Greg Staples has done an admirable job, using very pretty graphs, in plotting population density with voter preference, in response to the debate about Tory urban/rural support.
It reminds me of a piece written (in 1992) by Thomas Sowell;
There is a story. . .that the French police were chasing a criminal who fled into a building in Paris. Their first thought was that they would surround the building. But then they realized that the building was so large, and had so many exits, that they didn�t have enough policemen on the scene to do that. So they surrounded the building next door, which was smaller and had fewer exits.
Much of the academic research in the social sciences follows exactly this pattern of reasoning.
Often we don�t have information on the variables that matter, so we surround other variables, using statistics that the Census Bureau, or the Congressional Budget Office, or someone else has supplied to us. Last year, for example, both the media and the politicians seized upon statistics which showed that blacks received less prenatal care, and had higher infant mortality rates, than whites. The obvious answer was more government spending on prenatal care. Yet the very same study showed that Mexican Americans received even less prenatal care than blacks and had slightly lower infant mortality rates than whites.
Prenatal care was the building next door.
The inference that is most commonly drawn from correlations that show a rise in support for the liberal-left in high population density areas, is that somehow, when you have many people living together in close quarters, they become more tolerant and “progressive” in their societal views. This was certainly one of the media themes during the election campaign – that “progressive” urban Canadians were not receptive to the social conservativism associated with the “rural western based” Harper Conservatives.
Yet, even the most stubborn adherent of this theory will admit that in the densely populated, low-income immigrant communities, issues like same-sex marriage and abortion on demand don’t get much traction – if anything, some of our imported “cultural communities” are so dangerously homophobic and misogynistic that they make any caricature of “western rednecks” pale by comparison.
Is population density just the “building next door” ?
For there is another correlation that exists in communities of high population density – and that is the inverse ratio in home ownership. By and large, those who dwell in urban, high-rise zoning don’t collect much more than furniture. Many aren’t even responsible for basic chores involving maintainance and upkeep – they just call someone.
And for further evidence that rate of property ownership is a more reliable indicator of likely conservative support than population density, one only needs to consider the most obvious exception to the rule; the sparcely populated, highly rural First Nations reserves where support for the Liberals is virtually unanimous.
When one moves into the suburbs and rural areas, however, the reverse is true – the average voter is more likely to own their own home and/or business. They gain first hand experience with the actual costs and consequences of intrusive “tax and spend” nannystate government policies so popular with the urban left. Home owners feel the direct impact in rising property taxes, and dimished private sector investment. They’re also far more sensitive to issues of crime and punishment, for they see rising crime rates reflected in lowered property values, and increased costs in security.
So, as Sowell suggests – lacking information on the many variables that do matter, perhaps the media and punditry have chosen instead to surround the ones that don’t.
(If you didn’t already click on the link provided – Sowell’s piece is a must read)
But Kate, its how you feeeeeel about it that maters! Stop clouding the issue with facts!
This is fascinating! Thanks, Kate.
Is is implied that income levels correspond
to the choice/neccesity of renting? If your income
levels preclude you from paying the taxes that
support “income redistribution” why not vote
overwhelmingy nanny?
I’ll argue it’s not income levels per se – one does not have to be wealthy to become a home owner. There are lots of very affordable homes in rural Canada, vs very expensive apartments in urban areas. It’s the ownership factor that matters.
Thomas Sowell’s example is more apt than perhaps even you realize. The statistic that most closely correlates to the infant-mortality rate is the rate of illegitimacy. Irresponsible behavior on the part of parents is devastating to children — surprise, surprise!
A reasonable person could conclude that the lack of home ownership among urban populations is also a consequence of irresponsibile behavior — i.e., their collective failure to work enough or save enough to build personal wealth.
The conclusion: Irresponsibility causes illegitimacy, infant mortality, poverty and (arguably worst of all) liberals.
Another factor might be family size – 1 and 2 person families more likely vote Lib while parents with kids more likely vote Con. Urban areas have smaller family sizes.
The MacLeans feature story on the election by Paul Wells has lots of goodies for political junkies including some of the strategies used by the CONs in identifying voters. Interestingly one of the key strategtists for the CONs is Patrick Muttart, a guy who used to work for Warren Kinsella’s pr company.
My experience with recent immigrants is that they are way more socially conservative than the average Canadian. Long term this an area for tremendous growth for Conservatives. Like Quebec, it is just a matter of getting the message across in way that connects.
