THE RELATION OE SIZE, DISTANCE, AND URBANITY 'I'O VOTING PARTICIPATION AND TO LEFTIST VOTING IN THE NORTH CENTRAL STATES FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF 1952 AND 1960 TImsIs Ior I‘Ixa Degree 0T pII. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Koneru. GopaIa Krishna Murthy 1963 £52.93 This is to certify that the thesis entitled twin”-.. .- 2.» ‘_ s u... .. a “mlt'? L 1.3 E: A. R Y . c Q r.- thcmga n S I" if; University THE RELATION OF SIZE, DISTANCE, AND URBANITY TO VOTING 0-169 presented by Koneru. Gapala Krishna Murthy has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for #L degree in Wu PARTICIPATION AND TO LEFTIST VOTING IN THE NORTH CENTRAL STATES FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF 1952 AND I960 2/ Major proiessoj _-—.-___..._ .i»- .4 ..,, ‘ -'-—-o-.—.— _.__.-.....n—-.—.- ... ’0-- v-‘. A A .m-na— A ~ ..~-... .. Iw' —~¥ moon in; R P! ABSTRACT THE RELATION OF SIZE, DISTANCE, AND URBANITY TO VOTING ‘PARTICIPATION AND TO LEFTIST VOTING IN THE NORTH CENTRAL STATES FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF 1952 AND 1960 by Koneru. GOpaIa Krishna Murthy The general question to which this dissertation was concerned is the explanation of political behavior as exhibited in the two presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North Central ’states. Four main questions are posed in the investigation of this problem. They are: (1) What are the patterns of voter participation in the North Central states within the presidential electionsrof 1952 and 1960 in the North Central Region? (2) What are the Democratic voting patterns in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North‘Central Region? (3) What are the patterns of Net-Migration within the period 1950-1960 in the North Central states ? (4) How are voting participation and Democratic vote related to the patterns of Net-Migration? An ecological scheme consisting of size, distance and urbanity was used for the study of the above phenomena. That is, all the 1175 counties in the NorthCentraI states were classified into SMA or Type 1- Areas, Adjacent to SMA or Type II Areas and Non-Adjacent to SMA or Type III Areas. The SMA counties were further. classified by size, whereas the adjacent to SMA and non-adjacent to SMA counties were classified by per cent urbanity. Koneru. Gopala Krishna Murthy It was hypothesized that voter participation would decrease from Type I to Type II to Type III Areas in the North Central states in the two presidential elections of 1952 and 1960. It was anticipated that voter participation would increase in all the area types. It was also expected that this pattern would reflect in Type I Areas by size, Type II and Type .f. III Areas by per-cent urbanity. That is, voter participation was expected to decrease with the decreasing size of Type I Areas. Likewise voter participation was expected to decrease with decreasing urbanity. Levels of migration were expected to affect voter participation. Similarly Democratic vote was expected to decrease from Type I to Type“ II to Type III Areas. It was further hypothesized that Democratic vote would diminish with decreasing size of Type I Areas. Likewise Democraticvote was anticipated to decrease with decreasing urbanity. It was also hypothesized that Democratic vote would increase in all the area types. It was further expected that the per cent voting Democratic would decrease with increasing levels of net out-migration. The Bureau of Census catetory of persons aged 21 and over was used as the base population of eligible voters for the calculation of voter participation. This gross category 21 and over included aliens but not citizens, institutionalized population, migrants and floaters who are not eligible to vote. A method was devised for the elimination of the aliens and institutionalized population from the census category 21 and over. Surprisingly this purification of the census category 21- and over affected the unadjusted voting patterns only in minor ways. The findings of this study did not support the above stated propo- sitions on political participation. -On the contrary the opposite of the propositions on political participation were firmly affirmed. The analysis confirmed that the ecological model consisting of SMA, Adjacent to SMA and Non-Adjacent to SMA as used in this study is meaningful for the analysis of political behavior. THE RELATION OF SIZE, DISTANCE, AND URBANITY TO VOTING ‘ PARTICIPATION AND TO LEFTIST VOTING IN THE NORTH .CENTRAL STATES FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS OF 1952 AND 1960 By Koneru. Gopala Krishna Murthy A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 'Department of Divisional Socialecience 1963 It arofessc men: in ' Ifllthe h Sir Study of Th for an t} SOCiOIOg cational Possible CrlilClsn Fi: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is very difficult to find words to express thanks to my major professor Dr. J. Allan Beegle for his guidance, time and encourage- ment in the initiation, designing and the completion of this thesis. ‘All the help given by him is deeply appreciated. Sincere thanks are expressed to Dr. Joseph Schlesinger and Dr. 'Howard A. Scarrow for their counsel and encouragement in the study of the problem for the thesis. Thanks are due to Dr. Harry H. ‘Kimber‘and Dr. John Useem for all their help in the Departments of Divisional Social Science and Sociology and Anthropology. Without their help and guidance my edu- cational programme at Michigan State University would not have been possible. Thanks are due to Dr. Hans Toch for his constructive criticisms in the organization of the thesis. Finally I express my sincere gratitude to all the friends and colleagues for their valuable suggestions and goodwill. **********>§<*** ii tvl '7 ~‘ ...0 A III. w, :u “”1110: TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I... INTRODUCTION . . . . . The‘Problem............ Theoretical Framework . . . O O O O O O O . 1 Formulation of Political Participation Hypotheses 10 Hypothesisl................... Hypothesis 2, (a), (b),‘(c) . . . . . . 'Hypothesis3 . . . . . . . . . . ..... Hypothesis 4,.(a), (b),.-(c) . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis 5,-(a), (b),v(c),‘(d)... . . . . . . . Formulation of Democratic Voting Hypotheses . Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . Hypothesis 2.‘(a),'(b). (C) . . . . . . Hypothesis3............. Hypothesis 4.’ (a), (b).~(C) . . . Hypothesis 5. (a). (b).'(CI. (d). . . Methods and Procedures . . . . . Order of Presentation . . . . . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Political, Social and Economic Factors in Voter 'Participation. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 'Patterns of Left and‘ Right Voting Behavior . III. ~ PATTERNS OF VOTING PARTICIPATION AND OF DEMOCRATIC VOTING . . . . . . . . . . 'Part 1 -* Pattern of Voting-Participation Summary of Voting Participation Hypotheses . ' Part II - Pattern of Democratic Voting Summary of Democratic Voting Hypotheses . IV. SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE . . . . . . Voting Participation . . . . . . . . ‘Conclusions.... BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDIX O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iii Page 1 . . . 7 . 14 e o 14 O O O 15 . 15 O O 16 . 17 . . . 20 . . . 20 . . . 21 O O O 22 O O O 23 O O 23 . . . 27 . . . 29 O O O 30 . . . 39 . . . 44 . . 44 O O 67 O O O 70 O O O 89 O O O 94 . . . 94 , 109 . . 111 O O O 115 .lfi E lnzL IL IV. VL Tn. VHL 1x. V0!) 195; (Tn V01: Pre Cen' SLIP IN A Voti 1952 SMA Voti and Urbe V011 and Urb; I)iff« Par1 and Ihffi ParI of1< (Ty; Ihffi Part and ofJT [)1ffe Part and, oflk TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES Page VotingParticipation in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the‘North Central States, by SMA (Type I Areas) and Non-SMA (Type II and'III Areas). 46 Voting Participation (Corrected and Uncorrected) in ‘Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the'North 'Central States, by SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent to ‘ SMA (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent to (Type ‘IIIAreas)........................ 49 . Voting-Participation in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the NorthCentral States, by 'Size of SMA(Type‘IAreas).. ................ 52 Voting Participation in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the'North-Central States, by Per Cent Urbanity of Adjacent (Type II) Areas). . . . . . . . . 54 Voting Participation in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North Central States, by Per Cent Urbanity of Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas) . . . . . . 55 . Difference in Percentage Points Between Voting Participation in the‘Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952 in the'North Central States . . . . . . . . 57 Differ enc e in 'Perc entage Points Between Voting AParticipation in the Presidential Election of 1960 and of 1952 in the'North‘Central States, by Size of SMA (TypeIAreas)eeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeon... 59 Difference in Percentage'Points Between Voting Participation in the Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952 in the North- Central States, by Urbanity of Adjacent (Type II Areas). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Difference in-Percentage‘Points Between Voting rParticipation in the‘Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952 in the North-Central States, by Urbanity of Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas) . . . . . . . . . . . 62 iv )(11. 1(111. )(III, )(II, XWJ1. XVII. J ‘ ‘<: _ 1E LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. - XVIII. Page Voting Participation in 1960 as Related to Net- Migration During the Period 1950-1960 in the North ‘ Central States for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). 65 Difference in Percentage Points Between Voting Participation in the Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952, as Related to Net-Migration During the ‘Period 1950-1960 in the'North'Central States, for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Democratic‘Voting inPresidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in North Central States, by SMA (Type I Areas) and Non-SMA (Type II and'III Areas) ..... 71 . Democratic Voting in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the'North Central States, by SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent to SMA (Type'II Areas), and Non- Adjacent to SMA (Type III Areas) . . .. . . . .T . . . . 73 Per Cent Democratic'Voting in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in theNorthCentral States, by Size ofSMA(Type'IAreas). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Democratic Voting in Presidential Elections 1952 and 1960 in the NorthACentral States, by Per Cent Urbanity of Adjacent (Type II Areas) . . . . . . . . . 77 Democratic Voting in Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the‘North Central States, by Per Cent Urbanity of Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas) . . . . . . 78 Difference in-Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the‘Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the‘North‘Central States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 - Difference in Percentage'Points Between Democratic ’Voting in the Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the'North- Central States, by Size of SMA (Type 1) Areas. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 83 V XX. XXI. XXII. LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. Page Difference in Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the‘Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the 'North~Central States, by Urbanity of Adjacent (TypeII)Areas..................... 84 Difference in Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the 'North-oCentral States, by Urbanity of Non- Adjacent(TypeIII)Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Democratic Voting in 1960 as Related to Net Migra- tion During the Period 1950-1960 in the North Central , States for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). ..... 88 -Difference in'Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the'Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 as Related to Net Migration-During the Period 1950- 1960 in the North Central States for SMA (Type 1 Areas, Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (TypeIIIAreas)....t................ 90 vi r! U) [-4 L V1 Pi ' Vot Your; 1900, Centre . Vofing 1950, tral Re v . I ‘nr‘ . \Otaati ka 1960, Centre urban: V $4 a 0 Guns 1950, Centre urban: 1960, ITP6 o: ' Voting 1960,” ITPE 0: . V ; h Ohms 1960, Ofaree vftlng 1760, type 01 lng 1960) i type of LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES TABLE I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and net migration 1950-1960, for the North Central Region, by type of Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-01960, in the North Cen— tral Region, for SMA counties by size . . . . . . . . . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in the North Central Region for Adjacent Areas, by per cent urbanity........................ . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and net migration 1950-1960, in the North Central Region for non-adjacent areas by per cent urbanity................... ..... . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Illinois, by type of area ....................... Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Indiana, by typeofarea... . ........ . ....... . . . . Voting participation and’Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Iowa, by type ofarea................. ......... Voting participation and-Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Michigan, by typeofarea....................... Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Minnesota, by type of area . . . ...... . ............. vii Page 116 117 118 119 1 . F\I O 121 122 123 U T 0F APP. X1. XII. XIII. XIV LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES — Continued TABLE X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, type of area ........ . . . . . Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, typeofarea ....... Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, of area . . Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, type of area ............. Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, type of area . . . Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, typeofarea ..... Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, by per cent urbanity. . . . . . . . . .Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, voting in 1952 and in Missouri, by voting in 1952 and in Nebraska, by voting in 1952 and in Ohio, by type voting in 1952 and in Kansas, by voting in 1952 and in Kentucky, by voting in 1952 and in Wisconsin, by voting in 1952 and in Illinois for ‘ SMA counties by size Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas voting in 1952 and in Indiana for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas by per cent urbanity . . . . . Voting participation and Democratic 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, voting in 1952 and in 'Iowa for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas by per cent urbanity viii Page 126 127 128 129 131 133 135 '15? OF APP TABLE XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. x3111, Km XXV Vofing 1960, SMA c areas \Rning 1960, SMA c areas Voting 1960, SALAC areas Voting 1960, SMA c areas Voting 1960, Countie b)’ pEr ' Voting 1960, SMA C areas ' VOIIng 1960, . SLLA CI areas] ' Voting 1960. a SAAA CC areas t LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES - Continued TABLE XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Michigan for SMAcounties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areasbypercenturbanity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Minnesota for SMA counties by size,. to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas bypercenturbanity. . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Missouri for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas by per cent urbanity . . . . . ....... . . . Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Nebraska for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas bypercenturbanity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voting participation and‘Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Ohio for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas bypercenturbanity................... Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950—1960, in Kansas for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas bypercenturbanity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Voting participation and‘Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, .in Kentucky for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areasbypercenturbanity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in Wisconsin for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areasbypercenturbanity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 137 139 141 143 145 147 149 151 LIST OF APPL In U XXIII. ‘..' ’vvyy ‘K‘X‘ V111. Dal COL Vo' anc Sox cox LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES - Continued TABLE XXVII. XXVIII. Page Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, andNet-Migration 1950-1960 in North *Dakota for all areas by per cent urbanity. (Since ‘North Dakota does not have any SMA's, all the counties are classified by per cent urbanity.). . . . 153 Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net-Migration 1950-1960, in‘South Dakota for all areas by per cent urbanity. (Since South Dakota does not have any SMA's, all the counties are classified by per cent urbanity.). . . . 154 The gene? the explanation universe 0f POII These include I differently, the extent of "leftis critic votes am The expla notions of "cent ndustrial socie differentiated u. Q h: field, or th and responds to societies the ru Furthermore, of transportatio Probl pol em of this itical behavi It must be soCieties rangir 1‘s to Which th ‘his PIObIem, I ‘ | I CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Problem The general question to which this dissertation is addressed is the explanation of political behavior. Two phenomena drawn from the universe of political behavior have been selected for investigation. These include the extent of voting participation, or stated somewhat differently, the proportion of eligible voters who actually vote; and the extent of "leftist" voting, or. more precisely, the proportion of Demo- cratic votes among all votes cast. The explanatory framework is of an ecological order in which the notions of "center" and "field" are crucial. In the context of Western, industrial society, the center, or the metropolis, represents a. highly differentiated unity from which large areas are controlled and directed. The field, or the more remote rural sector, is less highly differentiated and responds to the power of the center. *In the dynamics of such societies the rural sectors continuously furnish migrants to the cities. Furthermore, such cities become the centers of government, of banking, of transportation and communication, and of learning. The central problem of this dissertation therefore is to ascertain the nature of political behavior in response to ecological forces. - It must be observed that while'political systems are knownin all societies ranging from the most simple to the most complex, the prob- lem to which this thesis is addressed is limited in time and space. Thisprob‘lem, in general, can be considered appropriate to those parts Of the world which maintain Democratic political institutions and have 1 ndergone at I: should be I analysis of p or in those ; The cc behavior. '1 31:5 investig and "lettist' to an ecolog is the focus A larl tat "leftist ""30 vote D. 55188 and {j POPUIEIIOnS PatiOn, USL‘ ‘ . PLCC in the m nts of a Iii-10115 ha‘ Siled Urba with an ec undergone at least some degree of differentiation, including urbanization. It should be obvious that such an investigation is inappropriate to the analysis of political behavior in most simple, undifferentiated societies or in those possessing non-Democratic political forms. The central problem of this investigation is the ecology of voting behavior. Two aspects of voting behavior, the dependent variables in this investigation, are of special interest, namely, voting participation and "leftist" voting. The relationship of these aspects of political behavior to an ecological model involving size, distance and urbanity of population isthe focus of this investigation. A large number of studies of American political behavior indicate that "leftist" voting, usually defined as the percentage of the total voters who vote Democratic, occurs in association with large population aggre- gates and that "rightist" voting is associated with small town and rural populations. Similarly, numerous studies indicate that voting partici- pation, usually defined as the percentage of eligible voters voting, exhibits a pattern similar to that mentioned for l‘leftist" voting. As im- plied in these general statements, many. studies have utilized some ele- ments of an ecological framework. ‘Frequently, however, the investi- gations have used a restricted universe, such as a single state or various . sized urban places,~ so that a full and rigorous test of the association with an ecological model was impossible. The present study makes use of the North Central Region plus 'Kentucky, 1 and utilizes the 1175 county units to develop an ecological model. This Region contains approximately one-third of the national 1The state of Kentucky was included as a part of the North Central Region because of their interest and collaboration with the 'NC-18 project concerned with population studies. Hereafter, the universe used here will include Kentucky as a part of this Census Region and specific mention of Kentucky's inclusion will not always be made. pcpulation and some of the m IEZandl960 cal behavior a units in the 13 The prir ated as follow 1. What Nortl urbat 2. What Cent 3. What patte 4. How Popu' 'T" e: .. ““es'gathn Left ISI ‘1. \ flit V oting De It. . population and contains some of the largest metropolitan as well as some of the most rural areas of the nation. The relevant data for-the 1952 and 1960 Presidential elections as well as data concerning politi- cal behavior and demographic attributes were assembled for all county units in the 13 constituent states. The primary questions posed in this investigation may be enumer- ated as follows: 1. What are the patterns, if any, of voting participation in the North Central Region in relation to size, distance, and urbanity? 2. What are the patterns, if any, of "leftist" voting in the North Central Region in relation to size, distance, and urbanity? 3.-What similarities and differences are to be found in the-7' patterns in the two Presidential elections? 4. How are voting participation and "leftist voting" related to population change ? Key Concepts: The Primary Variables and Their Operationalization We turn now to an explanation of the main variables used in this investigation and how they are operationalized. These include "leftist" voting, viting participation, the components of the ecological scheme, and net migration. - Leftist Voting: - In American politic s, it is generally assumed that voting Democratic, at’least in the period under consideration, represents "leftist" voting and generally means voting for change and for greater social and economic equality. Hence, the percent of the total vote in each county in the Presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 that was Democratic is the measure used to represent leftist voting in this study. The total Presidential el cert. Democ ratit | Democratic votu obtained by add total number of in no state for 1 mun 0. two thc votes from the VOIITTE P x to a variety of IOthe act of v: 031:) .0 the ed‘. cnise is still r 065 not neCE 3101' e Ilgras S] timed aCtivit In this and its incid. that polithal .;01€1's who C two pistes 0 96:50.18 voti two preside Dev A ..50ns vOti \ Z . “S‘Jurgh. The total number of Democratic votes polled in the 1952 and 1960 2 Presidential elections taken from Scammon, -America. Votes. The per cent Democratic vote is obtained by dividing the total number of Democratic votes by the total votes polled. The total votes polled is obtained by adding the Democratic and Republican votes only since the total number of votes reported under the "others" category is negligible. In no state for either election did the "others" category exceed a maxi- mum of two thousand votes. Hence, only Republican and Democratic votes from the total votes polled are taken into account in this study. Voting Participation. .. The concept political participation refers to a variety of patterns of behavior ranging from intensive organizational work, discussion, reading, opinion leadership, and leadership activities, to the act of voting itself. Some countries still restrict the act of voting only to the educated and/or the upper income groups. Universal fran- chise is still not a reality. The fact that some do not vote, therefore, does not necessarily mean lack of interest in political affairs. Again, voting and active participation in organizational and ideological dis- cussion are two different phenomena. The mere act of voting is a more "grassroots" level of political participation than the latter men— tioned activity. In this study we are primarily concerned with the act of voting and its incidence in various types of populations. Thus we may say that political participation is to be defined as the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in a particular election. This definition requires two pieces of information for a given p0pulation: first, the number of persons voting, and second, the number of eligible voters. For the two Presidential elections with which we are concerned, the number of persons voting is readily available for the county units from Scammon, 2Richard M. Scammon, America Votes, Volumes 1 and 4, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh‘Press, 1952, 1961. America Votes ___________. voters for the c The solution to and over for 1‘. Bureau of Cent 1:. November I toApril l, 195 he Census dat operation, the aPProxirrrat*-.or The Sta: Area (SMA) is and this defin 05Censns def IIEXCep 0r gror 50,000 Contain in a st: IhEY a; QCOnOn SMAI S Illr lhq America Votes. 'A suitable base comprising the number of eligible voters for the desired units, however, is not directly available. The solution to this problem is as follows: The number of persons 21 and over for 1950 and 1960 for the relevant units was obtained from Bureau of Census sources. Since the Presidential elections occurred in November 1952 and November 1960 and since the Census data relate to April 1, 1950 and April 1, 1960, it was necessary to extrapolate the Census data to conform to election dates. Thus, based upon this operation, the number of eligible voters used in this study is an approximation of the desired data. The Standard Metropolitan Area. - The Standard Metropolitan Area (SMA) is defined as of 1950 by the United States Census Bureau and this definition is followed in the present analysis. The Bureau of Census defines it as follows: "Except in New England, a standard metropolitan area is a county or group of contiguous counties which contain at least one city of 50, 000 inhabitants or more. In addition to the county, or counties, containing such a city, or cities, contiguous counties are included in a standard metropolitan area if according to certain criteria they are essentially metropolitan in character and socially and economically integrated with the central city. "3 SMA's further, are classified by size in this analysis as follows: 3The Bureau of Census, 1950. See introduction for details concern- ing criteria of Metropolitan Character and of Integration. Classification was made as of 1950. Problems emerged with regard to SMA status in 1950 which derived from inconsistent listings in the State P-B Volumes and in the United States Summary Volume. The cases in question and their treatment are as follows: Illinois: Mason County not considered SMA here. Indiana: Delaware and Vigo Counties not considered SMA's here. Iowa: Linn and Blackhawk Counties not considered SMA's here. . Kansas: Shawnee County not considered SMA here. Kentucky: Fayette County not considered SMA here. Michigan: Bay and Jackson Counties not considered SMA's here. Muskegon County considered SMA here. -Missouri: . Buchanan and Greene Counties not considered SMA's here. Ohio: Allen, Clark, and Lorain. Counties not considered SMA's here. Wisconsin: Brown, ernosha, and Racine Counties not considered SMA's here. defined as (host: points" “III the . ‘ p 4.0 I classified into t east urban (1) Under (2) 100, 0C (3‘; 250' 0C (4) 500' OT (5) 1.000' (l) L'nd‘er (2) 25.01 (3) 40.0 t‘ (4) 55.0 n (5) 70.0 t( (6) 85.0 o Nonadjac 6 (1)No urb (2) Under (3) 10.0 tc (4) 25.0 tc (S) 40.0 to (6) 55.0 tc (7) 70.0 to I8) 85.0 ot (1) Under 100, 000 population (2) 100,000 to 249,999 population (3) 250,000 to 499, 999 population (4) 500,000 to 999,999 population (5) 1,000, 000 or more population Adjacent to Metropolitan Areas. - The concept of adjacency‘ is defined as those counties having common boundaries including "corner points" with the 'SMA. Such adjacent counties are further classified by urbanity. as follows: (1) Under 25 per cent urban (2) 25.0 to 39.9 per cent urban (3) 40.0 to 54.9 per cent urban (4) 55.0 to 69.9 per cent urban (5) 70.0 to 84.9 per cent urban (6) 85.0 or more per cent urban Nonadjacent Areas. - Nonadjacent areas are the most remote and least urban counties in relation to the SMA areas. They are further classified into the following categories: (1) No urban population 9(2) Under 10 per cent urban (3) 10.0 to 24. 9 per cent urban (4) 25.0~to-39. 9 per cent urban (5) 40.0 to .54. 9 per. cent urban (6) 55.0 to 69.9 per cent urban (7) 70. 0 'to .84. 