I did a fun wonk and water-cooler story in today’s Globe, based on stats analyzed by Andy Yan at BTA Works, all about how our voting preferences correlate with density.
The numbers show a dramatic difference in the types of ridings that Conservatives win, compared to Liberals and New Democrats. Liberals win in some of the highest-density ridings in the country. The NDP are not too far behind, although they also do well in some low-density areas — northern, resource-based districts, for example.
But the Conservatives just can’t seem to win in anything more than a medium-density suburb.
This is something a lot of American political analysts looked at after the 2012 election there, the way voting correlates with density. A small selection of the writing on this topic here, here and here.
Those patterns raise a couple of questions. One, what does it mean for Canada when the governing party is essentially excluded from the country’s economic engines, i.e. its cities.
Second, what is really going on? Is it just that people of certain education levels, professions or political inclinations cluster in certain areas (and therefore vote a particular way)? Or is it that the conditions of urban, suburban or rural ridings actually have an impact on people’s political inclinations? As suburban ridings densify, will they be more likely to switch from Conservative to one of the other two parties?
Things to ponder.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Kirk // Oct 14, 2015 at 10:11 am
People who live in cities are just smarter. It’s a fact (oh, I’m trying so hard not to grin when saying that, but it’s scientifically proven):
http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-smartest-people-move-into-and-out-of-cities/373760/
2 brent granby // Oct 14, 2015 at 10:37 am
Conservatives with a strong candidate can do well in a dense riding. Lorne Mayencourt beat the NDP in 2008 with strong support in Yaletown:
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/canadavotes/riding/298/candidate.html
He was not able to top the Libs, but it was, sadly a good results for the CPC in an urban riding.
3 Kirk // Oct 14, 2015 at 10:50 am
The small “c” conservative vote was just 25% compared to 75% of the combined small “l” liberal vote (Liberal, NDP, Greens).
4 peakie // Oct 14, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Age differences and spread in riding? The famous Gladstone aphorisms about youth, age and political persuasion….
StatCan does have FED notes (Federal Electoral Districts
“A federal electoral district (FED) is an area represented by a member of the House of Commons. The federal electoral district boundaries used for the 2011 Census are based on the 2003 Representation Order.”
(By the way, you called Michael Heeny, principal, but Andrew Yan calls him Mark and an intern on his posting
“A special thanks to Mark Heeney, the BTAworks Summer Intern extraordinaire for helping processing the elections and demographic data. – See more at: http://www.btaworks.com/#sthash.gLLFM2EC.dpuf
Frances Bula wrotes:
“That election marked the high point of an increasing polarization of the vote between low-density and high-density ridings, says Michael Heeney, the principal of the firm BTA Works, which did the analysis.”)
5 A Taxpayer // Oct 18, 2015 at 1:27 pm
This is not surprising since urban ridings have a higher concentration of people who benefit the most from the generous re-distributions of the welfare state while the more rural ridings have a higher proportion of individuals who are more independent and self-reliant and would naturally tend to support the Conservative Party.
6 Chris Keam // Oct 18, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Yep, nothing says rural life like a farmer turning down help from his neighbours. I love that hoary old cliche of a fella single-handedly raising that ole barn on his lonesome.
7 A Taxpayer // Oct 18, 2015 at 4:53 pm
It explains a lot when you equate the situation where people choose to help each other with one where people make demands on the state. In the first instance people give to their neighbours and the second, people take from their neighbours.
And the direct recipients of government largess are the not the only beneficiaries. In fact the service providers often benefit more and you only have to look at the DTES to see that.
8 Chris Keam // Oct 18, 2015 at 7:07 pm
You chose to use independence and self-reliance as a the marker for your sweeping generalization. It doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny or even a moment’s thought when you consider it from a non-biased perspective.
9 Keith // Oct 18, 2015 at 10:07 pm
Um, marketing boards, milk quotas, crop failure insurance, EI for fishermen who worked two months a year…. Yep gotta love those independent self reliant rural types. Just like the privatized profits and socialized losses of the business sector in western democracies. YEEHAW!!!
