Migration is often discussed as one of several factors underlying political change. But the precise kind of political change we should expect in areas of high in-migration is often not specified. In this article, we draw from migration theory in economics and demography to hypothesize that areas with large migrant populations will be more likely to support Republican than Democratic candidates. Because mobility imposes costs that only some can afford to pay, there will be an economic bias in who moves and who stays put. Using the ecological inference maximum likelihood technique developed and advanced by King (1997), we estimate the percentage of cross-state migrants and natives who vote Democratic in gubernatorial and presidential elections. Our results generally confirm the principal hypothesis, but they also indicate that the propensity for migration to produce partisan change in a location depends not just on the volume of migration, but such aspects of the local environment as demand in specific labor market sectors and the political loyalties of the native population.
Political scientists, historians, pundits, and campaign managers have often sought to understand electoral politics by examining intrastate political geography. But what practical or theoretical contribution can political geography make when we have the powerful tool of survey research? We use a geographic statistic to identify regional nodes in four states, for the 1928–36 and 1988–2000 presidential elections. By weighting county-level election returns for their contribution to the total statewide vote for each party, we find that traditional regional characterizations of these states' politics are altered dramatically. We find that the parties typically compete on the same turf, making clear sectional distinctions harder to draw. Furthermore, over time within three of these four states, the Democratic vote has become more geographically concentrated, while the Republican vote has become more geographically dispersed. These findings have implications for the organization of statewide governing coalitions, the cost of party mobilization efforts, and the study of candidate emergence and success.
Defined in terms of partisanship, substate sectionalism remains pervasive within many states, although it is probably not a constant, even in the short term. Here we ask about the forces that are responsible for producing substate sectionalism as evidenced by support for the two major parties. Using a geographic statistic as our indicator, we evaluate the degree of sectionalism over time in Connecticut presidential and gubernatorial elections. Population trends have increased the extent of sectionalism in the state mainly by exacerbating inequalities between deindustrializing cities in Central Connecticut and prosperous, growing ones in Fairfield County. The growth of the Black population is associated with increasing regionalism in both sets of elections given that the African American population remains concentrated in the largest cities. The study of sectionalism in Connecticut helps us to specify how population growth and redistribution contribute to the political geography of state politics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.