The remote extreme North and Liberalism (or Conservatism)

[InquilineKea]

So as we all know, the remote extreme north in the US is quite conservative and Republican-supporting. (by "remote" I mean Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota). Although Vermont/Maine/New Hampshire could fit in there as well, their climates are not as extreme as those of the aforementioned regions, and their population densities are higher (plus they're all close to major population centers). The northern US (minus Alaska) is still mild enough for farming/ranching of some sort. The far north of Canada/Scandinavia, though, however, is probably way too cold for farming (or anything other than resource extraction). Ranching/farming interests, in particular, are particularly supportive of Republicans.

What I find interesting is this: The Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories consistently support liberals. Also, northern Manitoba/Ontario/BC/Saskatchewan all seem to go New Democrat even when the rest of the country goes Conservative. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_Fed_election_2006_Ridings.svg). In Sweden, the Northern parts are also the most liberal. The same goes for the United Kingdom (although this is probably since the conservatives are least receptive to increased Scottish autonomy, and so UK's case probably doesn't fit in this analysis, especially since Scotland isn't much colder than England). I also looked at Finland and Japan, where statistics are somewhat more ambiguous (Northern Finland is dominated by a minority group, so they would be expected to be more liberal), and Japan doesn't seem to have any trends.

So why is that the case? I know that a lot of anti-Democratic sentiment in the northwestern US is due to the environmental policies of the Democratic Party (even though people there tend to be quite libertarian on social issues). Environmental issues tend to impact votes the most in areas where there are still significant areas of government ownership/wilderness (which is frequently the case in the far north), and labor issues also tend to be prominent as extraction industries also tend to be the most dangerous ones. But maybe there isn't as much "liberal/conservative" dichotomy with respect to environmental issues in other countries? I would presume that a significant amount of the employment in northern territories has to do with resource extraction, as it is one of the only "profitable" ways to live in the extreme remote North.

It's possible that these areas have lots of recluses who would want to "escape civilization" and live "with nature" (who would probably be more liberal [or libertarian]). But most of these northern countries have population densities so low that people can "live with nature" even in their warmer regions. And besides, if you wanted to "live with nature", you probably wouldn't want to live in the tundra. You'd probably want to live in the boreal forests.

Speaking of recluses, are there any places that have especially high densities of them? I would think that Montana would be popular, but only because I know of the Unabomber. And then there's Alaska (with Timothy Treadwill).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's no particular reason for somewhere to vote in a particular way because it is remote, sparsely population and/or unusually close to the Arctic. Although, I guess, remoteness tends to reduce support for establishment conservative parties and (obviously) increase the chances of regional protest movements. It's usually better to look at the economic (though often the past economic structures will be a better guide) and social structures of a given area and work from there. Norrbotten in Sweden (for example) votes heavily for the Social Democrats because it is working class - iron mining was historically the dominant industry and it remains important in places - and (relatively) poor.

Though the liberal/conservative thing is best abandoned. Say left and right instead. Because saying that the northern parts of Sweden are the most liberal is a claim likely to spark much laughter.

[InquilineKea]

haha okay good points.

Ah yes, with Canada, upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Censusdivisions-ethnic.png pretty much explains why the north usually votes left. But I don't think it explains the entire story (especially with respect to the Yukon)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, in the Canadian North personal votes are often a big factor. I think all three territories have been represented by members of all three parties (federally) over the past thirty years or so.

[Verily]

Far northern Canada is heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Inuit). Far northern Sweden is also heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Sami), and also generally impoverished even where not heavily minority (along the coast). The far northern US is not mostly ethnic minority and not generally impoverished, although in the areas where it is (e.g., Glacier County, MT), it is heavily Democratic.

[Хahar 🤔]

Far northern Canada is heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Inuit). Far northern Sweden is also heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Sami), and also generally impoverished even where not heavily minority (along the coast). The far northern US is not mostly ethnic minority and not generally impoverished, although in the areas where it is (e.g., Glacier County, MT), it is heavily Democratic.

Yeah. Places like Shannon County, SD are the best parallels to much of the Arctic.

[InquilineKea]

Okay, good examples so far!

What I'm still wondering - is why the Yukon Territory is also so Leftist. (it has a white majority rather than a "First Nations" majority).

[RI]

Far northern Canada is heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Inuit). Far northern Sweden is also heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Sami), and also generally impoverished even where not heavily minority (along the coast). The far northern US is not mostly ethnic minority and not generally impoverished, although in the areas where it is (e.g., Glacier County, MT), it is heavily Democratic.

Yeah. Places like Shannon County, SD are the best parallels to much of the Arctic.

In the US, the best literal examples are the three or four far northern districts of Alaska (along the Arctic Ocean and Bering Strait) that all vote heavily Democratic and are heavily native. The plurality Native and plurality Asian parts of the Alaskan Peninsula/Aleutians and the Panhandle are almost more Democratic than the state average.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Okay, good examples so far!

What I'm still wondering - is why the Yukon Territory is also so Leftist. (it has a white majority rather than a "First Nations" majority).

Well, the Yukon isn't particularly leftist - it elected the Conservative Erik Nielsen to Ottawa for many years, and currently the conservative Yukon party has a majority government.

The Yukon has a very small population - only about 30,000, of whom 20,000 live in Whitehorse. So like with a mayor of a small city, the MP can become sort of known by a lot of people and develop a personal following. Also, inevitably in a territorial capital that's so small, there's going to be a higher ratio of public-sector workers, which is another source of strength for non-Conservative parties.

[Hash]

I think it'd be wrong to describe either YK, NWT or NU as inherently right-wing or left-wing.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's worth noting that the current Premier of the Yukon used to be a member of the NDP back when they were in government there.

[Hatman 🍁]

It's worth noting that the current Premier of the Yukon used to be a member of the NDP back when they were in government there.

The Yukon has parties, but they don't matter. MLAs switch parties all the time and get re-elected.  Everything is personality based in the arctic.

[Kevinstat]

It's worth noting that the current Premier of the Yukon used to be a member of the NDP back when they were in government there.

The Yukon has parties, but they don't matter. MLAs switch parties all the time and get re-elected.  Everything is personality based in the arctic.

In both the Northwest Territories and Nunavut (which separated from the NWT in 1999), elections to the Legislative Assembly are nonpartisan, with the territorial government operating under a "consensus government" system.

[Gustaf]

Far northern Canada is heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Inuit). Far northern Sweden is also heavily impoverished ethnic minority (Sami), and also generally impoverished even where not heavily minority (along the coast). The far northern US is not mostly ethnic minority and not generally impoverished, although in the areas where it is (e.g., Glacier County, MT), it is heavily Democratic.

Lol. No.