9 per cent urban (8) 85.0 or more per cent urban 4J. rAllan Beegle, North Central Regional Project Concerning Field Studies of Migration, Michigan State University, Social Research Service. Net Migra of population frc drectional. Th move away frorr difi'erence of the 05 people movin To state it diffs "Gill-migration, area. Two mea | First the total| county, and secI POPRIaIIOn.5 Net Migration. - The term migration implies simply movement of population from one area to another. ~Migration is usually two- directional. That is, some people move into a given area and others *move away from the same area. Net migration is the net aggregate difference of the number of people moving into an area and the number of people moving out of that area in a specified period of time. To state it differently, net migration summarizes "in-migration" and "out-migration, " and hence may be either plus or minus for a given area. Twomeasures of net migration were used in this analysis. -First, the total number of net migrants between 1950 and 1960 for each county, and second,. the per cent net migration is of the total 1950 population. 5 Theoretical Framework This study is rooted in the theoretical work of ecological theorists such as McKenzie, 6 Hawley, 7 and Bogue, 8 and also in the social, economic 5The "residual" (method was us ed and were available for~this analy- sis. For method, see Dorothy Swaine Thomas, Research ‘Memorandum on Migration Differentials; and Rupert B. Vance, Research Memorandum ' on Population Redistribution in the United States (New York, Social -Science Research Council, 1938, Bulletins [fond-43) and p. Jehlik and R. Wakeley, Population Chaflg and Net Migration in the North-Central States, 1940-50, . Agricultural Experiment Station, Iowa State College, ~ Ames, Iowa, -Research Bulletin 430, July, 1955. 6R. D. ‘Mc‘Kenzie, ~ "The Ecological Approach to the Study of the Human Community, " in R. E.- Park, ' E.'W. , Burgess, and R.) D. -MCKenzie '(eds), The City, Chicago: University of Chicago'Press, 1925. 7Amos’ H. Hawley, Human Ecology, 'NeW’York: The 'RonalderPress Company, 1950. 8Donald Bogue,- Population Growth in Standard Metropolitan Areas, 1900-1950, (Washington, D. C.: Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1953: and-The Population of the United States, Glencoe,- Illinois: The Free Press, 1959. and political a Schmidhauser Miller, “ and The eco civilization Ie the growth of centers creat leads to chan industrial ce: industrializa zation. Met. structure the to exhibit mt due to the fa Pace With thl his book Soc and political aspects of theorists like Gosnell, 9 Eulaw,lo Gold and - Schmidhauser,” Key, 13. Lipset and others, 13 Campbell, Gurin, Miller, ‘4. and Epstein. ‘5 The ecological theorists maintain that the dawn of industrial civilization leads to a reshuffling in the patterns of settlement and to the growth of the larger metropolis. The growth of metropolitan centers creates functional interdependence of various activities and leads to changing interpersonal and social interaction. Growing industrial centers attact the youth from-the rural areas. (Hence, industrialization and urbanization create new patterns of social organi- zation. Metropolitan areas may be expected to have a different age structure than the rural areas, for instance, and they may be expeCted to exhibit more disorganization. Some of these attributes are mainly due to the fact that changes in the social environment do not keep pace with (the rapidly changing physical environment. 'Ogburn“ in his book Social Change, asserts this point. 9C. E. Merrian and H. F. Gosnell, ~Non-Votin& Causes and Methods of Control, Chicago: ‘ University of ChicagoPress, 1924. ‘ mHeinz Eulaw,~ "The Ecological Basis of Party Systems: 'The Case of Ohio, " Midwest Journal of Political Science, Volume 1, 1957. ' uDavid Gold and John R. Schmidhauser,' "Urbanizationand Party Competition, "'Midwest JOurnal of Political Science, Volume 1, 1957. ' 12V. '0. Key, Jr. , «Public Opinion and American Democracy, New‘York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961,. pp, 110-118. " '13Gardner Lindsey, Ed. , - Handbook of Social Psychology, Mas sa- chusetts: * Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1954, . pp- 1124-1175. l"‘Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin, - Warren E. Miller, The 'Voter Decides, Evanston, Illinois; Row Peterson and Company, 1954.. 15Leon'D. Epstein, ~Politics in Wisconsin, ‘Madison: : The University of Wisconsin Press, 1958. lI’William F. Ogburn, Social Charge, New York: B. W. 'Huebsch, Inc. , 1922. He points out many reasons. for such a slower adaptation such as persistence of various cultural forms, difficulties of invention and diffusion, vested interests, power of tradition habits and social pressure and of other types of psychological force’s. Fol beheved Reiiield‘ Societies and othe Following Darwin's theory of evolution sociologists sought to discover-the origin-and to trace the development of social institutions. In~the process they focused their attention for a longtime on the social and cultural aspects of civilizations. ~Later attention was diverted to spatial, that is, ecological distribution and organization of civiliza- tions. A part of this emphasis resulted in the classification of social groups as "Rural" and "Urban" and the isolation of some traits believed to characterize each of the groups. Thus, typologies such as Redfield's "Folk-Urban Continuum, " Becker's "Sacred and-Secular ' Societies-,1" Sorokin's "Familistic, . Contractual and Compulsory Relations, " and others, were formulated. Urbanization and metropolitan growth are not self- generating phenomena. They take place in accordance with broad patterns of principles. - A certain amount of disorganization and new patterns and styles of life are inevitable. Lerner, ‘7 for instance, has pointed out that within a period of five years the Balghat Village changed its entire traditional structure into an urban one. In most countries such as Iran, ' Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, - Pakistan and India, an imbalance is created by the process of growing urbanization and industrialization. The different imbalances in the various areas result in different modes of political agitation and new political movements. Lerner demonstrates that certain regularities of behavior occur as dif- ferent types of Middle Easterners in the different countries respond to the coming pattern of urbanization. Urbanity has changed the struc- ture of influence and the decision-making process in the community and in the family. The analysis of 73 countries by Lerner demonstrates the’"Systemic" process in modernization. The social, economic, political and demagraphic sectors of modernizing societies grow - ”Daniel Lerner, PassinLof the Traditional Society, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free ‘Press, 1958. together and th established Pat Beegle W rel tive urbani crucial import comment i5 “3' sizes are inter cation facilitie- Further, funct: at the same tin and diversity. ' have certain pa cormnon and al tion and diver 5 Form \ Variatior. voting behaviOr relate voting bf embodied in a t Marked differe: ecological orga stricture. Fun ire more promo 5? Open country Peipl e With diVe "“30 Cultural h 18 10 together‘and this pattern of growth does not occur at random but follows established patterns of principles or regular phases. - Beegle writes that "in the ecological model elements of size, relative urbanity, distance, function and inter-relatedness assume . crucial importance. With respect to function and inter-relatedness, comment is necessary. In contemporary society, communities of all sizes are interrelated in numerous ways. Transportation and communi- cation‘facilities prevent true isolation in any sector of the nation. Further, functions of rural areas cannot be viewed'as solely agricultural; at the same time urban areas vary enormously in functional specialization and diversity. "18 We can project from thisthat cities of the same size have certain patterns of behavior-r-political, social, and economic--in common and also certain divergencies because of functional differentia- tion and diversity. Formulation of Political Participation Iypotheses Variations in political participation as measured here in terms of voting behavior is a complex phenomenon. This exploration seeks to relate voting behavior to a complex of social and economic variables embodied in a typology of areas based upon size, urbanity and distance. Marked differences have been noticed between communities in their ecological organization, social and cultural backgrounds, and economic structure.’ Functional differentiation and specialization, for example, are more pronounced in the large metr0polis thanin the smaller town or open-country areas. Such organizational diversity has attracted ' people with diversified interests and aspirations. This diversity has led to cultural heterogeneity in the metropolis. ‘ 18J. Allan Beegle, , Report of the'Procedure Committee of NC-18 lflgrth Central Regional Project Concerning Field Studies of Migration, 'Michigan State University, - Social Research Service, Mimeographed, 1956. Several with depend er. economic stri butions, and 1 other social 2 urban diiier e instance, hax reasons for s that the farm economic am “I" importar Econor the communi 11 Several studies have attempted to associate the size of a community with dependent variables such as composition of social and ethnic groups, economic structure, family and kinship relations, differential age distri- butions, and patterns of population changes. Apart from these, there are other social and economic indexes which point to the nature of rural- urban differences. The high rates of crime, suicide, and divorce, for instance, have been repeatedly attributed to larger cities. One of the reasons for such an increase in the above mentioned maladjustrnents is that the family which has traditionally served to satisfy the social, economic and psychic needs of its members has been relegated to second- ary importance in its functions. Economic structure, is another major factor that differentiates the communities of different sizes. The number and proportion of persons employed in manufacturing and in whit e-collar jobs is greater in the metropolis than in small towns and rural communities. Rural areas in many of the industrializing societies are losing population, especially those in the economically productive age groups. The mi- grants are seeking better opportunities in metropolitan and urban centers. These population movements in any rapidly industrializing society not only create new social, economic and political situations, but also alter the composition of the population. To a great extent the political, social, psychological and economic behavior of any individual is conditioned by the aspirations, goals and norms of the group of which he is a member. Likewise, the small, primary, and secondary face-to-face iinteracti'oni within such groups is more important in affecting individual behavior than that in 1ar ge,.- secondary groups. Hence, the conduct of an individual is to some extent conditioned by the size of the group. As the size of the group increases, functional dif- ferentiation and individual orientation replace the solidary and unifying bonds that are present in a small group. Large size also decreases the unpact of the in the area of :ganized m0! influence the ; decision is no process of co group. From asmaller grc groups in any behavior than In addit and especiall Opportunitie s distancefrom more active 2 The Presence :0 the COmpet ‘0 111C Tease p ‘1‘ ‘.. . .ct pdi'ilCipatiOrl 3‘0 ." _ 1.3g Partlc: F11» . ~ her it is 12 impact of the above mentioned institutions on its members. Research in the area of small groups points out that where problems require an organized mode of decision, the leadership and the size of the group influence the pattern of decisions made. In places where organized decision is not needed, decision making is influenced more by the process of communication ratherthan by leadership and the size of the group. From an organizational point of view it is easier to mobilize a smaller group than a large group. Therefore, members of larger groups in any society are anticipated to exhibit a different pattern of behavior than the members of a small group. In addition to the above factors, generally in Western societies and especially in the United States, standards of living, economic opportunities, and organizational complexity decrease with increasing distancefromimetropolitan areas. Formal political organizations are more active and effective in metropolitan areas of the United States. The presence of trade unions in the large urban centers contributes to the competitive political atmosphere. »Competitiveness is supposed to increase political participation. While the pattern in relation to distance may be short of perfect, we expect the phenomenon of voting participation to reflect this pattern, that is, s a general decrease of voting participation with increasing distance from a metropolis. Further it is also expected that the extent of urbanity in each of the distance categories will relate to voting participation in a similar way. We may now turn to an explicit formulation of the hypotheses concerning voting behavior. The hypotheses concerning voting participation in this study may be grouped as follows: (1) hypotheses regarding the relationship between votingparticipation and an ecological scheme involving population size, relative urbanity, and distance; (2) hypotheses concerning the direction of change in voting participation over time; and hypotheses regarding nerdanonshi; out-migration. hpotheses, ant andsysteniatic distance. The ;.:1,_ . i.n.ence of 512 (1) Politiq social numbe 13 the relationship betweenvoting participation and the level of in-and- out-migration. The first two major hypotheses, including sub- hypotheses, anticipate that voting participation will vary in a regular and systematic way with variations in community size, urbanity and distance. The following are some of the reasons for expecting this influence of size and urbanity on voting behavior: . (1) Political competitiveness is expected to be high in larger social groups, metropolitan and highly urban areas for a number of reasons. This competitive atmosphere is antici- pated to increase voter participation. ~Lack of such a competitive political atmosphere in rural areas is expected to decrease the voter participation. (2) The presence of trade unions and the tension between working classes and the managerial groups contribute to the higher voter turnout in metropolitan and urban areas than in the more rural areas. - (3) Exposure to political, social, and economic problems is greater in urban than in rural areas. This exposure creates political awareness among the masses. Political awareness is essential for high voter turnout in any political system. ‘All these factors are anticipated to create political awareness and pressure on the interest groups. ‘- This might lead tohigher voteroturnout. ~Based upon theoretical considerations stated earlier, in part upon existing literature, and the above -mentioned reasons, voting partici- pation is expected to decline with increasing rurality throughout the ecological scheme. The evidence from existing literature supplies the basis for a general expectation as between rural and urban‘areas and between cities of various sizes, but it fails to supply evidence for large regions“ and for detailed ecological schemes such as that used in this study. The fir st two hypotheses may now be stated as follows: teas t a Hpn' .aVAAL per i s h .‘l SEC 14 Hypothesis 1 Voting participation is higher in the SMA areas than outside the SMA areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. Hypothesis 2, (a), (b). (C) Voting participation decreases from the SMA areas to Adjacent areas to the Non-Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the com- ponent states, both in 1952 and 1960. This generalized pattern is further related to size and urbanity such that: (a) Voting participation decreases with decreasing _s_i_z_e_ of SMA areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. (b) Voting participation decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. (c) Voting participation decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Non-Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. In the United States, centralization of population, standards of living, gross national product, levels of education, and the circulation of the mass media are increasing. In view of such trends,. it is ex- pected that the political issues involved, the domestic and international policies of both political parties will reach a larger number of peOple at the present time than earlier. -Therefore it is expected these changes in the economic structure and political competitiveness would increase the levels of political participation in the period under‘observation. Therefore we hypothesize the following: Voting type area (S in each of t} Hypo: attempt to 13 Within the p elections, factors, I b€:‘ween VO‘ Economic E cation are Parsonalit: are {Teque Campaign 1 States and ECOXOmiC .‘ acme ii- is 15 Hypothesis 3 Voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will increase in each type area (SMA, Adjacent to SMA and Non-Adjacent) in the Region and in each of the component states. Hypothesis 4, 4 (a), (b), and (c) as stated in the following attempt to predict the patterns of changes in political participation . within the period 1952 and 1960, as exhibited by two Presidential elections. In hypothesis (3) it was stated that the increase of political participation is dependent on a number of social economic and political factors. The existing literature on political behavior shows association between voting participation and these economic and social factors. Economic growth is not uniform throughout the Region. Levels. of edu- cation are uneven in the Region. Factors relating to the political personalities of individuals which play vital roles in the voter turn-out are frequently subject to regional variation. The intensity of political campaign varies from area to area. From the Census of the United States and other economic surveys it is evident that the growth of economic and educational aspects is not uniform throughout the country. Hence it is expected that this increase in voting participation would be inconsistent both in'the ecological model and within the elements of the model. Hence we hypothesize the following. Hypothesis 4,! (a), (b), (c) Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show; consistent patterns as between the three type areas in the Region and in each of the component states. - This generalized statement is furtherrr‘elated to size and urbanity such, that: ' (a) Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to. size of SMA stat' Since it been characte the people at adjustment 01 is anticipated the life of the civic and pol: Yinited States Billi‘lf. Thes cause politic EOliov-‘ing; 16 area in the Region and in each of the component states. (b) Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to urbanity of the Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the component states. (c) Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to urbanity of Non-Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the component states. Since the time of the earlier settlement, the United States has been characterized by high levels of mobility. 'Mobility disenfranchises the people at least temporarily. For a variety of reasons, .psychic adjustment or adaptability to the ever changing environmental stimuli is anticipated to be very slow. Until the migrants are assimilated into the life of the new community they are supposed not to participate in civic and political affairs of the community. Also many states in the United States have minimum residential requirements for voting elegi- bility. These main factors coupled with others, are anticipated to cause political apathy among migrants. , Hence, we hypothesize the following: HYBOthesiS 5. (a). (b). (C). (d) Voting participation in 1960 is related to the level of in-and-out net migration during the past decade in the North Central Region as follows: (a) In the SMA and Adjacent areas, voting participation in 1960 will decrease with an increase in the level of net in-migration. (b) In the Non-Adjacent areas, voting participation in 1960 will increase with an increase in the level of net out-migration. (c)ln‘fi bet“ thej (dlln tl bet“ leve Fc The OI‘l industrial soc of social clas factors have I hdia, for exa occupational : Ofer periods Europe and A rTiernbers in t “iiiierentiatim in the growth 1136.1 functional aid metropoli Each c1 Smut ‘ lone St} gill-ing bond: rationed by u. turn haV-e h 329 ; . - fishnet tc armh. “or. Th (c) In the SMA and Adjacent areas, gain in voting participation between 1952 and 1960, will decrease with an increase in the level of net in-migration during the period 1950 and 1960. - (d) In the Non-Adjac ent areas, gain in the voting participation between 1952 and 1960, will increase with an increase in the level of net out-migration during the period 1950 to 1960. Formulation of Democratic Voting—Hypotheses The origin of status differentiation in many pre-industrial and industrial societies in the course of time has paved the way for the growth of social classes. ~Apart from this, many other social and economic factors have contributed to further stratification of societies. In ancient India, for example, the major divisions of society were purely based on occupational roles performed by the different segments of population. Over periods of time they were transformed into rigid castes. In Western Europe and America classes evolved from the roles performed by the members in the economic structure. Social stratification, organizational differentiation, and hierarchy of role performances are the natural results in the growth process of any society. ~A number of studies have shown that functional differentiation increases with the growth in size, urbanity, and metropolitan status of an area. - Each class has certain norms whether, they be the patterns of con- rsurnption, styles of living or -modes of achieving livelihood. Mutually unifying bonds and efficient communication within a class are constantly reinforced by social interaction of its members. These commonalities inturn have helped to create certain aspirations, goals and values that are distinct to each class. These classes exert enormous influence, just as family and neighborhoods, in shaping its members' conduct and behavior. The influence of class on human behavior is expressed by Marx and othe conflict in hur between class expressions 0 class on hum; argue that it i The urb iliierentiatiox sooaland ec( nuclear {Emil Urban enVlI‘OI cultural COm; toward Confor hence, Cleave. Perceived goa One car and Ethnic cle cl- Cu "‘ what diffs [Lass COnscio Iflat; iOTIS. p. 18 Marx and other social scientists. According to Marx, the ideological conflict in human history is nothing but a true representation of struggle betweenclasses. He also argued that these ideologies are the symbolic expressions of class interests. It can be argued that the influence of class on human behavior is considerable, but it would be difficult to argue that it is the sole determining factor for all human relations. The urban environment is more propitious for the growth of class differentiation because of its size and functional diversity. The urban social and economic organization promotes impersonal social relationships, nuclear‘families as opposed to extended families and weaker kinship ties. Urban environment is more heterogeneous in its social, ethnic and cultural composition. The family and other group cross pressures toward conformity are comparatively at a minimum in urban areas and, hence, cleavages and dis sensions will not be viewed as a threat to the perceived goals of the community. One cannot argue that people in rural areas neither have social and ethnic cleavages norlack in political consciousness. - On the contrary, class consciousness is noticeably present in the rural social systems. But what differentiates these systems from urban structures is that this class consciousness is inhibited by cross-pres sures, kinship and family relations. . Pressures toward conformity and homogeneity in the decision- making process are at the maximum in rural areas. The urban environment differs from the rural not only in the above mentioned factors but also in several other» areas. Larger number of people employed in manufacturing, trade, and white collar jobs in urban centers are likely to congregate in similar residential districts. This residential proximity facilitates transmission of messages and also .makes organizational activity more efficient. The growth of trade unions and their organizational activity in urban areas is increasing the class consci the above m: growth of let A num voting and 1a of unemployr pational vari larger prepo duplicated in that this part. elections of 1 general pane 5een dOne. The hYI Study are gro between Bern< lation Size, 1' thedire‘3‘Li0n I ”1960; and (. voting and the The firs 19 class consciousness of the working leftist votes in all countries. tAll the above mentioned urban-rural differences have contributed to the growth of leftist voting in urban areas. . Anumber of studies have shown the association between leftist voting and large urban aggregates, large manufacturing centers, areas of unemployment, low income groups and other functional and occu- pational variables. Many studies in the United States indicate that the larger proportion of Democratic vote in the larger metropolis is not duplicated in the smaller towns and rural areas. Hence, we assume that this pattern would be repeated in the North Central Region in the elections of 1952 and 1960. The present study seeks to explain the general pattern noted above in much greater detail than hitherto has been done. The hypotheses dealing with Democratic patterns of voting in this study are grouped as follows: (a) Hypotheses concerning the relationship between Democratic voting and the ecological scheme involving popu- 1ation size, relative urbanity and distance; (2) Hypotheses regarding the direction of change in Democratic voting over the period from 1952 to 1960; and (3) Hypotheses regarding the association between Democratic voting and the level of in-and-out migration. The first two'major hypotheses including the sub-hypotheses on Democratic voting predict that Democratic voting will vary in a con- sistent and systematic way with variations in community size, urbanity and distance. Based on the theoretical considerations stated earlier and the review of literature, Democratic voting is anticipated to decline in a systematic way with decreasing urbanity throughout the ecological scheme. Differences in the patterns of Democratic voting between rural and urban areas and between cities of various sizes was investigated by others for small areas. These differences for‘larger regions were mainly studied by the use of survey research techniques. The evidence for large are data is not av anc’ the sub-h this relations The per than out in each The per Region a 1960, '1 urbariity (b‘ (c) 20 for large-areas based on an ecological scheme using aggregate voting data is not available in the literature. Hence the first ten hypotheses and the sub-hypotheses which are stated in the following seek to explain this relationship on a wider basis. Hypothe sis l The percentage voting Democratic is higher in the SMA areas than outside the SMA areas, in the North Central Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. - Hypothesis 2’, (a), - (b), -(c) The percentage voting Democratic decreases from- SMA areas to _Adjacent areas to the Non-Adjacent areas in the North Central Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. This generalized pattern is further related to size and urbanity such that: ; (a) The percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing size of S_M_A areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. (b) The percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Adjacent areas in the Region and in eachof the component states, bothain 1952 and 1960. (c) The percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Non-Adjacent areas in the Region and in each-of the component states, both in 1952 and 1961. We now turn to the question of the nature of changes in the patterns of Democratic voting over time, as related to the ecological scheme of ttpe I (SMA), to SMA) areas ness of the po all tend to inc poli ical awar change in the economic strr Hence the polj and internatio increase the I the Personalit nominee, Wide contributed to Stated as follc 21 type I (SMA), type II (Adjacent to SMA), and to type III (Non-Adjacent to‘SMA) areas. - Changes in the ideological orientation, competitive- ness of the politicalsystem and the changing age structure, we believe, all tend to increase Democratic support. These changes help to create political awareness about the social and economic problems. Any change in the status quo of any society in its social, Political and economic structure is supported by the leftist political organization. Hence the political, economic and social issues involved in the domestic and international policies of the Democratic party are believed to increase the Democratic vote throughout the nation. We believe that the personality of the candidate, religious affiliation of the presidential nominee, wide publicity, debates on television, and the Cuban issue contributed to the Democratic gain. Hence, hypothesis three may be stated as follows: Hypothesis 3 The percentage voting Democratic between 1952 and 1960 will increase in each type area-(SMA, Adjacent and Non-Adjacent) in the North CentraliRegi'0n andin each component state. The growth of urbanity, the spread of mass media to virtually all groups, and increasing living standards are anticipated to decrease the small urban differences in Democratic voting. These in turn are expected to decrease the prevailing homogeneity in rural areas and promote competitive atmosphere in the arena of the decision making process. Hence, it is believed that political changes in terms of partison i fluctuation would increase with increasing rurality. In view of this hypothesis 4, (a), (b), and (c) state the expected changes in the Democratic voting pattern between the'Presidential elections of 1952 and 1960. 