What would 2004 Pres. election map look like if only rich people could vote?

[Lanya]

Also  shows only poor and only middle class maps. Interesting.
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/10/26/rich-state-poor-state/

[gipper]

Oddly, New Jersey and Maryland, judged by per capita income, are the two richest states in the nation, but each remains steadfastly blue throughout the permutations of this pie chart.

[Plane]

Also  shows only poor and only middle class maps. Interesting.
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/10/26/rich-state-poor-state/

For poor voters, there is no systematic difference between rich and poor states. But for middle-income and especially for rich voters, there is a very strong pattern of rich states supporting the Democrats and poor states supporting the Republicans.

Wow , that is counterintuitive.

[_JS]

Also  shows only poor and only middle class maps. Interesting.
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/10/26/rich-state-poor-state/

For poor voters, there is no systematic difference between rich and poor states. But for middle-income and especially for rich voters, there is a very strong pattern of rich states supporting the Democrats and poor states supporting the Republicans.

Wow , that is counterintuitive.

Do you see what it is saying? It is not saying that poor people vote for Republicans in poor states. They do not (at least if the data in the article is correct).

It is saying that the poor are a constant across the country, for the most part, and support the Democrats. The middle class and wealthy support varied (at least in 2004) based on the wealth of the state. If you think about it, that shouldn't be much of a surprise to anyone. The Southern states, which voted solidly Republican, are the poorest states in the country. The Republicans then won the Midwest, which are the next tier of poorest states.

Take Tennessee as an example. It voted for Bush in 2004 by a decent margin. The wealthiest county in Tennessee is Williamson County, where the city of Franklin, TN is located. The wealthiest city in Tennessee is Belle Meade, which is one of the wealthiest cities in the country. These are solidly Republican areas and they vote in one of the most conservative Congresswomen in the country. Yet, the cities of Memphis and Nashville are where the majority of Democratic votes come. These are poorer, urban areas (though parts are quite wealthy). Germantown, a suburb of Memphis, is wealthy and will vote Republican (I haven't checked on Germantown for 2004...but I bet it voted Repblican).

Now some of the rural poor counties will vote GOP as well. Johnson and Unicoi Counties in Tennessee are excellent examples and have voted GOP since Reconstruction and have always been amongst Tennessee's poorest counties. So it isn't a rule without exceptions by any means. But, it doesn't really surprise me at all.

Whereas wealthier folks in the Northeast and West Coast likely vote Democrat, at least that is my perception.

[Plane]

Ok but there is a much more clear demarcation in the voting between the urban and the rural.


The thing that I thought counterintuitive was that the poor do not make up a big enough demographic to sway an election even when they all vote together.

[_JS]

Ok but there is a much more clear demarcation in the voting between the urban and the rural.


The thing that I thought counterintuitive was that the poor do not make up a big enough demographic to sway an election even when they all vote together.

That shouldn't be surprising either. They don't vote. At least not in large numbers.

Education is a significant factor in predicting voter turnout, as is class. In some countries that have multiple parties and a party especially for the working classes, the turnout amongst the poor and working classes will be much higher.

The United States generally has very low turnout for a western democracy, the poor are especially amongst those who are least likely to vote.

The most likely to turnout are those who have a college degree, are in the middle class or wealthier, or work for the Federal Government in some capacity (non-military).

[Plane]

Is it chic and trendy to vote?

I wish it were , also I wish it were popular to learn the facts .

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is a long way from chic or trendy to vote.

Most of the people who don't vote are just plain dumb and don't want to be bothered with informing themselves on the issues.
Not all, but most. Some just don't5 want to be responsible for the errors of either party.

If we wanted to maximize voter turnout, we would have elections on Sundays, not Tuesdays. We would force the broadcasters to donate time to anyone with at least 10% of the vote. We would not allow stupid 30 second attack ads. We would have proportional representation.



I don't think either party wants to maximize voter turnout. At most,they want THEIR followers to turn out in greater numbers than their opponents.

[R.R.]

Define rich.

Reagan did better than that in '84.