Most Sprawling Cities Are Also Most Republican

Sprawl and Conservative Politics

It has long been known that Democrats tend to cluster is large cities while Republicans often find themselves in rural areas. But now, a recent study indicates that there are differences even between urban areas. The densest cities are the most Democratic, while sprawling metros tend to be more Republican. In the 2012 presidential election, there was a correlation of .44 for sprawl and voting for Romney and a correlation of -.43 for sprawl and voting for Obama. 

The Tipping Point

At around 800 people per square mile, voting districts tend to shift from Republican to Democrat. At around this level of density people are no longer able to easily satisfy their needs privately; property and land sizes begin to fall off and green space becomes more concentrated in public areas such as parks. People who choose to sacrifice some personal space in exchange for public goods like parks tend to exhibit more liberal voting patterns. In these areas, conservatism becomes more challenging due to the necessity of shared resources.

Interestingly enough, sprawl and conservatism actually exert a causal relationship on one another in both directions. Sprawling areas tend to attract Republicans based on values of privacy, and at the same time Republicans tend to favor free market conditions, which tend to lead to piecemeal building patterns. On the other hand, Democrats tend to favor more centrally planned and dense construction.

Despite Urbanization, Cities Lose Politically

The Imbalance Between Urban and Rural Politics

America has been undergoing a period of rather rapid urbanization for about 100 years, but politically it seems not to matter. Political power in America tends to favor less populous areas; this is true both on the federal level and at the state levels. For example, voters from Vermont see their votes technically weighted several times more than in Ohio because for a state of 620,000, they receive 3 seats in Congress, approximately 1 for every 200,000 citizens. Ohio on the other hand receives 18 seats for a population of 11,000,000, or about 1 for every 600,000 citizens. This happens because even the smallest states are still afforded two Senators and one Representative. Much the same is true inside states, and the consequences can prove interesting.

Unbalanced Power

Rural counties have been rapidly losing population to cities throughout the country, but they lose seats in state government much more slowly. Over time this means that the influence of cities in politics grows, but it grows much more slowly than the cities themselves. Interesting.

The problem becomes most pronounced in large states that are mostly rural but have one large city. New York and Nevada are the perfect examples. In both of these states, the major cities, New York City and Las Vegas, occupy the southern portion of the states and have vastly different concerns from their isolated northern neighbors. However, when it comes to state laws and resources, both of these cities struggle. New York City, with its nearly 16 million residents, finds itself reporting to Albany, a city with less than 100,000 residents. For those living in Upstate New York, this is great. It keeps the rural northland heard and gives them significant political power. But, more importantly, this is completely unfair to New York City. 

Urbanization is likely to continue throughout America, but we need to make some changes in our voting laws. Every citizen should have equal representation in every election, regardless of where they live. 

Conservatives are Happier than Liberals

Why Conservatives are Happier

Happiness is a very interesting topic. Everyone would like to think that they are happy and often, people would like others to perceive them as happy. It is a very subjective emotion that is challenging to quantify other than through self represented answers. It would be very easy into making it look on paper as though you were more or less happy than you were. 

Despite these challenges, researchers have amassed enough data to make a striking claim about happiness. Conservatives are happier than liberals. Several new studies point to this as well as older studies by Pew Research and the Journal of Psychological Science that spanned long periods of time. During the period of 1980 - 2013, conservatives always reported themselves as being happier than liberals. 

Happiness over Time

As you can see from this graph, conservatives (Republicans) always reported higher levels of happiness than liberals (Democrats). But why is this? Let's look into a variety of factors that could be responsible for the happiness gap.

Marriage: More than half of conservative adults are married while less than half of liberal adults can be counted as wed. Marriage, independently of political beliefs, has a strong positive effect on happiness. Those who are married are more likely to have strong social support systems and people to rely on in times of need. Married couples are also more likely to have children, which in the long run also tends to increase happiness.

Religion: While liberals will not like to acknowledge this, religion actually makes people happier. Often times those who are religious have a sense of hope and ease about them. Religion can also help bring communities together and like marriage create social support systems for times of need. 

Less Cynical (Less Aware): This one will really depend on your own ideology. In a broad sense conservatives are most likely to see systems functioning properly. This means that they have faith in statements such as "you can get as far as you want as long as you try" or "everyone has a fair shot." This sense of optimism or ignorance, whichever you prefer, can greatly increase ones feelings of personal satisfaction. Feeling that the world is a just place would make anybody happier!

I have to say that this new surprised me! I consider myself to be relatively liberal and so I suppose I would have liked if things turned out the other way. But regardless I think that it is interesting to observe the relationship between things that otherwise may be left unseen.