10 A Taxpayer // Oct 19, 2015 at 1:10 pm
Your problem is that you don’t give any moment’s thought to any view that does not fit into your narrow “non-biased” perspective but no doubt you are doing the best you can with such limited resources.
11 boohoo // Oct 19, 2015 at 1:43 pm
I think you just broke the ceiling for the best pot calling the kettle black. Congrats!
12 A Taxpayer // Oct 19, 2015 at 2:14 pm
Yet, for all of capitalism’s shortcomings it has still managed to raise hundreds of millions out of poverty while the many failed experiments of socialism left people all the poorer for it.
13 Chris Keam // Oct 19, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Yep, that flood of refugees from Scandinavia just won’t stop eh?
14 Keith // Oct 20, 2015 at 12:00 pm
What lifts people out of poverty is the empowerment of women. If poor women have control of their bodies and can break the cycle of annual childbearing, are given education and some seeds or a small loan the results are consistently positive for them and their families.
15 A Taxpayer // Oct 20, 2015 at 2:58 pm
And on the other side of the ledger some examples are China (whose brand of socialism not only failed to lift the masses out of poverty but resulted in the deaths of millions), the former Eastern Bloc European countries, Vietnam, North Korea (in stark contrast to South Korea) and perhaps the most recent, Venezuela.
Kind of dwarfs the 20 million people living in the Scandinavian countries doesn’t it and no doubt much of the success of those countries is more a reflection of the character of the people. Let’s check back in a few years as the low birth rate and mismanaged immigration is changing the character of Sweden and not for the better.
16 A Taxpayer // Oct 20, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Considering that the birth control pill was not available until the early 60’s would suggest that you do not think there was significant economic progress prior to then. No, the actions you raise no doubt accelerate economic growth but within the framework of a free market system as they are not sufficient on their own. However, I would be very interested if you could provide any references that would suggest otherwise.
17 Chris Keam // Oct 20, 2015 at 8:02 pm
China, along with the other examples you chose (excepting Venezuela) are communist (or were at some point). I’m sure you know this. Why choose an example that falls apart immediately? I hope your grasp of political systems is better than that post indicates.
18 Keith // Oct 20, 2015 at 11:19 pm
Within the framework of a mixed economy with a democratic socialist system.
19 A Taxpayer // Oct 21, 2015 at 1:52 pm
So there was no economic progress prior to 1960? Any references to back up your theory?
20 A Taxpayer // Oct 21, 2015 at 2:22 pm
The difference between communism and socialism is the political structure – the economic structure is the same so it is fair to describe the China and Vietnam economies before reforms as socialist. Both countries retained their political systems but adopted a more capitalistic approach to their economies resulting in lifting millions of their people out of poverty. And don’t just gloss over Venezuela (which with its 30 million people is 1 1/2 times larger than Scandinavia) which is a somewhat democratic country that has driven its country into the ground by adopting socialist policies.
No doubt capitalism has its shortcomings but I think Churchill summarized our choice very well:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
21 Chris Keam // Oct 21, 2015 at 3:54 pm
“The difference between communism and socialism is the political structure – the economic structure is the same”
http://data.whicdn.com/images/6381559/large.jpg
22 Keith // Oct 21, 2015 at 11:13 pm
So there was no contraception prior to 1960? How ignorant are you?
23 A Taxpayer // Oct 22, 2015 at 10:42 am
Your limited abilities are more suitable to comedy than serious debate. You should stick with it.
24 A Taxpayer // Oct 22, 2015 at 1:28 pm
As you can see from the attached article, the Industrial Revolution came first which provided the opportunity for women to increase their participation in the workforce and not the other way around.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/worklaborunions/a/early_america.htm
And yes, there was contraception before 1960 but the attached table illustrates the impact the birth control pill had on the birth rate which drops off dramatically in the 1960’s.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
As for your last question, apparently not as ignorant as you.
25 Chris Keam // Oct 23, 2015 at 7:36 am
My ‘limited abilities’ have repeatedly exposed your comments as the doctrinaire nonsense of an ideologue, so there’s that.
26 A Taxpayer // Oct 23, 2015 at 11:54 am
If choosing wealth creating capitalism over the impoverishment of socialism makes me an ideologue then I plead guilty as charged so don’t get too carried away patting yourself on the back.