22 Hypothesis 4, (a), (b), (c) The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 (i. e. the difference between the percentage voting Democratic in 1952 and 1960) will increase from SMA areas to the Adjacent areas to the Non-Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the com- ponent states. This generalized pattern is further related to size and urbanity such that: (a) The gain in- Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 increases with decreasing size of SMA area in the Region and in each of the component states. (b) The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 increases with decreasing urbanity of the Adjacent £333 in the Region and in each of the component states. (c) The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 increases with decreasing urbanity of the Non-Adjacent areas in the Region and in each of the component states. The relationship between the proportions voting Democratic and the level of in-and-out migration is complex. , While much is known about dominant patterns of population movements between areas, the measure of net migration at hand tells nothing about the origin or compositiontof migrants. It tells us only that a given area has been characterized by a net in-or-out flow of a given number of migrants. ‘ Most highly urbanized areas have been experiencing in-migration and most rural areas are losing populationthrough net migration. 'Since the urban areas are receiving large numbers from the predominantly non-Democratic rural areas and since new migrants are often disenfranchised fora period of time, we expect that levels of in-migration is inversely related to proportions voting Democratic. -On the other hand, . many rural areas in the North Central Region are suffering economic and social distress. 23 Therefore, it is expected that level of out-migration is directly associated with proportion voting Democratic. Differences in gain in Democratic vote relating to the two broad categories of areas are believed to reflect the conditions just outlined. Therefore, we formu- late the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 5, (a), (b), (c), ((1) Democratic voting in 1960 is related to the level of in-and-out net migration during the past decade in the North Central Region as follows: (a) In the SMA and Adjacent areas the per cent voting Democratic in 1960 will decrease with an increase in the level of net in-migration. (b) In the Non-Adjacent areas, the per cent voting Demo- cratic in 1960 will increase with an increase in the level of net out-migration. (c) In the SMA and Adjacent areas the per cent gain in Democratic vote during the period 1952 to 1960 will decrease with an increase in the level of net in- migration. (d) In the Non-Adjacent areas, the per cent gainin Demo- cratic vote 'during theperiod 1952 to 1960 will increase with an increase in the level of net out—migration. Methods and Procedures The Ecological Framework. - The ecological model used in this study attempts to combine elements of size, distance, and relative urbanity. (See'Schematic Diagram.) The starting point is the Standard Metropolitan Area, SMA or Type I Areas, representing a county or 24 group of counties which are highly urbanized and functionally dif- ferentiated. All counties in the Region which met the criteria for ,SMA status in 1950 were so designated and further classified as to size. Next are those counties which are Adjacent to SMA Counties, or Type II Areas. ‘ These counties were then classified as to per cent urbanity. Finally, moving outward still further, the remaining counties were designated as Non-Adjacent counties, or Type III Areas, and were classified as to percentage urbanity. Thus, schematically we have the following model: Type I Type II Type III Type I Standard Metropolitan Area Counties, by size. Type II Adjacent to Standard Metropolitan Area Counties, by per cent urbanity. Type III Non-Adjacent Counties, by per cent urbanity. Methods. - Democratic vote and political participationwere calcu- lated for all area types of the ecological model. ~Proportions of Democratic vote were obtained by dividing the total number of votes polled by the total number of persons 21 and over given by the 1950 and 1960 census counts. The gross quality of the base population, that is, all persons 21 and over, used in this analysis and in a majority of voting participation studies, is evident from the following: (1) It includes non-citizens or aliens whoare not eligible to vote; (2) It includes institutionalized 25 institutionalized population, most of whom are ineligible to vote; and (3) it includes migrants and "floaters" who frequently do not meet the residence requirements for voting eligibility.l9 If each of these cate- gories were randomly distributed between states and between their metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, no problems would result other than a spuriously low rate of voting participation. However, we know that we cannot assume random distribution throughout the popu- lation under study. 'Hence, in response to a degree of dissatisfaction with this mode of operationalizing the number of eligible voters, it was decided to carry out a methodological test. The primary purpose was to devise methods of "purifying" the category of persons 21 and over and to compare the results obtained after refinement with those obtained be- fore refinement. The correction procedure was established and carried out for the total population of each state and for those counties falling into the first two categories of the ecological model. Hence, the third type (Type III areas) was corrected as a residual category. The pro- cedure involved may be summarized in the following steps: (1) The "population 21 and over" for each state and county com- prising the North Central Region in 1950 and in 1960 was obtained}0 (2) The "population 21 and over who were citizens" for each state and county comprising the North Central Region in 1950 was obtained. The census categories of "Native" and "Naturalized Citizens" were added to obtain this population. 21 1"We were unable to discover any source of data for the units under consideration which we could estimate this category in any way. ”U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. 8. Census of Population: 1960. General Population Characteristics. Final Report PC(l)--Relevant States, Tables 17 and 27. 21U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. 5. Census of Population: 1950. Vol. 11, Characteristics of thePopulation. -Chapter B--Relevant States, Tables 17 and 42. Citizenship status is not available in 1960. 26 (3) The "inmates of institutions 14 and over" for each state and county comprising the North Central Region in 1950 was then obtained.22 This number was then reduced in accordance with the proportion of the institutionalized population aged 14-20 inclusive.Z3 This result was then still further reduced under the assumption that 6. 5 per cent were aliens who had already been corrected for.“ We now have obtained a population of eligible voters in which aliens and institutionalized populations have been removed. (4) The percentage of eligible voters in each state and county of the North Central Region was then obtained. This percentage was applied to the 1960 "population 21 and over" for each relevant unit, thus yielding a correction for the 1960 data. (5) The difference between the 1950 and 1960 corrected values was then calculated. In order to make these April 1 data conform to the time of the Presidential elections, two pro— cedures were carried out: (a) to the 1950 corrected value, 25.8 per cent of the difference was added; and (b) to the 1960 corrected value, 5. 8 per cent of the difference was added. The results of this method are shown at relevant points in Chapter 3. Obviously, the nature of the corrections elevated the voting participation rates. A comparison of the corrected with the uncorrected rates led to zzU. S. Bureau of the Census: U. 5. Census of Population: 1950. P_B_ Volumes, Table 43. The category of aliens in institutional population is not available in 1960. ”U. 5. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Population: 1950. Special Report P-E No. 2C. Institutional Population, Table 35. “U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S.-Census of Population: 1950. Special Report P-E No. 2C, Nativity and Citizenship of the institutional population, by age and sex, for the U. ‘S. , Table 13. 27 the conclusion that the patterns and relationshipscentral to this study were affected in minor ways only. Hence, the analysis was continued based upon uncorrected data. . Procedures. - 'All of the SMA counties, Adjacent counties, and Non-Adjacent counties were identified on a map of the North Central Region. As mentioned above, each type was further classified by size or per cent urbanity. The relevant data from the code sheets were then transferred to IBM cards. In additionto the identification and classifi- cations mentioned above, the decks then contained: total number of votes polled in 1952 and 1960, total number of Democratic votes polled in 1952 and 1960, adjusted population totals (21 and over) for 1950 and 1960,. and net migration. The total number of eligible voters in 1952 and 1960, the total number of votes polled in 1952 and 1960, total number of Democratic votes polled in 1952 and 1960, and net migration totals between 1950 and 1960 were cumulated for each state and Region and classified by ecological class, size, and urbanity. -Per cent political participation, per cent Democratic-vote, and per cent net migration of the 1950 population were computed'for all the above categories. With the large N's in this study, any statistical test, such as the proportion test, would yield significant difference-s evenfor a small difference between categories. Hence, it was decided to report the results directly. in percentages. -Order of Presentation Following the introduction presented in the first Chapter, a general review and discussion of relevant literature is to be found in Chapter 2. The substance of this investigation forms Chapter 3. -This Chapter in- cludes the findings regarding patterns of political participation and of 28 democratic voting. It also includes the findings with respect to changes in patterns between 1952 and 1960. Included in this Chapter as well is a discussion of the findings in light of current literature. Chapter 4 contains an overall summary, a discussion of the limitations of the study and suggestions for additional explorations. ‘Finally, an Appendix includes those Tables which were too detailed to incorporate into the body of the dissertation. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Having established the method, the nature of the problem, and Operationalization of the key concepts, we now turn to-a review of the literature on voting behavior. Due to the magnitude of the literature on voting behavior emanating from numerous disciplines, the scope of the present review is restricted to the following two objectives. - First, an attempt is made to suggest the range of interests exhibited in research studies relating to voting behavior; and second, an attempt is made to review those studies which are most closely related tothe research of this dissertation. In more precise terms, . studies dealing with voting participation and leftist voting, conceived in an ecological framework, are reported in some detail. - In the past, studies on voting behavior have attracted the attention of manysocial scientists for two reasons. First, voting statistics are readily available for different regions and countries over a period of time. Second, these patterns can be easily compared over a period of time, within a community and among different communities. Such comparison helps to establish certain recurrent regularities in voting behavior and also enables us to relate to the theories of organizational change. The literature on‘voting behavior shows certain recurring patterns and relationships in the voter turnout as associated with various social, economic, and demographic variables. Scientists have offered several explanations such as social forces operating on the electoral process, political and organizational factors involved, and ecological factors, 29 30 for the occurrence of such empirical regularities in voting patterns. These explanations are reported in two separate parts. The first part deals with social and other related explanatory factors and the second reports the ecological factors. Political, Social and Economic Factors in Voter Participation The study by Berelsonl stresses the role of political influence upon constituents as a contributing factor in voter participation. He discusses how the social, political, and psychological forces influence individuals and groups in their choices. For example, -Berelson reports that the intensity of religious background in Elmira, a small community in Upstate New 'York, determines the intensity of political affiliation. ~Likewise, Republicans had a higher rate of voter turnout than Democrats. Another study conducted by Berelsonz and others focused on certain social factors that influence the voting process. They found that voting is homogeneous in almost all families, and people in the same organizations tend to vote similarly. In other words, family, group, and organizational affiliation influence the voting behavior of an individual as well as groups. -Another study by Merriamand Gosnell3 dealt with the act of non- voting itself. They found certain groups in the Chicago area vote more than other groups and political apathy was predominantly greater among 1B. Berelson, . P.- F. Lazarsfeld and W. N. McPhee,- Voting, Chicago: 'University of Chicago Press, 1954. TZP. F. Lazarsfeld, B.’ Berelson and‘Hazel Gaudet, _ The People's Choice, New’York: Duell, -Sloan and Pearce, 1944. 3C" E. Merriam and H. F. Gosnell, Non-Votigg Causes and Methods of Control, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1924. lcr) 31 certainssections than others. They tried to explain the factors involved in "non-voting" rather than the voting patterns. Some studies have pointed out that occupation is one of the important forces in voter turn- out. Tingsten (and also others)4 found that government employees have a higher rate of voter turnout than other occupational groups. Farmers now enjoy wider support than formerly from various governmental policies. For this and for other reasons, more farmers are expected to vote and to have more efficient organizational activity.’5 Voting participation seems to increase as one rises on the ladder of occupational structure in any society. A number of reasons such as social and economic factors and amount of leisure available contribute to the continued high interest of these groups in social and political affairs and policies. Members of these groups usually have good edu- cational background and acquired technical skills in the discharge of their economic, legal, and interpersonal relationships with various strata of the population. They are also widely exposed to mass media and to opposing opinions on various political and economic issues, to acquaint themselves with the issues and problems involved. Therefore the upper occupational groups have a higher voter turnout than manual or clerical workers. In other words, social stratification, organizational diversity and hierarchy of role performances in any society enhance the voter participation of certain groups as compared with others. . Besides occupation there are other economic factor 86 that influence the voter ‘H. Tingsten, - "Political Behavior,- " "Studies in Election Statistics, " §§ckholm Economic Studies: No. 7 London: ‘P. S. -King, 1937. 5S. M. Lipset, Agrarian Socialism, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950. 6A. Campbell, R. L. Kahn, The People Elect a President, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,- Survey Research Center Series, Publi- cation 9, 1952. 32. turnout. Even in a relatively less controlled Capitalistic society like the United States, business corporations are increasingly dependent on the policies of the federal and local governments in the allocation ssof research funds for industrial and defense projects, price controls and the tax structure. In other parts of the world like Canada, ‘ England, and India where the government controls the key industries, the influence of the government on business groups is very high. In View of these facts and others, we expect high rate of turn-out among various business groups. In addition to economic factors, religious factors also are con- sidered to motivate political action and voting behavior. The majority of the Catholics in Kerala (Southern state in India) helped to overthrow the Communist-controlled state government in that state in the 1958 provincial elections. Likewise the highest turnout among Jews in certain parts of the world is considered a reaction against anti-Semitism in different parts of the world. It was argued that prohibition as an issue in the general elections of 1951, 1956, and 1961 in-India helped the ruling Congress party to gain more support from women. It was stated by Harris? that the issues of "corruption" and "communism" in the 1952. American presidential election accounted for the estimated 55 per cent turnout of female voters. - Many studies support the theory that voter turnout is highest in situations of economic, political, and international crisis.8 .Such social factors as mentioned above as affecting the voting behavior is discussed and supported by many.9 Societies that have lower rates of social and 7L. Harris, Is There a Republican Maj’Lority? New York: Harper, 1954,. .Chapter‘IV. ‘ 8V. Key, ~ Jr. , ‘ Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups, New York: T. Y. Crowell, 1952. 9See'A. Campbell and R. L.‘Kahn, The People Elect a President, 22- 3.2 33 economic mobility are expected to have higher rates of voter turnout than societies where mobility is maximal. The threat of the use of coercion and error are expected to produce very high voter turnout to avoid anticipated deprivations and punishments. The turnout of as much as 99. 7 per cent in certain elections in the Soviet Union is attributed to perceived threats. The studies reported above indicate the extent of association between various political, social, economic and religious categories and the patterns of voter turnout. In the rest of this chapter, studies that relate ecological factors of size, distance, and urbanity with voting patterns only are reported. These studies are presented in three groups. They are (1) studies using ecological categories for a general explanation of political behavior; (2) those that support the hypothesis that residents of urban areas vote more than those of rural areas; and (3) those studies that assert that residents of rural areas vote more than those residing in urban areas. Studies Using Ecological Factors in the Explanation of Political Behavior 110 has argued that the growth of urbanization fosters the Cantri rapid development of industrialization. Urbanization and industrialization create new socio-economic classes which lead to economic and political cleavages. - Non-urban societies tend to be more homogeneous in their social and ethnic composition and are likely to conform to the norms of the prevailing social and political systems. Hawleyll has pointed out that the "extent of differentiation in a population is contingent to a large loH. Ca'ntril, "Why We Vote the Way We Do, " New York Times Magazine, 1944, Sept. 24, p. 12. “Amos H. Hawley, Human‘Ecologx! New York: Ronald Press Co. , 1950, p. 204. (I: 1" id 11) V1 34 degree upon its size. Size determines the range of physio-psychological variation and also the extent of territorial scatter. Increase in number produces a corresponding increase in the number of intrinsic differences in the population, though not necessarily a corresponding increase in the functional variation. -Eulawlz postulated a direct relationship between the character of an area's ecological structure and the structure of its party system. He argued that urban environment is more complicated in its social, economic and functional structure, hence is more propitious for party competitiveness than rural areas. ~ Therefore, he hypothesized that "urban structures are conducive to the existence of competitive party systems and that there is a progressive transition to semi-competitive and non-competitive systems as areas are located along the urban-rural ecological continuum. " To test this hypothesis he arranged Ohio's eighty- eight counties on a rural-urban continuum. The data support the propo- sition that urban areas are more favorable for competitive political structure. In contrast, when Schmidhauserm analyzed the ninety-nine counties of Iowa, he failed to find any association between urbanity and political competitiveness. - This does not invalidate the Ohio study, however, since urbanity may be only one of the factors involved in the development of a competitive political atmosphere. The differences between metropolis, towns and rural areas were also discussed by Key. 1‘ He states that metropolis, towns and villages l“1'Heinz Eulaw, "The Ecological Basis of Party Systems: The Case of Ohio, " Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, 1957. pp. 125-135. 13David (301 and J. Schmidhauser, ' "Urbanization and Party Competitiveness, ' Midwest Journal of Political Science,- Vol. 4, 1960, Pp. 62-75. l‘V. ‘ 0. Key, Jr. ,, Public Opinion and American Democracy, (New York: 'Knopf, 1960), pp. 110-118. 35 differ not so much in their corporate concerns but vary to a large extent in the views of those types of people that predominate in these areas. '- The differences relate to variations in occupational distribution, economic status, ethnic composition, among others. Hence, all such characteristics contribute to establish different patterns of political behavior in these areas. Key also argues that people of small towns, villages and countryside stand between those of metropolis and cities, if they are arranged on a liberal to conservative scale, on certain domestic issues like trade union influence, . medical care, . job guarantee and tax structure. Hence, the people in rural areas and small towns, according to‘Key are not as conservative as people usually suppose them to be on many domestic and international issues. ' On the other hand, people in smaller cities seem to be more conservative on suchissues. The above mentioned studies tried to relate urbanity to the degree of political competitiveness. They also have pointed out that urban areas have a different pattern of social, economic and political compo- sition and also that they tend to be more heterogeneous in their characteristics. These differences between residents of urban and rural areas, it was argued, createdifferent modes of political competitivenes s .J Studies indicating a higher rate of voter participation in urban areas than rural areas:- The majority of the attempts to explain voting behavior in an ecological framework support theproposition that urban areas have a higher rate of voter turnout than rural areas. While dis- cussing the demographic characteristics related to voting behavior, tis - Lipse states that urban residents vote inlarger proportions than residents of rural areas. - Lane“ advances several reasons for expecting “S. M. Lipset, . Political Man,- (New York: .Doubleday & Co. ,. 1960). p. 187. (“Robert Lane, .Political Life, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1959, pp. 265-267. 36 'a higher rate of voter turnout in metropolitan and urban areas as against small towns and rural areas. His explanations are based on the research findings by other social scientists. - Some of the reasons that he cites are the following: (1) In urban-areas the working classes have an opportunity to organize and lead their members in social and political activities. The ever present conflict or tension between the working class organizations and the managerial. organizations in urban areas enhances the voter participation, ,whereas in rural areas the working classes are likely to accept the leadership of the upper classes and hence no real conflict is possible. -In other words, organizational competitiveness in the sphere of politics increases voter participation. (2) Even though there are political and social cleavages in rural areas they tend to be less sharp than in urban areas. The ethnic composition of rural areas is relatively more homo- geneous; hence any type of ethnic tension is absent. The predominant ethnic tension in urban areas is one of the factors forethe higher rate of voter turnout. - (3). Sense of citizenship and. civic norms are more strongly internal- ized in metropolitan areas than rural areas. . (4) Exposure to political, social and economic issues, and the levels of education are higher in urban'areas than rural areas. (5) "Political activity increases with the density of population of an area because factors making forhigher participation have a higher incidence and prevail over counter forces in this ar ea.- H 37 Campbell, Gurin and Miller 17 also concluded that residents of urban areas vote in larger proportions than residents of rural areas. They analyzed the extent of voter participation for the presidential elections of 1948, 1952 and 1960, using a survey. research technique for the whole of the United States. Their results show that metropolitan areas had higher rates of voter turnout than rural areas in the 1948, 1952, 1956 and 1960 presidential elections. The following table for 1948 and 1952 presidential elections was obtained by the Survey ‘ Research Center. The same patterns are repeated in 1956 and 1960, hence the results of these two elections are not reported here. Type of Community Total Voting 1952 Metropolitan areas 79 per cent Towns and cities 73 per cent Rural areas 68-per cent 1948 ‘ Metropolitan areas 83 per cent Towns and cities 63 per cent Rural areas 68 per cent All the above reported studies conclusively support the proposition that metropolitan and urban areas have a higher rate of voter turnout than rural areas. Studies indicating a higher rate of voter participation in rural areas than urban and metropolitan areas::- There are some studies, however, that report results opposite to those mentioned in the previous 17Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin, ~ Warren E. Miller, The Voter Decides, -Evanston,~ Illinois: .Row Peterson and Company. -Note': The unpublished data for 1960 presidential elections by the Survey Research ' Center support thesame voting patterngas in 1948and 1952. 38 section.‘ Such studies find that rural areas have a higher rate of voter turnout than urban areas. Robinson and Standing18 found that in Indiana residents of rural areas outvoted those of urban areas. These researchers ranked the ninety-two counties of Indiana by population density in 1940. The counties were again ranked on average percentage vote in the presidential elections of 1936, 1940, and 1944. .A similar rank order correlation between population density and percentage votes polled for prosecuting attorneys in the non-presidential years of 1934, 1938, and 1942 was arranged. The results in both periods yielded negative correlations, confirming the hypothesis that rural areas have a higher rate of voter participation. Interestingly, they also found that the most rural counties had the highest rate of voter participation. -Likewise, most urban counties had the lowest rate of voter turnout. Key19 argues that in the larger cities of the South there is lower electoral interest than among the small town and farm people. He states that non-voting is higher in the larger cities. .Counties having a city of 100, 000 or more have a remarkably lower rate than the remaining counties. ~ Likewise, counties having a city of 10, 000 vote in smaller proportions than counties not having a city or town. Scarrow” has analyzed the voter participation in the federal and provincial elections of Canada based on aggregate voting data. The results support the “James A. Robinson and William H.-Standing,' "The Case of Indiana, "Journal of Politics, Vol. .22 (Feb., 1949), pp. 96-111. 19V. 0. Key, Jr., with the assistance of A. Heard,~ Southern Politics in State and Nation, New York: Knopf, 1949, pp. 511-513. 20Howard A. Scarrow, "Voter Turnout in Canada, " Midwest Journal of Political Science, _ Vol. 5,- November 1961, pp. . 351-364. 39 proposition that political competitiveness and voter participation are higher in rural areas than in urban areas. He alsoreports that Boer farmers in South Africa have a higher rate of voter participation and efficient organizational activity than the residents of urbanareas. Hence, the studies based on the aggregate voting data do not support the results obtained by the Survey Research samples. This may be because studies conducted by Survey Research are based on national samples whereas the studies based on the aggregate voting data are restricted mainly to a state or a particular area. Therefore, a real comparison of these two approaches cannot be made until either more studies based on aggregate voting data for large areas or survey studies made of smaller areas have been conducted. . Patterns of Left and Right Votipg Behavior Due to the enormous amount of literature on ideological prefer- ences as related to various social, economic, political and demographic variables, the present review is restricted to two main objectives. First, an attempt is made to show briefly the variety of interests exhibited in associating "leftist" vote with a number of social, economic variables. Second, those studies that attempted to correlate ecological factors withleftist voting are presented in somewhat greater detail. .Explanation of voting behavior in terms of left versus right is more complicated than a simple dichotomy of voting or non-voting because dissensions and cleavages in pllitical organizations result from the lack of consensus on the various divergent political, social and 21 economic policies and issues. For example, in some countries like Japan, India, Ceylon and others, political parties are classified as “See S. M. -Lipset in Gardner Lindsey, Ed. , Handbook of Social Psychology: 22. £_i_’_c_. 