Why do large cities in the US vote so consistently for the liberal party, the Democratic Party, in national elections when large cities elsewhere do not? Toronto and London both elect Tory MPs in some districts while large areas of Hamburg, Berlin, and Munich go Christian Democrat. The same holds true for Korea and France at the least.
This is just a guess, but I think that cities tend to draw diverse populations who have to be more tolerant of others, and tolerance is a more liberal value. City dwellers also seem to be more open to new ideas, whereas people that live in the burbs and country tend to be more traditional.
That still doesn’t explain why cities in Europe are more likely to vote for conservative parties.
A guess: Big cities draw in immigrants and the working poor, both groups that Democratic policy is sympathetic towards?
I always thought that people in big cities were more reliant upon social programs than their rural counterparts. In cities people look to public transit, libraries, affordable housing, day care, etc. whereas rural folks just want core services, lower taxes, and to be left the hell alone.
This seems to reflect the liberal versus conservative mindset, typically.
In the latest German election map all of Bavaria’s blue for the CSU.
I’m not asking why cities are more likely to vote for liberal parties but why they’re more likely to vote Democrat in America when in Europe and Canada many cities are more evenly divided. Read the friggin OP!
This is a very general question, and not universal even within the U.S.
However, generally speaking, there has been a movement of the middle class from the core city to the suburbs in most large cities in the U.S., something that has been going on since the end of WWII. The availability of autos and the newly built freeways made commuting an option for a far greater percentage of the population. The Depression and the War had artificially held this movement in check for the preceding two decades so the change was comparatively sudden and explosive due to the enormous pent-up demand for housing.
Cities had always been home to large numbers of the poor, but they were often balanced by the middle class. Which party they voted for had more to do with the historic growth of political bosses than national social or economic issues.
However, with the “flight” (the word often used) of the middle-class, cities started housing disproportionate numbers of the poor. In 50s America and after, the poor were also disproportionately black, Hispanic, Asian, or other minorities. Minorities started to move heavily into the Democratic Party because of FDR. In the 50s and 60s, the conservative and stridently racist section of the Democratic party began to fall apart. Whites who had once found representation within the party found the Republican Party more in tune with their attitudes. This was called the “southern strategy” as the once-solidly Democratic South turned into an equally solidly-Republican South.
Virtually every old Rust Belt city today is desperately poor and heavily minority and more segregated than in the past. These cities are almost always solidly Democrat. New York City seems to be the exception, since it haven’t elected a Democratic Mayor in a long time. However, most other offices are held by Democrats and the Mayors are left to almost anyone else in the Republican Party. And NYC is the richest city, which gives the smaller percentage of the wealthy a large enough base to change the electoral picture.
Very little of this historic picture is true in Europe. Paris is a famous case of the slums being built up in the suburban outskirts of the historic city core. Similar housing patterns have been true for other large capitals, because the governments there could control where to build in ways that were utterly impossible in America. Demographics elsewhere are just different.
so while any individual city may have a specific history, overall the demographic trends and the ways that parties have responded to them give the best first approximation of an answer.
But you haven’t shown that big cities in other Western countries aren’t liberal strongholds. Someone from Munich has claimed that his city is actually a social democratic stronghold, and as for Canada, I do know that the Conservative party has trouble making inroads in the heart of the three largest cities (Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver). Suburbs, though, tend to vote more conservative in general, possibly because they tend to be more affluent and to be populated by families.
I think you need to demonstrate that this is actually the case rather than merely asserting it. “Large areas” of some US cities vote more conservatively than other areas, particularly suburbs.
[Moderating]
Being rude to other posters who are trying to help with the question is not a good way to get an answer.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The old city of Toronto (pre-amalgamation) is almost exclusively Liberal, as is Vancouver and Montreal. But there’s more to it in Canada. There’s also an East vs. West, and a French vs. English dynamic playing out in votes, which is why major cities like Calgary and Edmonton are Conservative strongholds.
What was the question again?
If it’s anything like the red state/blue state divide, it’s actually the inverse. I see no reason to think that big cities are not net payers into the welfare system because there are so many rich individuals and corporations living and doing business there. It’s true for red vs blue states: red states are actually consumers of welfare – which puts paid to your theory that this should make them liberal!
Many of Europe’s right-leaning parties are left-leaning from an American perspective, so maybe you’re perceiving a difference where there isn’t one.
The question is ‘why are the rural areas so conservative’ since they are the welfare recipients. Without the taxes paid from the metropolitan areas the rural areas wouldn’t have roads, electricity, phones, emergency services, hospitals, schools, or any of the other things they don’t pay for while complaining about their tax rates.
ETA: I see Ludovic posted the same thing
The first thing the OP needs to do is define what is meant by “large cities”. Is it the incorporated local government entities (e.g., New York City, in 5 counties in New York State), or is it the metropolitan area (e.g., the New York metro area, spreading into New Jersey and Connecticut)? Partly because of the flight to the suburbs (mentioned by Exapno Mapcase), the voting patterns can be very different.
I agree with other people that you haven’t shown that your contention about other big cities is true at all. Just to take London for an example, the 2010 election produced 38 Labour seats and 28 Conservative (and that against a backdrop of a bit swing away from Labour), whilst 2005 gave us 44 Labour and 28 Conservative. A cursory glance at the map for the previous couple of elections shows even more red across the London map. London has a Conservative elected mayor currently, but I think it’s fair to say voting then was based on personality more than anything else, as it was in the previous case to be fair.
You’ve set up an unfair and unsupported contrast, IMHO.
They may be net payers, but here’s the thing: They are willing to pay because they see, and appreciate, the services that they get back. City dwellers want such services as public transit, parks, libraries, etc. Rural dwellers may receive more, but they don’t see the results so clearly.
I meant the city proper in all contexts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010UKElectionMap.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_Fed_election_2008_Ridings.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundestag_Wahlkreise_2009_Erststimmenmehrheit.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/2007-pr%C3%A9sidentielle.png
In these election conservative parties carried large areas of many major cities.
Got your moderation.