Big Sort: Geography vs. Demography

(Link to Part 1)

Bill Bishop opens his book The Big Sort, illustrating how counties have become more politically homogeneous. However, he points out that people generally didn't choose to move where they did based on political criteria. They tended to move to places where they felt comfortable, and their identity was reinforced. People with common lifestyles and identities tend to vote in similar ways. Therefore, although choices were not political, they had important political consequences.

Studying counties that had once been competitive voting districts, Bishop noticed an interesting pattern. Once a county began to tip one direction or the other, the rate of change seemed to accelerate. As homogeneity toward one view began to develop, people who shared emerging dominant views moved in, and those with the minority view may have left.

Of particular interest is his observation that geography (i.e., where you live) matters more than other demographic data when predicting people's viewpoints. Bishop writes:

… The standard way to calculate public opinion is to take a group – Evangelicals, the rich, the young – and then describe how this supposedly homogeneous group thinks or votes across the nation. People who go to church once a week or who describe themselves as Evangelicals are thought to be stand-up Republicans and early supporters of the war in Iraq. Nationally, that is absolutely true. But Evangelicals living in counties that voted heavily for Kerry in 2004 are an entirely different breed from those living in Republican landslide counties. According to our analysis of the Pew Research Center's polls, less than half of the weekly churchgoers and self-described Evangelicals in heavily Democratic counties supported the war in Iraq in 2004. In heavily Republican counties, however, this same demographic group supported the war three to one.

Regardless of demographic category – age, gender, religion, occupation – Pew found a difference in support for the war based on geography. Labor union members were against the war in Democratic counties but for it in Republican counties. (Nearly 30 percentage points separated union members in strong Democratic counties versus strong Republican counties.) Women were against the war in Democratic but for it in Republican counties (a difference of 23 percentage points.) The partisanship of place overpowered the categories that researcher normally use to describe durable voting blocks. (48)

Looking at the counties that had lopsided vote margins in 2004 and working backward over the past sixty years, Bishop wanted to know if anything else had changed about the demographics other than political preferences.

Education –Democratic landslide counties saw a disproportionate increase in the percentage of the population with a college degree or higher.

Religion – Republican landslide counties had above-average increases in church membership.

…from 1971 to 2000, the number of church members increased 33.8 percent in Democratic landslide counties. In the same period, the number of church members jumped 54.4 percent in Republican landslide counties. From 1990 to 2000,Democratic counties lost churchgoers, a while Republican counties continued gaining. (51-51)

Immigrants – In 2000, 21% of the population in Democratic landslide counties was foreign-born American versus 5% in Republican counties.

Race – The white population was nearly equally divided across the four county groups (Democrat competitive and non-competitive; Republican competitive and non-competitive) in 1970. By 2000, 30% of whites lived in Republican landslide counties, and 18% lived in Democrat landslide counties.

[Continued] [Index]

Comments

[ceemac]

Does the book deal with how this "sort" is differnt from earlier sorts that were more based on your "roots."

For example; In your neck of the woods in 1930 I would bet you would find the anglo southern blue collar protestants who had migrated from the south to KC for work "sorted" into different neighborhoods than various ethnic (polish, italian, etc) catholic groups who each may have "sorted" into their own neighborhoods.

[Michael W. Kruse]

I don't recall that he goes into any cultural analysis prior to the 1950s.

I suspect in 1930s K.C. you would certainly have seen distinct neighborhoods with ethnic identity. (Some still do today.) Yet I think what might be different is that you were constantly confronted with people different from you on the train, at school, in the workplace, etc.

The ability to segregate off and seclude oneself from others has grown significantly.