You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Population Density & Political compass

TiredThinker November 20, 2020 at 05:20 3875 views 9 comments Political Philosophy
I have heard it be said that the more dense a population the more liberal a region tends to be and more conservative out in the middle of nowhere. Has this idea ever been tested?

Comments (9)

CallMeDirac November 21, 2020 at 09:59 ¶ #473272
Tested, no, but it has been observed with population density and political leanings.
jgill November 22, 2020 at 01:07 ¶ #473435
More government benefits and support in metro areas, a greater degree of socialism. Seems obvious.
Metaphysician Undercover November 22, 2020 at 02:13 ¶ #473447
Quoting TiredThinker
more conservative out in the middle of nowhere.


They're anti-social.
prothero November 22, 2020 at 07:46 ¶ #473499
In the 2020 election, Brookings found that the 2,497 counties across the country that voted for President Donald Trump generate 29% of the U.S. GDP. Meanwhile, the 477 counties won by President-elect Joe Biden contribute 70% of the American economy.
User image

So Trump won 2,497 counties in the U.S. but Biden only won 477 counties. Check the map and the blue areas (Biden wins) correlate to large metropolitan areas.

If you live in large cities government provides many services for you but if you live in the country or farm government mostly provides rules and regulations which interfere with your use of your land and your lively hood. The rural urban divide is real and growing.
TiredThinker November 22, 2020 at 17:11 ¶ #473620
In the future won't more rural areas inevitably become more densely packed and require more efficient infrastructures?
prothero November 22, 2020 at 21:28 ¶ #473667
Quoting TiredThinker
In the future won't more rural areas inevitably become more densely packed and require more efficient infrastructures?


Actually the opposite is occurring. The population is moving towards metropolitan areas and away from rural areas. This has been going on for decades in the U.S. Many rural communities are losing businesses, jobs and young people.

The 62 U.S. Senators from the smallest (least population) states represent about 25% of the U.S. population.
TiredThinker November 26, 2020 at 17:10 ¶ #474734
What could prompt the development of new cities? Surely every city has a breaking point where it is too costly to live there, and there isn't enough space? I have seen footage of some Chinese cities and I can't imagine a more crowded way to live.
Jamal November 26, 2020 at 17:35 ¶ #474737
Quoting TiredThinker
What could prompt the development of new cities? Surely every city has a breaking point where it is too costly to live there, and there isn't enough space? I have seen footage of some Chinese cities and I can't imagine a more crowded way to live.


Building new cities from scratch is exactly what the Chinese have been doing. Beijing and Shanghai were too expensive for people to live in and too difficult to work with for developers so they built new ones, and they've been very successful.
Count Timothy von Icarus November 26, 2020 at 17:58 ¶ #474743
Reply to prothero
That's how people here in Kentucky see it for sure.

In reality, dense coastal states pay significantly more in federal taxes than they get in back in aid. Rural states tend to be the most dependant on aid. Add on that rural counties have very high median ages (58 here) and you have economies fully dependant on transfer payments. Where I am, the economy would absolutely collapse if Social Security and disability payments stopped. Many of the "good jobs" are in the medical field, but demand (as in money chasing services) is heavily propped up by Medicare.

Now you can say people worked for those services, but it isn't really true. The Baby Boomers voted continually for lower taxes, higher expenditures, and an exploding deficit during their time in the driver seat. Trump for instance, lost voters under 55 by 7 points, a landslide electorally, and proceeded to run a trillion dollar deficit, borrowing $0.25 of every $1.00 spent, during an expansion.

Reply to jamalrob

The US should do more of that. Immigrants should be encouraged to move into placed like Buffalo and Detroit. Instead we have them crowding into the most expensive and desirable places to live in the country, also places with dwindling water supplies, and then demanding rent support. You can blame zoning laws, which are an issue, but the fact is that a median single family costs $260k to construct even with free land. Due to mass migration, wages for low skill workers is simply never going to by high enough to support constructing that much new housing.

Meanwhile there are houses for $100k in the Rust Belt, and an actual labor shortage.