1 / 41

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCHES AND THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCHES AND THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Purpose.

arien
Télécharger la présentation

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCHES AND THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF CHURCHES AND THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

  2. Purpose • To use the spatial analysis tools in ArcMap to determine if there is correlation between the number and density of churches in a state, county, or precinct and how the majority of the people vote in presidential elections. • If a correlation is established; identify trends and factors that may help to predict voting patterns in 2008.

  3. PART ONE:ANALYZING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CHURCHES, POPULATION, AND VOTER PREFERENCE AT THE STATE LEVEL IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

  4. Why Conduct Spatial Analysis on Elections and Churches? • According to a 2004 University of Akron National Survey of Religion and Politics, church attendance says a lot about whom someone will vote for on election day. • 68% of respondents who attended church more than once a week voted for George W. Bush in 2000. • 58% of respondents who attended church once a week voted for George W. Bush in 2000. • As church attendance declined, Al Gore’s numbers rose. • Of those who never attended church, 65% voted for Gore. • Source: USA Today, 6/2/2004 • So, my question was: Does having a high number or high concentration of churches in an area increase the likelihood that the majority of the population would vote Republican? • This is predicated on the assumption that the most loyal church goers (those who attend more than once a week) are probably able to do so because the church is in close proximity to their home or workplace.

  5. THE RED AND BLUE MAP YOU’VE SEEN A THOUSAND TIMES • In 2004, John Kerry only won the electoral votes of 20 states and the District of Columbia, yet he managed to received slightly more than 48% of the vote. • George W. Bush won 30 states, but only managed to garner 51% of the vote. • From a geographical perspective the Red-Blue map projects Republican dominance over 2/3 of the country. • But, the numbers show that winning 2/3 of the states equates to only a 1% majority. • The Red-Blue Map is distorting the political reality on the ground. Now, we will move on to see if religion may be driving the perceived political divisions in this country.

  6. CHURCHES ACROSS AMERICA • By sheer numbers, churches are concentrated in the heavily populated states. • The two states with the highest populations have the most churches (TX & CA) • But these two states had very different electoral outcomes in 2004. • The statistical outlier here is New York-3rd in population, yet 9th in churches. Note: much of the “Red” Mid and Rocky Mountain West has a fairly low church presence on the landscape.

  7. These states all have large populations thus the large number of churches. • An even split on the electoral vote suggests nothing can be inferred from this data as it relates to churches.

  8. When we look at churches per hundred thousand people the map appears very different. • None of the highly populated states have what will be referred to as high “Church Density”. • Church density is greatest in Utah, Alabama, and Mississippi. • All three states are red on the 2004 electoral map. • Bush carried UT, AL, and MS by at least 20 points. • In Utah, where the church density is of near uniformity of denomination, John Kerry received only 26% of the vote. ARE CHURCH DENSITY NUMBERS RELEVANT? Among the ten states with the lowest church density all voted Democratic in 2004 except for Nevada and Arizona.

  9. DENSITY MATTERS! • The red says it all. • The more churches per person in a state appeared to be a reliable indicator of voting in the 2004 Presidential election. • But it may not indicate Republican dominance. • Four of the ten states have (or will have in January 2007) at least 1 Democratic senator on Capitol Hill. • In Two of the states (AR and WV), Democrats hold both US Senate seats. • At the state level, five out of ten governor’s mansions are occupied by Democrats. • At the Presidential level though, it would seem to appear that Democrats can not compete in states with high church density. Mean church density In the ten states=243 per 100,000 Source for bulleted data: Wikipedia

  10. WHERE THEY WON BIG • The numbers of churches appears to be fairly consistent between the two candidates. • Kerry starts from a lower minimum than Bush, but he wins two of the three highlighted states with the highest number of churches. • Note Bush’s dominance of the nations’ mid-section. • This belt, which extends from Saskatchewan to Chihuahua, has far more churches (and people) at its southern end, but the vote was consistent throughout. In Bush’s ten states the mean number of churches was 7,493. Kerry had the higher mean-7,888.

