671268/inf ... -is-purple

[vision]

[youtube]tpAOwJvTOio[/youtube]

It's so sad what a rural setting does to the mind.

Ok, I'll see your poor, mentally challenged black woman from Cleveland and raise you Honey Boo Boo. I think you are trying to make a disgusting point.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Mentally challenged is the new speak for mentally retarded, which she clearly is not. What she is, is loud and dull. Any point made with her outside of demonstrating that Obama is not in office purely because of enlightened decision is unfair, so no I'm not trying to make a point.

The sarcasm was sincere, though. Cities have their problems. I'm relatively familiar with rural problems, based on my exposure to people who live in the country (which I never have). At this point in time, IMO, the urban votes for Obama say a mouthful.

[vision]

...the urban votes for Obama say a mouthful.

They certainly do. Urban areas are a microcosm of our global situation. It includes things like:

• How to get along when different people and cultures are mixed together.
  How to manage space in a shrinking world.
  How to ensure millions of people have clean water and air.
  How to make sure people aren't going hungry.
  How to get people to be self-sufficient where resources are scarce.
  How to balance massive economic inequalities.
  How to deal with crime and violence stemming from the above.
  The list goes on and on...

It is urban residents that are on the front lines and it's in cities where creative solutions to world problems are happening, not in the country (unless of course there happens to be a university there and those young smarty-pants just vote Democratic anyway, right?).

[Spidey]

I’m pretty sure it’s the people in the country that are making sure people don’t go hungry.

As for the multi-cultural aspect, I think I have to discount that idea, because this sort of thing is happening in countries with pretty much, more or less homogeneous populations.

How to be self-sufficient where resources are scarce…that has to better describe country folk than city.

I’m not going to go on commenting on that list, because quite frankly, I can’t find the correlation to creating Democrats. (water is a larger concern in rural areas, than in cities...etc)

So, after reading this thread, and thinking about it…the answer is…….


Self reliance vs. dependence on government services. (and we all knew that already...right)

[vision]

How to be self-sufficient where resources are scarce…that has to better describe country folk than city.

Not true. People in rural areas, smaller communities have more options and more resources. You can supplement your grid power with your own wind turbine. You can supplement your food costs by growing your own food or raising some livestock on your land. Rural residents often have the option to get water from wells. You can't do any of these things when you are living on the 6th floor of an apartment surrounded by miles of concrete. This is why there are all these initiative for greener cities, urban farming, and whatnot. It's to help meet scarcity and further self-sufficiency. There aren't any progressive ideas like that coming from the country. Urban dwellers are future minded that way. We can't all just move to the country and get a plot of land, now can we? Sure rural people can be "self-sufficient," but they don't face the challenges that urban people have achieving the same self-sufficiency. Also, most people don't want government handouts. They are forced into those positions more often than not.

Going back to the red/blue state argument, looking at the GOP's stance on a lot of things is just plain backwards. Hell, none of them even admit climate change exists. My hunch is that the people who voted for the Democratic platform are voting with a realistic view of the future in mind, which is refreshing.

[Spidey]

It’s literally impossible to be self sufficient in the city, you can’t hunt, you can’t farm, you can’t drill a well, you can’t just build a shelter, you can’t make your own clothing, and stuff like firewood and other fuels are at a premium, so any notion of self sufficiency in the city is an illusion.

[Jeff250]

Why does that feeling of self-sufficiency not extend to legislating morals then?

[Burlyman]

Why is there such strong positive correlation between population density and political affiliation? I.e., why do large population centers tend to be blue and rural areas tend to be red? Does being exposed to more or less people change your political affinity, for better or for worse?

heh... actually I think it's the other way around. Am I right or am I right? ^_~

[Sergeant Thorne]

Why does that feeling of self-sufficiency not extend to legislating morals then?

