Tuesday, November 27, 2012

More Politics and Population Density



Richard Florida and Sara Johnson:
 As Dave Troy puts it, the key factor in this year's election is even simpler — it's all about density. Troy, a founder of several software companies, recently plotted the county-level election results against population density (see the graph below). His conclusion was striking: "98% of the 50 most dense counties voted Obama. 98% of the 50 least dense counties voted for Romney."
The graph shows a clear "crossover point" in terms of density where counties turn blue and Democratic, as he explains:
At about 800 people per square mile, people switch from voting primarily Republican to voting primarily Democratic. Put another way, below 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Republican. Above 800 people per square mile, there is a 66% chance that you voted Democrat.

In a second graph (above), he added red states and blue states, as well as key cities, to his analysis. Based on this he notes two key facts. First, red states have very few cities, and second, the ones they do have vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. He points out that most big cities in red states voted blue. The two exceptions — Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City — had low densities, with only about 1,000 people per square mile, or less than suburban Maryland. He points out that red states seem to "simply run out of population at about 2,000 people per square mile."
Given the logic of economic development and urbanization, he argues that "red states are just underdeveloped blue states," noting that: "As cities continue to grow in red states, those cities will become more blue, and ultimately, those states will become more purple, and then blue." 
The trend doesn't bode well for Republicans.  Real America doesn't grow as fast as those Godless cities, and anywhere you get more people, Democrats get more votes.

3 comments:

  1. Pick yourself up a USAToday from 11/27 and check out the front page.... tick tock, tick tock Blue states....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe he means this one?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/26/personal-income-2011-oil-gas-boom/1728123/

    ReplyDelete
  3. That doesn't dissuade me from my position that most rural areas are net receivers of federal spending. That county in South Dakota has 1300 people, and from what I could tell, most of the income was probably from farming and not oil or gas. Plus, I'm afraid most of the royalty money in the shale boom areas is getting poorly invested. We're not looking at Norway in southeastern Ohio.

    ReplyDelete