40 right versus left more in terms of political ideologies such as democracy and totalitarianism, whereas in countries like the United States and England the division is based on the concepts of change and equality and the issues involved rather than the basic differences as to the structure and constitution of the government. .Socio-economic andpolitical factors involved in the patterns of "leftist" voting:- In many countries one usually can find that the lower income groups vote more for leftist parties and the upper income groups vote for the rightist parties. Examples of this pattern can be found in the United States, England, France, India, and many other countries. This suggests that economic motivation is important in political preferences. Within these lower income groups people employed in certain occupations like coal-mining, fishing, lumberwork and employees of railroads, public works, etc. , tend to support extreme leftist organizations more than those in other occupations. Many studies established correlation between areas of high unemployment and leftist voting in the United States, England, Canada, and Germany. Wiley“ found a high corre- lation between high unemployment and leftist vote in Michigan. This study supports the proposition that voting is used to some extent as a means of searching for economic security. -Ethnic composition can be argued to influence the extent of leftist voting tosome degree. The members of the minority groups within a given income level are likely to vote leftist in larger proportions than the majority group. Status as an element fostering the growth of leftist voting was analyzed by SaengerZ3 and by Sydnor and Dunningham.“ zzNorbert Wiley, "Unemployment and the Vote, " Michigan State University, unpublished master's thesis, 1959. 'qu H. Saenger, ”Social Status and Political Behavior, " American Journal of Social Forces, Sept. 1945, pp. 103-113. MC. S. Sydnor and N. E. Dunningham, Jr. , "Voting in Early AAmerica, " American Heritage, No. 4,- Sept. 1952, pp. 6-8. 41 They found that voting along class or status lines was more distinct in 1936 and 1940 than in other election periods. However, there is no unanimous agreement as to the importance of class and status in ideological preferences. For example Gallup25 argues that the pronounced differences in the class composition of Republican and Democratic voters, conspicuous in 1936, are slowly disappearing. .Voting preferences were studied by. Brown“ in terms of output and total marginal and average costs. He states that a voter perceives the possible alternatives of action, and takes that course of action which costs him. least but gives maximum personal satisfaction. -These costs are expected to vary from region to region, hence one should be able to predict the voter turnouts from an index of economics for various regions. Bea1e27.made comparisons of voting preferences between 150 metropolitan areas and 293 non-metropolitan areas. . He found that people in a given economic area are likely to have a consistently different voting pattern than-those in dissimilar economic areas. It is his thesis that economic areas will yield more information on voting behavior than political regions. Lazarsfeld and Berelson28 from their research data based on ‘Elmira, developed the two following propositions. They are: (1) The greater the wealth of a ward, the smaller the number of people voting , Democratic; and (2) People group themselves in homogeneous political 25c3. Gallup, - "How 55 Million Vote, " U. .s.- News, ‘May 23, 1952, pp. .56-64. I 26H. R. 1 Brown, - "Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of 'Economic Resources, " Quarterly Journal of Economics, ~Nov. , 1943: Vol. 58, pp- 27-48. ‘ 2l'Ca.lvin Beale,- "Economics Affects Vote, " Science, Vol. 58, 1950. ‘ '28P. ‘F. La‘z‘arsfeld, B.' Berelson and Hazel Gaudet, .The'People's Choice, 22.31}. 42 environments. The study conducted by Arneson and Ellis“ in a typical Ohio community, reports that .in general the percentage of voters in the various social categories like religious affiliation, neighborhoods, and occupation followed the same pattern in 1948 as in 1924. The above mentioned studies attempted to associate leftist voting with various social, economic and religious categories. Some of the studies also attempted to explain the occurrence of such an associ- ation between social categories and ideological orientation. Ecological factors involved in leftist voting:- In Germany two studies found that leftist vote increases with the increasing size of an industrial plant and the increasing size of a city. 3° 7Wood's 31 analysis demonstrates that in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York nearly half of the Republican majorities was provided by the suburban counties. In 1952, 17 out of 24 suburban Congressional disrricts around the 20 larg- est metropolitan areas chose Republican representatives. Between 1948 and 1952 the suburbs in the fifteen largest metropolitan areas increased their Republican plurality from 773, 000 to l, 688, 000. In 1956 the same trend continued except in 'Los Angeles and San Francisco. .Epstein” has summarized the patterns of Democratic voting in Wisconsin gubernatorial elections within the period 1948 to 1954, and from the 1957 elections to the Senate. -His findings are as follows: - 23B. A. ~Arneson andW. H- Ellis, "Voting Behavior in 1948 as Compared with 1924 in a Typical Ohio Community, " American Political Science, June 1950, pp.432-434. 3"See S. M.- Lipset in Gardner Lindsey Ed. , Handbookof Social Psychology, <_Dp_. c_i_t_. ”R. C. Wood, "Impotent Suburban Vote, " Nation, Mar. 26, 1960, pp. 271-274. I 32Leon D.~ Epstein, ~ Politics in Wisconsin: Madison, The University of Wisconsin‘Press, 1958. 43 (1) "Democratic majorities maintained in metropolitan Milwaukee County and in the category of other urbanized areas and cities over 750, 000 were not generally extended to the class of cities below 50, 000 during the years of "Republican state-wide victories. - (2) Republican majorities while regular (1948-1954) in the cate- gory of medium-sized cities (10, 000-50, 000) were strongest and most persistent in the small cities and villages below 10, 000. " The above three studies point out that leftist vote usually tends to be higher in larger-sized industrial organizations, cities and metro- politan areas . C HAPT ER 3 PATTERNS OF VOTING PARTICIPATION AND OF DEMOCRATIC VOTING This chapter is devoted to a presentation of the findings in re- lation to the hypotheses stated in Chapter 1. The findings are organized into two major parts, the first dealing with the hypotheses concerning voting participation and the second dealing with the hypotheses concern- ing Democratic voting. In the presentation of results, the following pattern will be followed; First, each hypothesis or group of related hypotheses will be introduced briefly: second, the table or tables bear- ing upon the hypothesis will be shown, followed by a summary of evidence in support of orerejection of the hypothesis. .Part 1 - Pattern of Voting Participgtion HYPOTHESES 1, 2, 2a, 2b, and 2c. - The first two major hypotheses are concerned with the patterns of high and low voting partici- pation as related to the ecological framework involving population size, distance, and relative urbanity. The ecological model used enables us to examine the proportion of eligible voters voting in two different presidential elections for residents of populous areas (Type'I or SMA Areas), for near and relatively populous areas (Type II or Adjacent to SMA Areas), and for more remote and rural areas (Type‘III or non Adjacent Areas). This model also permits the examination of voting levels within the SMAs when classed by size and within the other type areas when categorized by per cent urban population. Furthermore, 44 45 patterns of voting behavior can be examined for the North Central Region as a whole and for each of the thirteen component states. The evidence from existing literature indicates that residents of urban areas exhibit higher rates of voting than residents of rural areas. Other studies show that voting participation is directly associated with size of city. In conformity with existing literature, the first two major hypotheses, together with sub-hypotheses, seek to explore the nature of these relationships in detail and for a large segment of the United States. The expectation is that voting participation will decline with increasing distance from metropolitan areas; further that voting partici- pation will decrease with decreasing SMA size and with decreasing urbanity of Adjacent and non-Adjacent areas. Hypothesis 1. Voting participation is higher in the SMA Areas than outside the SMA Areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. Evidence bearing upon Hypothesis 1 is found in Table I. The level of voting participation is shown using two procedures. In the first procedure, voting participation was obtained by dividing the total number of votes polled by the total number of eligible voters, that is, with the census category of persons 21 and over. This is called the uncorrected method. The category of persons 21 and over given by the census in- cludes aliens who are not voting citizens as well as institutionalized population, many of whom are not eligible to vote. In view of a certain degree of dissatisfaction with the use of this gross category, it was de- cided to carry out a small methodological procedure to eliminate aliens and institutionalized population. ‘ 1See Chapter I for details of the corrections procedure devised. 46 new ode was imp oouoouuoo Hep «the C.:. ~40 pouoouuooab mu0mo§H2 H.m~. 0.2. How o.0o wouuouuoO mic ml: who ode pouoounoosb 59522 w .33 z .3 o .3 m .3. 333.80 0.mo m.mo 041m 0.0m pouoouuoonb IVER—Gov.” N.N> NA; m.m~. min: pouoouhoO m.o~. mien 0.05 H.o> pouoounoocb mdemvH 50> Néh H.w~. 0.N> pom—06.300 v.2. 0.3. m.m\.. C.:. pouoouuoonb «30H ¢.Hw 9N” w.0~. v.2. pouoounoo N .hw m .No 0 .2. H .om. pouoonuooab 9355 H .Nw «.00 H .00 m .3. anoouuou v.0H. v.3. “v.2. «in? pouoonuooab mHoEHHH o .2. OJE. m .Hl. C.:. pouooHHoO H65 5.2. 0.2. 060 pouoouuoocb H.308 Hmaonom . * mmos< HHH ow HH oEHH. 9354 H 6&8 mmou< HHH a HH WJAHHC... moon/w H oNtHH. measum 32 .mp3; $2 .mfiooez 1228 582 muouo? oHnHwHHmH Ho “Goo HonH muouo> oHnHHmHHmH H0 360 pom .Ammon< HHH Hose HH oaths Hmucoz Hons Ammou< H 69:; Hm >3 £33m HouucoU 5.82 on» 5 oo0H Hons ~m0H Ho 9530on HmflcopHmounH :H GoSmQHoSHmm mcfio> "H 3an 47 .moumum 03» omen? uoH HooHHanHm “on 3 endpoooum mcofioonnoo 23 6283 .om0H 5 moh< H 09TH. .Ho Hm oars: HOG op .30me nadom Head ~3qu * * .HmpoB Hmconom of 5 Hoofioca pouoouuoond 65 HoH HmoanHm moumpm 03¢ owes: uoH 3mm .om0H CH defies H 095... no Hm cm “we/ms Ho: op 30me nudom Head 5.qu * 0.2. m.0o pouoouuoo pouoonuoocD 595633 pouoouaoocb .30de Aesom **HoouoounoO pouoouuoocb 030 vouoouuoonD .30me 4.732 **pvaoouuoO wouoouuoocb mxmmunoz poaoouuoo poooouuoocs HHSOmmHSH 48 The uncorrected results show that for the Region as a whole residents outside the SMA Areas voted in larger proportions than residents of the SMA Areas both in 1952 and 1960. This pattern holds true for each of the component states except for Minnesota in 1952 and Michigan in 1960. The corrected results, shown in Table I, conform to the pattern found when voting participation is uncorrected. A larger proportion of residents in Non-Type I Areas voted than residents of Type I Areas both in 1952 and 1960. This holds true for the Region and for each of the component states. The only exception to this general pattern is Michigan in 1960 where voting participation in Type I Areas exceeded participation outside Type I Areas by the slight margin of 0. 8 per cent. The use of the second method for computing voting participation did not alter the pattern obtained by the uncorrected method. It increased voting participation in all categories, of course, because of the elimi- nation of aliens and institutional population from the base population of 21 and over. Hypothesis 2. Voting participation decreases from the SMA Areas to Adjacent Areas to the Non-Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the com- ponent states, both in 1952 and 1960. In general, results shown in Table 11 do not support Hypothesis 2. Contrary to the proposition, the uncorrected data showvthat political participation increases from SMA Areas to Adjacent Areas to Non- Adjacent Areas. While this is true for the Region in 1952, per cent participation in the Adjacent Areas exceeds that of the SMAs (by 4. 8 per cent) and that of the Non-Adjacent Areas (by only 0.6 per cent) in 1960. Political participation was higher in Adjacent Areas than in the SMAs in 9 states out of 11 in 1952. The exceptions are Kentucky and Kansas. 49 ode «.2 . o5. of. was o.oo o.oo o.$ ooooossoo 92.. o.mo mi. «.3 mo» «.8 6.3 moo ooooosoooso 5&2er ~23 of... 13 o.«o «.$ «.3 mom oém oooooosoo o.«o N .3 mom o.~o «.3 6.9.. oom Tom ooooossoooo >VHUHSGOVH Tue «.os Nos 6.: m.«s poo no» mo» ooooossoo. ~.:. m .3 ~12. mos Nae ooo foe Woe. oooootoooo momcmvH mos N .2. ~13 mime 1m: 13 ode of. ooooossoo or: «.3 of. mo» 5? of. o.: of. oooootoooo dBoH oao 83 ode or: o.oo mos «.os «.2. 883.80 ooo Now 83 or: 9:. «.E z .2. mi. ooooossoooo scores «.3 6.5 «.2. or: or: «.3. mo» 1:. 383.80 oow ode «.«s of. mg: mg: «.3 ~.«~. ooooossoooo 38:: N1: ass or: «.me «13. H .«e o.: ode. oooooosoo o.«\. mos Toe of. ode no.2 ode «.os oooootoooo H308 Hmaonom * mmou< moon/w mocha» H308 moon/w mmou< mmoueos H.308 H: on: n on; H so; 5 so; u on; H on: Nmoz .mp3; whouo> oHnHmHHH Ho acoo HonH $2 $58.» msouo> oHn—HwHHH Ho Eco pom Ammon< HHH rabbi o» acoomnpmx #52 Head .Ammou< HH 09f: 42m op unoomfipxw Ammon< H 090.3 3 .moumum $.3an ~3qu 23 CH oe0H paw Nm0H Ho 3530on HmfioopHmoHnH CH ApouoonnoocD Home poaoouuoOv GoHummHoflsmm wafio> "HH 3an. non—3m 03o. omofi now 663%an won as? ounvoooum mGoHuooH 380 9:. 60505 pouoosuoocn on» E 030 aoflmodmaoo Hmconon can noH HHH 0&08 Ho 0nomoumo on» 35 poQfiouw one? HooHHom ovuo> 05 SM ouoHoquH. .mdmcoo om0H 05. 5 ”exam >3 OCA.~ .m....3> NCNuq \j/ ELFVvfluxl €-a..q&a.-uw~ if. u...\v.J be.“ Ehnva~4> wv~3~1m~an .VAU enigma ..~fivn.fl. i\, ., .. , ... 1 \Ilvyuu'\ I .OlQ.C.e . '2!“ 52 .300 mi? m0 mm .300 0.00.3». H: 09$. 53:00 $5.03 025 935 0.83.338 .omoa cw moouxw .szm 0.50: 000 00 30me 500m 000 .30me 5.32 . a. 03m 00. .9005? H 2:8 33 «Was; muouo> 0332M m0 300 90m 03m 03 .mdon< H omrnh muouo> 0333....” 3.0000 no“ N 00H mcflo> 2...- «.3 5E 5$ ii 53 5:. 58 52823 .590 5$ 5% 52 53 5S «.3 55. 020 nun: ..u.... flue 0.0@ In..- nu-.. ~60 Néo 930.502 ode «.3 ii is. 53 «.3 ---- ---- 2:822 5.: ii 5m: .2: 52. ii 53 .1. 88852 5Q .1. 53 5$ 53 ii 53 5% 53532 H .2 ---- ---- 53 5mm --..- :1 53 £883“ .1. 53 2... «.3 ---- 55 I-.. 53 225M 1.. ii 53 52 ---.. :1 0.3 5:. 33 5: 5S ---- 5E 53 5:. ii 5:. «56.: 5M; :1 «.2. 5:. 52 ii 5:. 55 38:: 5: 5% 52. 53 5% 5S m.$ 5S .2309 «83mg 088 «5 23.23 23.8“. 2563 208 «am 25.25 «3.2:. 2363 musfim 8°68; S 8 .825 8.068; 8 8. 80.5 3.350 5.82 ooo.oom ooo.om~ ooo.oom ooo.om~ .Ammoutc H omfnfiv «3.4% m0 oumm >Q .mopdum HwHuCOU fiahoz mafia Gm 00m; @650 Nmmva HO mGOCUvaH HNMHGUUMmOHnH Gm COmqumUfiuHmnH MGMuO> "HHH “:an 53 SMA. In a general way, the data support the opposite of Hypothesis 2(a) that participation increases with decreasing size of SMA. Hypothesis 2(b). Voting participation decreases with decreas- ing urbanity of the Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. Table IV shows the pattern of political participation for Adjacent Areas when classified by per cent urbanity. A comparison of the first three categories with the last two categories of urbanity in 1952 and 1960 reveals that participation in general decreases with an increase in urbanity in the Region as a whole. In the component states and for both decades, a large majority of states exhibit a decrease of partici- pation with increasing urbanity. These findings support the reverse of Hypothesis 2(b) as stated. Hypothesis 2(0). Voting participation decreases with decreas- ing urbanity of the Non-Adjac ent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952. and 1960. Table V presents the pattern of political participation for Non- Adjacent Areas when classified by per cent urbanity. An examination of the first three with the rest of the categories shows that political participation decreases with increasing urbanity both in 1952 and 1960. This is a general observation. There is no clear linear relationship between increasing urbanity and decreasing participation. The last four, or most urban, categories, however, are clearly lower than the first three, or least urban categories. In 1952, in 12 states out of 13, participation generally decreases with increasing urbanity. In 1960 in 11 out of 13 states, the same pattern as in 1952 is observed. In only one instance did the highly urban categories exceed the "no urban" cate- gory. Hence, the results fail to support Hypothesis 2(c), that political participation decreases with decreasing urbanity. 54 .0000 030 mo mm .300 500.3 HHH 0008 500.000 m0umum 030 0005 0030.339. .omS 5 000.5. 0000034 050: no: 00 maoxmfl 500m 000 5.82 . * 0.00 2.N0 0.N0 w.¢0 9.00 0.20 0&3 H.00 m3v0 w.m0 «30650023 5% 53 5E 5S 5.: 53 «.3 52 53 «.«s 030 ---- «.os 53 5E 52. .1. 53 53 52 «.2. 93.332 3.-- --..- ---- 0.3 «.«2. :1 .1. ii 53 5: 25832 ---- 5S 5? «.E 5i -..-- 53 o.«> 5E .52. £82322 :2. 53 5.: 53 5:. «.3 53 53 52 5.3.022 ---- -..-.. ---- ....-- 5.3 -1... E.-- E.-- .3: «1.3 303032 -..-.. 5E 53 :2 ..--- ii 53 o3 52 ---.. 3.5.x ---- 52. 5§ 52. 53 :1 53 5S «.3 5m: «33 ii 52 53 0.8 0.8 -..-- 53 5.: 53 53 «523 52 «.m» 53 5E 53 5.: 52. «.2. 52. «.3 £82: .5: 52. 52. 52. 5S. 5:. 53 «.2. 53 52. «038.. Reamer 0? .«w .5. .3 a? .«m «3.2. 55.5 «3 .«w .5. .3 «a .«m «5% 55.5 $33 0» 00 00 00 n0 mm 0» 0» 00. 00. §mm 2.05:00. «3.82 o .00 o .mm o .ow o .mN Hmch 0 .C0 0 .mm o 6* 0 .mm Hovab 32 .333, mn0uo> 0H£w£M m0 0:00 Hum 32 .25; 00000.? 0H£MEM m0 ”.000 u0nm .000n< SH 08;; «000025. m0 fwfindaub 0:00 n0nm >0. £0555 2.05:00 finoz 0&— :2 0002 000 Nmoa m0 mcofiogm Hmfiudovwm0nnm :2 003.2303qu msfio> ">H 030R. u.u..n uuq\-‘.l.- --.-Z ‘11 .J-..-0A\.-\U - ... ..,........ .....t ..«..-...I 55 0.«0 0.«0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.«0 «.00 0.00 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.«0 000080;» «.00 0.00 0.00 0.«0 0.00 -- 0.«0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.«0 0.«0 -- 0.00 30ng £80 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ..-- 0.00 -.-....- 0.00 0.2. 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 020 0.00 «.00 «.00 0.00 -- -- «.00 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.«0 -- ..-- 0.00 38:5 5qu 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 --- «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 -- 0.00 8000.502 «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0.0 «.«0 0.00 0.88002 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 -- «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E... 0.00 8002802 «.00 0.00 0.«0 0.00 0.00 0.00 «.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0003002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.«« 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0003030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.«0 «.00 0.00 0.00 «.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 «.00 000030 «.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. --- 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 «.00 -- 0.00 0300 0.«0 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 --- «.00 0.«0 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 --- 0.00 00303 --- 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 -- «.00 --- 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 080:: 0.00 0.2. 0.00 0.«0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 «.00 0.00, 0.«0 08.00 3.830% 0.0.«0 o00.00 0.0.«0 0.0.00 Q00.«0 50.5 03.2 0.0.«0 0.0.00 0.0.«0 0.0.00 0.0.«0 000.5 8:2 00. 00 00 00 00. 000A Lack 00. 3 00 o» 3 00A: Eamon. 0.00 0.00 0.0« 0.00 0.00 825 53.5 0.00 0.00 0.0« 0.00 0.00 .800: 000.5 OZ 02 30333.03 300 00% .3 .0005.- HH 0&8 0000 .0582, 0.0003,. 0H£m2nw 00 0:00 00% 33.0903 3000 00m 3 £30.04 2H 0%; 0000 .000; 0.0320 2000200 00 008 8m 4030.04 H: 00:05 acoomhv C». 00308 56 HYPOTHESES 3, 4, 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). - The next group of hypotheses attempt to predict the nature of change in political partici- pation in the North Central Region and the component states during the period 1952 and 1960. The ecological model is again used to as- certain the relation of size, distance and urbanity, if any, to changes in voting participation. In view of rising educational and economic trends, we expect stability in political machinery as well as higher citizen interest in civic and public affairs. Therefore, we expect voting participation to increase in all area types in the North Central Region during the period 1952 and 1960. In addition, for a variety of reasons, we antici- pate that this increase in voting participation is not uniform in the ecological model. The hypotheses along with the relevant tables are now presented. Hypothesis 3. Voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will increase in each type area (SMA, Adjacent to SMA and Non-Adjacent) in the Region and in each of the component states. Hypothesis 4. Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns between the three areas in the Region and in each of the component states. Table VI reports the change in political participation, expressed in percentage points, between the two Presidential elections of 1952 and 1960. This table shows that participation increased in the Region as a whole as well as in each of the type areas of the Region. Further, participation increased in each Of the component states of the Region, except in Kansas where participation decreased by 1.0 per cent. Participation increased in the SMA Areas in all the states except Wisconsin, > Nebraska, and Kansas. In-these three states SMA 57 Table VI: Difference in Percentage Points Between Voting Participation in the Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952 in the North Central States. Difference in Percentage Points, 1952 and 1960 North Central States Total Type I Areas Type II Areas Type III Areas Regional Total 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.9 Illinois 1.6 0.9 2.2 3.5 Indiana 2.4 2.2 2.0 3.0 Iowa 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.7 Kansas -l.0 -0.1 0.6 -l.5 Kentucky 7.0 7.3 3.6 7.4 Michigan 6. 1 6.9 0.2 5.4 Minnesota 5.7 4.9 6.4 6.5 Missouri 0.5 3.0 -1.6 -2.6 Nebraska 0.6 -0.8 0.8 2.2 North Dakota 4.8 ---- ---- ‘ 4.8 Ohio 2.? 3.0 2.3 2.2 South Dakota 4.5 ---- ->--- 4.5 Wisconsin 2.0 -O.1 3.6 2.9 58 participation decreased by 0. 1, 0. 8, and 0. 1 per cent, respectively. Participation increased in all Type II Areas except in Missouri where it is decreased by 1.6 per cent. Participation increased in Type III Areas in all the states except in Missouri and Kansas where it is de- creased by 2.6 and 1.5 per cent. Hence, the results support Hypothesis 3 that participation would show increase not only in the Region but also in the component states in this period covered. Hypothesis 4(a). Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to size of SMA Area in the Region and in each of the component states. Table VII shows the change in political participation between the 1952 and 1960 presidential election, by size of SMA Areas in the Region. Considering all Areas in the Region, the data show that the smaller SMAs exhibit greater increase in participation than larger SMAs. This general pattern is not uniformly reflected by SMAs within the individual states. The largest increase in participation reported applies to the SMA of 1, 000, 000 and more population in Kentucky. Furthermore, highly diverse patterns are revealed upon the examination of individual state data in Table VII. Hence, the results support Hypothesis 4(a) that no consistent pattern is observable. Hypothesis 4(b). Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not Show consistent patterns as related to urbanity of the Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states. Table VIII presents the change in voting participation between the 1952 and 1960 presidential elections, by per cent urbanity of Type II (Adjacent to SMAs) Areas, in the Region and the component states. The gain in voting participation in the Region within the period was higher in the most urban categories than in the least urban or no urban categories. 59 Table VII: Difference in Percentage Points Between Voting Participation in the Presidential Election of 1960 and of 1952 in the North Central States, by Size of SMA (Type I Areas). Difference in Percentafie'Points, 1952 and 1960 sze I Areas, by Size North Central Under 250, 000 to 500, 000 to 1, 000, 000 States 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and more Regional Total,“ 2.5 2.5 0.6 1.8 Illinois 2.8 1.5 ---- -1.4 Indiana 6.0 ---- -2.1 5.8 Iowa 1.8 0.9 ---— --.... Kansas -1.7 ~-—- 1,0 ---- Kentucky -l.6 ---- ---- 7.9 Michigan 4.9 4. 3 ---- 6.8 Minnesota ---- 4. 5 ---- 5.0 Missouri ---- ---- -6.5 -1.1 Nebraska -3.5 -3.1 ---- ---.. Ohio 1.1 2.8 2.5 3.0 Wisconsin 3.2 5.8 0.8 ---- :5: North Dakota and South Dakota do not have SMA Areas in 1950. Therefore these two states contain Type III Areas only as of this date. 60 Table VIII: Difference in Percentage Points Between Voting Participation in the‘Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952 in the North Central States, by Urbanity of Adjacent (Type II Areas). = _=_ Difference in Percentge‘Points, 1952 and 1960 Type II_Areas, by Per cent Urbanity North Central Under 25. 0 to 40. 0 to 55. O to 70.0 to States 25% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% Regional Total* 1.7 1.3 4.4 4.1 0.2 Illinois 3.4 2.9 3.4 0.3 2.1 Indiana 1.5 3.0 2.0 3.3 ---_ Iowa 1.8 0.9 -0.1 2.2 ---»- Kansas ---- 1.3 -O.1 2.6 ---_ Kentucky 3.? ---- ---- ---- --...- Michigan 0.7 2.6 5.1 6.5 ---- Minnesota 6.0 6.7 5.5 5.9 -...... Missouri -3.4 -6.9 ---- ---- 0--.. Nebraska -0.9 -2.8 -1.0 -1.8 -0-.- Ohio 1.6 0.2 1.7 6.1 2.9 Wisconsin 6.1 2.5 4.7 3.1 -2.5 *North Dakota and South Dakota do not have Adjacent Areas in .1950. Therefore these two states contain Type III Areas only as of this date. 61 But the most urban category in the Region (70. O to 84. 9%) shows the smallest gain. Most of the states do not have any counties that fall into this category. Therefore, a real comparison of this category with others cannot be made. However a closer examination of the com- ponent states gives us a different pattern of gain in voting participation. In Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Kentucky and Wisconsin the gain is higher in the least urban than in the most urban categories. In Indiana and Nebraska there is no significant difference between the most urban and the least urban categories. In the remainder of the states the gain con- forms to the Regional pattern. If we examine the Region and the com- ponent states, we can conclude that there is no consistent pattern in the increase of voting participation in this area type. Hence the results support Hypothesis 4(b) that differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to urbanity of the Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states. Hypothesis 4(c). Differences in voting participation between 1952 and 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to urbanity of the Non-Adjacent Areas in the Region and in Each of the Component states. Table IX shows the changes in voting participation between the presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 by per cent urbanity of the Type III (Non-Adjacent to SMAs) Areas in the Region and the component states. Considering all areas in the Region, the Non-urban and the least urban categories exhibited greater gain in voting participation than the most urban categories. This general pattern is not reflected in the component states. Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Kentucky and South Dakota conform to the Regional pattern. In the remainder of the states the gain is greater in the most urban categories than in the least and no urban categories. These data at the Regional level fail to support the hypothesis that the differences in voting participation between 1952 and 62 0.0.. w.m >6 o.N m4» m.m mé 00000000003 0.0 0.« 0.« 0.0 0.0 E... 0.0 880000 £80 ..-,- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i- 0.0 0000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -..- 1. 0 .0 080000000870 0.0- 0.0- 0.0- 0.0- 0.0 --.. 0 .0 90.00.5070 0.0.. 0.0- 0.0- 0.0- 0.0.. 0.0- 0.0- 0.8800000 -l «.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ....- 0.0 380502 0.0 0.0- 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 50000002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 00003080 0.«- «.0- 0.0 0.0.. 0.0.. 0.0- 0.0- 03:30 o.w m.m m4 0.0 ¢.N ...... m0 «BoH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ..-- 0.0 0:000:00 2... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 002.0000 0.0 0.0 «.0 0.0 0.« 0.0 0.« 00.8.0. 0980030 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 50.5 .000 50.5 0880 8 0 .00 8 0 .00 8 0 .0« 8 0.00 8 0 .00 .300: 02 00.350 £qu 03.000.000.02 «0000 Mona Na £00.04 HE 0908 0000 p000 mmmL .mun0onm ommfiuoouonm :0 monouowfifl 1; 40.00.30 H: 090.3 0080.00.30 ESHHWWWW 000056.09 >00 .0305 00.8.0000 0.00.0070 0000 5 N00; no new 0000 Ho mfiOSooHM . . nm 0000. G0 GOSMQMUSHMnH WGSO> 00003qu 0.30000 . . . nm ammucoosonm C0 vocohowwga . . . .XH 0.0an 63 1960 will not show consistent patterns as related to urbanity of these areas. But the component states support Hypothesis 4(c) that these areas exhibit no consistent gain in voting participation. HYPOTHESIS 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(d). - We now turn to the nature of the relationship between voting participation and the levels of net in and out migration in an ecological framework involving popu- lation size, distance, and urbanity. This enables us to examine the 1960 Presidential voting patterns as related to levels of net migration between 1950 and 1960 in each of the area types. The relationships are further examined by classifying Type I Areas by size and Type II and III Areas by per cent urbanity. The United States has been characterized by a high level of mobility from the time of its earliest settlement. The continuous growth of technology in a relatively uncontrolled and capitalistic society fostered constant changes in the distribution of populations. The re- distribution of population has taken the form of many different migra- tion streams, such as rural to urban, South to North, North to West, etc. ~Peop1e who migrate into new places undergo a process of re» orientation to the new community. Until they are assimilated to the new environment they are not likely to participate in political and civic affairs. 