Väestöntiheys suhteessa asenteisiin

  • USA usein pidetään yhtenä yhtenäisenä maana missä on suht samanlainen kulttuuri kaikkialla, mutta asiahan ei todellisuudessa ole näin. USA jakautuu noin 11 kulttuurillisesti hieman erilaiseen alueeseen missä arvostetaan erilaisia asioita.
  • Toinen suuri ero maassa on kaupunkien ja syrjäseutujen välillä. USA:n jokaisessa isossa kaupungissa äänestetään demokraatteja eli ns. sosiaalidemokraatteja jos oltaisiin Euroopassa. Demokraatit kannattavat tiukempaa valtion kontrollia ja liberaaleja arvoja, siinä missä maalla ja pienemmissä kaupungeissa äänestetään konservatiivisia ja pienempää valtion roolia ihmisten asioihin. Tämä on ymmärettävää koska isoissa kaupungeissa asukkaat on riippuvaisempia valtiota kun vaikka maaseudulla.
  • Väestöntiheys on merkittävin mittari kun ennustetaan sitä, millä alueella äänestetään liberaaleja ja millä alueella äänestetään konservatiivisia. Mitä korkeampi väestöntiheys on niin sitä herkemmin äänestetään liberaaleja ja ns. suurempaa valtion roolia.
  • Luultavasti myös kulttuuri on liberaalimpi ja suvaitsevaisempi mitä korkeampi väestöntiheys on alueella.


Kaupunki vs maaseutu/syrjäseudut erot

The 2012 election demonstrated what many people could have guessed: rural states voted for Romney while densely populated states voted for Obama.

Population Density: the Key to Voting Behavior?

Curious about the correlation between population density and voting behavior, I began with analyzing the election results from the least and most dense counties and county equivalents. 98% of the 50 most dense counties voted Obama. 98% of the 50 least dense counties voted for Romney.

This could not be a coincidence. Furthermore, if the most dense places voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and the least dense places voted overwhelmingly for Romney, then there must be a crossover point: a population density above which Americans would switch from voting Republican to voting Democratic.

So I normalized and graphed the data, and there is a clear crossover point.


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. A 66% preference is a clear, dominant majority.

So are progressive political attitudes a function of population density? And does the trend hold true in both red and blue states?

Separating the results from red states and blue states, we can see that while each has a slight preference for their ultimate candidate of choice, on a local level voting behavior is still directly correlated to population density.


Studying this graph, two important facts are revealed. First, there are very few cities in red states. Second, the few dense cities that do exist in red states voted overwhelmingly democratic.

Atlanta, New Orleans, St. Louis, Dallas, and Indianapolis are all in red states — and they all voted blue. And there are no true “cities” in red states that voted red. The only cities in red states that didn’t vote blue were Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City. And by global standards, they are not really cities — each has population density (about 1,000/sq. mi.) less than suburban Maryland (about 1,500/sq. mi.).



Joku kommentoi asiaa näin:

BINGO!!! If you look at your typical NY’er, you’ll see that this is the case. NY’ers depend on government to get them to and from work via public transportation. They depend on government to pick up the trash, plough the streets, regulate parking, regulate what businesses are located where, what a landlord can charge for rent, what a landlord must provide and most importantly, regulate what their neighbours are allowed to do. For example, no one wants their neighbours firing a weapon in Manhattan. NY’ers depend on someone else to maintain their stoves, hallways, carpets and climate control systems, and they have to do it by law. It’s no surprise that a NY’er is happy with government regulation as the city would not survive without it.

But to someone in the country or a less densely populated area, these regulations are not only not necessary, they are impossible to enforce. Public transportation doesn’t work in the country. Daily trash pickup is not an option.

Toinen kommentoi näin:

As an urban city dweller, rather than density, per se, I would venture that the correlation has more to do with urban culture. We are surrounded by diversity which fosters more of a ”Live and Let Live” philosophy, there simply isn’t enough time to judge others. I’m surrounded by LGBTs in a rainbow melting pot of diverse lifestyles and interests and I love it. Its what IMHO makes America great.

The GOP has done much to alienate these urban progressive, moderate and independent voters with their right-wing policies and embracing of Tea Party values. I would label myself a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I am not an Obama fan, but considering the alternative there was no other choice. If the GOP wants to gain traction with urban voters, they need to lay off their Guns, Gays and God platform, They need to stop gay bashing, support immigration reform, let women make their own healthcare decisions, stop wasting taxpayer money on political witch hunts and nonsensical bills (like Ryan’s HR212 bestowing personhood rights to an embryo) – basically, focus on the economy, foreign policy, i.e., real issues.

