The connection between population density and political affiliation.

[Lord of the Large Pants]

In the US (and maybe other countries, but I can't speak for them), one of the most reliable ways to predict whether someone is a Republican or a Democrat is to find out if they live in a major city or not. Yeah, I know it's not 100% and I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions, but that's the general trend.

So why is that? And why do I almost never hear it discussed? I went looking for answers and hardly found anything.

I asked some other people about this and the general response was "hurr durr Republicans are stoopid". But I'd like to think the very handsome and intelligent denizens of Kiwi Farms (haaaa) are better than that (HAAAAAAAAAAAA).

The only thing I heard that was anywhere close to convincing is that city dwellers tend to be more collectivist, while country people tend to be more individualistic. I think there's probably some truth to that, but I also don't think it's the whole story.

Any thoughts?

 

[Woke Blue Muttlema]

Culture in the projects is very similar to that of urban settlements. There if you manage get a degree and an honest job you are already done, you will see how your own relatives and friends can fall into "hood culture" as a way to deflect from the "real city". Rednecks and Niggas have more and common to each other than your average citizen, if they could ever overcome their own biases (almost always racism but not restricted to it) a major political front would be formed. However there's other problem for that to happen: people in the projects and hoods don't trust the government but are way more likely to not affiliate unless they receive some sort of support, and even after that they will shift if they find the other side to be more "interested" in them. Unlike rural people, hood people are a very small minority with no guarantees which only matters once every four years at best, they are too little to matter politically. The mainstream left likes to pretend they represent them and the social left prefers way more to cather towards the future residents of the projects (migrants) than the current ones, this is creating a power vacuum which makes libertarian views more appealing than ever.
As things are going, a lot of diversity is going to be seen in the right if it is not already the case.

 

[ES 148]

I'd say you're on with the 'urban collectivist/rural individualist' angle. The rural people I know tend to be more right-leaning.

 

[Red Hood]

I think maybe it has to do with the more people around, the more you care about what all those people think about you. My hypothesis is that the more space between you and other people, the fewer fucks you give.

 

[Love And Terror]

Younger people are generally more liberal then the older, younger people move to the city. Old people move to a ranch in Bumfuck, USA.

 

[amandasixxxx]

Estrogenic chemicals in the drinking water, principally from the urine of women on oral contraceptives.

Britain has one of the highest rates. Need I say more?

 

[CrunkLord420]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

 

[OhGoy]

AFAIK there are more college students that enroll from urban areas than rural areas. Combine that with the fact that colleges are slowly becoming more and more politicized and, well... yeah. That could be a factor.

 

[Gone_Fission]

I think people in urban areas lean more left simply because your economic well being increase with things like functional public transport and a well planned city. A more collectivist political outlook is totally rational in a densely packed city where you're more dependent on your fellow citizens and their collective efforts than a rural environment where you need to be independent out of physical necessity. Honestly, fuck the suburbs though; they're not as ruggedly independent as the country or as efficiently planned as the city. Just a habitat for NIMBY boomer retards waiting to die.

 

[Basketball Jones]

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Visual breakdown of each state, city, and county for how they voted last election.

 

[PantsFreeZone]

People that live in cities tend to be rich and affluent or poor and dependent on the government.

Neither require you to understand the fundamentals of independence and personal responsibility.

 

[CWCissey]

In the UK, people who work tend to vote Tory, Old fucks and Sikhs vote UKIP, weirdos vote Lib Dem, gays vote Green, sensible people vote Loony and complete degenerates vote Labour.

It has nothing to do with population density.

 

[This+]

In South Korea, old people tend vote conservative (Park Chung-Hee saved us form third world status!), younger people tend to vote liberal (Park and his cronies severely restricted freedoms and were very oppressive).

Geographically, the Eastern side and major cities like Seoul votes liberal (Jeolla province has been historically liberal and progressive) and the Western side votes conservative (Park Chung-Hee was born in Gyeongsang province and developed those areas more).

Generally, SK still leans pretty conservative in terms of social policies. Only the Justice Party (what is considered "far-left" there) really actively supports LGBT+ rights and stuff like that. I'm pretty sure none of the political parties actually support marijuana or any form of narcotics legalization.

 

[amandasixxxx]

In the UK, people who work tend to vote Tory, Old fucks and Sikhs vote UKIP, weirdos vote Lib Dem, gays vote Green, sensible people vote Loony and complete degenerates vote Labour.

It has nothing to do with population density.

Even in Bongistan there's a marked preference for Labour in major metropolitan/urban areas.

In addition to 'degenerates' (dang dirty homos), Labours voting base comprises, in the main:

- People in receipt of welfare of some kind (more than a third of the country - seriously)
- People in the public sector (substantial - 1 in 12 workers are employed by "our" (per BBC style guide) NHS alone)
- Immigrants
- Wimmin (separate from women)
- 'Uni' students (about half of people aged 18-21)

 

[Silence of the Troons]

Population density does influence what political affiliation you have to an extent, however, I would say that the most important factor is the culture of the region/city (working class oriented culture, peasant conservatism oriented culture, free church oriented culture et cetera) and the country which, in turn, is influenced by factors such as geographic conditions. For example, the Swedish region of Norrland is sparsely populated, and yet it remains a Social Democratic stronghold to this day due to its working class oriented culture and its history.

