Maps, Votes, and Consequences

analysis by Zeugma <zeugma@pobox.com>

Today is November 10, 2000. The election was held 3 days ago but there is no conclusion to it in sight. Though it appears at the moment that George.W.Bush has won the election, it is close enough in Florida and several other states that Albert Gore is going to push the issue as far as he can to get the election to come out in his favor even if he has to resort to the corrupt judiciary of this country to do it.

Now, I don't have a particular horse in this race. The candidate I voted for is not even been considered because he didn't even come close to winning. This is not at all surprising because although the Libertarian party was on the ballot on all 50 states, and has been for the last several elections, they are unable to get the media attention of even someone like Ralph Nader and the Green party which will most likely be nothing but a one-hit wonder.

So far there has been much gnashing of teeth amongst the 'Democratic' party members about Gore having won the 'popular vote' while at the same time losing the Electoral College vote. The plain facts are this: The popular vote doesn't matter. The system that is in place under the constitution was initially put in place for a reason. It was a compromise like much of our political system is between the more densely populous urban centers and the more sparsely populated rural quarters. The founders of this country understood the dangers of direct democracy and were not interested in founding one. If you want confirmation of this, do some research. There are numerous copies of the Federalist Papers on websites all over the net. I host a copy of the Anti-Federalist Papers, also popularly referred to as 'Letters from a Federal Farmer'. Search through the damn things, and read the Constitution for yourself to see how things were set up.

The urban and rural balances are also reflected in the way senators were originally chosen (hint: they weren't elected by the people), and the way the house and senate were set up to represent the populace in two different ways.

That said, I'd like to explore exactly what occurred yesterday demographically. First, lets start off with a map of the country with the higher concentrations of population shaded in a different color than the counties with lower population concentrations. i.e., City vs. Rural.

 

Counties by Population

 

This map was drawn using 1996 numbers from the Census.

The numbers above are fairly simplistic, as no one is going to get 100% of these county's votes. The implication is clear though and shows why, once more, we find the wisdom of the fellows who set up this nation was, without a doubt (in my mind at least) inspired by god. They took the particular situation they were in, with a few moderately urban states, and many rural ones, and crafted a situation where a demagogue could not rise up in one quarter and totally dominate the political scene.It also allows areas of the country without the voting power of raw numbers to continue to have a say in the national polity.

Does anyone really think modern politicians would spend so much time in 'flyover country' if they didn't have to? Whose interests would pull an inordinate amount of sway if it was merely the raw numerical vote that controlled elections here?

Now, let's take a look at another map. I'm sure everyone has seen the maps of the state's won by the republicans and democrats. However, the maps based at the state level don't really tell the whole story. The map below is of who won this presidential election on a per-county basis.

 

Votes won by county.

 

Does it look familiar? It is not a complete match. Such things will never be, because factors other than just county population are of some influence. However, the similarity is striking is it not?

What we're looking at is an indication of something that has some dramatic implications to this country if only people will realize it. First, the population density of urban centers is beginning to swamp the rest of the country.

The second is fairly philosophical. For much of the history, this country has seen attitudes and opinions based on north/south and east/west lines of division. I believe this is, to a great degree, no longer the case. The real divide and disconnect in this country is city vs. rural. While this has always been the case to one degree or another, I believe this divide has reached an apex where it is probably the force driving much of the political debate behind the scenes. The problem is, many of us don't fully understand the depths this chasm has become.

In light of this election, perhaps some of us may start to understand it a little better. It would appear that in this election, the two sides are almost perfectly balanced on a broad scale. This is borne out in the election returns. I do not believe we have seen such razor thin margins nationwide this century, even including the Nixon/Kennedy race of 1960.

I'm not sure what can be done about this situation. Perhaps there is nothing to do about it but recognize it for what it is. Recognizing the actual situation at hand may very well lead to understanding ways to deal with it. Perhaps the issue of city v. rural is largely one of attitude. There is a different mentality in the city that doesn't exist in the country. When you're in the outback, you don't really have a culture of dependency and a bureaucracy that is dedicated to ensuring that dependency on government thrives and multiplies.

I see it as mostly a cultural issue, rather than really a population one, although one may have a great deal of bearing on another. Consider, when out on a country road, and 2 cars pass on the highway, most of the time the drivers will wave at each other even if they don't know one another. In the city, such courtesy is impractical, though the 'pluck yew' wave is a bit more frequent.

I believe that just being aware of where the divides actually lay rather than what has historically been seen as divisions make for a bit of a change of world view and can help shape your opinions about events occurring across the country. I was born and raised in the south. There are still many ways that we southerners view things through a north/south construct. given the reality of what is actually going on today, it would seem time for us to perhaps reexamine some of our views on society. It's not necessarily the 'damn yankees' (I can say that because I was married to one for 10 years) who are the source of many of the things that bug us on the cultural front. Rather, it is those areas of yellow on the map above.

Of course none of this helps explain the election of Hillary. Insanity, stupidity and fraud probably do, but those terms don't do what I feel about that particular electoral outcome justice.

Questions, Comments, and Suggestions are appreciated.

Zeugma <zeugma@pobox.com


Back to ZPRC Home