A Tale of Two Maps

[ken]

R.A. Hettinga posted:

> <http://www.techcentralstation.com/111704A.html>
> > Tech Central Station  
> > A Tale of Two Maps
> > By Patrick Cox

> <http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/111704AAA.gif>
> Here is a map showing U.S. population density in 1990:
> <http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/111704A.gif>
> Comparisons of these two maps make startlingly obvious the extent to which
> population density predicts voter behavior.

Maybe the causality runs the other way. People who are more 
"left-wing" (whatever that exaclty might mean) are more likely to 
enjoy living in cities.

Over here in Britain that certainly seems to have happened. 
There's a churn in city populations as young adults move in to 
study or get jobs, then move out to suburbs or small towns later.

Some stay, and they tend to be the ones who are less politically 
conservative.

Sometimes I think that political conservatives just don't *like* 
people as much.   I mean that quite literally - my most right-wing 
friends  are less greagarious than my left-wing friends. They keep 
themselves to themselves more.  They stay in doors more and when 
they are out they are more likely to stick to their own cars. 
They don't like travelling in public transport, or going to noisy 
pubs. They seem to actively dislike social situations where they 
rub up against large numbers of strangers.

And the Anarchists have the best parties. By which I mean 
Euro-style left-wing Sovcialist Anarchists of course, not grumpy 
American survivalist Libertarians.  "Get off my land!" is a 
characteristic right-wing stereotype. "Whose round is it anyway?" 
is not.  Like the old song says "As soon as this pub closes, the 
Revolution starts!"

> The standard, rather unexamined, assumption is that rural America has more
> traditional cultural values that are associated with the Republican Party.
> These include religious, family and pro-military values. Urban population
> centers and surrounding environs, on the other hand, are associated with
> more progressive values associated with Democratic Party. These values are
> assumed to be more secular, progressive and anti-military.

In Britain, things may be different in your country, inner-city 
life is in many ways more old-fashioned than country life or 
suburban life.

Us city dwellers are more likely to walk to work or school, less 
likley to drive. We're more likely to use public transport. When 
we buy things we go to small corner shops and the shop-keepers 
might even know us. They might not know our names,  or even speak 
our language, but they probably recognise our faces.

For some time now (in England, things may be different elsewhere) 
  city-dwellers and inner-suburbanites have been more likely to go 
to church than people in the country or outer suburbs. London is 
the only part of Britain where churchgoing has gone up in the last 
ten years  (though its everywhere lower than anywhere in the USA - 
consistently less than ten percent)

Now teh last census tells us that one-parent families are rarer in 
London than in the country or in smaller towns. (See last week's 
Economist magazine 
http://www.economist.com/World/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3405966 
- full text available only to subscribers)

Also the proportion of people employed by government is smaller in 
London than the national average, and the proportion of 
self-employed or small businesses is greater.

[...]

> Another fascinating and easily verifiable correlation may be tied only
> indirectly to the characteristics of population density. The red states,
> that voted for Bush in both of the last elections, it seems, are net
> receivers of federal tax revenues.

Another thing US has in common with UK - large cities are net 
contributors to tax reevenues.