Dividing the US into regions

[opebo]

You don't have that much to type. There's a number written, which you have to replace with another number : not that complicated.

You must be a computer programmer.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL

[angus]

I was thinking about calculating the results of US Presidential elections by regions, and see if we could find consistent large-scale patterns.

If this is your only goal, why not just run a quick algorithm.  In this way, it's easy.  Here we have only two dominant political parties, and in all except two states, it's winner take all.  So you could take the results of the last ten presidential elections and from that get ten regions.  Group 1:  states that have elected a Democrat ten times;  Group 2:  states that have elected a Democrat nine times; etc.  Of course you'd get discontinuity in the regions, but I think you're getting too hung up on the idea that regions must be connected anyway.

Alternatively, do percentages.  Say, group 1 is states that have a mean Democrat popular vote of 70 percent or higher, group 2 is states that have a mean Democrat popular vote of 65 to 69 percent, and so on...  You could take the "modern" elections as the last ten, or the last twelve, or the last eight, whatever.  This would also probably yield a set of discontinuous regions, but if you were keen on geographic connectivity, then you could tweek the map at the end--"fudge" the results, as it were-- to give contiguous regions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, here are the polls' results :

Pennsylvania :
- Northeast : 12 (55%)
- Rust Belt : 10 (45%)

Michigan :
- Rust Belt : 20 (95%)
- Midwest : 1 (5%)

Tennessee :
- Outer South : 13 (76%)
- Deep South : 4 (24%)

Arkansas :
- Deep South : 11 (55%)
- Outer South : 9 (45%)

Missouri :
- Outer South : 10 (50%)
- Midwest : 10 (50%)

Oklahoma :
- Plains : 12 (67%)
- Deep South : 3 (17%)
- Outer South : 3 (17%)

Texas :
- Southwest : 11 (58%)
- Deep South : 8 (42%)

Utah :
- Big Sky : 12 (67%)
- Southwest : 6 (33%)

My votes aren't counted, and Vazdul reversed his call for MO and TX.

So, for 4 States we can see a clear majority (more than 2/3rds) emerging : Michigan for Rust Belt, Tennessee for Outer south, Oklahoma for Plains, and Utah for Big Sky. That would (I say would) give us this map :



Also, before we proceed to next step, I'd like to clarify something. Muon has evoked the possibility of putting Colorado in Big Sky (instead of Southwest). So, I thought I could make a poll also about it, but only if I see this idea is shared by enough people. Would someone else support Muon's proposal ?

[Gustaf]

I think it makes sense to use broad regions. I did a paper once where I used the following definitions:

South: old confederacy
Border states: WV, OK, KY, MO, MD, DE
Northeast: New England+New York+New Jersey
Midwest: Minnesota, Iowa and everything east of that not included in one of the others
West: (everything else)

I designed it to work mostly for the post-civil war era until the Southern realignment.

The thing is, imo, that if you use more than say 5 regions the standards for accuracy you're developing really forces you to give up the concept altogether.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The thing is, imo, that if you use more than say 5 regions the standards for accuracy you're developing really forces you to give up the concept altogether.

Seeing the difficulties and disagreements we're ahving there, I'm starting to think you aren't entirely wrong... However, I don't want to renounce and think it's worth to go until the end with this project.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I oppose the addition of Colorado to Big Sky, favoring its place in the Southwest. While there are areas of Colorado that would be a better fit in Big Sky, the state as a whole would be a better fit in the Southwest. The large Hispanic population in particular is a major factor in this decision.

[jimrtex]

The regions are defined based on voting in the last 25 presidential elections, based on which states generally vote with their neighbors or don't vote with their neighbors.  NH, DC, VA, FL, MI, MN, and NM are somewhat outliers, but they are attached to the states that they are closest to.  The Plains and Mountain states are really one region, but they are colored separately because of their close internal connections.

The numbers indicate the number of times that the state deviated from the majority of states in the region.