The covers of the syllabii for the upper division and graduate seminars in methodology of testing, research design and measuring usually had the phrase; “Correlation Is Not Causation” at the bottom of the page. It was a pet peeve of the professors who taught the units. Committing logical sins in these classes was a once in a lifetime experience; you never made the mistake again and it took a while for the hair and skin to grow back.
The university no longer offers these classes in the social sciences.
Good analysis, Kate.
Fritz,
On what do you base your assertion that urban families are smaller. If you have recent immigrant families that have been re-united, would that not tend to skew the #occupants/unit number?
JCL
Excellent post. I’d give you a further example of the owner vs renter contrast — Singapore. Despite an extraordinarily high population density Singaporeans are very conservative — especially by North American standards. While living in high rise complexes, (projects), similar to those in urban North America, the crucial difference is that the vast majortiy of these dwelling units are condominiums. As owners, the inhabitants have a strong vested interest in the upkeep, maintenance, beautification and safety of these complexes. This state of affairs is a result of deliberate incentives created by the government. It’s a program the new government would do well to study and emulate.
I think it is also important that Toronto and Vancouver have 2001 census foreign-born percentage of the population at 43.7 and 37.5 respectively–the next three largest urban areas, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton have the following foreign-born populations: 17.7, 20.9, and 17.8.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/etoimm/tables/subprovs/fbpro.cfm
Mark
Ottawa
If wealth is not a determining factor in home ownership (and I do agree) then, is it a case of the decision between, “I’m here for a long time” and “I’m here for a good time” do you suppose?
Which comes down to, “How responsible am I, for my self, and for what I do?”
The end, then, seems to show a close relationship between responsibility and conservatism… or, liberalism varies inversely as the acceptance of responsibility.
I agree with the argument that the urban ridings didnt vote Liberal because of their disposition against Harpers McBush HitlerCheney social conservatism. It is because these downtown cores are heavily immigrant and that these immigrant groups have parked their votes with the Liberals.
If I were a conservative strategist I would try to solve this problem counter-intuitively, by making more immigrants eligible to vote. By rescinding the requirement that immigrants be citizens before they can vote, the CPC should advocate that anyone who has lived in the country for more than X number of years is eligible to vote. They need to make sure that the new voters know that it was the Conservatives who them that right to vote, and they will be grateful for that for their entire voting lives.
What do you think George Soros’s rent is?
Anyone out there have data with respect to the “Home Ownership Affordability Index” on a district by district basis. Might be another interesting overlay?
” property ownership is a more reliable indicator of likely conservative support than population density,”
I saw this firsthand last Monday night.
There was a last minute rush before the polls closed composed of mostly under 30’s who’d arrived without voter registration cards, most likely because they were transient renters. When I watched the ballots being counted the top layer of the box (these last voters) were very heavily for the Green and NDP candidates.
The middle of the box when the home owning seniors voted gave the Tory candidate his best support.
But can anybody tell why Hot Cross Hedy out polled them all.
Voodoo?
All this talk makes me think I voted for the wrong party. I have always lived in big cities, never had a desire to own my own place and I don’t have a family. I sure am confused now…lol.
so the graph says the denser you are , the more likely you are to vote Liberal or NDP.
makes sense to me.
Ben, while I appreciate your objective, I find your proposal rather distasteful. What’s the advantage of being a Canadian citizen anyway if not the ability to vote? Further, I don’t think it would get your intended result. I don’t believe people vote out of a sense of gratitude (vis Churchill at the end of WWII). Besides, it would not change the underlying dyanamic — promises of benefits without the corresponding tax burden or responsibilities. I think government incentives/support to turn renters into owners would better address the root difficulty and would result in more prosperity in the long term.
There is also the example of Hong Kong. It’s one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. If its citizens ever receive democratic rights, you can be assured that their intimate respect for small government will be apparent.
The CPC needs to somehow get a sizeable chunk of the immigrant vote, and the Liberals have relied on immigrant “gratitude” for decades by making it easier for immigrants to get into the country. It will be tough for the CPC to get this large segment of votes unless they think “outside the box.”
Social engineering has decimated our country–Sowell’s piece is very frightening. I have often said to my children that I am surprised that I and my siblings lived through childhood when I read and hear all the ‘protection’ that is promoted by all levels of governments today. And all this has done is neuter individualism.