Sometimes two separate groups also may vote for the same party, but for different reasons. For example, a "city dwelling" metropolitan voting for a "welfare friendly" and progressive party may be doing so both because of its economic and social policies or exclusively because of its social policies. An unintegrated immigrant living on welfare in a no go zone may also vote for the same party, however, their motivations for doing so probably boil down to exclusively economical reasons or possibly economical reasons and immigrant friendly social policies.

 

[feedtheoctopus]

I've lived all over the place. Big cities, suburbs, small towns..

People are more similar than they are different, which is the dirty secret of American politics. A guy working in the logging industry in rural Oregon or some shit really doesn't have problems that are fundamentally different than some janitor in NYC. Same bills at the end of the month, anyway. I think what is different is that people in cities experience the effects of government policy in a much more direct way than somebody out in the sticks. The immigration debate, or economics, trade regulations...all that shit is an abstract to somebody living in a rural area. If the government fucks up they don't have to deal with the legions of homeless people, they don't have to see the protests, they don't have to see the unrest. Most people who voted for Trump have never stepped foot in an immigrant community or lived in a place with a significant number of them. Etc.

A guy who lives a 20 minute car ride from the nearest main street isn't going to experience any of this with the kind of force somebody living in Brooklyn or Seattle would. It's not so much that these people are stupid as it is that it is very easy to ignore the negative consequences of ones politics when you don't have to actually deal with them on any meaningful level

 

[Commander Keen]

I grew up in an extremely rural community where they were still democrat holdouts. It wasn't uncommon for parents to forbid their children from playing/hanging out with the kids of people who voted republican. Which they could easily do since this wasn't a place where you could ride your bike or walk to a friend's house. If you wanted to hang out with your buddies you had to catch a ride or wake up extremely early in the morning to begin your trek.

But, like with anything, there's always outliers. These people were low-income (poverty was pretty rampant) and uneducated and extremely white. This started to shift around the turn of the century, though, and people loosened up. I think the Clinton administration turned a lot of them off if I had to guess as to why. Or they just realized that their kids didn't have many options for friends and social interaction so it wasn't good to further limit their options.

Im all for using demographics as a predictor for behavior, but the problem with a lot of those "studies" is that they are blatantly attempting to build a narrative. You can tell from the language they use. It's always the "young, hip, cool, attractive, educated, sexually active, wealthy" people are liberal/democrat and the "rural, backwater, uneducated, abstinent, poor, ugly, fat, buys Bud Lite instead of New England IPAs, boring" folks who are conservative/republican.

If you stop for a second and read these articles closely, it's amazingly obvious that's what they're going for.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

Lower population areas tend to be more conservative because there is normally only one "in group" to belong to and people try to conform to be in it. It's being the popular kids in high school but on a bigger level. In a large city there is a diversity of groups and everyone falls into their own little niche which leads to more identity-based political views and groupings.

But the big one is personal responsibility. In a rural area, if you get into trouble, you are the only person that can solve the problem. Often completely alone. And you know it. But you have lived your entire life this way and have just accepted it and worked hard to be prepared should you need it. In a city, however, you lean on others to solve issues. If not for the sole reason that involving them and giving them a seat at the table keeps the solution from stepping on toes of the various interest and identity groups that are everywhere.

This leads to completely different tactics towards solving problems and outlook on life. Bootstraps versus handouts. One side wants to see a proposal solve the issue quickly and efficiently the other wants everyone to rally together to find a solution that best accommodates everyone's sensibilities.

The immigration debate, or economics, trade regulations...all that shit is an abstract to somebody living in a rural area.

Lol no. That Oregon lumberjack you bring up got proper fucked by that whole spotted owl thing, has strong opinions on Canadian softwood tariffs, and his kid goes to a heavily minority school because he lives near a fruit-producing agricultural area. His community was economically devastated when the mill closed because of a change in USFS timber sales due to the roadless area initiative. One little piece of who-gives-a-shit eco-lobby legislation killed his town and his livelihood.

They aren't as blind as you think they are. This shit matters to them in a big way.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

I think people in urban areas lean more left simply because your economic well being increase with things like functional public transport and a well planned city. A more collectivist political outlook is totally rational in a densely packed city where you're more dependent on your fellow citizens and their collective efforts than a rural environment where you need to be independent out of physical necessity. Honestly, fuck the suburbs though; they're not as ruggedly independent as the country or as efficiently planned as the city. Just a habitat for NIMBY boomer exceptional individuals waiting to die.

I am convinced that a great deal of 'fuck rural people for voting Republican!!' comes from suburbanites who don't want to admit that it's really their neighbors who are responsible. Or people who thinks 'lives in a McMansion on ten acres in exurbia' is equivalent to 'rural'. (Referring to the stereotypical suburbs that are comprised solely of rich white people who live in big houses and spend too much on lawn care here.)

Also, not all Republican voters have the same values, and neither do all Democrats. There's nuance there that, while it may be absent at the national level, is more likely to be visible at the state or local level. Rural white people in Mississippi who vote Republican have more in common with their black neighbors who vote Democrat than they do with rural white people in Montana.

 

[Gone_Fission]

I think the real lesson in all of this is that rural and urban lifestyles are both valid and valuable in their own ways, but suburbia is just a retarded hellscape of Boomers getting fat at chain restaurants and should be nuked.