Heh

People who make their own living--people in the country do not have as much incentive (if you will) to sacrifice conviction for success. They don't need to fit-in or be accepted by as scrutinizing an examination to get ahead. They don't feel the same pressure to not make an issue of moral issues. Basically what you have in the city is a lot of peer pressure toward not discriminating in any way, combined with the conveniently popular idea, which has a number of origins, that you shouldn't (especially morally). But that's only part of it. I believe the economy of a city has a way of distancing people from certain realities, leaving a void which may be filled by more artificial realities.

So there's where rural conviction comes from. As far as legislating that, I think you've over-stated it, but some desires for more rigid legislation just comes from ignorance of the importance of a person's own convictions determining their course, and not those of another. City folks often can't make that mistake because they lack conviction. At the same time it's important to hold people's feet to the fire, morally. Not all actions stem from different moral conviction. People do things against their better judgment--things that they know are wrong, but they override it more often than not by empty reasoning (justification for stealing from an employer, for instance). Once upon a time everyone knew it was wrong to have an abortion. What happened? What happens? Society tells a woman that it's her choice, and the doctor assures her along the way. The woman constructs what I would call empty reasoning to justify her actions. It's wrong to take the life of an unborn child. I can say that because I have not grown up in an environment where I felt compelled to sacrifice that conviction to success, or to fit in.

[Spidey]

Why does that feeling of self-sufficiency not extend to legislating morals then?

The belief that morals don’t come from self?

[callmeslick]

Why does that feeling of self-sufficiency not extend to legislating morals then?

The belief that morals don’t come from self?

the God thing again??

[Spidey]

Yes the “God Thing Again” seeing how most Republicans still believe in one.

[callmeslick]

...but which one? I mean, it sure isn't the one who supposedly sent his son here to say stuff about rich men, camels and eyes of needles?

[flip]

I have found that most christians themselves have totally misunderstood who Jesus was, mainly from just taking the words of others and not seeking for themselves. I have no doubt that those on the outside know even less. Jesus was a man, born of the Holy Spirit to be a perfect sacrifice so that the sin GOD hates could be destroyed in us by His presence in us. After everything is brought into subjection to Jesus, he turns right around and hands it all to the Father, who is above all. We are co-heirs with Jesus and God made him LORD of all because he was without sin, but the day will come when Jesus puts himself under subjection of God too.

EDIT: For reference: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This verse is an outright addition that is not in the original text or any other translation. This was snuck in by the Roman Catholic Church to enforce their own personal interpretation of the word. Imagine how many countless lives could have been spared between muslims and christians. The main contention between the 2 is the muslims say GOD is ONE, and Christians were claiming He was 3 . I hate to even think of how many manuscripts they also destroyed that didn't fit into their views. Pisses me off.

[Spidey]

...but which one? I mean, it sure isn't the one who supposedly sent his son here to say stuff about rich men, camels and eyes of needles?

Are you creating this tangent to diss religion, or just obfuscate the subject?

[callmeslick]

no, Spidey, to counter the argument that religious rural citizens are inflexible on moral issues.

[Spidey]

Well I guess that’s why I didn’t understand your last question, because I never tried to make any point even close to that.

[Jeff250]

Why does that feeling of self-sufficiency not extend to legislating morals then?

The belief that morals don’t come from self?

Yeah but not from the government either I hope.

[callmeslick]

Yes the “God Thing Again” seeing how most Republicans still believe in one.

which triggered my question about 'which one' that you say you don't understand. Apparently, Republicans believe SELECTIVELY in the Christian God, if that is to be used as a justification for trying to legislate morality around abortion, gay rights and the like. I say SELECTIVELY, because they seem to think greed is just fine, and war and a host of other things that a consistent Christian-based morality ought to reject out of hand.

[Spidey]

Nobody believes “war is fine”.

You might be able to get away with that around younger people, but I know who was in office when we got into WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam.

But none of that is germane to the topic at hand., unless you wish to imply rural people like war more than city people.