Northeast: 9 states.  Backed national winner 20/25 or 80% (misses were 1916, 1948, 1968, 2000, and 2004). Biggest splits were in 1932 and 1988, both 5:3 splits. The group has been unanimous 15 times, including the last 5. The last time Pennsylvania deviated from the majority of the group was 1932.  DC has deviated from the group 4 of its 12 elections.

Northern New England: 3 states.  Backed national winner 15/25 or 60% (misses were 1916, 1932-1948 (5), 1960, 1976, 2000, and 2004).  The group voted Republican from 1916-1988, except for the 1964 LBJ landslide.  Since 1992 the groups has voted Democratic every election.  The group has been unanimous 18 times.  The last time Vermont deviated from the majority of the group was 1912.  New Hampshire has deviated from Maine and Vermont 5 times, including voting for FDR from 1936-1944.

Deep South: 8 states.  Backed national winner 15/25 or 60% (misses were 1920-1928 (3), 1952, 1956. 1964, 1968, 1992, 1996, and 2008.  The group voted Democratic from 1912 to 1960, and has voted Republican in every election since then except 1968 (Wallace) and 1976 (Carter).  The group has been unanimous 14 times.  There was one 4:4 split (1948 betweem Truman and Thurmond), and two 5:3 splits,were three 5:4 splits, in 1964 (5 backed Goldwater), and 1968 (5 backed Wallace).  The last time Alabama and Mississippi deviated was 1960, and South Carolina and Texas in 1968.  Florida split off 8 times, and has split from the Border Bellwether states only 4 times, and so was switched to that group.

Border Bellwether: 7 states, including Florida.  Backed national winner 23/25 or 92% (misses were 1960 and 2008.  If West Virginia is excluded, 2008 was a 3:3 split, with the 3 largest states backing Obama.  The group has been unanimous 10 times.  There have been three 4:3 splits, in 1920, 1960, and 2008; so in the two elections the group was not a bellwether it was nearly an even split.  Tennessee deviated in 1924, Ohio has deviated in 1944 and 2008, Kentucky in 1920 and 1952, and Missouri in 1956 and 1960.  Florida has deviated from the group only 4 times (vs 8 times from the Deep South).  West Virginia and Virginia are somewhat outliers, though they match the group better than the alternatives (Northeast for WV, and Deep South for Virginia).  The 12 total deviations for Virginia and West Virginia were in 12 separate elections, so though they belong marginally to the same group, they have voted opposite each other 48% of the time.

Upper Midwest: 5 states.  Backed national winner 20/25 or 80% (misses were 1916, 1976, 1988, 2000, and 2004.  The group has been unanimous 13 times.  There have been seven 3:2 splits, in 1912, 1940, 1944, 1960, 1968, 1976, and 1988.  Illinois deviated in 1988.  Michigan has deviated 3 times from the Northeast region, and could be placed with However, unlike Florida and Indiana, there is a neighboring region that it is a reasonably close match to, and so it was placed with the other states in the Upper Midwest.

Great Plains: 6 states, including Indiana.  Backed national winner 17/25 or 68% (misses were 1940, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008.  It has voted Republican in 20 elections, with 1912, 1916, 1932, 1936, and 1944 being the only exceptions.  It has been unanimous in 20 elections, all but 1912, 1916, 1948, 1992, and 2008.  Indiana is placed in the group based on its consistent Republican voting pattern.  While it has deviated from the Upper Midwest 9 elections, and Border Bellwether 7 times, it has only split from the Great Plains twice, in 1916 and 2008.  South Dakota last deviated from the group in 1916.

Rocky Mountains: 7 states, including Alaska and Oklahoma.  Backed national winner 20/25 or 80% (misses were 1960, 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2008.  It has been unanimous in 19 elections.  Utah last deviated from the group in 1912, Oklahoma in 1924, and Wyoming in 1944.