If I remember correctly one of the Liberal fearmongering statements made by the Liberals during the last election was that ‘the CPC would make us responsible for ourselves’. Horrors–that any one of us would use our inititative to survive!
Ben, thinking outside the box doesn’t mean doing what Liberals do to get their votes.
DrD has the right idea, turn renters into owners (help remove the impediments to home ownership, if there are any).
Do you all think actually running a strong socially conservative platform could result in a breakthrough with immigrants? It’s been absolutely years (if ever?) since a party has run on social conservatism – heck, just open the way for individual candidates to advertise their socon’ism to their own constituents in a few of these immigrant-heavy ridings (not as party policy). Just my two cents on thinking outside the box.
Bullseye.
I think property rights is going to be a huge issue. On-reserve natives, long-gun registry, wheat board, etc. If this is where Harper’s heading, I think he’s on the right track.
Andrew Coyne had a link to a graph of pop. density vs voting pattern, and it was a mess. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v288/gstaples/NationalDensity.jpg)
I’d love to see a graph of home ownership vs voting.
Another example of an unexpected correlation that works but is ignored is that between credit rating and driver risk of accident. The better the rating, the lower the likelihood of an insurance claim (meaning an accident). Who’d a thunk?
One of the ways that Margaret Thatcher broke Labour’s perpetual stranglehold on power was by dramatically expanding home ownership.
Getting more people into homes that they held title to combined with the golden handcuffs of a mortgage makes the electorate look more seriously at what actually produces a healthy economy.
cal2: “so the graph says the denser you are , the more likely you are to vote Liberal or NDP. Makes sense to me.”
Ha! Good one! Probably the best synopsis of the graphs.
Also confirms my suspicions about political parties, they are all spotty in their track record…
I can’t say I buy this home ownership/responsibility argument. In many large cities, home ownership is simply not an option because of prices. And several people do not want the hassle of owning their own property. It doesn’t make them irresponsible, it’s just that they have other priorities.
You want the immigrant vote? Remove the impediments that prevent them from finding work in their fields.
Other than that, provide good, accountable governance. That’s something anyone can vote for.
Home ownership does not neccesarily imply traditional house and land. Included are condos and townhouses.
I believe that most of us have inherent territorial tendencies. Not everyone(my neighbor)but most of us take care of and protect their own property much better than someone elses. Who washes a rental car?
It may be a symptom rather than one of the causes, but property rights on reserves are a must.
enough
Removing the impediments to trained immigrant professionals, or drastically reduce the length of the process – and that will go a long way.
Removing impediments to immigrants working are not the full answer. Are medical schools in India, the phillipines, mexico up to our standards? They may well be but if so, all the money we throw at universities may well be wasted and we would be better served off shoring our students to Russia for training.
Sounds pretty but reality may be slightly different.
enough
Knowing what real estate in Toronto goes for I would be inclined to agree with Lev.
I think self-reliance, personal and civic responsibilty is something solely imparted by your upbringing. Once the cycle starts though how does one stop it?
I meant how do stop the lack of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility…sorry.
😉
Make people responsible. Say enough is enough.
Stop the babysitting by the state, cut them off welfare etc.
People used to learn to swim by being tossed in. How many died with that method?
enough
LOL
That’s how my parents learned to swim 50 years ago…and it worked.
Back on topic….. MSM is making every effort to create a controversy that can be exploited.
The current effort is based on the new urban myth of how urban voters are overwhelmingly LIberal/Left of centre. It is complete BS and is not supported by any facts.
Ranch is signed over to 2 immigrants
Posted by Irontank
On 01/31/2006 1:23:08 PM PST � 66 replies � 991+ views
Arizona Daily Star ^ | January 26, 2006
Two immigrants are now the legal owners of a Douglas-area ranch seized from an anti-immigrant activist. Documents granting the 70-acre ranch once owned by Casey Nethercott to Fatima del Socorro Leiva Medina and Edwin Alfredo Mancia Gonzales were signed by a Cochise County judge on Monday. Nethercott is serving a five-year prison term in Texas stemming from a 2003 incident on a Texas ranch where he confronted Leiva and Mancia and was accused of pistol-whipping them. He was acquitted of assault but convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Nethercott was a member of the group Ranch… >>>
freerepublic.com
I think Kate’s analysis is bang on. This doesn’t only apply to the bigger cities you can find an example in Regina as well. The riding of Regina Qu’appelle is a perfect example.