'Our hypotheses involving net migration and political participation derive from established migration patterns and literature on assimilation. Hypothesis 5(a). In the SMA and Adjacent Areas, voting partici- pation in 1960 will decrease with an increase in the level of net in-migration. Hypothesis 5(b). In the Non-Adjacent Areas, voting participation in 1960 will increase with an increase in the level of net out-migration. 64 While the relationship between migration level and political participation shown in Table X is not a perfect one, there is a strong tendency for political participation to increase as level of net migration decreases. Standard metropolitan or Type I Areas exhibit a close in- verse relation between political participation and level of in-migration. While the same tendency is visible for the Adjacent, or Type II Areas, the relationship is less strong than in the SMA Areas. With few exceptions, the Non-Adjacent or Type III Areas exhibit a close relation between high rates of political participation and high rates of out- migration. Hence, from the evidence of Table X, hypotheses 5(a) and 5(b) are supported. Hypothesis 5(0). - In the SMA and Adjacent Areas, gain in voting participation between 1952 - 1960, will de- crease with an increase in the level of net in- migration during the period 1950-1960. Hypothesis 5(d). - In the Non—Adjacent Areas, gain in the voting participation between 1952-1960, will increase with an increase in the level of net out- migration. Table XI presents the data on the changes in voting participation during the period 1952 to 1960, as related to levels of net migration for the decade. In this table all the Type I Areas are arranged in the order of highest to lowest levels of net migration rather than by their size. This arrangement enables us to see whether there is a linear relation- ship between net migration and changes in voting participation. Type I Areas exhibit a regular pattern, that is, gains in political participation increased with the decrease in levels of net in-migration. Type II Areas in general conform to the pattern of decreasing gain in voting partici- pation with increaseing levels of net in-migration, with only one exception. The last category in Type II Areas recorded low gain in 65 Table X: Voting Participation in 1960 as Related to Net-Migration During the Period 1950-1960 in the North Central States for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). Type Areas, by Size Per cent Net Migration Per cent Political and Urbanity of 1950 Population Participation, 1960 Type I Areas, bLSize 500,000 to 999,999 6.0 67.8 1,000,000 and More 4.5 71.6 250,000 to 499,999 4.4 70.0 Under 250,000 3.0 72.2 Type II Areas, by Per cent Urbanity 70.0 to 84.9% Urban 7.0 71.3 25.0 to 39.9% Urban 5.7 76.1 40.0 to 54.9% Urban 3.6 75.8 55.0 to 69.9% Urban 2.9 70.6 Under 25% Urban -0.0 74.8 Type III Areas, by Per cent Urbanfiy Under 10% Urban -26.8 73.6 Non Urban Population -18.6 78. 8 10.0 to 24.9% Urban -17.0 77. 7 25.0 to 39.9% Urban -12.2 74.8 40.0 to 54.9% Urban -9. 5 75. 2 55.0 to 69.9% Urban -2. 3 71.6 70.0 to 84.9% Urban +0.9 71.1 66 Table XI: Difference in’Percentage Points Between Voting Participation in the Presidential Elections of 1960 and of 1952, as Related to Net-Migration During the Period 1950-1960 in the North Central States, for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). A—_-i Type Areas by Size Per cent Net Migration Difference in Percentage and Urbanity of 1950 P0pulation Points, 1952 and 1960 Type I Areas bLSize 500,000 to 999,999 6.0 0.6 1,000,000 and More 4.5 1.8 250,000 to 499,999 4.4 2.5 Under 250, 000 3.0 2.5 Type II Areas by Per cent Urbanity 70.0 to 84.9% Urban 7.0 0.2 25.0 to 39.9% Urban 5.7 1.3 40.0 to 54.9% Urban 3.6 4.4 55.0 to 69.9% Urban 2.9 4.1 Under 25% Urban -0.02 1.7 Type III Areas by Per cent Urbanity Under 10% Urban -26.8 7.7 Non Urban Population -18.6 4. 3 10.0 to 24.9% Urban -17.0 4. 3 25.0 to 39.9% Urban -12.2 2.6 40.0 to 54.9% Urban -9.5 2.4 55.0 to 69.9% Urban -2. 3 2.0 70.0 to 84.9% Urban +0.9 2. 1 67 political participation without conforming to the general pattern. While this gain is higher than the former two categories, it did not conform to the general pattern noted. Type III Areas show a very close relationship between the level of net out-migration and the gain in voting participation. As was hypothesized in 5(c) and 5(d) the gain in voting participation increases with an increase in the level of net out-migration. Summary of Voting Participation Hypotheses The main findings regarding voting participation may now be summarized in the following manner: (1) (Z) Contrary to our hypothesis, voting participation was greater outside of SMA (Type 1 Areas) than in SMA (Type I Areas). This was true of the North Central Region as a whole and for individual component states (with minor exceptions) in both Presidential elections. The correction procedure altered the pattern, by a small margin, in only one instance, Minnesota, in the 1952 election. Contrary to expectation, voting participation was greatest in the Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas), intermediate in the Adjacent (Type II Areas) and least in the SMA (Type I Areas). This pat- tern was true for the North Central Region in 1952 election and in the 1960 election only after the correction was made. It was true of four states (Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio) in both elections, regardless of correction. In addition, it was true of corrected results in Michigan in the 1952 election and in Illinois and Kansas in the 1960 election. While the pre- cise pattern is far from invariable, the two types of outlying areas exhibit considerably higher voting participation than the SMA Areas. (3) (4) (5) 68 Contrary to the hypothesis concerning voting participation in relation to size of SMA (Type I Areas), voting participation was highest in the largest and smallest SMAs and was lowest in the two intermediatersized SMA categories of the Region in both Presidential elections. ~On1y in Ohio where the full range of size categories are represented, however, did not hold true. In this state, for both elections, SMAs of 1, 000, 000 or more reported the lowest voting participation. On the other hand, SMAs of this size reported highest participation of all size categories as follows: Illinois in 1952 election; Michigan and Missouri in the 1960 election. Contrary to the hypothesis concerning voting participation in relation to urbanity of Adjacent (Type II Areas), voting partici- pation tended to be highest in the least urban of the Adjacent Areas and lowest in the most urban of this type area. This pattern was true of the Region and for most component states in both elections. However, voting participation did not show a regular decline in every category with increasing urbanity. Contrary to the hypothesis concerning voting participation in relation to urbanity of Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas), voting participation tended to be highest in the least urban of the Non- Adjacent Areas and lowest in the most urban of this type area. This pattern was true of the Region and for most component states in both elections. Those Non-Adjacent Areas having no urban population reported the highest voting rate (out of 7 categories of urbanity) at the Regional level in both elections, in seven states in the 1952 election, and in nine states in the 1960 election. However, voting participation did not exhibit a regular decline in every category with increasing urbanity. (6) v (7) (8) (9) 69 In conformity with our hypothesis, voting participation in- creased in the 1960 election over the 1952 election. An in- crease was exhibited in all three type areas for the Region and for most of the component states. Voting participation declined in Kansas as a whole and in the SMA and Non-SMA portions of Missouri as well as in the SMA portions of Nebraska and Kansas. In conformity with the hypotheses, the difference in turnout in the two elections exhibited irregular patterns when related to SMA size, . Adjacent Areas classed by urbanity, and Non- Adjacent Areas classed by urbanity. Some tendency was observed, however, for the difference to be larger in smaller- sized SMA Areas and in the least urban of the Non-Adjacent Areas. In part as hypothesized, level of net migration bears the anticipated relationship to level of voting participation. For the SMA Areas classified by size, the higher the level of in-migration the lower the level of voting participation; for the Adjacent (Type II Areas) classed by urbanity, the associ- ation is not clear; for the Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas), the higher the level of out-migration, the higher the level of voting participation. Again, in part as hypothesized, level of net migration bears the expected relationship to change in voting participation of the 1960 over the 1952 election. For the SMA Areas classified by size, the higher the level of in-migration, the smaller the percentage difference (gain) in participation in the two elections; for the Adjacent (Type II Areas) classified by urbanity, the higher the level of out-migration, the larger the percentage difference (gain) in participation in the two elections. 70 Part II - Pattern of Democratic Voting HYPOTHESES l, 2, 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). - The first two hypotheses and subhypotheses are concerned with the patterns of Democratic voting as related to the ecological model consisting of population size, distance, and relative urbanity. This ecological scheme was used to examine the proportions of people voting Democratic in the two presidential elections of 1 952 and 1960 in the North Central Region. The ecological model again consists of Type I (SMAs), Type II (Adjacent to SMAs) and Type III (Non-Adjacent to SMAs) Areas. These three categories are further classified by size and per cent urbanity. This enables us to examine the influence of size and relative urbanity on the Democratic patterns of voting. First, Type I Areas will be compared with all the non Type I Areas. Secondly, Type I Areas will be examined with Type II and III Areas. These two types of comparisons will be made for the Region as a Whole and for each of the component states. The existing literature on political behavior supports association betWeen 'leftist' vote and economic social, and demographic variables. In Conformity with the existing literature the first two hypotheses antici- Pate a. general inverse relationship between population size and urbanity and proportions voting Democratic. Hypothesis 1. The percentage voting Democratic is higher in the SMA Areas than outside the SMA Areas, in the North Central Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. Table XII presents the data on the Democratic voting pattern for the Region and each of the component states. This table shows that Delilocratic voting is higher in Type I Areas than in the remaining Areas in the Region, both in 1952 and 1960. The Democratic vote was higher In Type I Areas than in Non-Type I Areas in all states in both 1952 and .‘AU Ion-3‘s wifil' ‘UI‘ fluéw ununuvsi. thu are d. 1 ul...«~a.> .v1.--u MUNVQFILIK.‘ u-val .» NA,\ -.4. ‘. 71 .HmooH Hmconom 9H» CH Hammad meadow 9.3 026. omoau uoH 3mm 62: GH moh< H 09;. no 42m Gm o>ma won 06 30me 8.50m Hose .30me 8.qu ow w.mv >.H¢ o.wm m.¢¢ ©.mm o.m¢ m.>v H.Om m.m¢ w.©m w.m¢ m.>m H.o¢ o.Nv H.>m N.Hm h.~¢ N.>m @.mm oém h.w¢ w.¢¢ m.m¢ w.©w o.mm H.mm H.¢m 5.0m 5.0m ©.wN o.o~ m.¢v o.wm N.Nm o.Hm N.wN v.¢m ¢.®m h.>m w.cm >.m¢ o.>¢ ¢.o¢ o.¢m m.Hm m.om o.m¢ o.mm N.N¢ m.¢v o.m¢ ~.w¢ GHmco omH 3 30me £30m 2.8 30de 5.3 Z 936.302 HHSOmmH “GOO Mom mmouaon HHH w HH 2:8 moofiw H 2:8 NmoH 03.930503 wcflo> 300 ,uonH meadow Huh—G00 Aunoz gonna... E one 2 beat 42982 one soon... H boat 42m .3 .moumum HmnucUU 5.82 5 ooaH Head NmoH Ho 9830on HmHucoEmounH cH wcflo> UHHMHoogoQ "HHX 3nt 72 1 960, except in Kentucky in 1952 where the opposite occurred. These results overwhelmingly support Hypothesis 1 that Democratic vote was higher in Type IAreas than other Area types in the North Central Region and in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1960. Hypothesis 2. The percentage voting Democratic decreased from SMA Areas to Adjacent Areas to the Non-Adjacent Areas in the North Central Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. The percentage voting Democratic, as shown in Table XIII, decreased from a high in Type I Areas to a low in Type II Areas, .with Type III Areas falling into an intermediate position. While the difference between Type II and III Areas is slight, the pattern is maintained for both presidential elections for the Region as a whole. Excluding Kentucky which was exceptional in the 1952 presidential election, five of the ten remaining states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Missouri) followed the Regional pattern of Democratic voting, i. e. , high in Type I Areas, low in Type II Areas, and intermediate for Type III Areas. In the 1960 Presidential election, only five of the eleven states (Indiana, Iowa, MiChigan, Kentucky, and Wisconsin) followed the pattern specified above. Only partial support has been obtained for Hypothesis 1 and 2. On One hand, metropolitan (Type I Areas) have been found to vote Democratic in higher proportions than non-metropolitan (Type II and III Areas). The only exception occurred in Kentucky for the 1952 election. On the other hand, the expectation that Democratic voting levels WCmtld decline from a high in Type I Areas, to a lower level in Type II Areas, and to the lowest level in Type III Areas, was not supported. while differences between Democratic voting in Type II and Type III Areas was not large, the Type II Areas reported the lowest percentage 1n bOth elections for the Region as a whole. While the results do not A: OOplll r v 73 .oumv m3» Ho mm >HHHo mdou< HHH smear 33:00 meadow 03o. omega ouoHouoHHH. .omoH Ho mm Hm so 95: «0: on .30me HHH—flow Head .30me 5.8sz iiL H .3 m .3, H .3 H .3 ado c on one man Enooon; e .3 it ..--- HHH. -..-.. chem -...... can. 88an fiaom n.5, To... ~23 nos mam Harm o.:. .82. 3.8 m :3. a.-- i-.. mi. -2... on... 2...- 83 36an 582 m .3 N .3 mi mom «.3 m .2 Too ado nxnonooz m .3 N .3. ~13 m .8 H .2. 4.3 o .E 3a. .3. HnoonnHHz a .2. o .om H .3 c .3. m on o .3- m .3 4.3 688522. Hume m .3 com com. oém m .3 mam N .rv oomEoHHz won 93. 53 new e13 or}. one cam 3688M a .3 H .mm m .3 H .3 c .S o .8 on... e .3 $2an 0.3 c .3. m .3 man can m .2 ~84. mom 853 58 How ohm com mom co... one How nHooHHHH ------.1...o. ....... ms----:....... ..... . H... .......... H e... ..... mm--- -....H....::........ are... 4.3 H13 Ham We... oom co... - New mime *Hnooanoonom mdou< moouan mooncn H.308 mdoucn mmoH< seesaw H.308 museum HHH 6&5 HH oaaH. H 2H; HHH on; HH 2H3. H «HHH. Hobooo finoz oooH NmoH oHHonooan was; :80 So. oceHooEoQ meco> Eco Hem i .3822. HHH 2;: Sam 8 HeoonHo<éoz can .383. HH can: Sam 3 288.23. .HnoonfiH 2:: 3% >3 .mOHMHW HNHHGOD SHHOZ 0am“ as.“ OOOH Dad Nmmva HO mGOHHUOHm HNHHCOmeU-Hm CH MGHu—Oxl ,Uwudhooeoq "HHHx OHQMH. 74 support the predicted pattern of Hypothesis 2, the evidence of support was greater for the 1960 than for the 1952 presidential election. Hypothesis 2(a). The percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing size of SMA Areas in the Region and in each of the component states, both in 1952 and 1960. Table XIV summarizes the percentage Democratic vote for the 1952 and 1960 presidential elections, according to size of the SMA or Type I Areas. For the entire Region as a whole and for both presidential elections, the largest SMAs (those of 1, 000,000 or more population) reported the highest percentage voting Democratic, the smallest SMAs (those of 250, 000 ot less) reported the lowest percentage voting Democratic, and the two intermediate-sized SMAs (250, 000 to 499, 999 population and 500, 000 to 999, 999 population) reported Democratic voting between the extremes. However, the smaller of the intermediate- sized SMAs reported a higher Democratic vote than the larger of the SMAs. At the Regional level, therefore, the relation between size of SMA Areas and Democratic vote is generally direct. The relationship is reversed, however, for the two medium-sized SMA categories. An examination of this pattern within states is difficult since Ohio only contains all four of the sizes of SMA Areas. While the tendency is for Democratic vote to increase with increasing SMA size in most states, it is not invariably true and it is not invariably regular, using the size categories we do. Hence, we conclude that Hypothesis 2(a) is supported in general terms but is rejected if regular declines in Demo— cratic voting with each decline in SMA size is insisted upon. Hypothesis 2(b). The percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states both in 1952 and 1960. 75 6me m3... m0 as >15 moon-d.- HHH 2:8 53:00 mop-3m 95 omofi wage-Hugh. .omS cw may}... <§m 033 “on op .30me 590m was 30me 5.82 * -,-- No.3 0.8 T~m -- ~42. Tam mi. £23sz 13 92. we... ~43 72. 2:. TS. 1~m oEo -- -- mus. 5S. -- -- Afig m.- mxmmnnoz 06m mimm nu..- -..- o.mm odm .3...- .-..... 2.993va m.~m ..-- 0.3 -- mi. -- 93 -- 383:3 ~.~o -- mi. 1% 9% -- ~12. ~.- 5.33:2 0.0... -- -- or... 0.3 -- -- nti. 3253M. -- of. -- of. -- was -- o.- £28m -- -- 12. fifl. ..-- -- cam ~22. 92: TE 52. -- ~12. 1mm 53. -- TE. «:39: 5mm -- ~43. 0.2. 92. -- 12. mi. floss: oém nv.3. Av.2. 9m... mdm m4... Av.2. H .2. .2309 38%»... 988 can go .23 25.21. ooo .om~ 25 .23 .z 8 3 $95 $35 ace 6% 8o .om~ 12280 5.82 03m rho. moo-5w H omNH. NmS .oflm.~oo§oQJW:fio> “Goo Mom v.35 paw mow dam memo .03. ooo .03. 25 .80 J 8 3 .525 ooo.oom ooo.om~ 03m .3 mmofiw H 2:8 032 53.980880 wzfio> Emu Mona .33.}. H 2:: 42m Ho 36 .3 .836 3350 £82 2: 5 $2 cam $2 mo 2332a 3:53...on S. was; 2.38083 Sou 3m "Ex 033. 76 Table XV presents the percentage voting Democratic for the 1952 and 1960 presidential elections, according to the urbanity of the Adjacent or Type II Areas. For the Region as a whole and for both presidential elections, the most urban categories generally were the most Democratic and the least urban were usually the least Democratic. At the Regional level the association between urbanity and Democratic vote is quite regular in 1960, whereas in 1952 two intermediate categories did not exhibit the consistent pattern of 1960. The component states show the same pattern as in the Region with low percentage Democratic vote in low urban areas and high percentage Democratic vote in most urban areas. In the majority of the component states the position of the inter- mediate urban categories is not clear both in 1952 and 1960. The data do not support Hypothesis 2(b) completely, if the full relationship of linearity between urbanity and the Democratic vote is insisted upon. The data support the hypothesis partially in the sense that the Democratic vote increases with the increase of urbanity if the extreme urban categories are compared rather than the adjacent one. Hypothesis 2(a). The percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Non-Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the com- ponent states both in 1952 and 1960. Table XVI presents the patterns of the Democratic voting for Type III (Non-Adjacent) Areas in the Region and the component states for the two presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 by per cent urbanity. The Democratic vote both in 1952 and 1960 was higher in the most urban categories than in the Non-urban categories. But the intermediate categories exhibited very inconsistent patterns for the Regions. That is the Democratic vote did not increase with the increase of urbanity in the categories. In seven component states the Democratic vote was highest in the most urban categories and lowest in the least urban ...oump mEumo as >13 mdou< HHH 0&8 53:00 moo-mum o?» omega ouououoafi .023 5 moo-do. unsung-aw 033 no: 06 30me £50m can 90me 5132* o.~m ~43 0.5. 0.3. ~.m~. nYE. ~13. 1%.. 0.3 ~.m~ E3823 ~.~. «.3. $5.. 1.... ~13 Hi. 92. mg; ism 1mm. 020 -- o.- ~13 mi. 0.2. -- m.w~ 53 1mm w.~.~ £3502 -- -- -- m5. Tom -- -- -- mi. .23 .5822 -- 0.2. TS v.3. me -- S... ~.fl. mi. ed... 8035.2 -- ~12. mg; 93 «.mm -- .13 ~12- ogm m.o~ :mmEuaz -- -- -..- -- ode -- -- -- -- oém sxofinom W -- -m Yam mg: -- -- o.m~ can m.o~ -- 3.5.x -- 93 5% ~.:. mi. -- 121. ~.mm c..- 5mm «38 -- 0.2. was .13. mam -- ism o.w~ ms... 9m... .2823 as. T? «.3. TE. 93. .13. ~1m~ .41.. ~.- o.~.~ 28:: was. mi. mi. 0.3. TS ~13. fimm 93 T3 .23 .mfioesgoawmm oils Osage wise $3.? .53 Geog... $3.3 §o.~m osmium $3 338 Cu 0... on o» .3.ch 09. o» 0» on kebab flan-Emu finoz ode 0.3 0.3. o.m~. c.2- o.mm o5. o.m~ xficmnub HGoU Mom .3. .mmohmw 3 egg 002 E ofiduoOEoQ aflo> “Goo Mona chise-bub «sou Mona .3. 5.35% E emira- Nmofi E och-SOEOQ moio> “:00 Mona is... m we»: H.032 no 323.5 :80 pom >2 £33m 3.85.0 5.32 of 3 002 ram Mm: mcofinim fimflucopfimoum S. wcflo> oflmncofiom H>N 03mm- 333 93 93 93 93 9mm 93 9mm 9mm 9mm 93 93 93 93. 228023 93 93 9mm 93 93 --- 93 93 93 9E 9: 93m -- 93- 20me finom -..- 3.3. 93 9mm 93 I: 93 --- 9mm 9?. 93m 93 -- 93 020 93 93 93 9am --_.. -- 93 93 9mm 93 93 -- -- 93 233,282 9mm 93 9mm 93» 93 --- 93m 93 93 93 9S. 9- -- 93~ 923502 93 93 93 93 93. 93 93 93 92m 93 93 93 93 93 2:322 -- 93 93 93 93 -- 93 -- 93m 93 9mm 9mm -- 93 308522 893 93 93 93 93 9.: 9mm 93 93 9S 9; 93m 99 3.3 32:22 793 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93m 93m 93 93 93 93 3.0382 93 93 9mm 93 93 3.3 93 93. 93 9mm 9- 9- 93~ 93 £332 93 93 9?. 93 93 -- 93 93 93 93 93 93 -- 93 ~32 93 93 93 93 93 -- 93 93 9mm 93 93m 9?. --.. 95 22E: --- 93 93 9mm 93 -- 93 -- 9mm 93 93m 93 -- 93 282: 93 93 93. 93 93 93 93 9mm. 9mm 9?. 93. 93 93 3.3m 2205298332 03.3 3.3 3.3 3.3. 23.3 $9 88.5 3.3 03.3 03.3 03.3 93~ 0%: 83.5 $35 -93 -93 -93 .93 -99 83: oz -93 -93 -93 -9m~. -99 595 02 3.380 £82 xficmnnb EMU hmnw Mn, m-mvhaw HHH mmNH. 0cm; .ofimuuofion wcflo> “:00 Hem mama-H3. EMU Hmnm 3 mmmp< H: 2:8 mmmL 53.200ng wcfio> Emu Hum :50 3m E .335 3350 £82 2: 2 32 E:- E: .2 macs-2m Encouafim 2 was; 052833 .Amm-Cd- SH 2:5 “avoid-«$02 mo EEMQHD “SIX 03-da- 79 categories. In these states the middle categories did not present any systematic pattern. In the remainder of the states the Democratic vote was highest in the non-urban categories and lowest in the most urban categories. Again the middle categories showed inconsistent patterns as related to urbanity. Again the middle categories showed inconsistent patterns as related to urbanity. Hence in the Region and in the majority of the states, both in 1952 and 1960 the pattern of Democratic voting in relation to urbanity is very inconsistent. This irregular pattern is not reduced even if the distant categories are compared. Hence we con- clude Hypothesis 2(c) which states that the percentage voting Democratic decreases with decreasing urbanity of the Type III Areas in the Region and the component states is not supported. HYPOTHESES 3, 4, 4(a), 4(b) and 4(c). - This series of hypotheses attempt to predict the nature of changes in Democratic voting in the period 1952 and 1960 in the North Central Region and component states. The ecological model is again used to ascertain the relation of size, distance and urbanity to Democratic voting. To state briefly, changes in the reorientations of political ideologies, conflict over political and economic issues, national and international policies, changes in the composition of different age groups, contribute to the anticipated in- crease in Democratic voting. Further it is anticipated that Democratic gains during the time period under observation will be greater in the least Democratic areas, that is in the more rural rather than in the more urban areas. This expectation is hypothesized even when rigorous urbanity controls are placed upon the Type Areas. Hypothesis 3. The percentage voting Democratic between 1952 and 1960 will increase in each type area (SMA, Adjacent, and Non-Adjacent) in the North Central Region and in each component state. 80 Table XVII shows the data on the change in Democratic vote between the presidential elections of 1952 and 1960. In the Region as a whole, the Democrats gained by 5. 2 per cent. This gain in the Type I Areas was 4.9 per cent; Type II Areas, 5.0; and Type III Areas, 5. 5 per cent. All the states in the Region recorded gains in Democratic vote, except Kentucky where the loss was 3.7 per cent. Type I areas gained in all the states. Type II Areas also gained in all the states except Kentucky where the loss was 8.7 per cent. . Type III Areas gained in Democratic vote with the exception of three states, namely Illinois, Missouri and Kentucky. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported in the North Central Region as a whole and in most of the component states. Hypothesis 4. The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 (i. e. , the difference between the percentage voting Democratic in 1952 and 1960) will increase from SMA Areas to the Adjacent Areas to the Non-Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states. The data in Table XVII show the difference in the percentage points between Democratic voting in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North Central Region and the component states as related to area types. The Democratic gain in the Region, as expected, increased from Type I Areas (SMAs) to Type II (Adjacent) Areas to Type IH (Non-Adjacent) Areas. In six states out of eleven the Democratic gain increased from the Type I Areas to the Type II Areas to the Type III Areas. In the re- maining five states the gain is irregular in the sense in some states Democrats gained more in Type I Areas and in other states contrary to the hypothesis they lost in Type II and III Areas. Thus, Hypothesis 4 in which Democratic gain is anticipated to increase from Type I Areas to the Type II Areas to the Type III Areas is supported for the Region and for the majority of the states. 81 Table XVII: Difference in Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North Central States. North Central Difference in Percentage Points, 1952 and 1960 States Total Type I Areas Type 11 Areas . Type III- Areas , Regional Total 5.2 4.9 5.0 5.5 Illinois 4.9 5 O 3.5 -4.8 Indiana 3.2 5 3 2.7 1.7 Iowa 7.7 3 3 7.2 8 4 Kansas 8.4 6.2 7.5 9.3 Kentucky -3.7 2.8 -8.7 -4.5 Michigan 6.5 6.4 6.2 8.4 Minnesota 6.3 2.6 7.4 10.1 Missouri 2.0 3.2 1.8 -0.8 Nebraska 5.9 4.1 7.7 9.1 North Dakota 15.9 --- --- 15.9 Ohio 3.5 4.2 1.5 3.0 South Dakota 11.0 --- --- 11.0 Wisconsin 9.3 8.4 6.8 11.1 82 Hypothesis 4(a). The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 increases with decreasing size of SMA Areas in the Region and in each of the component states- Table XVIII presents the pattern of Democratic gain in Type I Areas by size. In Type I Areas, the Democratic gain increased with the increasing size of Type 1 Areas in the Region. The only exception to this pattern was a reversal in the two smallest size categories. In nine states out of ten Democratic gain increased with increasing size of Type I Areas. The only exception to this general pattern was Nebraska, where Democrats gained more in the smallest SMA Areas than in those of 250, 000 to 499, 999 population. In Nebraska there are no larger Type I Areas, hence a real comparison of Type 1 Areas by size cannot be made. These findings, therefore, support the opposite of Hypothesis 4(a) which expected that Democratic gain would increase with increasing size of SMA Areas. Hypothesis 4(b). The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 increases with decreasing urbanity of the Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states. The percentage of Democratic gain for the Type II (Adjacent Areas) by per cent urbanity, as shown by Table XIX, did not exhibit any uni- formity between the two presidential elections of 1952 and 1960. The Democratic gain was higher in the very low urban categories than the most urban categories for the Region and for a majority of the com- ponent states. However, the pattern of the middle sized category is very irregular. Thus, Hypothesis 4(b) in which Democratic gain between 1952 and 1960 is anticipated to increase with decreasing urbanity, is not supported in the Region and in the majority of the component states. 83 Table XVIII: Difference in Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North Central States, by Size of SMA (Type 1) Areas. Difference in Percentag: Points, 1952 and 1960 [yge I Areas, by Size North Central Under 250, 000 to 500, 000 to 1, 000, 000 States 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and more Regional Total* 3. 5 2. o 4.1 6. 2 Illinois 2.5 4.1 --- 5.2 Indiana 4.9 --- 3.0 7.8 Iowa 3.4 3. 5 --- 8.1 Kansas --- --- --- --- Kentucky -5.0 --- --- 3.4 Michigan 5.9 1.1 --- 7.6 Minnesota --- 1.8 -9- 3.0 Missouri --- —-- 2.6 3.3 Nebraska 5.2 3.7 --- --- Ohio -3.9 1.9 3.4 10.0 Wisconsin 2.6 6.5 9.7 --- * North Dakota and South Dakota do not have SMA Areas in 1950. Therefore these two states contain Type III Areas only as of this date. 84 Table XIX: Difference in Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960 in the North Central States, by Urbanity of Adjacent (Type II) Areas. Difference in Percentage Points, 1952 and 1960 Type II Areas, by Per Cent Urbanity North Central Under 25. 0 to 40. 0 to 55. 