Tag Archives: voting

Kotkin: election results “the smackdown of the creative class”

Posted on by

Amongst pundits sifting through the election returns, I have only seen Joel Kotkin explore how votes broke down by broad location categories: cities vs. suburbs. Before the election, Kotkin suggested that both parties were fighting over middle-class suburbanites (and the Democrats were losing at this). Afterward, he continues this argument and suggests the creative class and bourgeois bohemians were overwhelmed by the middle-class, suburban vote:

More than anything, this election marked a shift in American class dynamics. In 2008 President Obama managed to win enough middle-class, suburban voters to win an impressive victory. This year, those same voters deserted, rejecting policies more geared to the “creative class” than mainstream America.

A term coined by urban guru Richard Florida, “the creative class” also covers what David Brooks more cunningly calls “bourgeois bohemians”–socially liberal, well-educated, predominately white, upper middle-class voters. They are clustered largely in expensive urban centers, along the coasts, around universities and high-tech regions. To this base, Obama can add the welfare dependents, virtually all African-Americans, and the well-organized legions of public employees…

But the real decider–to use George W. Bush’s unfortunate phrase–remains the much larger, more amorphous middle class. Given the economy of the past two years, the subsequent alienation of this group should pose no mystery. Suburban swing voters didn’t suddenly turn into racists or right-wing cranks. Instead they have seen, correctly, that Obama’s economic policy has to date worked to the advantage of others far more than themselves or their families. Until the Democrats and Obama can prove that they once again can serve the interests of these voters, they will continue to struggle to recapture the optimism so appropriate two years ago.

I would love to see some actual numbers on this. It seems like Richard Florida could post some maps like he has recently been doing on Atlantic.com that would correlate voting patterns with the presence of the creative class.

I wonder if Kotkin would suggest this is a continuation of the older “culture wars” idea (progressives vs. conservatives, religious vs. non-religious, etc.) or a new trend (the creative class vs. middle-class suburbanites).

More broadly, how big will the creative class in America grow to be? Is it possible, or even desirable, that a significant number of Americans become part of the creative class or the bourgeois bohemians?

Sociologist peeks behind the curtain of Vatican II

Posted on by

Vatican II was a momentous movement in the modern history of the Catholic Church. However, how some of these decisions were made was not public knowledge.

Sociologist Melissa Wilde, with a team of researchers, obtained unprecedented access to Vatican II voting records in the Vatican Secret Archive. Their recent paper in American Sociological Review, “Religious Economy or Organizational Field? Predicting Bishops’ Votes at the Second Vatican Council” provides some answers about the voting patterns of the council. Some of the key findings:

They concluded that in places where the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed a stable monopoly as the state church, religious leaders were almost impervious to outside influence and opposed to most kinds of change. In areas in which Catholicism was not the established faith but where the religious field was stable, however, leaders of other religious institutions were a crucial source of influence on Catholic bishops who attended and voted at Vatican II.

Essentially, in places where the Catholic Church was not the state-supported religion, Catholic leaders were more willing to consider reforms that could make them more attractive in the religious marketplace. Or that is my quick interpretation based on this quick overview…I’ll need to read the complete article.

Interesting glimpse at unprecedented data.

Why vote against honoring sports teams?

Posted on by

Amidst the story of the US House voting 395-5 to honor the Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks with a resolution, three of the five who voted “no” explained their vote to the Chicago Tribune.

One was a diehard Flyers fan and Philadelphia native. A second is from New Jersey, across the river from Philly, and said his vote would not line up with his constituent’s interests.

The third “no” vote came from Marion Berry in Arkansas. His explanation:

I am generally opposed to congressional resolutions congratulating sports teams when they are the only reason members have been required to return to Washington to vote for that day. While the success in any sporting event is a source of great pride for all who played a role in the victory and their supporters, these resolutions are far less urgent than the many other important challenges facing our nation, such as job creation and our economy.

While Berry is certainly correct about the relative importance of this resolution, does it matter if he is the only House member who feels this way? Will any of his constituents take note? Is it the sort of fact that can be used for him on the campaign trail – or will he be seen as a killjoy? A quick perusal of the early comments on the story suggest Berry may be on to something…

Six votes per person

Posted on by

In the most recent election in Port Chester, NY, a federal judge allowed each local voter to cast up to 6 votes. This was a system put into place to help Latino candidates: this is a New York City suburb with a 50% Latino population (though only 25% of the local voters) that has never elected a Latino trustee. With the new system, the election results did change: a Peruvian immigrant came in fourth in the voting and will become a trustee (and the first black trustee was also elected).

It remains to be seen if this method will spread to other suburbs. There are many suburban municipalities that now have large minority populations and likely a good number that also have not elected many minority local officials.

Some relevant material from The Washington Post:

“The 2010 Census is expected to show large increases in Latino populations and lawsuits alleging discrimination are likely to increase, said Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group.

“The country’s been changing in a lot of places, with minority growth in exurbs and commuter cities, and there will be a realization that those minorities can’t elect candidates of choice,” Richie said.

That will leave minority groups, federal prosecutors and municipalities looking for ways to keep elections from violating the federal Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law.

In Port Chester, trustees had been elected two at a time every two years, with conventional at-large voting. Most voters were white, and there were always six white trustees even though Hispanics made up half the population and nearly a quarter of the voters. Judge Stephen Robinson concluded the system violated U.S. law by diluting Hispanics’ votes.”

An innovative method – and perhaps one that will continue to be in the courts in the years to come.