Pacific: 6 states, including New Mexico.  Backed national winner 21/25 or 84% (misses were 1960, 1976, 2004, and 2004.  It has been unanimous in 15 elections.  It has been split 3:3 twice, in 1960 and 1988.  In both elections, it was treated as voting with California, the largest state.  California last deviated in 1912.  Hawaii, has deviated 5 times in 13 elections.  It would be a better match for the Northeast region (2 elections).

Assuming that they will vote with their region in 2012, California, Utah, and Vermont will have voted with their regions for 25 elections (1916-2012), and South Dakota and Pennsylvatnia will be reduced to one deviation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Updated poll results :

Pennsylvania :
- Northeast : 15 (58%)
- Rust Belt : 11 (42%)

Michigan :
- Rust Belt : 22 (85%)
- Midwest : 4 (15%)

Tennessee :
- Outer South : 14 (70%)
- Deep South : 6 (30%)

Arkansas :
- Deep South : 11 (50%)
- Outer South : 11 (50%)

Missouri :
- Midwest : 13 (54%)
- Outer South : 11 (46%)

Oklahoma :
- Plains : 17 (68%)
- Deep South : 4 (16%)
- Outer South : 4 (16%)

Texas :
- Southwest : 13 (57%)
- Deep South : 10 (43%)

Utah :
- Big Sky : 15 (68%)
- Southwest : 7 (32%)

Threee vote changes taken into account : vazdul for Missouri and Texas, Opebo for Tennessee.

3 majorities have expanded : Pennsylvania, Oklahoma and Utah. 3 have narrowed : Michigan, Tennessee and Texas. In Missouri, a tie has turned into a narrow Midwest lead and in Arkansas, a narrow Deep South lead has become a tie.

Of course, I encourage those who haven't yet voted to express themselves and vote. those polls aren't supposed to close, and if I see major changes I will update the results again.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, since nobdy seems to support transfering Colorado into Big Sky, I definitely place it it in the Southwest.

Ok, now time is up for the second step : studies of Presidential election results. First of all, what I want to do now is to establish a panel of 10 elections which are the most representative of regional divides in the US. For obvious reasons, it wouldn't make much sense to look for them before the end of the reconstruction, when these regions made absolutely no sense. So, here is the challenge : from 1876 to 2008, we have to find the 10 elections that will most help us to establish regional patterns.

The first elections I managed to isolate were those :
- 1884 (the most perfect example of the regional polarization of the USA in an extremely close election)
- 1896 (major regional realignment)
- 1912 (races with a great number of strong candidates are always useful to analyze)
- 1924 (same reason)
- 1928 (an important election, with Smith deeply changing the nature of Dem electorate)
- 1932 (New Deal realignment)
- 1964 (upset reversion of the Deep South)
- 1968 (same reason as 1912 and 1924)
- 1972 (Nixon sweeping the South by enormous margins)
- 1976 (East-West divide)
- 1984 (establishment of the new Republican coalition)
- 1992 (Clinton managing to rally the Outer South while the Deep south remains republican)
- 2000 (very polarized election)
- 2008 (the most recent one)

The problem is : here we have 14 elections, how do we manage to reduce this number to 10 (or maybe even less) ? I initially thought to simply exclude 4 of them, but eventually realized they were all useful in some way. that's why I thought the best thing to do was to establish a panel adapted to each State. Starting with those 14 elections, we onl keep those that show something useful for a particular State (or a particular couple of States). Now, let's get back to our 8 states we want to classify. Which group of elections you think would best fit for each of them ? Let's discuss there.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Pennsylvania:

1884: Pennsylvania voted with the Rust Belt and against the Northeast.
1932: Pennsylvania was an outlier, voting against both the Rust Belt and the Northeast. Was close to both New Jersey and Ohio, but voted more in line with New England.
1968: Pennsylvania voted with the Northeast and against the Rust Belt.
1976: Pennsylvania voted with the Northeast and against the Rust Belt.
1992: Pennsylvania voted with both the Northeast and the Rust Belt, but the margins were more in line with the Northeast.
2000: Pennsylvania voted with the Northeast and against the Rust Belt.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Michigan:

