Research Shatters Voting Pattern Stereotypes

Apr 17, 2006
Research Shatters Voting Pattern Stereotypes
Republicans can simultaneously have the support of poor states and richer voters within all states.

New research by Andrew Gelman, professor of statistics and political science, reveals that voting preference or political party affiliation of U.S. states are not simply tied to income levels.

Gelman co-wrote the paper with former Columbia Ph.D. students Boris Shor, Joseph Bafumi and David Park.

Higher-income states, which used to favor Republicans, are voting for Democrats; yet overall, Republicans remain the favorite among the wealthy. For decades, Democrats have been viewed as the party of the poor, with Republicans representing the rich. Recent presidential elections, however, have shown a reverse pattern, with Democrats performing well in the richer "blue" states in the northeast and on the West Coast, and Republicans dominating in the "red" states in the middle of the country.

Gelman and his collaborators reconcile these trends by modeling survey data on voting patterns within individual states.

The new study, "Rich State, Poor State, Red State, Blue State: What's the Matter with Connecticut?" finds that income matters more in "red America" than in "blue America." In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference. As the report states, "The Republicans have the support of the richer voters within any given state but have more overall support in the poorer states. Thus, the identification of rich states with rich voters, or more generally, the 'personification' of so-called red and blue states, is misleading."

To classify rich and poor voters in their paper, the authors used five income categories based on percentiles of the U.S. household income distribution. (In 2000, the lowest and highest categories corresponded to incomes below $15,000 and above $125,000, respectively.)

The report also suggests how preconceived assumptions can lead journalists living in coastal blue states such as New York, California and Maryland, to form a distorted picture of the national voting trends.

Using multiple statistical research methods and multiple data sources, the study highlights the various voter behavior patterns and differences among different states, revealing that a number of factors can be true at once. Though it plays a key role in voter patterns, "income is not the driving factor in politics in the United States," write the authors.

Gelman's research blog is available online. His co-authors are now political science faculty at the following universities: Boris Shor, University of Chicago; Joseph Bafumi, Dartmouth College; and David Park, Washington University in St. Louis.

Source: Columbia University

Explore further: Another five things to know about meta-analysis

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Another five things to know about meta-analysis

1 hour ago

Last year I wrote a post of "5 Key Things to Know About Meta-Analysis". It was a great way to focus – but it was hard keeping to only 5. With meta-analyses booming, including many that are poorly done or ...

One-third of world's people still have no proper toilets

6 hours ago

Toilets are taken for granted in the industrialized West, but still are a luxury for a third of the world's people who have no access to them, according to a report by the World Health Organization and UNICEF.

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.