Urban Population Increase Predicts Win for Obama

Population density can be used to predict the outcome of the presidential elections. The last two elections show that highly populated areas are more likely to vote Democratic and rural areas tend to vote Republican. With urban populations increasing in cities nationwide, a presidential win for Obama could be all but guaranteed.

Predicting Presidential Elections with Population Density

In the 2004 election, the numbers show that John Kerry was heavily favored in dense areas, averaging 221 residents per square mile in the counties that he won. Bush, who secured the vast majority of counties nationwide, averaged only 62 residents per square mile within them. The division in 2000 was more apparent with an average of 61 residents/mile for Bush and a whopping 231 for Al Gore (Data provided by USAToday.com.) Dense areas, which wield more electoral votes than rural jurisdictions of similar size, are more likely to vote Democratic.

How Does Population Density Impact How People Vote?

While it has been established that population density is a predictor of election outcomes, the reasons why urbanites are more likely to vote Democratic is not fully understood. The research of Jonathan Haidt, Associate Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Virginia, delves into notions of morality across cultures. Haidt suggests that Democrats view society as a group of individuals who individually choose to come together to create and enforce laws for the common good. Hierarchical structures are instituted by consensus rather than tradition. Conversely, Republicans often envision society's base as being rooted in a family structure that "serves as a model for other institutions" (Edge).

This difference in these viewpoints may be key to how population density effects the vote. In an urban setting, people can easily attain everything needed for daily existence without having to rely on outside support (other than gainful employment). And while rural citizens may view this lifestyle as sad and lonely, the person living it need only step around the block to a local cafe to find friendly company and meaningful conversation among strangers. Local utilities, hospitals, and other services are a phone call or cab ride away and emergencies don't always require the assistance of neighbors. It falls naturally that those with a more individualistic lifestyle common to the city perceive society as a grouping together of distinct individuals.

Country families, however, may go days at at time without meeting other people. With fewer citizens and services available, people must work together to accomplish everyday tasks from buying groceries to building the local park. More likely than not, rural dwellers are personally acquainted with their local firerfighters, town leaders, and tradesmen from clubs, church or school. Community institutions such as churches and clubs become much more than spiritual and social outlets, enabling rural neighbors to forge lasting relationships critical in times of need. It stands to reason that their political viewpoints would mirror the rural way of life.

Current Movement Patterns Favor Obama in the Election

While voters inhabiting the nation's vast swaths of rural countryside tipped the last two elections in the Republicans' favor, the winning margins were close. The Obama camp, well aware of rural voters' impact, is making significant efforts to campaign in rural areas (Slate).

Yet recent population movement patterns suggest that Obama's bid to win over rural areas may not be necessary to ensure a Democratic win. Researchers cite increasing evidence of population growth in urban and suburban areas. According to Alan Ehrenhalt of Governing magazine, cities such as Washington, Chicago and Atlanta are experiencing population explosions as professional move from the suburbs and exburbs to downtown locations. Indeed, Atlanta is in the middle of its first population boom in forty years (AJC.com). Downtown living is on the rise as crime, pollution, and noise remain in decline. Robert Lang of the Virginia Tech Metropolitan Institute agrees, predicting that rural and exurban populations will continue to decrease (The Seattle Times).

If the trend linking population density to election results holds, the decline in rural populations and growth in urban ones will mean more Democratic voters in areas with larger numbers of electoral votes. Obama's victory is, perhaps, all but assured.

Related Maps and Cartograms

Election 2004: Latest Vote, County by County

2004 Presidential Election Purple America: Shows how counties voted using gradient color

Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results

Sources:

"The Big Sort: Will Rural Voters Make It Three in a Row for Republicans?" Slate.

Jonathan Haidt, "What Makes People Vote Republican?" Edge.

Neal Peirce, "I'm going up the city, baby, don't you wanna go." The Seattle Times.

Paul Donsky, "Intown lifestyle more popular." AJC.com.

Paul Overberg, "Election 2000: Latest vote, county by county." USAToday.com

Paul Overberg, "Election 2004: Latest vote, county by county." USAToday.com