1924: Coolidge racked up a huge majority in Michigan, slightly more in line with the Rust Belt than in Midwest. LaFollette was much stronger in the Midwest than he was in Michigan or the Rust Belt.
1928: Hoover's huge majority in Michigan is a better match to the Rust Belt than to the Midwest.
1976: In the East/West divide, Michigan voted with the West.  Michigan's voting was typical for both regions.
1984: Reagan's margin in Michigan was more in line with his margins in the Rust Belt states than with his margins in the Midwest.
2000: Michigan voted with the Midwest and against the Rust Belt.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Tennessee:

1896: At first glance, Tennessee voted with the Deep South and against the Outer South. But Bryan racked up huge majorities in the Deep South while carrying Tennessee by only 6 points. The rest of the Outer South voted for McKinley by small margins.
1924: See 1896.
1928: Tennessee voted with the Outer South and against the Deep South.
1964: Tennessee voted with the Outer South and against the Deep South.
1968: See 1964.
1992: See 1964.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Arkansas:

1896: Arkansas voted with the Deep South (along with its huge margins) and against the Outer South.
1924: See 1896.
1928: See 1896.
1932: Roosevelt's margin in Arkansas was much closer to his margins in the Deep South states than his margins in the Outer South states.
1964: Arkansas voted with the Outer South and against the Deep South.
1968: Arkansas voted with the Deep South and against the Outer South.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Missouri: (I'm tempted to reverse myself on this one again, because:)

1884: Missouri voted with the Outer South and against the Midwest.
1896: Missouri voted against both the Outer South and the Midwest, but is more in line with the Outer South.
1976: Missouri voted with a unanimous Outer South, but only with half of the Midwest.
2000: Missouri voted with the Outer South and against the Midwest.
2008: See 2000.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Oklahoma:

1928: Oklahoma voted against the Deep South, and its margin for Hoover is more in line with the Plains than with the Outer South.
1964: See 1928.
1968: See 1928.
1976: Oklahoma voted with the Plains and against both the Deep South and Outer South.
1992: Oklahoma voted against the Outer South, and with a unanimous Plains but a divided Deep South.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Texas:

1912: Wilson's margin in Texas was more in line with his margins in the Deep South than his margins in the Southwest.
1924: Texas voted with the Deep South and against the Southwest.
1928: Texas voted with the Southwest and against the Deep South.
1932: Roosevelt's margin in Texas was more in line with his margins in the Deep South than his margins in the Southwest.
1964: Texas voted with the Southwest and against the Deep South.
1968: Texas voted against both the Southwest and the Deep South, but was more in line with the Southwest.
1976: Texas voted with the Deep South and against the Southwest.
2008: Texas voted with the Deep South and against the Southwest.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Utah:

1912: Utah voted against both Big Sky and the Southwest, but was more in line with Big Sky.
1932: Roosevelt's margin in Utah was closer to his margins in Big Sky than his margins in the Southwest.
1984: Reagan's margin in Utah was closer to his margins in Big Sky than his margins in the Southwest.
1992: Utah voted with Big Sky and against the Southwest.
2000: Bush's margin in Utah was closer to his margins in Big Sky than his margins in the Southwest.
2008: Utah voted with Big Sky and against the Southwest.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks a lot Vazdul. This analysis already allow us to draw a closer tie between Tennesse and Outer South, Utah and Big sky and between Oklahoma and Plains (those two can already be considered as assigned), as well as, more surprisingly, between Missouri and Outer South, which goes against our previous poll. Also, this also draws a clear relation between PA and NE and between MI and RB. No clear pattern can instead be found for Arkansas and Texas.

Now, to expand this research a little bit, I'll add some elections to thos Vazdul has mentioned, in order to compose my "panel". As I've said, will be made of 10 elections.

