This map graphically shows which counties voted for which candidates in the last two presidential elections. What I first found interesting was the amazing amount of red (Republican) counties. Looking at the comparison of square miles won in this election, Bush had a whopping 2.51 million. Meanwhile, Kerry had about .5 million. This number didn’t really change much from 2000.
And that led me to the second revelation. In order to have such lopsided numbers, and yet for the election to be so close, it means that the square miles won by Kerry must be much more heavily populated. Taking a quick glance at the map, and remembering that I really suck at geography, it seems to me that as the population increases, so too does the likelihood of a democratic result.
Without any research, and relying only on the aforementioned poor geography skills that I possess, it appears to me that the counties containing Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Washington DC and even little old Charlotte all voted democratically. Counties containing Chicago and Miami appear to be too close to call, leaving open the possibility that they could also end with the same result. I don’t have a clue about the layout of Texas, and I’m too lazy to look it up, but it wouldn’t surprise me if those lonely blue counties contained Dallas and Houston, respectively.
This is amazing, and I don’t mean that from a partisan perspective in any way. But what it would appear to mean is that as we taste more and more success – in the form of increased jobs, opportunities, property values and the like – we want the government to give us more and more. Yes, I realize that this generalizes the democratic view as being one that encourages the growth of government and services, and perhaps I’m wrong – but that’s my perception, I’m sure I can’t be the only one.
What I’m seeing is that the more you have, the more you want the government to take? The more you want to depend on a bloated bureaucracy? I would have thought the exact opposite – that the less you have, the more you would want the government to step in and help. But the reverse seems to be true. Interesting.
Comments
2 responses to “Democratic Leanings”
‘Also, it’s a flawed assumption that liberals want the government to give them more.’
As exemplified by the fact that blue states tend to give more to the federal government than they receive — the opposite of the red states. If anything it shows liberals are more altruistic, rather than they want more.
You have to look at some other factors that may make people in urban areas more liberal. One of those is exposure to more kinds of people. Being exposed to positive examples of minorities, gays and lesbians, and foreign visitors tends to break up a lot of the intolerance you find in small homogeneous towns all over the world.
Also, it’s a flawed assumption that liberals want the government to give them more. Perhaps liberals want to do more for people who have less, and the natural way they see for that to happen is through government spending. They don’t mind paying extra taxes to help the poverty they are confronted with every day in the streets.
Coming from a small town, and having moved to a large one (Phoenix), I can tell you that many people moving here to come to college have never met a black person, or a homeless person or someone who was openly gay. Getting thrown into a situation where you cannot avoid people who are different from you tends to give you a perspective that small towns just can’t. And I think for many people, that inevitably tends to force them into a more liberal stance. While Phoenix is still a conservative city, it has a liberal governer, and is far more liberal than the small towns throughout the state.
Another thing to consider is that major citys also tend to have Universities, Art Theaters, and other cultural mainstays that encourage liberal views.