0 to 70.0 to States 25% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% Regional Total* 4.0 ‘ 4.5 5.9 6.1 2.6 Illinois 6.7 4.1 6.0 2.5 2.5 Indiana 2.9 0.9 2.8 5.8 --- Iowa 8.1 8.5 4.4 6.8 --- Kansas --- 10.0 5.8 8.3 --- Kentucky -8.6 --- --- . --.. -.... Michigan 6.9 7.9 3.6 6.9 --- Minnesota 8.8 2.1 6.2 13.3 --_ Missouri 1.3 2.0 --- --- -.... Nebraska 10.2 7.4 7.5 4.5 -.... Ohio 1.2 1.0 0.6 5.6 -0.8 Wisconsin 9.9 9.0 8.2 4.0 4.4 * North and South Dakota do not have Adjacent Areas in 1950. Therefore these two- states contain Type III Areas only as of this date. 85 Hypothesis 4(c). The gain in Democratic voting between 1952 and 1960 increases with decreasing urbanity of the Now-Adjacent Areas in the Region and in each of the component states. Table XX reports the differences in percentage points between Democratic voting in the presidential elections of 1952 and 1960, in the North Central Region and the component states as related to urbanity of the Type III (Non-Adjacent) Areas. As was expected the Democratic gain in the Region was higher in the least urban areas than in the most urban areas. But the gain in the moderately urban categories of the Region did not conform to the pattern that was hypothesized. The gain in the majority of the states did not exhibit any consistent association with urbanity. Hence, these data do not support the Hypothesis 4(c) which anticipated that Democratic gain between 1952 and 1960 would increase with decreasing urbanity of the Non-Adjacent Areas in the Region and in the component states. HYPOTHESES 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), and 5(d). - We now examine the nature of the association between Democratic voting and the levels of net in and out migration in an ecological scheme consisting of Type I, H and III Area Types. As before, Type I Areas are further classified by Size and Type II and III Areas are categorized by per cent urbanity. This classification enables us to examine the nature of relationship bet"Veen size, distance, urbanity and Democratic voting patterns and leVels of net in and out migration. The existing literature suggests that people who move into new areas undergo a process of social and psychological change. Some are of the opinion that people who move into new environment accept the pre\railing social and political norms in order to gain acceptance by the c: . . . . . or7'3111'1un1ty members. Others are of the Opinion that attitude change is A.— frA.—.>.-.V ,IH-uI.hy-I! d. - :2.- U - Tess/x1 .- alt- i-nniz Illk) .HAU >.~.-.1.—.~3 ' uni-II ck. \ I. An AT...& -.vdu\lda .(I-uvii 's..~1..unl 5...; n..u..v HQ -~-~ AJZ .vI~.-3 .mmofifi HHH 6&8 023 was Nmoa .munmom owmucoonmnflmfl oocouomfifl é .mmoaxw ASH shabby acmomflpafi #82 mo bannub a3 .mougm Hmnuaouzunoz mat. a: coma cam. mmoa mo mcofioofim Hmflcmpwmeum 65 5 msfio> uflmnooEoQ cook/pom 350nm ommucoonom a: mononofiafl ”XX 3an 87 not brought about by a purely physical movement. They maintain that changes in attitudes are related to a number of social and psycho- logical factors. Insofar as migrants originate in rural areas, they are probably "rightist" in political affiliations. Furthermore, heavy migration into SMA and Adjacent areas doubtless results in disenfranchisement due to failure to meet registration requirements. In areas of out-migration, the level of out-migration is probably associated with economic distress. Hence, it is reasonedgthat such areas may vote Democratic in large proportions. Based upon such reasons, the relevant hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis 5(a). In the SMA and Adjacent areas the per cent voting Democratic in 1960 will decrease with an increase in the level of net in-migration. Hypothesis 5(b). In the Non-Adjacent areas the per cent voting Democratic in 1960 will increase with an in- crease in the level of net out-migration. Data presented in Table XXI show the relation between level of net migration and Democratic voting. ~ Levels of net migration during the period 1950 and 1960 were ranked within each area type, (Type 1, Type II, and Type III Areas) rather than by the size or urbanity of the area types. This ordering shows the relationship between net migration and the Democratic voting. In Type I and II Areas the Democratic vote inc 1‘ eased with an increase in the level of net migration. However, the inc rease is not completely regular but shows a high degree of associ- ation. In Type III Areas per cent voting Democratic decreased with an 111:: rease in the levels of net' out-migration with a few exceptions. Hence the data do not support the Hypotheses 5(a) and 5(b). On the con- tra'I’yDemocratic vote in Type I and Type II Areas increased with an i . . . “‘3 rease in the level of net migration. 88 Table XXI: Democratic Voting in 1960 as Related toNet Migration During the Period 1950-1960 in the North Central States for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). Per Cent Net : Type Areas, by Size Migration of Per Cent-Voting and Urbanity 1950 Population Democratic, 1960 Type I Areas by size Type I Areas 500, 000 to 999, 999 6. 0 48.6 Type I Areas 1, 000, 000 and more 4. 5 57. 0 Type I Areas 250, 000 to 499, 000 4.4 49.6 Type I Areas under 250, 000 3. 0 45.6 Type II Areas by_per cent urbanity 70.0 to 84.9% urban 7.0 48.8 25.0 to 39.9% urban 5.7 40.9 40.0to 54.9% urban 3.6 41.5 55.0to 69.9% urban 2.9 41.8 Under 25% urban -0.02 39.7 lype III Areas by per cent urbanity Under 10% urban -26.8 48.2 Non urban population -l8.6 40.5 10- ow 24.9% urban .17.0 41.2 35 . o to 39.9% urban .12. 2 42.9 40. 0 to 54.9% urban 99.5 42.2 55- o to 69.9% urban -2.3 44.1 70- O to 84.9% urban ' 0.9 42.6 \ 89 Hypothesis 5(c). In the SMA and Adjacent Areas the per cent gain in Democratic Voting during the period 1952- 1960 will decrease with an increase in the level of net in-migration. Hypothesis 5(d). In the Non-Adjacent Areas the per cent gain in Democratic Voting during the period 1952-1960 will increase with an increase in the level (of net out-migration. The data in Table XXII do not completely support the hypotheses stated above. However, there seems to be a partial correlation between the levels of net migration and changes in the Democratic voting in the period 1952-1960. Type I Areas to some extent support the opposite of the hypotheses, that is, Democratic gain tends to increase with increas- ing levels of net migration. But Type II Areas support the hypotheses that Democratic gain decreases with increasing levels of net in-migration. In Type III Areas the "high" out-migration areas no doubt have the highest gain in Democratic voting, as was hypothesized, but in the rest of the categories the gain is very inconsistent. Summary of Democratic Voting Hypotheses The main findings regarding Democratic voting patterns are summarized in the following manner: (1) In conformity with our hypotheses, Democratic voting was higher in SMA (Type I Areas) than outside SMA Areas. This was true of the North Central Region and the component states both in 1952 and 1960, only with an exception of Kentucky in 1952 where Non-SMA Areas voted more Democratic than SMA Areas. 90 Table XXII: Difference in Percentage Points Between Democratic Voting in the Presidential Elections of 1952 and 1960'as Related to Net Migration During the‘Period 1950-1960‘in the North Central States for SMA (Type I Areas), Adjacent (Type II Areas), and Non-Adjacent (Type III Areas). Per Cent Net Difference in Type Areas by Size Migration of Percentage Points, and Urbanity 1950 Population 1952 and 1960 Type I Areas by .size Type I Areas 500, 000 to 999, 999 6. 0 4.1 Type I Areas 1, 000, 000 and more 4. 5 6. 2 Type I Areas 250, 000 to 499, 999 4.4 2.0 Type I Areas under 250, 000 3. 0 3. 5 Type II Areas by per cent urbanity 70.0 to 84.9% urban 7.0 2.6 25.0 to39.9% urban 5.7 4.5 40.0 to 54.9% urban 3.6 5.9 55.0 to 69.9% urban 2.9 6.1 Under 25% urban -0.02 4.0 Type III Areas byper cent urbanity Under 10% urban -26.8 6.1 Non urban population -l8. 6 6. 1 10.0 to 24.9% urban -17.0 1.2 25.0 to 39.9% urban -12.2 5.8 40.0 to 154.9% urban -9.5 4.3 55. o to 69.9% urban -2.3 6.0 70.0 to 84.9% urban 0.9 4.4 (2) (3) (4) (5) 911 As was hypothesized, Democratic voting was greatest in the SMA (Type I Areas) than Adjacent (Type II Areas) and Non- Adjacent (Type III Areas). But contrary to the second part of the hypotheses, Democratic voting was higher in Non- Adjacent (Type III) Areas than Adjacent (Type II) Areas. This pattern was true for the North Central Region in both 1952 and 1960. As was expected, the hypotheses concerning Democratic voting in relation to~size of SMA (Type I Areas), Democratic voting was highest in the largest size SMAs (that is, those of l, 000, 000 or more) in the Region and in component states in both. 1952 and 1960, with minor exceptions. In Ohio, .Nfinnesota, and Kentucky in 1952 Democratic voting was‘higher in the smaller sized SMAs than in the larger ones. .Whereas in 1960 only in Minnesota the SMAs of size 250, 000 to 499, 999 exceeded the SMAs of 1, 000, 000 and more. In conformity with the hypotheses dealing with Democratic voting pattern in relation to urbanity of Adjacent (Type II Areas), Democratic voting tended to be highest in the most urban cate- gories than in the least urban categories both in 1952 and 1960 in the Region. The same pattern held true for most of the component states in both of the elections. However, Democratic voting did not show a regular decline in every category with decreasing urbanity. Democratic voting in relation to urbanity of Non-Adjacent (Type III) Areas, did neither support nor fail to support the hypotheses. The voting pattern in the Region and the com- ponent states in both 1952 and 1960 did not show any clear association with the degree of urbanity. (6) (7) (8) (9) 92 In conformity with the hypotheses, Democratic voting increased in the 1960 presidential election over the 1952 election. (An in- crease was observed in the Region in all the three area types, i. e. , 1 SMA (Type 1) Areas, Adjacent to SMA (Type II) Areas, and Non-Adjacent to SMA (Type III) Areas. The same pattern was: repeated in the component states with-a few exceptions. Democratic: voting declined only in Kentucky. In Type II Areas Democratic voting also declined in Kentucky, whereas in Type III Areas, it declined in Illinois, Missouri, and Kentucky. As was expected, Democratic voting in relation to size of SMA (Type I) Areas increased with increasing size of SMA Areas. In nine out of ten component states, Democratic gain increased with the increasing size of SMAs. The only exception to this pattern was Nebraska. But in Nebraska since there are no larger SMAs a real comparison of them by size cannot be made. Democratic voting, however, did not show a regular decline in : every category with increasing size. Contrary to the hypotheses, the gain in the Democratic voting as related to urbanity of Adjacent (Type II) Areas and Non- Adjacent. (Type III) Areas did not show any consistent pattern either in the Region or the component states. Contrary to the hypotheses, the level of net migration did not bear the anticipated relationship to the level of Democratic voting. On the other hand Democratic voting increased with an increase in the level of net in-migration in SMA (Type I) and Adjacent to SMA (Type II) Areas. » It should be noted that this increase was not uniform, that is, Democratic voting did not increase withevery increase in the level of net migration. To some extent, but to a lesser degree, the Non-Adjacent (Type III) Areas also conform to this general. pattern. 93 (10) Again, in part as was expected, the level of net migration did not bear the anticipated relationship to changes in Democratic voting during the period 1952-1960. In Type I Areas Democratic gain increased with increasing levels of net migration. But Type II Areas supported the hypothesis as stated that Democratic gain ‘ decreases with increasing levels of net migration. The high out- migration. areas in Type III Are-as contributed mostly to the Democratic: gain, but in the rest of the categories the gain was inconsistent. CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE Voting Participjtion The data on voting participation in the two Presidential elections of 1952 and 1960 in 13 North Central States did not confirm the main hypotheses. Contrary to expectation, residents of metropolitan areas voted less than those residing in the more rural areas. Voting partici- pation increased with an increase in distance from metropolitan areas. Residents of Type I Areas voted less than residents of Type II and III Areas, both in the 1952 and the 1960 Presidential elections in the Region as a whole and in each of the component states. The only exception was Michigan in 1960 in which Type '1 Areas exceeded other area types by a slight margin. A further breakdown of the Region into Type I, II, and III Areas gives a slightly different picture. Voting participation in Type III Areas excelled Type I Areas in 1952 in ten states out of eleven, whereas in 1960 voting participation in Type III Areas exceeded Type I Areas in all states. In 1960, participation in the Type II Areas in ten states out of eleven exceeded that of Type I Areas. Hence it is clear that political participation increased as one moved outward from metropolitan or Type I Areas. Type I Areas were further classified by size for an examination of the influence of size on voting patterns. Voting partici- pation was highest in the smallest Type I Areas and lowest in the larger Type I Areas, both in 1952 and 1960 in the North Central States. But the pattern of the intermediate-sized Type I Areas was not very regular. Hence it can be stated that voting participation was highest in 94 95 the smallest Type lAreas and lowest in the largest Type 1 Areas, whereas the pattern of the intermediate-sized areas in this type, though irregular, stood in an intermediate position. The three most urban categories of the Type II Areas are com- pared with the three least urban categories for a general comparison of the voting patterns both in the 1952 and 1960 Presidential elections. The data reveal that participation was highest in the leasturban cate- gories and lowest in the most urban categories. A comparison of the three least urban categories of the Type III Areas with the three most urban categories shows that political partici- pation decreased with increasing urbanity both in 1952 and 1960. However, there is not a perfect linear relationship between increasing urbanity and decreasing participation. The most urban of the non- adjacent areas clearly exhibits lower participation than the least urban 0f the non-adjacent areas. - In no instance did the "highly urban" exc eed the "non-urban" categories, except in Michigan and only in 1952. Hence it may be said, based upon the findings, that residents of 1a—I‘ger metropolitan areas participated less than those of smaller areas; and that residents of highly urban areas outside metropolitan areas V01: ed less than those residing in the least urban or no-urban counties. Changes in the nature of political participation are dependent on a r11il-Iriber of factors. The factors relating to personality of the candidate, is Sues involved, political climate, as well as numerous other aspects coIltribute to increase or decrease of participation. . In agreement with our hypotheses, the data show that participation increased between 1952 and 1960 in the Region and in each of the component states in all Categories, with a few exceptions. .Participation increased in each of the Component states of the Region except in Kansas, where participation dec r eased slightly. Participation increased in Type I Areas in all the Sta. . . . . . . ta 8 . except in Wisconsm, Nebraska, and Kansas. . PartiCipation 96 increased in all Type II Areas, except in Missouri where it decreased slightly. Participation increased in Type III Areas in all the states except in Missouri and Kansas where it is decreased. With the growth of higher education, mass media, standards of living,» and-communi- cation, this increasing participation is generally expected. Comparison of Type I, 1 II, and III Areas shows that political participation decreased with a high level of net in-migration. In part as hypothesized, political participation-is highest in Type III. Areas which are characterized by net out-migration. Net in-migration is highest in Type I Areas and this is lowest in political participation when compared with Type II and III Areas. There are several reasons that can be advanced for the voting participation findings which run counter to most of the current liter- ature. 4An attempt is made in the following to explain the reasons for these findings. They are as follows: (1) Persons residing in rural areas for a long period of time are likely to be economically andsocially well-established in their communi- ties. They also are expected to have internalized the social, civic and political norms of the local community to a greater degree than the residents of a city or metropolitan area, a large part of which is highly mobile. The constant growth and redistribution of the populations of Cities tends to inhibit the sense of belongingness and the commonalities WI’Iich are present among the residents of rural regions. Metr0politan areas and cities also have larger proportions of 'floaters' i. e. , recent Irligrants, who are disenfranchised due to legal and other requirements and tend to be apathetic to local and national politics duringthe earlier Starges of their residence. Therefore it is logical to expect the residents 0f rural areas to participate more in national and local politics. . (2) The social organization of rural areas in general is more 3°1idary, unifying and mutually. reinforcing than the urban social structure. 97 Norm internalization and concensus on economic and social issues tend to be greater in rural areas. Hence in rural political and social systems pressures toward conformity are high-and therefore divergent opinions are minimized in the decision-making process. We would speculate that in a relatively undifferentiated system, political or social participation would be either extremely high or low. (3) The proportion of eligible voters registered in comparisonwith the potential voting population is expected to be higher in rural areas than urban areas since the knowledge about the residents is comparatively good. - Differentiation of a voter from a non-voter is relatively easier in rural than in urban areas. Since non-voting is common knowledge and can be corrected very easily in rural areas, it would be very difficult to obtain this knowledge in urban areas in a highly mobile society. (4) Older citizens are likely to participate more inpolitical and civic affairs than the younger citizens. Knowledge about political issues, . political and social involvement tends to increase with increasing age, Rural areas at the though perhaps not into the most advanced ages. The 1950 present have a high proportion of older and retired citizens. and 1960 census shows that in rural areas the proportion of non-farm Population is teadily growing. A sizeable number of this non-farm popu- lation are retired white collar workers and others from the upper occu- Pational groups. These factors contribute to the high rural turn-out in national and local elections. - (5) Most of the rural counties are predominantly Republican. F3vren though they may not have a formal effective political organization, the informal communication and partisan loyalties are very strong. Thi- 8 strong sense of belongingness contributes to the higher turn-out in national and provincial politics. 98 (6) The doctor, lawyer, and the banker in rural counties continue to serve the role of "opinion leaders' as well as organizational pillars for the Republican party. The presence of a trade union leader, for example, is noticeably absent from most rural areas. Hence it is often sufficient to communicate to the key individuals to ensure participation at all levels in political campaigns. (7) The results of this study are based on aggregate voting data, whereas the results of the studies that helped to formulate our hypothe- ses are based on sample survey researcharesults. AThe sample mean statistically need not be the same as that of the universe, but it should be as close as possible. At the present stage of development» in sampling techniques the estimates of the sample means done even by eminent statisticians have differed significantly from the means of the total popu- lations. Therefore, the results based on survey research techniques and samples may differ markedly from aggregate data such as that used in this study. A It is true that rural—urban differences persist in many respects. Size, distance and urbanity to some extent, as proven in this study, influence the patterns of voting participation. But it cannot be argued that these are the only determining factors in voter turn out. - Several studies have demonstrated that the political and economic issues involved, nature of political campaigns, alignments between various interest groups and political parties, situations of national and international tensions, personalities of candidates to various political offices, changes in the structure of political competitiveness, ethnic and religious compo- sition of various groups, among others, influence voter turn out. This study has demonstrated the impact of such ecological forces on voting behavior. More support from other elections and other geographic regions is needed for the full validation of the findings in this study. 99 The proposition that residents of urban areas vote more than rural areas has enjoyed a wide acceptance by scholars suchasCampbell and others, Lane, Lipset and others, as mentioned in the review of literature. A belief that farmers lack political consciousness and organizational activity is expressed by Marxl. and his followers. According to them farmers are not capable of uniting themselves into‘a class because of the nature of their isolated occupation, lack of organization-and unity, to assert their class interests. The nature of their occupationpredisposes them to an individualistic orientation. - Hence, farmers would never. sub- jugate their self-interests to those of the class. Therefore,. any revolu- tion by the peasants would be impossible, according to this view. The evidence from this study does not support this argument. On the contrary, the findings show that farmers are capable of asserting their class interest. Many staunch Marxists, like Lenin, being aware that farmers are capable of supporting mass revolutions, tried to include them in their programs for revolution. Lenin expressly stated in his book, 1Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Samuel H. Beer,‘ Ed. , New York: Appleton,- Century,» Crofts, 1955, pp. 63-64. 'Marx in his "Eighteenth Brumaire" expressed that: "The small peasants form a huge mass, whose members live in similar conditions without, however, entering into .many and varied rela- tions with one another. Their method of production isolates them from one another, instead of drawing them into -mutua1 intercourse. , This isolation is promoted by the poor means of communication‘in France, together with the poverty of the peasants themselves. Their field of production, the small holding, admits of no division of labour in its cultivation'and no appli- cation of science; hence no variety of development, diversity of talents, no wealth of social relations. . . . ' ". . . insofar as there exists only a local connection-among these peasants, a connection which the individuality and exclusiveness of their interests prevent from generating among them any amount of interest, national connections, and political organizations, they do not constitute a class. Consequently they are unable to assert their class interests in their own name, be it by a partliament or by convention. " 100 What Is to be Done, that a complete Russian revolution would be possible only with the help of the peasants. It is also clear that most revolutions in Communist countries were staged by peasants. ln'Rus sia,-Chinaand 'Hungary, Communists obtained active support of the peasants. Today, almost in all countries where Communist movements are taking‘place, (Vietnam, for example), Communists have obtained active support from the peasants. Hence, . in view of this it is evident just as in other areas of international politics, Communist theory and practice concerning peasants are in contradiction. This contradiction is justified by the Communist theorists on the principle of ends justifying the means. The main results of this study are supported by few other studies carried out on smaller regions and in other countries. ~ Scarrowz analyzed the voter turn out in federal and provincial elections of Canada. The analysis supports the proposition that voter turn out is higher in rural areas than urban areas. ' He alsocited the evidence that Boer farmers in South Africa have showed higher interest in voting than urban residents. The study by Key} demonstrates that in Southernprimaries (U.S.A.) the pattern of voter turnout is opposite the popular belief, namely that SMA areas have a lower turn out than urban and rural areas. In Indiana,‘ it was found that rural reas produced higher turnout than urban areas. In earlier studies, Tingsten£5 found that in some countries the urban area residents participated less than those in rural areas. 2'Howard A. Scarrow, "Voter Turn Out in Canada,- " 'Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 5 (November, 1961), pp. 351-364. 3V. 0. 'Key, Southern'Politics in State and Nation, New York: Knopf, 1949, p. 512. ‘Jarnes A. Robinson and William H- Standing, "The Case of Indiana," Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, February 1949. PP. 96-111. 5Herbert Tingsten, Political Behavior, London: P.-S. King 81 Son, 1937. 101 In discussing the results of this study, one aspect of the‘metho- dology must be made explicit. The unit of analysis in this study is not a. metropolis or city, but rather is the whole county. Any county normally containscertain rural as well as urban portions. ~ Therefore the generalizations are made on the assumption that the residents of a metropolitan county as a whole share the urban characteristics in friew of the proximity facilitated by modern means of communications. The general increase in voting participation is‘observed-in‘this study, only in the period 1952 .to 1960.1 Therefore, we have no way of predicting whether this increase would continue or decrease over a period of time. However, a number of reasons can be given for such an increase within this period in the Region under study. The personalities Of both candidates Kennedy and'Nixon undoubtedly played an important role in the general increase of voting participation. It is suspected by many that religious affiliation-of one of the candidates increased voter participation in certain parts of the country, predominantly in some urban ' centers. The competitive political atmosphere which prevailed during the election campaign undoubtedly increased voter turn out. vDuring the period‘Eisenhower won the elections it could be argued that sizeable ‘ proportions of the voting population felt certain he would win the elections. Hence, many of these people may have been apathetic toward ‘the’act of voting. We could speculate that thisportion of the populationwho were apathetic have come back to vote because of the competitive political atmosphere prevailing in the 1960 presidential elections. Television debates, wide publicity about the candidates, national and international is sues-like the Cuban situation, doubtless have contributed to the increased interest among the voting population. ‘Economicprogress, growth of mass media, increasing educational opportunities at all' levels, ~ lead to higherrvoter participation. 'This increase in voterparticipation is uneven throughout the Region and the component states. The reasons 102 for such’inconsistent increases are many, such as uneven economic development of the different areas, differing intensity in political campaigns throughout the Region, personality of the individual candidates involved in local politics, and the perceived deprivations or rewards by th-evoters. Mobility disenfranchises the migrants at least for a short period of time. -Pe0ple that move into a new place are expected toadjust and ac- éliinatize gradually to the new physical, social, and political environ- ment. -Pressures to vote would be -minimum because knowledge about the mobile persons is not readily available to the political organizations. In view of these reasons, we hypothesized that population movements affect voter turn out. Sharp's" study in Detroit supports this explanation. It indicates that in Detroit the frequency of voting in national or local elections increased consistently and markedly with the greater‘length of residence. The same propositionis supported by other investigations. - Zimmerv's7 study confirmed the following hypotheses: (l) Migrants differ from the natives in level of participation but they become more similar to the natives in theirbehavior the longer‘they'live in the community. (2) Urban migrants tend to enter the activities of the community more rapidly than farm.migrants. ‘ Only a few studies have been made of the relation between migration and voting patterns. 'A thoroughanalysis of themany facets of this general problem is a premising area for additional research. 6Harry Sharp, "Migration and'Voting Behavior ina Metropolitan - Community, ""Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 19 (1955),. pp. 206-209. 7Basil G. -Zimmer, "Participation of Migrants inUrban Structures, " American‘Sociolcgrical Review, Vol. 20 (1955), pp. 218-224. 