  11. THE INVERSE REVEALS NOTHING EITHER.

  12. This map shows that church density does make a difference. • There is a 13 church per 100k people gap between where Kerry levels off and Bush begins. • The mean church density for Kerry was 90 in his ten best states. • For Bush, the mean was 208! • Unlike in the previous map there is no parity between the candidates when it comes to success in areas of high church density. • In the whole country Kerry lost every single state where the church density was above 158 per 100k. BUSH DOMINATES CHURCH-DENSE STATES

  13. ANOTHER LOOK AT HOW BUSH AND KERRY DOMINATE STATES AT OPPOSING ENDS OF THE CHURCH DENSITY SPECTRUM

  14. National Conclusions • The states with the most churches are not likely to be the most conservative because they tend to have the largest populations. • The states with a high density of churches to population do demonstrate a defined Republican voting pattern. • John Kerry was successful in states that had many churches, but did not have high church densities. • George W. Bush did well where population was lower and church density higher. • High church density would seem to be a natural result of a state having a low population. • There are many issues affecting voters in these rural areas that may not be applicable to the more urbanized states. • Therefore, while a clear correlation exists between church density and voting in presidential elections it would be premature to conclude that church density was THE defining reason for the vote.

  15. A LOOK AT THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE RESULTS IN VIRGINIA BY COUNTY, AND THE ROLE CHURCH DENSITY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE PLAYED IN THE OUTCOME

  16. LOOK FAMILIAR? • By area it appears to be a landslide. But… • The Bush-Cheney ticket only received 53% of the votes cast statewide. • Virginia mirrors the nation in that its more densely populated areas went Democratic, while the vast, lightly populated rural expanses chose the Republican candidate. But, do the similarities extend to church density?

  17. Note the inverse relationship displayed in many counties when you compare the two maps.

  18. So, did church density have a major impact on the Virginia vote? Apparently not.

  19. KERRY DOMINATES IN URBAN AREAS Alexandria Falls Church Arlington County Charlottesville Richmond City Petersburg Norfolk

  20. In the urban areas of Democratic dominance the church density tends to be low. • In Greenville and Charles City counties the church density is much higher and the population is much lower. Charles City County Greenville County

  21. The distinguishing feature of these localities is their rural character, not the number of churches. Rockingham Shenandoah Hanover Augusta • Note that the majority of Bush’s strongest localities are in the western half of the state, while Kerry did not dominate anywhere west of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Botetourt Poquoson Bedford Campbell Powhatan

  22. Bush performed well in very church dense Shenandoah, and in the not very dense at all city of Poquoson. Again, indications are that Bush does well at all density levels. Churches Per 10,000

  23. Church Density In Counties With Close Races

  24. If Religion Isn’t Driving Virginia’s Presidential Vote, Could Race Be? • Bush’s vote seems to be strongest where African Americans are few. • Nationally in 2004, 88% of African American voters chose John Kerry, according to CNN exit poll data.

  25. Virginia Conclusions • Raw church count in a county does not appear to be a voting determinant because it is linked to population (ex: Fairfax County leads the pack in churches, but voted Democratic). • George W. Bush clearly dominated in the counties with the highest church density levels. • But, overall, he also garnered majorities in nearly all the counties with very low densities. • John Kerry performed best in urbanized areas of the state where church density tends to be low. • George W. Bush received the majority of the votes across most of the state’s rural areas. • The rural-urban divide seen at the national level is in play in Virginia too. • Based on this analysis it seems in Virginia that church density was not a sure indicator of voting. • But, at the same time the general trend is that church dense areas are Republican areas.

  26. Part 3 DID CHURCHES INFLUENCE THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA? An Analysis By Precinct

  27. A quick glance shows Fairfax County to be a locality where both candidates were very competitive. • Kerry won 161 of 228 precincts. • The map makes Bush’s territory look larger than it really is because he won in some of the large area precincts where population is less dense.

  28. Bush received less than 40% of the vote in 108 precincts, and less than 30% in 15 precincts. • In the 13 precincts where Bush’s total was 51% or higher the mean number of churches was 3. • In the 119 precincts where Bush received more than 40% of the vote the mean number of churches was 2. • In the 15 precincts where he performed worst the mean church count was 1.

  29. John Kerry received more than 50% of the vote in 72 precincts in Fairfax County. • Within those majority precincts the mean church count was 2. • Therefore, Bush (mean 3) did do better in Fairfax County in precincts with several churches. • But, both candidates’ mean church counts may be distorted by null values for precincts that either lack churches or for whom church data is lacking.