Pennsylvania : 1884, 1896, 1912, 1928, 1932, 1968, 1976, 1984, 2000, 2008
Michigan : 1896, 1912, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1968, 1976, 1984, 2000, 2008
Tennessee : 1884, 1896, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1992, 2008
Arkansas : 1884, 1896, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 2000, 2008
Missouri : 1884, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008
Oklahoma : 1912, 1924, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008
Texas : 1884, 1896, 1928, 1932, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008
Utah : 1896, 1912, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1984, 1992, 2000, 2008

[muon2]

Thanks a lot Vazdul. This analysis already allow us to draw a closer tie between Tennesse and Outer South, Utah and Big sky and between Oklahoma and Plains (those two can already be considered as assigned), as well as, more surprisingly, between Missouri and Outer South, which goes against our previous poll. Also, this also draws a clear relation between PA and NE and between MI and RB. No clear pattern can instead be found for Arkansas and Texas.

Now, to expand this research a little bit, I'll add some elections to thos Vazdul has mentioned, in order to compose my "panel". As I've said, will be made of 10 elections.

Pennsylvania : 1884, 1896, 1912, 1928, 1932, 1968, 1976, 1984, 2000, 2008
Michigan : 1896, 1912, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1968, 1976, 1984, 2000, 2008
Tennessee : 1884, 1896, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 1992, 2008
Arkansas : 1884, 1896, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1984, 2000, 2008
Missouri : 1884, 1896, 1912, 1932, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008
Oklahoma : 1912, 1924, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008
Texas : 1884, 1896, 1928, 1932, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008
Utah : 1896, 1912, 1928, 1932, 1964, 1968, 1984, 1992, 2000, 2008

I still think you are fooling yourself by averaging a whole state. For instance, you note that MO is going against the poll. I think that what you are seeing is the Midwest area mirroring IA to the north, but the some of the areas outside of KC and StL are so southern in their voting patterns, that the average looks like "outer south". Note that the 2008 vote in MO was not like WV or KY but sat in between those states and the Midwest states.

The total vote percentages are not the only piece of voting data. The Atlas provides other data like election-to-election voting trends. The trend pattern in MO from 2004 to 2008 was almost exactly the same as MN. Most rural and urban counties had mild swings to R compared to the national average. It was not at all like KY or TN which had lots of areas with very strong shifts to R.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, the in-depth results comparison will probably tell us more about that.

[muon2]

Well, the in-depth results comparison will probably tell us more about that.

I get the wink, but I'm not sure how you'll bring this to conclusion other than to go with your gut. When you polled the forum, I would have thought the natives of the states should get extra weight - such as opebo's comments on MO. If the goal is to understand trends in voting patterns at a regional level, then there are many factors, both analytical as well as perceptual. Use of only superficial factors will tend to produce superficial conclusions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, the in-depth results comparison will probably tell us more about that.

I get the wink, but I'm not sure how you'll bring this to conclusion other than to go with your gut. When you polled the forum, I would have thought the natives of the states should get extra weight - such as opebo's comments on MO. If the goal is to understand trends in voting patterns at a regional level, then there are many factors, both analytical as well as perceptual. Use of only superficial factors will tend to produce superficial conclusions.

I don't inted to use the electoral similarity as a bible and follow anything that will come out. Like the polls, they are mere hints. I'll take into account the polls, the election data, and several ofther factors to take my decision. Of course, your point of view is very useful, as well as those of some other users like Vazdul. But it doesn't mean the rest becomes useless.

And well, there are usually not more than 1 or two users residing in a polled stete, so I can look at their comments but not really weigh their vote differently.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Bump.

Is there any chance of this project continuing. I'm kind of interested in seeing where you were going with this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh, I'm sorry. I've just started University so I didn't have as much time as I used to when I started this. Of course I'm still very interested to this project and will update it as soon as possible. Tomorrow I'll try to use with my comparison algorithm for Pennsylvania, though I can't promise you I will.