103 Democ ratic Voting A comparison of Type 1 Areas with other area types, demonstrates that the residents of the former vote Democratic in larger proportions than residents of the latter. This is true for- the Region as well as the c omponent states, with a few exceptions. Type'I’ Area residents voted "Democratic in larger proportions than those of other type'areas inboth presidential elections. Further breakdown of the non-type I into ’Type‘II and Type'III Areas gives more details as to the nature of the voting pattern. In 1952 and 1 960 the proportion of Democratic votes by residents of Type'III Areas exceeded that of Type‘II Areas only by a slight margin in the Region. Type II and III Areas in the component States did not exhibit an identifiable pattern either in 1952 or 1960. In five states residents of Type II Areas polled more Democratic votes than residents of Type III Areas, whereas in the other states the opposite pattern was established. An examination of the Type I Areas, by size, was expected to give clues as to the importance of size in the pattern of Democratic voting. The Democratic vote was highest in Type I Areas of l, 000, 000 population or more. This percentage was nowhere approached by any smaller-sized SMA areas. Democratic vote was lowest in the smallest Type‘I Areas, that is, in areas of 250, 000 population or less. The middle-sized cate- * gories. showed some degree of variation. This variation shown by the medium-sized SMA's is observable both in the Region and in the com- ponent states, suggesting that these areas had a distinct social and political pattern to a lesser degree than the first and the last categories. To say it differently, the very large and the small areas are distinctly different in their voting pattern, whereas the medium-sized areas do not exhibit a. clear pattern. 104 Type II Areas, when-classified by per cent urbanity, support the proposition that Democratic-vote increases ‘with‘increasing urbanity in the Region. The pattern in 1960 is quite uniform. -Per cent Democratic vote increased with increasing urbanity, whereas in 1952 slight'fluctu- ations in the .moderately urban categories is observed. ‘ The majority of the states conform to the pattern exhibited by the Region with the exception of only three states. ' Type‘III Areas, when classified by per cent urbanity, . did not exhibit any consistent association between'Democratic voting and per cent urbanity. Hence no conclusions can legitimately be made'about these areas except that the proportions voting Democratic were lower than in the other areas. ‘ One can‘make few generalizations from the above data. The high per cent Democraticvote in the largest: SMA Areas was not duplicated by other type areas, except in a few instances. Such exceptions diminished in the 1960 election. Deviations from the general pattern of Democratic voting is greater between the adjacent than the extreme categories. Type III areas did not exhibit a consistent pattern of Democratic voting in relation to increasing urbanity. ‘One of the-reasons for such an inconsistency is that the areas encompassed in the NorthCentral States are occupationally and ethnically diverse. ' The‘Democ-ratic gain within the‘period 1952 and 1960 occurred in all the 'area types. ~As was hypothesized the Democratic gain increased from Type I to‘Type 'II and to Type‘III Areas. ”Only in six states out of eleven, Type‘lII Areas gained more than-other area types. Thesedifferences are not as much as one might expect them to be. ‘ An» examination of the type I Areas, by size, shows that Democratic gain'increased with the increasing: size. ' This supports'the opposite of our hypothesis. The esception fo the Regional pattern is in the “SMA Areas between 250,.000 and 499, 999 population, where the gain is less than in areas of 250, OOOand less. 105 The gain in Democratic voting in relation to per cent urbanity in Type II Areas does not indicate any identifiable pattern. Type III Areas, . onthe other hand, support the hypothesis that the least urban will exhibit greater Democratic gain than the most urban areas. This find- ing is applicable for the Region as a whole. ‘The component states, . however, do not present as clear a pattern as the Region. Eventhough the regional pattern supports the hypothesis that Democratic gain in- creases from Type I to Type'II to Type III Areas, further classification of these areas by size and per cent urbanity does not conform to the general pattern. In Type I Areas the gain is greater in the larger than in the smaller Areas. Type'll Areas do not show a uniform pattern of gain. In Type'lII Areas, the gain is more uniform than in the Type'II Areas. , We can conclude that Democratic voting increased in virtually all the area types. - Democratic gain was expected to be more in the least urban categories of Type III areas than the most urban categories. 1 But contrary to the hypothesis, Type III Areas did not exhibit any uniformity in the pattern of gain. An explanation of the findings concerning the patterns of Democratic voting, .just outlined, follows. Two of the major reasons for the-large Democratic vote in Type IAreas seems to be the‘nature of employment, that is, the number of persons employed in manufacturing, and the large number of foreign-born persons in such areas. ' Epstein‘s investigation of both‘these factors, however, establishes that these two. cannot be the only factors. Residents of some areas in Wisconsin having low percent- ages of employees in manufacturing voted Democratic in'larger propor- tions than the residents of other areas having larger-percentages employed in manufacturing. Regarding the second factor, the foreign born even though'located in large numbers in Type‘l Areas are also distributed in substantial numbers in Type‘II and III Areas. Examination of the age structure in all type areas reveals that rural areas have larger proportions 106 of older population than urban areas. Many studies have associated high levels of Republicanism with older age group. - Hence, the age . structure could be one of the contributing factors to'Republican voting in rural areas. As is well-known, there is a continuous flow of rural youth into the urban areas. ‘Since this movement is selective of youthand young adults who are generally considered more liberal than other age groups, this age selectivity may contribute to the large Democratic vote found in Type 1 Areas. This is consistent with the finding that the percentage voting Democratic increases with increased net migration. Some additional reasons are to be found in the prevailing social and political structures in the three type areas. The studies of Jonesville and Elmira furnish some details about the pattern of high Democratic-vote in urban areas. The social, economic, and political structure of Jonesville, a city of 6, 000 population in the midwest, was investigated by a team of sociologists in the 1940's. The Republican dominance found in Jonesville was explained as being "safer, from the standpoint of social and economic considerations. . . ; "8 :Berelson" has suggested that class conscious vote is "inhibited by the status of the dominant community ideology centered in the imiddle class and its rural forebears; " This explanation has been based on the study of Elmira, a medium-sized town located in upstate New York. These inhibiting social and political factors suggested by Berelson could be conceived of as more intense in smaller towns and rural areas. Key haspointed out that in Illinois,_ the growth of Democratic vote 8Joseph Rosenstein, "Party Politic 8, Unusual Contest, " in W. Lloyd Warner, ~Democracy_in Jonesville,‘ (New York: Harper, 1949), .p. 217. 9Bernard Berelson, it a_._l., Voting, 22. SE" p. 57. 107 paralleled the growth of urbanity. 1° He has also reported that the Democratic majorities in Presidential elections of 1940 and 1944 support the proposition. ” Another hypothesis, suggested by MacRae 12 to explain the’low ' Democratic vote in rural areas, is as follows: "Where a high degree of community integration exists with a high degree of consensus on the prestige rankings in the community, political party identification will become assimilated to and be perpetuated by the value system" A number of reasons can be suggested as contributing to the slow rate of change in ideological preferences in Type III Areas. As-we noted earlier, the Democratic gain increased with the increasing size of SMA areas. As in the past, such areas are continuing to gain in total popu- lation. Many studies have found that people who move out of the rural areas are young and are seeking better economic opportunities largely in the SMA areas. Hence the young people in rural areas who are likely to be the new recruits for the Democratic party are moving away from the rural areas. This is probably one of the major factors for the-low gain in Democratic vote in the most rural areas. The impact of industrialization to some extent has altered the nature of interpersonal relationships, but has not totally eliminated the traditional patterns of mutual help and cooperation in rural areas. More questions can be raised than can be answered with respect to the relationship between Democratic voting and level of net migration. 10v. 0. Key, Jr.,-AmericanState ‘Politics,'New York: Kn0pf,.l956, p. 225. 11V.‘O. 'Key, Jr. , Politics, Parties, and Pressure Grams, New York: Crowell, 1952, p. 272-274. ”Duncan MacRae, Jr. ,' "Occupations and the Congressional Vote; " fimerican‘Sociological Review, Vol- 20 (June 1955), pp. 332-340. 108 The results do not support the hypothesis that the per cent voting Democratic in the SMA and Adjacent Areas will decrease with an in- crease in the level of net in-migration. On the contrary, . Democratic ‘ vote increased with an increase in net in-migration. ‘Such an increase cannot be attributed to any single factor. -The possible reasons are -many and varied. - As observed in connection with political participation, there was an increase in political participation in the period 1952-1960 in all Area Types. , The literature in this area presents contradictory evidence as to the nature of change in social and political attitudes, occasioned by change of residence. Some are of the opinion that those who move into new areas accept the prevailing social and political norms: of the com- munity to gain community support. Others areof the opinion that such a change is not brought forth by the mere act of moving because old ideas persist and are hard to change. ' This controversy cannot be settled here with any factual support. ‘What seems clear is that there is a relationship between patterns of voting and net migration. It is suspected from the data that people who move into Type I and II .Areas are younger, more flexible in their adaptation to the new environ- rnent and are susceptible to change. The younger generation in rural areas who are already Democratic, . seeking better jobs and economic opportunities, are moving into cities and remain Democratic. rThe other :reason seems to be the younger people who are not com-mitted to‘any political ideology before but are now exposed to well-organized‘Demo- scratic party leadership in Type I :Areas accept the Democratic party Views. Thisquestion cannot be settled without interviewing the migrants to obtain the necessary information intheir'past and. present ideological orientation. 109 Conclusions The mere act of voting cannot be solely attributed to political consciousness. However, the levels of voting. can be taken-as an index for levels of political consciousness and participationin any country. It is not necessaryeither to be highly educated, or rich in order to acquaint oneself with the current political ideologies. The results of this study definitely support the proposition that. for any successful social, political or economic revolution or‘agitation the active enlistment of the rural areas is important. -Without their support the success of any revolution is destined to be doomed. Further, this study suggeststhat. the rightist party organizations are as powerful, if not more powerful, in their organizational activity than the leftist party organizations. It would: seem- that rightist organization, firmly supported in rural areas, have contributed to the high levels of political partici- pation in such areas. * In this, the rural residents areassertingtheir dissatisfaction with "urban" policies. Forces that work toward conformity are very substantial in rural areas. Hence any attemptforsthe introduction of new ideas must be carefully carried in a system which is subjected to cross-pressures. - Organizational activity will be -more successful if carefully tackled in a non-diversified system thana highly functionally differentiated system. Since the political participation is less in areas of high. net in-migration, for-purposes of political recruitment and participation, organizational activity has tobe intensified by all political parties intthese areas. - Competitive political atmosphere and rationality on the part of the individual voter are the two most important and necessary but not sufficient conditions for the success ‘and the healthy growth of Democracy and of Democratic institutions. The findings of this study imply that at 110 least in the Region studied the ideal notions and assumptions of Democratic government have not yet been attained. - Interest aggre- gation by various interest groups and by the social and political structures are influencing the voting behavior rather than inner- originated rational behavior. This in a way is the basis of irrationality for political behavior in national and international politics. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld,~P. F., E. McPhee, W. N., Voting, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1954. Bogue, Donald. -Population Growth in Standard Metropolitan‘Areas, 1900-1950. Washington, D.C.: Housing and Home Finance Agency, 1953: and The ngulation of the United States, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. U.- S. rCensus of population: 1960, General Bureau of the Census. Final Report, PC (1) - Relevant Population Characteristics. states, Tables 17 and 27. U.S. Census of population: 1950. Vol. 1.11, Bureau of the Census. Chapter B - Relevant states, Characteristics of the‘Pgaulation. Tables 17 and 42. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Census of population: 1950. -PB Volumes, Table 43. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Population: 1950. Special Report P-E No. 2C, Institutional Population, Table 35 and 13. campbell, A. , and Kahn, R.'L., The‘People‘Elect a President, Ann Arbor: Universitycf Michigan, - Survey Research Center Series, - Publication 9,. 1952. Carr11:)bell, Angus, Gurin, ' Gerald and Miller, Warren,- E. ,' The Voter Decides, Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson and Company. EP Stein, Leon, D.,-Politics in Wisconsin; Madison; The University of Wisconsin Press, 1958. Hawley, Amos H, , Human Ecology, New York: Ronald Press'Co. , 1950. 111 112 Jehlik, . P. ,- Wakeley R. , Population Change and Net Migration in the NorthCentral States, 1940-50. AAgricultural Experiment ‘Station, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, Research Bulletin 430. July, 1955. Key, V. 0., Jr., Politics, Parties and Pressure Groups,'New York: T. Y. Crowell, 1952. Key, V. 0., Jr., Public Opinion and American Democracy, New'York: Knopf, 1960. ~ Key, V. O. , Jr. , With the Assistance of A. Heard,'Southern Politics in State and Nation, ' New York: " Knopf, 1949. Lane, Robert,Political Life, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1959. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., Gaudet, Hazel, The‘Peogle's Choice, New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1944. Lerner, Daniel, - Passing of the Traditional Society, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958. Lindsey, Gardner, Ed. , Hand Book of Social Psychology, Massachusetts: Addison=Wesley Publishing Company, 1954. Lipset, S. M., Agrarian Socialism, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950. Lipset, S. M. ,- Political Man, .New York: Doubleday Co. , 1960. Merriam, C. E. , and Gosnell, H. F., Non-Voting: Causes and-Methods of Control, Chicago: University of ChicagoPress,. 1924. Og burn, William F. , Social Change, ‘ New York: B. W. Huebsh,‘ Inc. , 1922. Scammon, Richard, M., America Votes, Vols. 184,.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh‘Press, 1952 and 1961. VanC e, Rupert, B. , Research Memorandum on‘Population Redistribution in the United States, New York, Social Science Research Council, 1938, Bulletins 42 and 43. 113. Articles Arneson, B. A. , and Ellis, -W. H. "Voting Behavior in 1948 as Compared with 1924 in a Typicalthio Community, " American Political Science (June, 1950), pp. 432-434. Beale, Calvin, "Economics Affects Vote, " Science, Vol. 58 (1950). Beegle, J.IAllan, Report of the Procedure Committee of N.C-1 and North-Central Regional Project Concerning Field? Studies of Migration. Michigan State University,- Social Research Service, Mimeographed, 1956. Brown, H. R. "Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources, " Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 58 (1943) pp. 27-48. Eulau, Heinz, - "The Ecological Basis of Party Systems, " The Case of Ohio. Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1 (1957). Gallup, G. "How 55 Million Vote, " U. .5. News, (May 23, 1952), pp. 54-64. Gold, David and Schmidhauser, John R. "Urbanization and Party Competition, " Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4 (1960). H. Cantril. , "Why We Vote the Way We Do?" New York Times Migazine, (1944). Harris, L. , ‘ "Is There a Republican Majority? " New York Harper, (1954). H . Tingsten, . "Political Behavior" Studies in Election Statistics, ‘§tockholm Economic Studies, No. 7, London: P. -S.~King (1937). Robinson, James, A. and Standing, William H. , "The Case of Indiana, " iournal of Politics, Vol. 22 (Feb., 1959), pp. 96-111. Saenger, (3, H. , "Social Status and Political Behavior,- " American journal of Social Forces, (Sept. , 1945), pp. 103-113. 114 Scarrow, Howard'A. ,~ "Voter Turnout inICanada, " Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 5, (Nov., 1961),.pp. 351-364. Sydnor, - C. S. and Dunningham, ~ Jr. ,- N. E. -"Voting in Early America," American Heritage. , No. 4‘» (Sept., 1952), pp. 6-8. Wiley, Norbert,- "Unemployment and the Vote, " Michigan State University, Unpublished Master's Thesis, 1959. Wood, R. C. ,- "Impotent Suburban Vote,- " Nation (Mar. 26, 1960),, pp. 271-274. APPENDIX 115 116 m? .e: .2 m2. .on .m m3 .omo .3 no... .33 .em. 83 sosoeaom emm 3.3.3 3 .34; SN .Nom .3 3384.2. 83 oosoasaom 33.. m .m or. 37 sonogaom 83 Ho consumes ooz asooaom 3m .mee .7 SN .meN 33.68 .3 So .33... 33-83 costume oz 4.3. an? 3.3. 3.5.. 83 E nooo> osouoofioo 33qu e3 .93 .m one .333 oz. .3... .o won .34.: 33 E oooo> osouoofioo co 62 zoom. eon «on N .3. mus $3 5 nooo> osonoofioo asoouom o: .noe .N e2. .3... .3 Mme .mmm .m So .33 .e 83 an oooo> osouoofioo Ho 62 Hoooe a .3 m .3 e .2. m :2. 33 as aosoaaosoom Hoossom 33qu mm... .43 .e one .mme .m. 34.28 .3 Se .32. .mm 33 3 oozom ooao> Enos eon .33 .3 one. .3.~ .m SN .333 on... .35 :2 33 E ouooo> 333m co .oz :33. o .2 3:. a .3 4.3 $3 E sosoaaosaom Hoossom 38qu «on one.» 3N .34.... omega: .2 one .Soum 33 E oozom ooao> aoooe one .3... .3 one .Nem .3. see .33 .3 m3 .1: .3... $3 a: ouoao> 33mm”... co 62 Hoooe moficDoU moflssoU moSCSOO moouaq. Zen £33292 uoz poo cofimfiaonu .mcflo> <35 on unoomwpaq. <§m oo. acoomflpen acre/Hm 1308. 03.980950” .oofioawoflumm mcflo> so: use <2méoz :5 32982 2 east an east 3 oaks drone» mo 09$ t3 .oofimom 33:00 5.82 05 .HOH .oomaaomoa CoSouwME poo poo .ocoa eco whoa A: weapon... UMHMHUOEoQ poo Goflmmfiofluom mo30> .u... «.4an 117 3mm .38 .3 3m :33 .m 333m :33 .3. 3m .33. .33 8383.30.33 83 $335.83 333.3313. 332 .m3m .m mo... .85 .N 383832393 3.33 m .3. o 8 313. o .m 383832303 33 8 38383333 873 83$m 38... .E... 3n .mmm mmm .33 mom .3 33.3-33 3838832 873 33 8.3.3. 8.33. 8.333. 33 E 38> 038808833 838m mm... .333. .m :o .08 .3 can .83. 3.3 .So 83 E 38> 838.3883 .073 88.3. 33 .8 333. 8.3.3. 3.3. 33 E 88> E88083 838m 2.33.383 .m 3.3.2333 33133. 33.33% 33 E 38> 838.3883 82 388.3. A3.33. 33.3.8 0 .2. N .2. 33 E 8033mm3o3tmn3 3833393 88.83 33 .333 .8 m; .33: .N 33... .3333 .3 388.383.; 33 E 38330.3 88> 883. N33 .23 .3. 3.3.33.3 .m 333 .oam .33 33.5.8 .33 33 E Em8> 033333333 3883. 33 .3 N .S m .S p .38 83 E 3838.383th 38333333 838m 33 .83 .8 3.3.3.3. .3 8mm .38 .3 83.3.3 .3 33 E 383333 8ka8> 883. 33> 8.8 .33 333.288 3313... .N 3.3. .32. .3 33 E .85 3:8 3 288> 38333333 8 .073 3803. MW.832 3.38 .383. 3.38 .383. coo .omm 838E332 873 3838 83832333 .mE8> 38m. 28 .80 .3 8 28 .oom 8 coo .93 .8325 038805833 5283383883 mE8> m<3>3m m<3>3m m<2m m<3>3m .mflm >03 moflcnoo <35 30% .3303me 3.3380 3.3qu 03.3 G3 .ocoHuommL 330333332 3302 van .0003 333m N2: 333 much... owumHooEoQ cam 33033333033333 mc3uo> .3. 3an 118 28 .88 8o .21. J mum 68 .N mom .83 .N So J8 .N 82838932. Sn .8». SN .3th mum. Jmo J 83 88 J NS .mow J 8888m 83 o .5 o .m 88 m8. .35.. 838388" 82 8 83892 82 88qu J? .3 on: .3 821$ mom .3 on? 82-8.2 83832 82 m .3 83. m .3 8.3 8.8. 82 E 88> E88083 888m So .NS 2: £8 1: J8 Em £3 E .88 32 E 88> 8:88an .02 88B NE. fimm 8mm 18. 5mm, 32 E 88> E88083 888m N8 .8 $8.38 28.1% mom .88 v3 .88 $2 E 88> osfioofimn .oz 889 .m J» o .2. w .m» 12. m J; 32 E 888883 EEEom 888m SM .83. «8 J2. o: Jmo J S». .28 83 .28 32 E 825 88> 889 $2.28 EodmoJ $8.3mJ mKJJMJ mmdeNJ 82 E 830> «2:35 888 J .:. m .8 «J» 83 12. 8.2 E cogEEtmm Eoszom 888m mum .2; 5 J8 EN .88 $8 .28 woo 63 $3 E 88m 88> 888 mitwfl S» .38 Sci: J E .oom J 88 .mfl J 82 E um>O find an muvao> 0333M .oZ H.308 among” GMQHD :mnuD GmnuD GmnHD cofiudumfiz 32 find :oflmdaomn .mcflo>8 8.8.8.3 08.8.6.8 08.8.8.3 08.8-3 0&8 .825 E88883 8388883 mE8> Susana; 300an >2, .mmon< £89364 Mom cowmwm ~93an .3qu 2: E .3382: 8:892 82 88 .32 88 32 E mE8> E88083 28 8388380.. mE8> J: 389 119 8.8 .88 J a: .98 .m 28.2.» .N ES .223 2.2.233 , 28.8% .28 Jmm .m 88382 82 S2 .88 J @212: .n- :2 .28 .N Sm .mom .m 22.22 .N 2o .22.. N8 .3: 8282.82 32 2c m.~.. 22 .22.. 8.2.. 28.. 8.2.. 88882 8.2 - mo 2032232 $2 “200.20%. Nomi 2.2 .2... N8 68. N8 .22... $5.28.... .82. .S- 28 .38 32.32 82822 82 8.3 2.2. Ni. 2.2. ~12. ~12. 22. 82 E muuo> 032.2002qu «200.3% «mo .3» 3m .28 a JS N3 .28 m8 .8... 2m .2. mm» .28 , 32 E mouo> 032200220Q .02 .2308 . . . . . 2 .2. 8.3 8.2 E M an 2 mm a S 2 pm o 2. 88> 3828an 8882 N822 m8 .3... $2 .82. 22. .Sm M8 .82 2.3.»... 21.63 82 E mcuo> 032200220Q .02 .338 2.2. 8.: ~82. a...» it. 8.2. 22. 82 E 203230322m 30330an ”200.20% mum .omw SoJom J 21.53 J in .8... J 3% .28 82.8 2.0,.on J 32 E 8202 88> 882. 23 .22 J a: .28 .N 82 .38 J 32. .2o .2... 8m .8... J 2:. .82 22.83 J 32 E 888>EEw22 882. o .3 8.8 22 N .2. «.2 28 m .3. .32 E 2032m20322m Hmuflfiom «200.8% 22.2.2. 22 JavJ SN .8... J m? .3... J coo .8... 28 .8 8:. .28 J .32 E 8282 88> 882. 28.8.2 J $2.202 mmwdooJ 02 Jmod :8ka 2.5.2.2 mo>.$o.~ 82 E 8.6 28 S 888> 83822 62 882. 08.8-2. 08 .888 .02. .88... $22-3 «8 .32: 2o .2 E35 828.222 82 08 2002B oZ 2ofimgmom .w230> 03220050Q 3 2030303an w2fio> “I J" :3220922. «2002mm .5 mmmum “200232.202 20w 202mom 3.3200 2:02 02.3 22 .oooHnomoH 20322922 202 U22 .09.: 622 Nmod 22 m230> 03.0200220Q “022 cofiummfioflumm w2flo> .>H mafimfi 120 2.--}--- - ..... 2:. 8mm .$«J mom J? J 020.082 302 002020202 - ........ ----....--- 0~« .2.«J EN .80 J m...« .82 .8 082 00288202 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu .. o .0: 21m m 3v 203322022. 9mm: «0 20322322 202 220020m ......... -..------- 82 J«2- «2 .«00 88 .23 002-082 0028822 82 2 .0« 0.0m 2.8 2.0« 0.8 32 E 88> E88282 8882 «$.28 8.0.2.? .2 22.8% 8; .«S. ««o .QL J 002 E m®u0> Ufi—thOgvnH H0 .02 HduOH. 2.2.2 o .m« m .8. 88... 0.8 8.02 E 88> E88282 8882 23.23 08.2.0.2 «8.28 28.802 02258.2 .82 E m0u0> UwudHUOEOQ MO .02 HdHOh—w «.3 28... 8.8 OJ: «.«2. 0.82 E COwquwaqum HNUMHSOQ ufioohmnm 02102.2 2.3.3» .« 8mm .22. 08 .23 2.2.88.2 002 E 8202 88> 882. EN .08J 2.8.08 .8 3m .20 «8 .«2. «~«.o$.« 32 E m88> 82.2222 882. «.2. N .«2 m .3 m .8 «.3 82 E 00288282 8882 mg .82 J 2.8 .2«.« 08 J? 2mm .28 $2 Jom .m 82 E 8202 88> 882. «8J8 J 80 .«208 SN .80 «S .02 Em .28 .« 82 E 8.6 08 22 880> 82.2222 20 .02 2082. 22032200 .2308 43./Hm o... 220023.22 <35 00. 22002352 m032200 2032.232 0.02 222 <2mn2oz 8.3% 202 2022 <2mu2oz 2.5 #229202 42m 2oflmgmona .m230> 0322002200— 33 02>.Hv SH 0&Hv S 02>.Hv 20322203222” m2$o> .3822 20 023 .3 62.0222: 22 .oomLuomS 20302m22u202 222 .0002 U22 NmmL 22 w250> 032200220Q U22 203222022222 m230> .> 032R. 8:? .H £¢§§ NS .1; .H 32 nouflaom 121 .. ........ .i- ..... .. 3923 .H mggvt. 03.1}; 32 aosfismom uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu N. .mu o . m w 3v :oflmdsmom 0mm; mo :oflmuwflz umZ unvouvnm .. ........ l- ...... Sm .mm- :5 .3 amm .3 82-3.2 83332 62 wgm 04;. 93 13 wév $2 5 88> US$883 “magnum memem omm.~mo SH .mmm anio: 352$ 82 E mopo> Wowumuoofiaofl. «0 .02 ~30 .H. «.3. T? flow 95. m .3 $2 5 38> 338083 Eoowom wmw .E 23 .25 353$ moo .3; N$.o~m 32 E mvuo> Ufi—NHUOEvQ H0 .02 HNuOH. N .3 o .3 o .8 N .3 m .3 32 5 scammfiouumm 383m Non .Sw; 9: £2 .N 3m .35 o3 .53 mm: £2 33 E venom 38> 389 2.6 £3 .H $0 .5: .N 3: .omo g Qipmm an i: J 32 E 38; Bflmzm 1309 0.: m .3 m 9: TE iop $2 5 cogfiosumm 233m Sm 52 .H 8:? .H E .25 3m 6%. Mali .32 5 canon 38> 389 mmm .3}. .H voodoim Sm .30 .H mmw.oom N$.$o; 32 E .83 28 3 $32, Enflmnm mo .oz 388 moficdou H308 42m 0a “Goommvaw <35 Cu ”:8 ”525‘ mmficdoo :ofiumuwfiz “02 find <2mlfioz madam uOfi USN <2WICOZ HA5. <2WIGOZ <2m GOflHMHSQOnH .WGfi—O> UMHNHUOEQQ 3: weak; SH ongfiv 3 mm}: cofimmfloflumm mcfio> I I 'll |l i ' Noam mo $93 >3 .9835” a“ .oooanommd coflmuwflauumz find .oomL mam. mm“: .5 wcflo», qunooEoQ tam. aofimnfiufiumm wnflc> .H> 2an 122 ..-- ..... .. -..-....---.. mmm $2. 4 3m 6:. mmm .3... SS aozflsmom ................... 3w .Nmo; mg .3“. 8m .8m 82 cannmom .. ...... - - ........ 93.. m6? m .3 noufismom om: mo cofimumdz «02 800.3% ................... 3m $2.. 3% .21 EN .T 32-32 noumumuz $2 «13. mi? oi. 52. m .3 82 E 38> 032883 Eouuom mm: .93 N8 .3... $13... :5 .8 :w J: 33 E m0u0> Uwudhuogvn H0 .02.. HMHOH. wém m.mm o4; mam ~12. .32 E 33> 032885 Eeonom 3....de 2mg? in .22.. $8.2. 35.2: mm: E m0u0> Umudhoogvm MO .02 HMHOH. » A: m .2. mg: «.3 o .2. 32 E :EfiEEtmm 338m mom .:o .H o8.2~ 4 cm». .2: 20.1% :m .SN 32 E Edam 33> 138. com £2 .E 2.... :30; 3.3.8 .E E3 .8... 393% 82 E 333, EEEE :33. m .3 93 if. ms: 9: 32 E aoumEEtmm 288m 8... .mmo .E 0363.. .H $192. 313.... o: «SN .32 E venom 38> 133. So .me .E 2m £3 .H can .mmo .H mom .mom N; .3... $3 E .58 ES 3 333, «Emma mo .oz :33. mmwugou mMHOh—u 4032“ Du adv 063.1% <2m OH HGMUNWXQ. mvfluddbnv GOMHMHwfiz #02 find <2WIGOZ Madam HOG USN <2mIGOZ «SQ <2WIGOZ <2W GOwHMHfi—nmom . .MGfl—O> Uwpmhooewn SH varnhv SH 0&9; 3 mm}: Goflmmflofiumnm main—0.? .mvnm m0 m9: >9 .953 GM .oooaaomofi codamuwfih p0: «Ed 62: find mmofi a: wager oflmhooEoQ wad coflmmwoflhmm mcflo> .HH> 3th ----- ----- £0.21. oZ6om; Smgfifi $2 8:238 - -------- ----- 3%. 63. com at} 9: .9: J 82 :oSEsaom :- -------------- .- h .>.. N .w m .m :oflmgmonm omom mo COS-mum“: «oz Emu-Hum ------------------ 3.. .S- So .3 9%. .3; 33-82 33332 32 E .3 fie... 3.2. m 4.... o .3 82 E 38> E33083 333m «8 .3... 3123; @212: mom .mS «2 .93 .E 82 E m0u0> Owed-”00800” MO .02 HNuOH. N .3 N .3 o .3 m .2 m .3 N2: E 38> ESSoEmQ 333m 3 E2 .oom So 63 .E :3 .o: S.» .2: 033.8 32 E Z mouo> UMHMHuoEoQ mo .02 H.308 m .3 «.3 5...; w .3 m .3 32 E coSmEEflmm 833m mg .36; Sod; .m 93.33 E: .2... N213... .N 32 E 3:8 38> 308 813...; mom .23. 4. 03 J3 mum .25 .E i: .26 .m 32 E 380> 31:35 :38. p .S m .3 m .on T3 0 .3 $2 E 353353 333m Em .So 2: .22. .N MEJNM 3503 N363 .H $3 E 328 38> 133. mmm .mov; 35.2; J «om .NE. Sm .23 08.35... $2 E 3.6 v3 S 330> EEmEm .0 .oz 38. mmUCSOU H.308 <2w on— Emoan-AN <2m on. admummvdm moflcdoU coda-mpg: “oz cam <2WIGOZ QHNHW HOG UGM (EWIGOZ 93.3 UMHNHUOEGQ SE maghv AS om>8v 3 090.3 dofimfiuflnmnm wcflo> i .moum mo 09$ >0. .GmmEodz E .ofiwofiaomg cofimpmflz “oz mam. .002 95 mm? 5 mcfio> ofimuooEmQ mam. :ofimmwoflumm mn30> .Hfi> 3an 124 -- ----- -- ------ 5.. .8w .H 3. .2; E: .38 .H 32 cosflflaom ------------------ 3m .3... J NS .mom Em .mmm J 82 gonad—mom ------------------- m .2- p .T o .m couflsmom omwa mo cowumumfiz 9.02 Emu-Sam --------- ----- men .93.. 21.3 Sm .E 33-33 coumumEE 8.2 m .5. 58 8.3 m .8 o6... 82 E 38> E88083833A 3.13... mm... .8. 3.. .mom 3.. .2. mm... 83. 82 E m0u0> UMHNHUOSNQ MO .02 dNuOH. oém TE. man 93 m .3 $2 E 38> E93883 833m 1.5 .mg @358 2.... .2... 3.1%. panama 32 E mvu0> UMHNHUOSOQ H0 .02 HNuOH. . .2. o... o... m... .12. 32 E 333838 833m 29:: 284% .E mmo :3 @362 «8.8. 82 E 3:8 38> 88H. E338 .E 38.28 .N 03 .NS NS .8... $6 .30 82 E 38o> EEEE 88a. o .2 1: o .o. m .2. ... .2 32 E 333833 833m 8.. .3. 93.2.... .H 2.63 X: 62 3o .38 3.2 E 328 38> 88a. 1888 .H 33.3.. .E «MN .mmm 3.12: 3.. .28 $2 E 38 .8. 1.. 33.5 EEmEm 8 .oz 889 mkuSSOU HNHOH. <2m O..— uSv UNHU< 2% OH uSv UNHU< mOfl—SSOU SOmuN-nmwz uuz USN UBNHUOSHOQ Gowumafioflndm wcflo> a: 2:5 E 3&5 a 0&5 I {I I. l- 5l-lll.|lllv \ -t[£f!llf’l’ltvlt [Util- ..m0.~.m mo 09$ >n .muOmong E 63782 33.332 82 v.8 .32 can 32 E mE8> E88239 98 3338.83 mE8> an 2an 125 -- ..... .. ----- 2.3.89.2 $8.38 $988.... $2 828882 -- ------ ----- mom .39; £8.83 mmm .85; 82 8288.82 --------- ----- 8.3.- m.3 m; coflmgmom 0mm: mo 2023932 «02 achHUnm - ------ - - -------- 88.2:- Evdm $8 .3. 82-32 828822 82 oi. 8.2. 0.2. 2.2. N .9... 32 E 88> E88083 8889 38 .93. 28.88 com .3... .28.? :8 .2m 32 E .m0a0> Umumhuoamn H0 .02 HNHOH. mi. ~48 2.2. 8.2. o .8. N22 E 88> E88323 83.82 28 .03 88.35 $8.2m 25.8 92 .28 ~22 E mmuo> uflmnuoEmQ mo .02 H.308 2.3. 8.: N .2. 8 .8. m .88 32 E 282828382 8882 wfl .28 £8.88 .2 28 .28 m8. .9: 28 .38 82 E 28282 88> 889 m8 .mom .2 2.3 .moo .N 9.8 .88 .2 N3 .88 $8 :28 .2 32 E 8.882, 888294 889 v .3 N .2. m .2. m .3 2.3 mm? E 28828382 83.82 2.5 .88 SN .28 .2 28 8mm 38 82 MS .28 ~22 E 8282 88> 889 So .8... .2 $8 .23 .N 28.92 .2 $0 .22 28 £3 .2 ~22 E 88 E8 8 m88> EEmEM 8 .oz 889 mOfi—GDOU HMHOH. <2m OH uflvowflflaow «Em Ou Hfimumhmjca wwquSOU fiOmHM-waz umz mug“ <2WIGOZ ®HMHW HOG mugm <2WICOZ H.90— <2mldoz <2m Gofiudfifimom .MGSO> Ude-HUOEQQ a: mngfiv 3H GAE/Hy S oaths dofiummwofihmm wcflo> E 6882-32 828822 82 E8 .82 98 3.2 E wE8> \I‘ \I‘l .mmum mo 09$. >2. $9309.32 uflmnoogofl Ucm Goflmnfiofinmm mcflo> .X mBmH 12.6 -------- - --..-- o2 .88 :2 £2 3o .98 32 88882 -.---- ----- NS .2; $5.22 $2.82. 32 28288282 -------------------- N .2- 8.2 o .9 888202 ommL mo 203.9232 «02 Emu-Henn- ------------------ 2m .88 28 .NN Sm .N... 82.32 828822 82 8 .mm m .8 8 .mm o .2 9 .2. 32 E 88> E88083 83.82 «S .82 Now .38 92.82 E... .8 2m .5 32 E mvuo> UwumHUOEQQ H0 .02 HNHOH. 8.8 23 21mm 88 8.2. 82 E 88> 3880882 88982 mom .N: 98.82 28.8 05.8... 28 .3 82 E m0u0> UMHMHUOEUQ MO .02 ANHOH. w .3 8.: 8 .S- wép 2.3 32 E 8828382 88.82 Mom .22. 28.28 25.82., :8 .mm mow .28 82 E 8:02 m88> 889 m2. .wmm 2m .88 com .82. 28.2.: mg .2m .82 E m88> 88822 889 o .2 o .2. 2. 3E o .2. o .8 82 E 8828282 88.82 28 .82. 03.28 83.93 22.28 23.2: 82 E 8:02 88> 889 $8 .03 mg .28 8... £2. 88.22 22 .28 .82 E 88 88 8 m88> 88822 8 .oz 889 9822.300 #308 <35 0”. 