  30. The mean number of churches by precinct for the entire county was 2. 7 was the maximum and 0 the minimum. • Bush and Kerry split the top ten church count precincts, although Bush took two of the three precincts with 7 churches. • Bush appeared to do well in larger precincts where the population is more spread out. • Kerry performed better in densely populated, urbanized areas such as Franconia and Vienna. These results are similar to the statewide analysis where it appears that urban Virginia favors Democratic candidates, and areas with lower population density lean toward the GOP.

  31. Did Race Play a Role? Kerry was clearly the preferred candidate in areas where the white population was below the overall county average Compare this map to the Bush vote map below. The whiter the precinct, the higher Bush’s popular vote. The mean church count for the less than 65% white precincts is 1, which is below the overall average.

  32. Did Churches Influence The Vote On The Virginia Marriage Amendment In 2006 in Fairfax County, VA? Shall Article I (the Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to state: “That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.”? Source:WCAV News, Charlottesville

  33. In 2006, Virginia’s ballot included a measure to define marriage as being exclusively between one man and woman. • This measure was endorsed by many churches throughout the Commonwealth because it was designed to prevent gay marriage. • The amendment passed statewide with over 57% of the vote. • A “Yes” vote was in favor of defining marriage. • Fairfax, was one of only 3 counties (all urban/suburban) where the “No’s” were a majority. (7 cities also voted against the amendment.) • In Fairfax County, over 54 % of voters rejected the constitutional amendment. Source: VA Board of Elections

  34. How Did They Vote? • The more densely populated northern and eastern areas of Fairfax County rejected the amendment. • The less urbanized precincts voted “Yes”. • The regional solidarity of the vote is striking.

  35. WHEN THE MARIAGE VOTE WAS CLOSE IT WAS USUALLY IN AREAS WHERE BUSH WAS COMPETITIVE Kerry received at least 50% of the vote in 6 of 41 competitive precincts. Bush received at least 40% of the vote in 34 of 41 competitive precincts.

  36. Of the 161 precincts Kerry won in 2004, only 29 of them voted for the marriage amendment in 2006. • Within those 29 precincts the mean number of churches per precinct was 1. • The maximum number of churches was 4, but 11 precincts had no churches at all. • Geographically, the areas where the amendment passed in precincts that were Democratic in 2004 is again tilted toward the southern end of the county. • This is the area where Bush performed best in 2004. • Most of the areas highlighted on this map were surrounded by red in 2004.

  37. Mclean Bible Church located on route 7 west of Tyson’s Corner is the largest of the Northern Virginia “megachurches”. • Its pastor, Lon Solomon, leads a congregation of over 9,000 regular members. • The church receives more than $11 million in tithes annually. • Solomon regularly buys advertising time on non-religious radio stations to promote his message and church. • Many nationally prominent conservatives attend this church. • In general the church tries to stay mum about politics. • But in the 2006 book Applebee’s AmericaSolomon is quoted as saying there are two non-negotiable issues among his congregation-abortion and gay rights. When it comes to other political issues, Solomon says “We’ve found that if people find Christ these issues take care of themselves.” So, was this megachurch able to influence the marriage vote, which was a gay rights issue? Source: Sosnik, Dowd and Fornier, 2006

  38. NO! At least not within a defined geographical area.

  39. Fairfax County Conclusions • The 2004 Presidential vote and 2006 Marriage Amendment vote results in Fairfax County, VA show only a vague correlation to church presence on the landscape. • George W. Bush was most successful in precincts with a high average number of churches, but this average was only slightly higher than Kerry’s mean church count in his best precincts. • The two candidates split the top church precincts. • The maps show once again that the more densely populated areas voted Democratic while the outlying, less populated precincts chose the Republican candidate. • The vote in Fairfax County against the Marriage Amendment was within 1% of the level at which Kerry won the county in 2004. • The Marriage Amendment was favored in those same areas that supported George Bush, and in some Democratic precincts that were in the southern and western regions of the county (Republican strongholds). • Fairfax County’s “megachurch” did not influence the marriage vote in ways that are easily recognized spatially.

  40. Data Sources Used For This Project • US Census Bureau • ESRI • Virginia Board of Elections • Fairfax County Board of Elections • Fairfax County GIS • American Religious Data Archive • USAToday.com • CNN.com • Wikipedia • Applebee’s America • US Election Atlas 2004

More Related