Toinen juttu aiheesta:

Today, that divide has vanished. The new political divide is a stark division between cities and what remains of the countryside. Not just some cities and some rural areas, either — virtually every major city (100,000-plus population) in the United States of America has a different outlook from the less populous areas that are closest to it. The difference is no longer about where people live, it’s abouthow people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy — or amid rough-and-tumble, in-your-face population density and diverse communities that enforce a lower-common denominator of tolerance among inhabitants.

The voting data suggest that people don’t make cities liberal — cities make people liberal. Here, courtesy of Princeton’s Robert Vanderbai, is an electoral map that captures the divisions:



Vielä USA:N alueroista hieman ohi aiheen:


Yankeedom: Founded by Puritans, residents in Northeastern states and the industrial Midwest tend to be more comfortable with government regulation. They value education and the common good more than other regions.

New Netherland: The Netherlands was the most sophisticated society in the Western world when New York was founded, Woodard writes, so it’s no wonder that the region has been a hub of global commerce. It’s also the region most accepting of historically persecuted populations.

The Midlands: Stretching from Quaker territory west through Iowa and into more populated areas of the Midwest, the Midlands are “pluralistic and organized around the middle class.” Government intrusion is unwelcome, and ethnic and ideological purity isn’t a priority.

Tidewater: The coastal regions in the English colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and Delaware tend to respect authority and value tradition. Once the most powerful American nation, it began to decline during Westward expansion.

Greater Appalachia: Extending from West Virginia through the Great Smoky Mountains and into Northwest Texas, the descendants of Irish, English and Scottish settlers value individual liberty. Residents are “intensely suspicious of lowland aristocrats and Yankee social engineers.”

Deep South: Dixie still traces its roots to the caste system established by masters who tried to duplicate West Indies-style slave society, Woodard writes. The Old South values states’ rights and local control and fights the expansion of federal powers.

El Norte: Southwest Texas and the border region is the oldest, and most linguistically different, nation in the Americas. Hard work and self-sufficiency are prized values.

The Left Coast: A hybrid, Woodard says, of Appalachian independence and Yankee utopianism loosely defined by the Pacific Ocean on one side and coastal mountain ranges like the Cascades and the Sierra Nevadas on the other. The independence and innovation required of early explorers continues to manifest in places like Silicon Valley and the tech companies around Seattle.

The Far West: The Great Plains and the Mountain West were built by industry, made necessary by harsh, sometimes inhospitable climates. Far Westerners are intensely libertarian and deeply distrustful of big institutions, whether they are railroads and monopolies or the federal government.

New France: Former French colonies in and around New Orleans and Quebec tend toward consensus and egalitarian, “among the most liberal on the continent, with unusually tolerant attitudes toward gays and people of all races and a ready acceptance of government involvement in the economy,” Woodard writes.

First Nation: The few First Nation peoples left — Native Americans who never gave up their land to white settlers — are mainly in the harshly Arctic north of Canada and Alaska. They have sovereignty over their lands, but their population is only around 300,000.

The clashes between the 11 nations play out in every way, from politics to social values. Woodard notes that states with the highest rates of violent deaths are in the Deep South, Tidewater and Greater Appalachia, regions that value independence and self-sufficiency. States with lower rates of violent deaths are in Yankeedom, New Netherland and the Midlands, where government intervention is viewed with less skepticism.

States in the Deep South are much more likely to have stand-your-ground laws than states in the northern “nations.” And more than 95 percent of executions in the United States since 1976 happened in the Deep South, Greater Appalachia, Tidewater and the Far West. States in Yankeedom and New Netherland have executed a collective total of just one person.

That doesn’t bode well for gun control advocates, Woodard concludes: “With such sharp regional differences, the idea that the United States would ever reach consensus on any issue having to do with violence seems far-fetched. The cultural gulf between Appalachia and Yankeedom, Deep South and New Netherland is simply too large. But it’s conceivable that some new alliance could form to tip the balance.”




Täytä tietosi alle tai klikkaa kuvaketta kirjautuaksesi sisään:


Olet kommentoimassa WordPress.com -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )

Google+ photo

Olet kommentoimassa Google+ -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )


Olet kommentoimassa Twitter -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )


Olet kommentoimassa Facebook -tilin nimissä. Log Out /  Muuta )


Muodostetaan yhteyttä palveluun %s