really one of rural and urban?
All the states are internally divided fairly consistently along those lines, lokking at the county-by-county red/blue/purple maps.
It’s not accurate, but for a first approximation it’s not bad.
More fine-grained maps (by county, and using a red-blue graded spectrum rather than binary division) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states#Purple_States
Where it matters most is in the Electoral College. 48 states have unit-rule laws, requiring that the entire state’s delegation be either “red” or “blue”, and most states will be consistently one or the other, and yes, that’s likely due at least as much to their particular urban/suburban/rural mix as any other factor.
You’re right that it’s misleading to apply such simplistic terms in any other context, but they’re useful shorthand on Election Night.
It’s really not a huge urban/rural dichotomy.
Most of American voters don’t live in big cities (only 13%.)
In 2004 the breakdown was like this:
Big cities (13% of the total vote):
39% Bush
60% Kerry
Smaller cities (19%)
49% Bush
49% Kerry
Suburbs (45%)
52% Bush
47% Kerry
Small Towns (8%)
50% Bush
48% Kerry
Rural (16%)
59% Bush
40% Kerry
Yeah, Bush/Kerry have roughly 20 point leads in rural/“big city” areas respectively. However in truth the old definitions of rural/urban really aren’t very applicable in the modern world.
More and more Americans are living in suburbs and smaller cities. And the divide isn’t very much at all in those areas.
Interesting numbers, Martin. Not that I doubt you, but where did they come from? I’m guessing that your cite has other interesting data as well and I’d like to see it. Also I’d like to see how they define small city, big city, etc.
I think the reason that we have the red state blue state mentality is that the Republican-controlled media like to put those electoral maps on display showing the vast red expanses to the itty bitty patches of blue.
It’s from CNN’s election 2004 page, their national exit poll 13,660 were polled but aside from that I see no information on the polling methods. I don’t know what polling agency did it, or their methods.
There is a lot of data though, but sadly I can’t see how they define certain things, maybe they let respondents choose (Do you live in a big city? Small City? Suburb?) although I have doubts that that would be a feasible way to do it.
Link is here
To amend that I did find some explanation for how they got their numbers here
Those maps are misleading in important ways:
-
Just because a county is red doesn’t mean it’s truly a “red” county as in everyone who lives there is a GOPer. It could mean Bush won that county by 1% of the vote or less.
-
Even in rural counties, the ones that take up more area generally and fill out the Mid-west and parts of the South and even some parts of the Northeast Bush doesn’t get 100% of the vote, it appears it’s strongly pro-Bush in those areas, but that there are sizeable Democrat minorities even in the rural regions (40% roughly.)
-
We don’t elect presidents based on the number of counties won, obviously. And in some states 80% of the counties could go Republican but the state could still go Democrat because of the size of the cities in some given counties and the relative sparseness of the populatoin in other counties.
Thanks for the background, Martin. I think your analysis is pretty well spot on.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
For your edification, the classic ‘Purple Map’. By land area (the classic map) and by population. Notice the heavily Republican counties tend to be, ah, outweighed by the mass of people in the much smaller Democratic counties. Winds up being more even than apparent.
Interestingly, the “rural=right, urban=left” pattern is equally true in Britain - going by a geographic map, it hardly looks like Labour are in power!