SSM: Ideological AND geographical?

[ElectionsGuy]

It seems like the issue of same sex marriage is also divided by region and geography. Minnesota is a great example:



There are counties that voted decisively Romney, like Scott and Carver counties, that barely voted one way or the other. And then there are counties in areas of the North and Southeast that are traditionally more democratic when it comes to election voting, but voted for the amendment (Set up by republicans to clarify marriage between solely a man and a woman). The difference is, Scott and Carver counties are more urban than the counties in the North and Southeast, which are more rural. So the point is, there is no direct correlation between party voting and this issue. It seem to be a combination of how urban the area is, and how it votes party wise.

Perhaps though, this is only a Midwestern thing, as Wisconsin in 2006 showed the same kind of pattern (but much more so against SSM). Let me know if you have any information that you would like to add or correct, and whether you agree with this theory or not.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

It's not just the Midwest.
I've seen a great map somewhere around here of North Carolina showing strong Republican suburbs of Charlotte voting in against the same-sex marriage ban, and Democratic areas voting in favour.

[Sol]

Of course SSM is divided along geographical lines. But so is everything else in American politics.

I think, and correct if I'm wrong, is the point you're trying to argue is that SSM doesn't pattern along partisan lines. And you'd be partially correct. But it certainly does pattern along ideological ones.

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course SSM is divided along geographical lines. But so is everything else in American politics.

I think, and correct if I'm wrong, is the point you're trying to argue is that SSM doesn't pattern along partisan lines. And you'd be partially correct. But it certainly does pattern along ideological ones.

No. I'm saying its not just partisan lines, but a combination of geography and ideology (as noted in the title). I'm saying it goes partially in line with political party and partially in line with region, but not 100% of either.

[Sol]

Of course SSM is divided along geographical lines. But so is everything else in American politics.

I think, and correct if I'm wrong, is the point you're trying to argue is that SSM doesn't pattern along partisan lines. And you'd be partially correct. But it certainly does pattern along ideological ones.

No. I'm saying its not just partisan lines, but a combination of geography and ideology (as noted in the title). I'm saying it goes partially in line with political party and partially in line with region, but not 100% of either.

My point is this: Support for SSM is best conceived of as going along ideological lines- not partisan or geographic ones.

[bedstuy]

I wonder if there's also something about the age distributions in places like Minnesota.  Rural Minnesota counties are much older because of population loss and suburban counties are younger because of young families moving in.  We know that over 65 people tend to oppose gay rights and younger people tend to support it.

Take Wright and Sherbune Counties, Romney over-performed the gay marriage ban.  Both have a lower percentage of people over 65 years of age than Minnesota as a whole. 

Take Carlton County, Obama over-performed the "No" option by more than 10%.  Carlton county is disproportionately over 65 compared to Minnesota as a whole.

That's not the whole story obvious.  The culture of rural America is still homophobic to an extent.  But, the point is there.  The graying of rural America exacerbates the difference in support for gay marriage.

[ElectionsGuy]

Of course SSM is divided along geographical lines. But so is everything else in American politics.

I think, and correct if I'm wrong, is the point you're trying to argue is that SSM doesn't pattern along partisan lines. And you'd be partially correct. But it certainly does pattern along ideological ones.

No. I'm saying its not just partisan lines, but a combination of geography and ideology (as noted in the title). I'm saying it goes partially in line with political party and partially in line with region, but not 100% of either.

My point is this: Support for SSM is best conceived of as going along ideological lines- not partisan or geographic ones.

Agreed. But It clearly has something to do with region as well, which affects ideology. Hence why I put it in this section.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Urban areas tend toward many types of diversity less common, or at least less apparent, in more rural areas. Ethnic diversity, religious diversity, and often diversity of gender/sexual expression. Urban areas have less attachment to traditional norms, which leads to more open expression of homosexuality, which in turn means that it is more accepted because you are more likely to know someone who is openly homosexual.  Suburban areas can be very conventional, but in a different sense than rural areas, since there is less continuity of a community and so the morality may be more individualistic.

There is a great deal of difference too among rural areas within the country - as you can see from the difference such in MN between the SW and the NE. This goes back to the different religious, moral and social traditions of those areas, that can go back to differences in immigrant cultures and/or subsequent histories.  Ideology/geography isn't an either/or question.

[Mr. Illini]

SSM is definitely even more dramatically decided on geographical lines than most elections are, but it isn't just SSM. You would find this with pretty much every social issue. The reason being that suburban Republicans and rural Democrats alike are voting as they do for economic reasons and both often differ from their parties on social issues.

[muon2]

SSM is definitely even more dramatically decided on geographical lines than most elections are, but it isn't just SSM. You would find this with pretty much every social issue. The reason being that suburban Republicans and rural Democrats alike are voting as they do for economic reasons and both often differ from their parties on social issues.

This is often true. A broader statement might be that the major parties represent big tents that generally include both people with economic or social views on their side of the political spectrum. People who are economically one way and socially the other have to pick which party to support, sometimes do simply because of historical association. Those people will find themselves at odds with their choice of party when key issues come up that put them on the opposite side of their party politically.

[Adam Griffin]

It's not just the Midwest.
I've seen a great map somewhere around here of North Carolina showing strong Republican suburbs of Charlotte voting in against the same-sex marriage ban, and Democratic areas voting in favour.

I can't remember if Gass posted this on here or not, but here's a map that we worked on awhile back that shows the most recent referendum/initiative on the matter by county/state:

[ilikeverin]

It seems like the issue of same sex marriage is also divided by region and geography. Minnesota is a great example:



There are counties that voted decisively Romney, like Scott and Carver counties, that barely voted one way or the other. And then there are counties in areas of the North and Southeast that are traditionally more democratic when it comes to election voting, but voted for the amendment (Set up by republicans to clarify marriage between solely a man and a woman). The difference is, Scott and Carver counties are more urban than the counties in the North and Southeast, which are more rural. So the point is, there is no direct correlation between party voting and this issue. It seem to be a combination of how urban the area is, and how it votes party wise.

Well, ya, you can see Minnesota even better just in the Metro area alone:

[nclib]

Although geographical differences are primarily explained by ideological reasons, and some rural areas vote differently than other rural areas on SSM, is there any reason to believe urban and rural areas vote differently when controlled for ideology?

[old timey villain]

It's not just the Midwest.
I've seen a great map somewhere around here of North Carolina showing strong Republican suburbs of Charlotte voting in against the same-sex marriage ban, and Democratic areas voting in favour.

I can't remember if Gass posted this on here or not, but here's a map that we worked on awhile back that shows the most recent referendum/initiative on the matter by county/state:

where did you get the Georgia data?

[Adam Griffin]

It's not just the Midwest.
I've seen a great map somewhere around here of North Carolina showing strong Republican suburbs of Charlotte voting in against the same-sex marriage ban, and Democratic areas voting in favour.

I can't remember if Gass posted this on here or not, but here's a map that we worked on awhile back that shows the most recent referendum/initiative on the matter by county/state:

where did you get the Georgia data?

IIRC, it was pulled from a CNN statewide map that had county-by-county on-hover results from 2004.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Age does matter here.  Many of the suburbs that voted Romney but against the ban are dominated by middle aged people in their mid 30s-mid 50s who as an age group are more Republican but also more liberal on some social issues than the more Democratic friendly but more socially conservative 50s/60s age group.

I imagine my county would have been much greener if not for the university here.