In polls where there are large number of renters like in North Central the Conservatives did not do well. However the Conservatives did quite well further away from the city centre. Especially in areas where property ownership is higher.
In fact some of the Conservative’s best polls were in the “bedroom” communities of White City, Pilot Butte and Balgonie. These people tend to work in Regina, but they commute on a daily basis. I wouldn’t consider these communities rural.
There are of course other factors at play, but I think this correlation is much better then rural vs. urban.
While not complete, this is a good analysis.
It’s a good reason why we need an Urban Homesteading Act. We need to convert our public housing wastelands of Jane/Finch, Regent Park, Scarborough, etc. into owner-occupied condominiums. The city of Toronto will be begging Harper for hundreds of millions to pour down this black hole just to fix them up to livable standards. Until people own these housing units, we will be creating urban nightmares over and over again.
Some interesting things going on
Immigrants went heavily Liberal because the Liberals bring in lots to establish ethnic communities and have created extremely generous family re-unification standards.
monolithic voting block right?
yet part of Toronto’s problem is that it is taking in 100,000 new immigrants a year in an economy that can’t possibly provide that much housing or good jobs every year.
So there is actually a split in the immigrant community between those that want more to bring in their relatives and those that want less so they will have some opportunites
Liberals split this down the middle by saying the lack of opportunity is because all Canadians (except Liberals) are racist
And as always the baby boom echo population, the biggest, best educated, new worker group we have ever had goes unmentioned.
ever talk to a young person trying to make a start. Mass immigration hurts them with 225,000 new competitiors every year and yet they are the competition for new immigrants who are also first time entrants to the Canadian economy
This is a cheap labour policy that hurts both
Another [and related] explanation is clientelism. Rental vs. home ownership is correlated because home owners are more independent than renters. The Liberals won those seats because that is where the Liberals have large numbers of clients: Native Indian Bands and FOB immigrants are groups who have been purchased by the Liberals.
The Territories and rural ridings where there are a large percentage of Natives went natives as did the down town core where the Liberal funded support groups eg Success are active.
It certainly is a daunting prospect for those on the lower end of the economic ladder to become owners given the housing prices in Canada’s major metropolitan centres. However, with some creative thinking it ought to be possible. Singapore has done it with a system of forced savings and subsidies. While I’m averse to subsidies, would schemes such as tax credits for mortgage payments on starter homes/condos/townhouses be workable? The biggest hurdle to ownership is usually the first one. Ownership tends to create a sense of stewardship and may help relieve urban blight as for instance reducing crime through mayor Gugliani’s “broken window” effect. Any other thoughts?
Nobody has made mention of property rights in the Canadian Constitution. Property rights?
There just has to be something fundementaly wrong with people who disagree with us doesn’t there?
They have to be flawed, otherwise they’d think just like us.
But Kate, who is more dependent on the nannystate, who feels more entitled to their entitlements (cradle to grave subsidies from someone else’s paycheck) than Conservative votin’, property ownin’ farmers?
Jose,
It sounds like these folks are complaining about “money and the ethnic vote”. They must be disciples of Jacques Parizeau.
…who is more dependent on the nannystate, who feels more entitled to their entitlements (cradle to grave subsidies from someone else’s paycheck) than Conservative votin’, property ownin’ farmers?
Support the removal of compulsory sales to the Wheat Board, then we’ll talk.
The nannystate has been forced on farmers, how can you fault them for using it?
Jaymeister,
I was trying to make fun of ad hominem arguments. By ad hominem I mean the practice of trying to win an argument by attacking the messenger instead of the message.
For example all the attempts to explain away why people in Toronto lean left on any number of grievous character defects/satanic influence/sodomy/moral decline/media brainwashing etc. etc. These kinds of things (and the subject of this thread) are basicaly
So its just a bit ironic when you use an ad hominem attack to support my anti-ad hominem stance.
Jose,
I’m with you in principle. I find it hard to imagine that anyone can decipher the lifestyle and values of people merely by how they voted in an election. Did it not occur to the folks writing here that there are plenty of people who consider themselves left-of-centre and also believe in individual and civic responsibility? Or is that too nuanced an argument? It’s important to learn about what people actually believe in, rather than what you are told they believe in. (Sorry for the ad hominem attack. But I stand behind my comment about “money and the ethnic vote”, because you can see that for yourself in the comments above.)
This reminds me of a witty little line that i don’t agree with, but is witty
“One should use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp-post: For support, not illumination.”