2007-05-15

Wealthy US Citizens vote for which party?

Of course the standard "Boilerplate" answer to that is that they vote Republican. The very wealthy in the US are the ones who tend to like the Republican party and its "tax cuts for the rich", but there's another side to the story.

Here's a list of America's ten richest states by median household income along with how they voted in the 2004 Presidential election (Blue for Democrat, Red for Republican)

1. New Jersey ($55,146): 1,670,003 - 1,911,430.
2. Connecticut ($53,935): 693,826 - 857,488.
3. Maryland ($52,868): 1,024,703 - 1,334,493.
4. Alaska ($51,571): 190,889 - 111,025.
5. Massachusetts ($50,502): 1,071,109 - 1,803,800.
6. Hawaii ($49,820): 194,191 - 231,708.
7. New Hampshire ($49,467): 331,237 - 340,511.
8. California ($47,493): 5,509,826 - 6,745,485.
9. Delaware ($47,381): 171,660 - 200,152.
10. Colorado ($47,203): 1,101,255 - 1,001,732.

Interesting isn't it? Eight of the top ten richest states in America voted for the Democrats. These people, the richest in the nation, obviously see something more than being rich. Maybe the reason why these states are richer is because they have followed policies that have helped the poor in a measureable way.

Now let's look at the bottom ten:

41. North Dakota – ($34,604): 196,651 - 111,052
42. Alabama – ($34,135) : 1,176,394 - 693,933
43. New Mexico – ($34,133): 376,930 - 370,942
44. Kentucky – ($33,672) : 1,069,439 - 712,733
45. Oklahoma – ($33,400): 959,792 - 503,966
46. Montana – ($33,024) : 266,063 - 173,710
47. Louisiana – ($32,566): 1,102,169 - 820,299
48. Arkansas – ($32,182): 573,182 - 470,230
49. Mississippi – ($31,330): 672,660 - 457,766
50. West Virginia – ($29,696): 423,778 - 326,541

All ten of America's poorest states voted for the Republicans.

There's all sorts of things you could work out from this quick study. One is the illusion that the Republicans are the party of rich people and the Democrats are the party of the poor. Another is the possibility that Democrat states are more likely to enrich their people than Republican ones, and if that is true, then perhaps there is something to be said for increasing spending on welfare.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_by_income
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2004_%28detail%29





© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 License.



3 comments:

David W said...

See Gelman for more analysis.

MrsQ said...

Another point of note is that even in the 'wealthiest' states the difference between Red and Blue isn't as significant as the common amerikan stereotype would indicate.

Personally, I think that one of the unspoken Red platforms is making money and keeping it. And, that the Blue Group has come to appreciate that making money and giving it all away isn't any fun.
IOW - Red and Blue have been looking more alike than different in recent elections.
AND - wealth ain't the best indicator of altruism and justice policy.

Fortunately, I'm hoping & praying that these stoopid wars have been a reality check for the Blue Group around here.
- maybe this time I won't have to vote Green-Rainbow...

MrsQ said...

PS: I just noticed your comment "During the Olympics I support Australia and any team or individual competing against America." Dang. I'm so glad you responded to DanL back on InternetMonk. Had I responded to him, I would merely have been the voice of the liberal feminist, clearly contaminated by the sin of Eve. Sigh. So, many thanks my Aussie friend.