Political Leanings vs. Population Density

[Glacier]

They say that the big cities vote left and the most rural and remote places vote right, but this is not true. In truth, the left gets their support from the density extremes whereas medium density ridings such as we find in Kelowna tend to vote right.

According to the Tyee's projections, the NDP is going to take over 76% of the 21 least dense ridings, and over 90% of the 21 most dense ridings. By contrast, the Tyee is only projecting the NDP to win 52% and 48% of the middle two quarters.

On the Liberal side of things, the Kelowna ridings are some of the least dense ridings projected to go their way. Only 2 of the 18 projected Liberal ridings are less dense than Kelowna-Lake Country.

Density of Okanagan Liberal ridings:

Kelowna-Lake Country = 50 people/km^2
Westside-Kelowna = 50 people/km^2
Kelowna-Mission = 108 people/km^2

Density of Okanagan NDP ridings:

Boundary-Similkameen = 3.4 people/km^2
Vernon-Monashee = 12 people/km^2
Penticton = 29 people/km^2

[Veovis]

That's actually rather interesting, certainly it may not end up that way but if they used historical data to create a pattern it's certainly an interesting one. I can imagine (especially in BC) where more rural areas tend to have "crops" that appeal to a more left styled voter, but between medium and heavy density it's certainly something perhaps worth looking at in more detail, if not simply to find out a "why"

[Al Czervic]

I think it comes down more to money. More affluent areas generally don't vote NDP. West Van almost always elects anyone but NDP as one example whereas Vancouver Hastings - the homeless capital of Canada- almost always elect NDP - even in 2001 wipeout.

[Glacier]

I think that there are several factors. One is that the rural ridings tends to have a high percentage of First Nations, and I know from my First Nations sources in the Cariboo that they are almost voting en masse for the NDP due to being very upset with the Liberals.

When I get time, I will graph party support by income, as I think Al is right about income being a significant part of the puzzle.

[Al Czervic]

I think that there are several factors. One is that the rural ridings tends to have a high percentage of First Nations, and I know from my First Nations sources in the Cariboo that they are almost voting en masse for the NDP due to being very upset with the Liberals.

When I get time, I will graph party support by income, as I think Al is right about income being a significant part of the puzzle.

First Nations voting "en masse' I will believe that one when I see it.

[Glacier]

In a riding like Cariboo-Chilcotin where the 9% of the population is First Nation, even a 20% turnout could be a difference maker when you consider the loser has only lost by a handful of votes over the last couple of elections up there. The NDP guy, Charley Wise, is so far out in left field that one life-time NDPer I know has told me he's a bit apprehensive about the guy being in government. Since he is VERY popular among the first nations, he will get a lot of votes from the ones who do vote, and this could be the difference maker (not that he didn't get most of their votes last time too).

As for wealth, only 1 liberal is projected to win in the bottom 1/4 poorest ridings (Richmond Centre). Moving up in wealth, they are projected to win 3, 5, and 8 seats. In the top 21 richest ridings the NDP is only projected to win 8 of them, and none of those in the top 7. The wealthiest riding the Tyee claims as NDP is Chrissy Clark's own riding.

I'll post the graph later, but it will have to wait until the grass is mowed.

P.S. Welcome back to God's country.

[Veovis]

I wonder if the population density has any relation to the riot mentality. You know where if you get a large enough group together and a few make trouble every seems to join in and loot and destroy things for no good reason at all, often accompanied by regret and guilt after the fact when people realize what they have done was perhaps quite foolish and for all the wrong reasons.

HST seems to fit that bill a bit.

[Glacier]

Speaking of HST, the following table shows all the ridings based on how they voted. The riding names are colour coded as per the 2009 election results. Party afflilation seems to be the strongest correlation between who voted in favour and who didn't. Moreso than income.

Income does come into play as well though. The Boundary-Similkameen riding is the poorest riding in the province that went Liberal, and they didn't seem to like the HST. On the other end,, Kamloops-South Thompson and Kelowna-Mission are the two wealthiest ridings respectively in the Southern Interior (29th and 30th provincially), and wouldn't you know it, they had the strongest support for the HST in the area.

Another interesting strong correlation is that the "bible belts" (Fraser Valley and Nechako Lakes area) were strongly in favour of the HST relative to their neighbours.

[LoneWolf_53]

I wonder if the population density has any relation to the riot mentality. You know where if you get a large enough group together and a few make trouble every seems to join in and loot and destroy things for no good reason at all, often accompanied by regret and guilt after the fact when people realize what they have done was perhaps quite foolish and for all the wrong reasons.

HST seems to fit that bill a bit.

Can't say that I'd ever considered it that way, but what a good point.

[Captain Awesome]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendric ... ban-areas/

...the explanation could be something as simple as the fact that people who live in cities are relatively insulated from how difficult and challenging it can be to produce the food, energy, equipment, devices, etc., that comprise the affluence that urbanites enjoy. In their urban cocoons, city-dwellers take for granted the abundance and availability of the economic goods that they consume. For instance, many well-to-do, educated urbanites see no downside to supporting stricter regulations and higher taxes on energy producers, because to them, energy is something that is always there at the flip of a switch (except during the occasional hurricane, as some New Yorkers recently discovered). Life in the city for affluent Americans creates the illusion that all they have to do is demand something and—presto!—it will be there when they want it.

[Rwede]

I think there's a direct correlation between density and political leanings alright: those who are dense vote NDP; those who aren't dense vote Liberal.

If you're dense, you get sucked in easily by NDP dogma. Brighter people avoid that mistake. ;-)