28036.2 <2m ou acmumnv< mmflndoU coflmhmdz 32 find AWEWIGOZ madam HOG UGN <2mndoz “DD. ANEWICOZ <2m SOaHdHSQOnH .wcfiuONV Uwu-m-HUOEOQ :2 829v 5 89292 a 89292 82828282 mE8> .mmum mo @23 .3 Jim-9582 5 .oomaaomofi cock-2?: 32 van .002 U28 mm”: :2 wcfio.’ 03930500 vcm 235233.32 mdflo> .HX 03mg. 127 .. ...... .. .. ....... - won .32. .2 $2 .322 :2 228 .38 .22 32.2 2828252202 .............. .3-.. 223 .98 .2 oma .2212 .2 222222 :28 .m 3.22 28282932 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 2. .o: o . 2. m .m nomumgmonm . 9mm; mo 220223.332 uoz accouunm. .................. 2.3 .w- 2.2. .2.~2 2.2. .228 $2.82 28285222 872 2. .3. 282. m :2... 22.3. N .3 82.2 E 88> 38.23882 83.82 2.2 :23 82. .22. .2 2.2.22 .23 2:: .222 coo .2292 .2 32.2 E mvuo> UmudHUOEGQ MO .02 flan—OH. 2.8m N .2. m .3 8.22m 22.2.2. ~32 E 38> 82882.53 83.82 322 .82. :8 .223 .2 $22 .82 82 £28 NNM .32 .2 32.2 E m0u0> UMHMHOOEOQ MO .02 fiduOH. «.2. m .2» 2. .2. N .2» 2 .02 22.22 E 2828282232 83.82. 821232.; 2.22 .32 .2. $22.23 22.222 62.22 88.3.2.2 32.2 E 282202 38> 882. mmm .225 .2 22m .322 .m $2. .322 2.8 .52 .2 223 .8» .m 32.2 E 8.8822 82.282222 22.8.2. 2 .22. 8.23 2 .2. 8.2:. m .22 ~32 E 828282282 8382 mom .23 .2 22? .222: .m 222.22 .28 NE. .22. .2222 .2222 .N 32 E 282202 38> 288.2. 2.22 2222.2 222.2% .m 3.2.8.22 $21228 .2 2.2 .mova 232 E 8.6 28.. 22 2.8822 82.28222 8 .oz 882. @322on 22308 <38 02 unvumflvaw <33 02 2.220 omnv< mvficfioU 22023.32: 2.072 wad EWId—OZ QHNHW 90C wand (EWIGOZ “in. <2WIGOZ 42W COfi—MHH—QQA .MGMu—Oxf UMHNHUOEUQ 222 22.2.2.2 22 22.2.2.2 2828282282 mEuo> 2222 82.2.2.2 .Mmhm mo 09$ >22 630 222 602.622 220223.232 2072 2222a .0222 2222M NmS 222 922202, 022222002222 22222.... 22023220222282 wc2uo> .22X 3nt 128 2.--}--- .32.}--- £22232 .2 2.2.2 .23 222m .NS 32.2 8282282 3...---1- 2:32.--- 222.2282 .2 22.3.82 22.2.82. 8.22 828222.202 f..- ..... - ....i..... 0.22- o.2.. .2.NN 828222.202 0mm: 20 2202292322 202 2.220020% 1. ..... - --------- 26.2.22- 2.22.2 .m- .222. .2. $22.82: 828822 82.2 2.22 2.2.2 2. .8 2.222 22.2.2. 822 E 88> 82823882 83.82 2.222. .222.N 2.2.2 .32 :2. .2222 N2. .Nm mNN .NN2 82.2 E mvuO> Own—muoogvn mo .02. HNuOH. N .wN 2.222 .2.2N 2.22.2 8.22... N32 E 88> E88282 8382 28.2.2222 .22VN.N2N 222:. 22.2 22.22 .222. 3.2.2.2 N222 E mun—ON? UMHNHUOEMQ MO .02 HduOH. m .222 m .2: N .22. N .S N .222 82.2 E 28282282282 83.82 82. .me me .mNo 08.2.2... 2.2.22 .222 2222. .3N 32.2 E 28282 38> 288.2. 2.22 .2222. m8 .2N... .2 .22.... .NN2 .2022 .SN 2.2.2 .22..” 82.2 E 8.8822 82.22222 2882. 2. .222 2. .2. N .N2. 22.8 2 .222 N82 E 328282282 8382 NoN .222... 8.2.2222 2mm .83 22.2 .22 2o2..2.2N N32 E 282202 88> 882. N2... .32. 22.22 .NmN .2 2.3.2.2 2.22.2 .NON omw .N2N N32 E .88 2:8 2N 8.8822 82.222222 8 .oz 882. mkufidou Han—OH. <2W OH ufivomflmgca 403.4% 0» H220 Udflfixw mkudfico GOwudefi—z. HOZ Cid UMHNHUOEUQ S 02:82 22022m22o222mnm m222uo> 2222 8.22.2.2 222 8.2.22.2 60.3 20 «22.23 >22 .mdmcmvm 222 .ooo2aomo2 2022.923: 2.072 van .0002 22222.. mmmL 222. 9222022 022.2N200222mQ U222... 22022mnm2o222mm mc220> 45.x vfian 129 ......... ----.. 2.2-.23; $2.2.NN 2.2.2.22 32.2 828222.82 ......... ----- 2228:2228 2.2.2 :22 2.222622 32 82822202 ......... ----- 2102- 2..N- >.N 2828222202 0mm; 20 220229292 2072 22200.20“ ------------------ 0222 2.2.2- 2.22N .m- 2.22. .22 322-822 828822 872 m .22. 2.82. N :22. 2282. 2.222. 32.2 E 88> 028808822 8382 .2222 .SN .28 .2Nm .2222 .2NN 22%. .2 222. .22.: 32.2 E mouo> u2um2oo2220Q mo .02 H.308 8.2m cam N .3 2.2.22 0.222. N222 E 88> 82882.82 8382, 2.222. .2222 $2.232. omN .83 $2 .2 oNN .¢N2 N32 E mvuo> UMHNHUOEOQ H0 .02 HMHOH. 2. .3 22.2.2 22 .2... Nam N .3 82.2 E 8282282282 83.82 222. .252 £22282 .2 222.2. .2N2 232. .N2 mmm .2va 82.2 E 282202 88> 288.2. N2.N .NNN .2 2.2... .82 .2 223.222 .2 N222 .2.N2 82..on 32.2 E 88822 8222222222 2882. 22.2.22 28m 213 EN... 228... N22 E 8282282282 83.82 2.8 .222 $2 .222. 8.2 .88 2.2. .8 oN2 .EN N32 E 282202 88> 230.2. 3222.8 .2 .28 .22... .2 2.222.222 .2 222.2 .222 22.... .2222. N232 E 8.6 28.... 2N 88822 8222222222.. .072 28.8.2. 8222222200 2.302. 42m 3 223252.224. gm 02 ammo-m2}. 82225200 220229292 2072 222222 <22wn2202 3.3m _ 2022 2.22; 222922072 2522. 223292202 <22m coflmgmonm .w222uo> 3.320028%— SH 2:82 3 02:82. 22022.n2m2o222mnm w222uo> .moum 20 09$ .3. $520353? E 6.22-2232 8288222 82 28.w .322 28.... N82 E mE8> 02828882228... 828282282 mE8> $222 m.282. 130 ----- ----- 2.2-2.4.3.2 «m2 .223 2.2.2 .mom .2 82 282322232 ----- ----- «SEE; Now .252- 022 5222.2 82 82222232 --------- ----- 2- .w- 942 2.N :ofifldmom 0mm; mo GOUNHwSz 262 222022an -------- - ------ $2 .23. m: .3 E .Q $2.32 28235232 2072 m .3 2 .222. 22.2.2. m .2. 2 .3 32 E 33> EKGoE-Q 2223.32 2.2 .m2m 322.223 82 .32” 23 .32 Soc-2.2 82.2 E mom—Ox! UwumHUOEOQ mo .02 AMHOH. 2 .3 man o .2.» 2.2m 2.222. ~32 E 33> E22883 83qu £2 .me 2.2 .32 3o .23 mom .32 26 .32 32.2 E mvu0> USMHUOEOQ MO .02 HNHOH. m 4.:- 2. .2 w .3. o .2.» m .3 302 222 52222222022322 2280.822 mom .2: .2 28.2.2- .2 89.2.: :3 .mmm 2.3 .23 32.2 E 252232 38> 230.2. 2222.2 .23 .2 $212me .2 $2 .30 .2 23 .mmm mow .322 82.2 E 2822 0323.22 280.2. N :2 N .2» 2 .22. N .2 .2 .$ 32.2 E 2822222202232 22233.2 2.22 .2223 .2 oma .28; So .5 £2 .3}. E22 .2222 32.2 E 22m22on2 88> 230.2. mom 62.212 2.22. .32 .N :2 .36 .2 2231222. in .mmp 22.2 E 226 2.82m 22 3822 m.2Em2222 20 .02 230.2. mkuCSOU HMHOH. «2% OH «2.200633% «012% Cu “Geommvafl mkuGSOU coax—mum“: uoz UGN Hm GofiumfifinHOnH .wflwu0> “imam-"0080a 2222 22.2.2.2 222 22.2.2.2 22 22.2.2.2 con-Eusumm mE2o> .mmnm m0 093 >9 58220023 E 632-032 cos-$222 $72 2:22... .302 2:8 $2.2 E 2222229» E23883 2:8 282322322322 mE2o> .>x 2an Table XVI. 131 Votingparticipation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960,. and Net 'Migration 1950-1960, in‘Illinois for SMA counties by size, Adjacent and Non Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS ’SMAS Democratic Voting, Population Under 250- 000- 500- 000' 1- 000.000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 287, 703 168, 025 --- 3, 906, 843 Total Votes Polled in 1952 208, 607 120, 825 --- 2, 872,437 Percent Political Participation , in 1952 72. 5 71. 9 --- 73.5 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 309. 847 175, 930 --- 4, 144,647 - Total Votes Polled in 1960 233, 253 129, 078 --- 2, 986, 814 Percent Political Participation in 1960 ‘75. 3 73.4 --- 72.1 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 92, 814 50, 817 --- 1, 392,148 ”Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 44. 5 42.1 ---- 48.5 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 109, 695 59, 582 --- 1, 604, 667 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 47.0 46.2 --- 53.7 Net Migration 1950-1960 20, 185 -5, 625 --- 263,128 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population 4. 8 -2. 2 --- 4.8 Population 1950 417,427 250,512 --- 5,515,514 Population 1960 507, 295 288, 833 --- 6, 623, 901 ___‘ 132 (TypelD Non-SMA Adjacent to SNIA Counties by % Urban 1950 (Type III) NonuSMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 Under 25% 25.0 to 40.0 t9 55.0 to 70.0 to NO Ul'ban Under 10% 10.0 to £500 to 40.0 to 5500 to 70,0 to Urban 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% Population Urban 24.9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 90,488 204-331 224-053 123,452 66,870 56,126 -—— 157,521 200,205 217,257 321,178 ——— 74,102 160,815 162,250 92,670 48.021 46,327 - - 123,753 157,652 170,227 233,561 —-— 81-9 78-7 72-4 75~1 71.8 82.5 —-— 78.6 78.7 78.4 72.7 --- 91-267. - 212-280 233,727 125.664 71,926 49,134 --_ 148,598 193,274 202,524 321,819 -—- 77,848 173,182 197,197 94,772 53,180 ' 44,454 -2- 122,633 158,855 168,888 241,340 =—— 85.3 81.6 84.4 75.4 73.9 90,4 2-- 82.5 82.2 83.4 75.0 2.... 24,378 61,593 55,795 32,574 22,277 17,5 _-_ 46,677 54,856 69,414 93,024 --_ 32.9 38.3 34.4 35.2 46.4 37 ~-- 37.7 34.8 40.8 39.8 --- 30,848 73,359 91,156 35,733 26.029 18,727 ___ 51,404 61,874 70,325 106,448 _-- 39.6 42.4 46.2 37.7 48.9 42,1 ___ 41,9 38,9 41.6 44.1 ~—- -6.739 2,984 5.990 —539 3,438 221,148 -—— —30,480 —320,064 -46,005 ~ll,670 ”=- -4.8 1.0 1.8 -2.9 3.5 -22,8~' --- -12.4 -10.3 A-l3.6 —2.4 --- 139,443 306,464 329,956 183,581 98,853 92,586 -_- 245,318 310,651 339,476 482,395 --— 149-040 343.615 378,627 202,054 118,257 78, 266 ——— 236, 523 308,965 318,818 526,964 -—- y 133 Table XVII. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960,. and Net Migration 1950—1960, in Indiana for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- 1, 000, 000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 366, 457 --- 443, 684 249, 301 Total Votes Polled in 1952 260, 917 --- 315, 722 164, 794 Percent Political Participation in 1952 71.2 --- 71.2 66.1 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 380, 731 --- 490, 250 293, 316 Total Votes Polled in 1960 293, 910 --- 338, 747 210, 832 Percent Political Participation in 1960 77.2 --- 69.1 71.9 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 110, 493 --- 128, 458 90. 721 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 42.4 --- 40.7 55.1 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 139,118 --- 148,113 132, 554 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 47. 3 -—- 43. 7 62.9 Net Migration 1950-1960 -15, 930 --- 39, 837 50, 652 Percent Net Migration as of 1950. Population -2.9 --- 6.2 13.8 Population 1950 549, 202 --- 644, 062 368, 152 Population 1960 636, 604 --- 811, 759 513, 269 134 (Type II) Non—SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties by ‘70 Urban 1950 (Type III) NonuSMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by (70 Urban 1950 Under 25% 25.0 to 40.0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to 1 No Urban Unter10% 10. O to 25.0 to 40.0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to Urban 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% I Populafion. Urban 24 9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% J ”_N 127,582 181,747 91,910 108,646 56,126 444 157,521 200,205 217,257 321,178 106,696 102,645 144,849 72,181 74,866 46,327 444 123,753 157,652 170,227 233,561 79,797 I 80.5 80.0 78.5 68.9 I 82.5 =44 78.6 78.7 78.4 72.7 74.8 i 139,936 188,514 107,934 121,057 ‘ 49,134 --- 148,598 193,274 202,524 321,819 108,681 114.761 156,453 86,855 87,375 1 44,434 2-- 122,633 158,855 168,888 241,340 81,398 82.0 83.0 80.5 72.2 90.4 =44 82.5 82.2 83.4 75.0 74.9 36,530 57,140 27,415 27,013 17,553 --- 46,677 54,856 69,414 93,024 38,779 35.6 39.5 38.0 36.1 37.9 --_ 37.7 34.8 41.1 39.8 48.6 44,212 63,164 35,471 36,581 18,727 4__ 51,404 61,874 70,325 106,448 38,520 38.5 40.4 40.8 41.9 42.1 —_~ 41.9 40.0 41.6 44.1 47.3 10,996 35,181 25,644 12,148 421,148 _—~ -30,408 432,064 —46,005 -11,670 42,890 5.5 «1.8 18.7 7.5 422.8 =~— =12.4 =.10.3 —13.6 —2.4 =l.8 199,830 281,619 137,204 161,320 92,586 ——— 245,318 310,651 339,476 482,395 159,658 241,520 317,512 186,533 201,901 78,266 --_ 236,523 308,965 318,818 526,964 177,967 \g 135 Table XVIII. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Iowa for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. m M (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS 7 SMAS .. Democratic Voting, Population Under 250,000- 500,000- 1,000,000 #1925 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999. 999 and More Yrban Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 288,389 45, 523 --- --- '36,095 Total Votes Polled in 1952 206, 319 30,791 --- --- 53,133 Percent Political Participation in 1952 71.5 67.6 --- --- 78.0 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 297,489 48, 586 --- --- 53.185 Total Votes Polled in 1960 217, 991 33, 298 --- --- 50,437 Percent Political Participation in 1960 73.3 68.5 --- --- 79.8 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 88, 148 11, 897 --- --- 37.880 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 42.7 38.6 --- --- 33,7 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 100, 392 14, 025 --- --- 31,080 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 46.1 42.1 --- --- 41,8 Net Migration 1950-1960 -9. 008 1, 737 --- --- 8,713 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population -2.1 2. 5 --- --- 47.0 Population 1950 430,625 69,682 --- -—- 30,254 Population 1960 493, 231 83,102 --- --- 404,260 ___4T.\ 136 (TypeID NonaSMA Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 (Type III) Non-SMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 ) Under 25% 25. O to 40.0 to 55. O to 70. 0 to No Urban Under 10% 10.0 to 25. 0 to 40.0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to Urban 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% Populafion ‘Urban 24.9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 68,095 90,970 58,038 82,162 =49 165,403 172,963 232,881 101,411 127,653 255,085 53,133 71,358 41,987 57,636 =44 130,908 137,301 180,385 76,625 89,381 184,595 78.0 78.4 72.3 70.2 =55 79.1 79.4 77.5 75.6 70.0 72.4 63.185 89.468 55,061 82,917 ——= 151,421 165,134 221,620 93,870 129,135 266,485 50,437 70,935 39,776 59.964 =44 121,997 135,099 173,923 72,338 94,692 214,156 79.8 79.3 72.2 72.3 --- 80.6 81.8 78.5 77.1 73.3 80.4 17.880 23,339 14,829 19,046 --_ ; 40,855 41,546 58,421 23,656 36,604 75,292 33.7 32.7 35.3 33.1 —-= 1 31.2 30.3 32.4 30.9 41.0 40.8 21,080 29,237 15,790 23,934 1 49,150 54,795 72,645 27,090 50,021 95,443 41.8 41.2 39.7 39.9 ——— 1 40.3 40.6 41.8 37.5 52.8 44.6 =18,713 412,499 —10,583 =6,545 -~= —44,817 —43,869 —47,368 —23,153 —13,125 2,229 =17.0 28,8 -11.9 —5.2 —-- -17.0 —15.5 -12.9 -14.7 —6.7 0.6 110,254 142,703 88,806 126,106 —-- 263,450 283,339 368,300 157,533 196,945 383,330 104.260 147,404 86,988 138,227 ——- 243,608 281,916 365,065 150,018 219,505 444,213 M— 137 Table XIX. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Michigan for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- 1, 000, 000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 297,213 444,790 --- 2,050,063 Total Votes Polled in 1952 193, 029 295, 634 --- 1, 341, 999 Percent Political Participation in 1952 65.0 66.5 --- 65.5 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 326, 717 505, 304 --- 2, 243,173 -Total Votes Polled in 1960 228, 028 357, 921 --- 1, 625, 992 Percent Political Participation in 1960 69.8 70.8 --- 72.3 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 64, 075 127, 800 --- 732, 651 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 33. 2 43. 2 --- 54.6 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 89,116 158, 733 --- 1, 011, 285 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 39. 1 44. 3 --- 62. 2 Net Migration 1950-1960 18, 891 38, 589 --- 88, 756 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population 4. 2 5. 7 --- 2. 9 Population 1950 453,163 680, 800 --- 3, 016,197 Population 1960 571 , 760 887, 443 --- 3, 762, 360 _4_‘ 138 {firm (Type 11) (Type III) . Non—SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties Non->SMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties ' by % Urban 1950 by % Urban 1950 1 Under 25% 25,0 to 40, 0 to 55, 0 to 70.0 to 1‘1 Urban Under 10% 10.0 to 25.0 to 40.0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to J urban 39,9% 54,9% 69,9% 84.9% Populahon Urban 24 9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 1 210,887 177,685 255,474 299,305 ___ 115,799 19,601 31,475 81,800 62,345 135,175 16,009 149,317 117,634 173,116 186,684 ——— 84.378 13.990 23.181 54.079 44.939 93,381 11,755 70.8 66.2 67.8 62.4 ___ 72.9 66.6 73.6 66.1 72.1 69.1 73.4 236,295 194,179 286,315 323,736 --- 119,576 19,168 31,004 80,159 60,656 138,916 15,097 168,841 133,670 208,820 223,051 -2- 96,164 15,375 26,883 57,092 44,988 95,200 11,982 71.5 68,8 72,9 68,9 ___ 80.4 80.2 86.7 71.2 74.2 68.5 79.4 39,618 36,498 53,701 66,020 ___ 22,290 2,421 7,937 17,102 17,032 37,802 5,710 26,5 3100 3102, 3504 ___ 26.4 18.5 34.2. 31.6 37.9 40.5 48.6 . 56,406 52,028 72,738 94,423 ___ 33,623 5,776 11,248 23,299 22,191 44,637 6,645 ’ 33.4 38.9 34.8 42.3 ___ 35.0 37.6 41.8 40.8 49.3 46,9 55.5 1 18,123 10,662 24,179 8,953 ___ 413,155 «4,971 -3,067 =10,832 410,669 -11,792 —3,452 ’ 5.3 3,8 6,1 2,0 ___ 46.9 :115.0 =6.2 —8.1 .10.5 -5.5 —13.9 ’ 341,702 282,107 397,752 451,805 ___ 190,073 33,149 49,608 133,667 101,510 215,389 24,844 1 412,729 343,640 503,013 550,334 ___ 202,493 34,006 51,926 139,754 102,877 236,942 23,917 J\‘— 139 Table XX. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Minnesota for SMA counties by size to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, - Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- l, 000, 000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 --- 137,464 --- 772, 276 Total Votes Polled in 1952 --- 101, 932 --- 546,132 Percent Political Participation in 1952 --- 74.2 --- 70.7 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 --- 138, 352 ~-- 848, 692 Total Votes Polled in 1960 --- 108, 890 --- 642, 734 Percent Political Participation in 1960 -~-- 78.7 --- 75.7 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 --- 63, 032 --- 270,405 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 --- 61.8 --- 49.5 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 --- 69, 270 --- 337,188 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 --- 63.6 --- 52.5 Net Migration 1950-1960 --- -4, 724 --- 82, 305 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population --- -2. 3 ---- 7.4 Population 1950 --- 206, 062 --- 1, 116, 509 Population 1960 --- 231, 588 --- 1, 429, 598 140 L (Type II) (Type III) Non-=SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties NoncSMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 by % Urban 1950 Under 25% 35,0 to 40, 0 to 55. o to 70.0 to No Urban Under 10% 10.0 to 25. 0 to 40.0 to 55,0 to 70,0 to Urban, 39,99, 54,99, 69,99, 84099;, Population Urban. 24.9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 10.19 577 46, 538 239 213 2429142 165,406 2.... 13".", 922 282., 529 146,458 93,109 --- 74,468 32,886 17,176 13,664 119,438 a- 101,928 291,204 101,021 61,820 ___ 7303 7007 7400 6107 721.2. a..- 7.3.9 71.5 69.0 66.4 —-- 103,998 469 350 293 030 22,194 1R4,O)8 m 130,481 278,133 150,514: 99, 703 --- 82,491 35,857 239072 159000 1.2.4,,0‘78 2 2 105,698 217,017 114,413 72,578 —-— 79.3 77.4 79.5 67.6 793‘ "”7 79175 78°” 76°0 72°8 "' 5198031 159 547 7,768 4,330 46,85?) 1'- “ 36,046 70,769 40,752 21,153 "" 42.7 47,03 4502 3107 39,2 .2 35.4 35.2 40.3 34.2 —-- 42,521 17,716 11,870 6,752 58,251 m== 48,248 102,351 54,162 32,604 ——- 51.5 49°4 5194 45.0 47.3 -22 46.5 47.2 47.3 44.9 -"- =7.797 -5, 739 10,094 41,705 =52,548 -2- =38,962 =60,670 =18,531 2,346 __— =4.8 =7.8 2902 “4‘7 D18.9 2.... —17.1-13.1 —7.8 1.6 -—— 163,681 73,612 34,544 36,235 277,322 2.2.. 228,241 464,515 239,088 142,674 —-- 180,184 79,157 52,432 38,988 262,204 ==== 222,321 481,388 264,961 171,043 --- I M“ Table XXI. 141 Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Missouri for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non—Adjacent areas by percent urbanity, ‘ "5::— (Type I) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- l, 000, 000 Under 25% and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Urban “\- Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 --- --- 422, 697 906,282 94 443 Total Votes Polled in 1952 --- --- 297,430 607,943 731,07 Percent Political Participation " in 1952 --- --- 70.4 67.1 778 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 --- --- 448, 747 938, 222 98 8’8 Total Votes Polled in 1960 --- --- 286, 800 619,426 73.510 Percent Political Participation ' in 1960 --- --- 63.9 66.0 74 4 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 --— --- 151, 294 337,843 28 0 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 --- --- 50.9 55.6 ’32: Total Democratic Votes in 1960 --- --- 153, 304 364, 993 29 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 --- --- 53. 5 58,9 3355 .9 Net Migration 1950-1960 --- --- 29, 927 3, 562 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 .. -2 ‘3'561 Population --- --- 5, L 0.3 Population 1950 --- --.. 586, 256 1’ 392' 979 142.215 POPulation 1960 --- --- 710, 206 1, 506,528 156,124 .601 '\ 142 =L___, (Type II) (Type III) Non=SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties Non-aSMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by'% Urban 1950 by % Urban 1950 Under 25% 25,0 to 40,0 to 5500to 70,0 to No Urban Under 10% 10,0 to 25,0 to 40,0 to 55,0 to 70.0 to Urban 349% 54.9% 69,970 84,970 Populatlon Urban 24.9% 39,9% 54.9% 693% 84,996 94,443 100,618 can 111 9:4 364,292 18,381 137,698 220,787 131,104 142,363 213,324 73,507 83,452 =u~ ___ _11 366,831 15,509 104,194 160,398 94,454 99,744 145,785 77,8 82,9 ==e ~—- -12 78,3 84,4 75,7 72,7 72,0 70.1 68.3 98,828 115,794 === ——~ =-« 356,374 17,859 127,151 209,013 126,347 142,633 214,646 73,510 88,043 :11 -11 1,1 194,758 14,163 93,713 145,430 87,607 97,024 144,646 74,4 76,0 === __1 ___ 76,0 79,3 73,7 69,6 69,3 68,0 67,4 28,397 39,649 === —-— ~=— 88,277 7,246 42,536 76,385 45,369 51,574 61,260 38,6 47,5 a== —=— mm= 42,7 46,7 40,8 47,6 48,0 51,7 42.0 29,355 43,591 =a= ~=— ——= 82,397 6,416 33,723 71,456 40,135 50,072 60,101 39.9 49.5 1-- ——— -2- 42.3 45.3 36,0 49.1 45.8 51.6 41,6 =3,561 26,916 -1, -1- _1_ =39,159 -2,173 =45,387 —61,057 -24,110 -6,758 —10,360 =2,5 18,2 === ——- _.1 =9,?) =7.7 =19o7 —16.6 —1l.6 —3.1 =3.3 142,124 147,699 —=- -=- —-= 421,158 28,348 230,773 367,202 207,288 214,607 316,219 156,601 192,861 aa— ——- —== 406,827 27,951 205,632 344,604 202,060 230,062 336,481 M 143 Table XXII. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960,. in Nebraska for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non-Adjac ent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS » SMAS Democratic Voting,- Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- 1, 000,. 000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 84, 902 204, 207 --- --- Total Votes Polled in 1952 54, 525 133, 226 --— --- Percent Political Participation in 1952 64.2 65.2 --- --.. Total Eligible Voters in 1960 95, 165 224, 160 --- --.. Total Votes Polled in 1960 57, 735 139, 099 --- --- Percent Political Participation in 1960 60.7 62.1 --- --.. Total Democratic Votes in 1952 17, 728 58,. 120 —-- --- Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 32. 5 43.6 --- --.. Total Democratic Votes in 1960 21, 779 65, 739 --- --- *Percent Democratic'Votes in 1960 .37. 7 47. 3 ma --.. Net Migration 1950-1960 13, 224 19, 593 --- -.-.. Percent Net Migration as of 1950 'Population 11. 0 6. 6 --- --.. Population 1950 1 19, 742 296, 713 --- -.-- Population 1960 155, 272 374, 771 --- -—- 144 (Type II) Non-=SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties by 70 Urban 1950 (Type III) Non—SMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 Under 25% 25. 0 to 40.0 to 55. 0 to 70. 0 to No Urban 10. 0 to 25. 0 to 40. 0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to Urban 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% Popu1anon 24.9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 36,351 27,584 35,561 17,926 -1- 192,004 28,589 41,109 107,112 44,294 40,284 26,699 20,158 24,698 12,938 __- 146,457 21,722 30,941 77,778 32,697 27,821 73.5 73.1 69.5 72.2 ~-~ 76.3 76.0 75.3 72.6 73.8 69.1 33,747 26,652 34,425 19,669 —-- 172,187 25,957 36,772 106,035 43,176 40,373 24,467 18,729 23,569 13,851 —-—- 131,548 19,712 26,733 76,365 30,216 25,237 72.5 70.3 68.5 70.4 --— 76.4 75.9 72.7 72.0 70.0 62.5 8,753 7,079 7,056 3,682 —-- 35,923 4,934 8,449 19,564 8,416 8,353 32.8 35.1 28.7 28.5 -—— 24.5 22.7 27.3 25.2 25.7 30.0 10,516 7, 954 8,534 4,573 --- 45,954 6,428 9,232 25,853 10,288 9,042 43.0 42.5 36.2 33.0 ——- 34.9 32.6 34.5 33.9 34.0 35.8 ~14,066 —3,533 -6,254 1,005 --- -69,632 -10,679 ~14,120 -19,875 -12,180 —6,024 =24.5 —8.4 -11.3 3.8 --- —22.3 —22.7 —21.4 -11.7 -l6.9 -9.9 57,351 41,918 55,509 26,265 —-- 312,339 47,023 66,004 169,576 72,029 61,041 54,681 42,466 55,489 32,471 -«— 280,642 42,674 58,991 176,648 72,524 64,701 Table XXIII. 145 Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Ohio for SMA counties by size; to Adjacent and Non-Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. L (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, Population Under 250, 000- 500, GOO-’- 1, 000, 000 Under 25% and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Urban Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 245,433 1, 343, 591 862, 200 1, 041, 946 230,911 Total Votes Polled in 1952 177, 318 898, 633 578, 989 693,256 171,754 Percent Political Participation in 1952 72.2 66.9 67.2 66.5 74,4 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 260, 476 l, 471, 050 944, 390 1, 122, 062 257’ 637 Total Votes Polled in 1960 190, 994 l, 024, 808 658, 340 779, 823 195’ 750 Percent Political Participation ' in 1960 73. 3 69. 7 69.7 69.5 76 0 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 92, 325 439, 284 232,405 340, 308 60 235 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 52.1 48. 9 40.1 49.1 '35 1 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 92, 087 520,121. 286, 210 460,672 71 02 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 48.2 50.8 43.5 59.1 36 3 Net Migration 1950-1960 -3, 092 '1'10, 148 95, 726 89,165 34 3 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 ’ 98 Population -0.81 5.6 7.8 6.1 Population 1950 380, 553 1,962,654 1,227, 362 1,465,511 357 9-6 Population 1960 437, 579 2,441,573 1,547,083; 1,796,595 449,029 ’ 1 __A \ (TypeID NonmSMA Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban_1950 Under 25% 25.0to 40.0 no 55.0to 70 Oto Urban 39 9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 230,911 188,781 417,107 166,821 74,867 171,754 130,813 305,122 105,783 48,250 74.4 69.3 73.2 63.4 64.4 257,637 216,239 446,202 188,598 78,858 195,750 150,207 334,015 130,991 53,044 76.0 69.5 74.9 69.5 67.3 60,235 44,556 121,328 45,251 20,786 35.1 34.1 39.8 42.8 43.1 71,020 52,792 135,037 63,459 22,456 36.3 35.1 40.4 48.4 42.3 34,398 40,196 19,346 =28,84Z —1,694 9.6 14.0 ,3.0 -11.7 -1.5 357,179 286,202 642,785 247,082 111,661 449,021 373,188 760,016 324,504 131,440 (Type III) NonuSMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 No Urban Under 10% 10.0to 25.0to 40.0to 55.0to 70.0to Popuiauon. Urban 24.9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% 60,223 ==u 50,942 267,826 161,843 279,226 --— 46,321 222 38,680 195,810 118,260 191,769 ——— 76.9 __2 75.9 73.1 73.1 68.7 —-- 62,120 222 50,309 272,059 167,328 301,983 ——— 49,795 1-- 41,373 204,623 125,804 212,384 __— 80.2 men 82.2 75.2 75.2 70.3 ——- 18,744 === 13,799 67,695 39,054 64,597 —-- 40.5 nun 35.7 34.6 33.0 33.7 --~ 19,952 a=— 18,975 72,991 46,475 79,456 —=- 40.1 ~—— 45.9 35.7 36.9 37.4 -—— u2,780 ——— -8,593 —12,682 -4,618 20,336 -—- —2.8 --- —10.4 -3.0 —1.8 4.9 --- 98,090 =—— 82,558 416,779 250,203 418,008 —-- 106,966 2-- 88,754 455,257 284,961 509,460 ~—- 147 Table XXIV. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Kansas for SMA counties by size; to Adjacent and Nonc-Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, POpulation Under 250, 000- 500, 000- 1, 000, 000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 155,488 --- 157, 362 -- Total Votes Polled in 1952 105, 909 --- 113,492 -- Percent Political Participation in 1952 68. 1 --- 72.11 -- Total Eligible Voters in 1960 198,687 --- 192, 997 -- Total Votes Polled in 1960 132, 008 --- 141, 098 -- Percent Political Participation ‘ in 1960 66.4 --- 73.1 -- Total Democratic Votes in 1952 34, 926 --- 49, 741 -- Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 33. 0 --- 43.8 -- Total Democratic Votes in 1960 58, 888 --- 63, 347 -- Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 44.6 --- 44.9 -- Net Migration 1950-1960 50, 968 --- 48, 748 -- Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population 22. 9 --- 21.4 -- Population 1950 222, 290 --- 228, 101 -- Population 1960 343, 231 --- 329, 287 -- Under 2 Urban 148 + (TypeID (Type HD Non—SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties Non~SMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 by % Urban 1950 , Under 25% 25.0 to 40.0 to 55. 0 to 70.0 to No Urban Under 10% 10.0 to 25.0 to 40.0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to , Urban 39.9% 54. 9% 69. 9% 84. 9% Population Urban 24. 9% 39. 9% 54. 9% 69.9% 84.9% 28,615 91,624 82,445 -—- 203,088 6,637 36,024 83,100 142,218 126,587 145,180 21,124 58,674 53,873 —n~ 157,126 4,886 27,987 62,334 102,062 82,846 99,290 73.8 64.0 65.4 --- 77.4 73.6 77.7 75.0 71.8 65.4 68.4 27,861 94,978 84,967 —m— 185,267 5,935 32,184 75,548 128,929 129,526 164,956 20,917 60,646 57,711 ——— 143,289 4,265 24,261 55,988 94,156 81,545 105,432 75.1 63.9 67.9 --- 77.3 71.9 75.4 74.1 73.0 63.0 63.9 5,590 19,689 15,562 —-- 36,190 1,175 6,371 14,286 33,688 24,002 32,076 26.5 33.6 28.9 --- 23.0 24.0 22.8 22.9 33.0 29.0 32.3 7,636 23,904 21,452 -—— 48.999 1,383 7,985 17,335 36,989 34,850 40,376 36.5 39.4 37.2 —-— 34.2 32.4 32.9 31.0 39.3 42.7 38.3 -4,103 1,088 -2,672 ——— =63,295 =1,702 —9,372 —22,667 -35,904 -19,136 18,477 -9.3 0.8 —2.1 —-- =19.4 —l6.2 “17.0 —17.4 -16.4 -9.5 8.8 44,233 134,686 125,049 --- 325,969 10,499 55,153 129,916 218,289 200,736 210,378 44,815 152,216 140,636 -—— 297,185 9,574 48,904 118,528 199,677 221,527 273,031 4“; 149 Table XXV. Voting participation andDemocratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Kentucky for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by Size Voting »Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Democratic Voting, Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- 1, 000, 000 and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More Total No. Eligible Voters 21 and over in 1952 30, 357 -- -- 453,184 Total Votes Polled in 1952 20, 671 -- -- 250, 049 Percent Political Participation in 1952 68.1 -- -- 55.2 Total Eligible Voters in 1960 30, 679 -- -- 489, 723 Total Votes Polled in 1960 20, 399 -- -- 309, 156 Percent Political Participation in 1960 66.5 --- -- 63.1 Total Democratic Votes in 1952 10, 245 -- -- 114, 075 Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 49.6 -- -- 45.6 Total Democratic Votes in 1960 9, 094 -- -- 151, 336 Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 44. 6 -- -- 49.0 Net Migration 1950-1960 -6, 397 -- -- 25, 861 Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population - 12. 8 -- -- 3.9 Population 1950 49, 949 -- -- 665, 065 Population 1960 52,163 -- -- 818,450 150 a_ (Type II) (Type III) Non—SMA Adjacent to SMA Counties Non-SMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 by % Urban 1950 Under 25% 25.0to 40.0to 55.0 H) 70.0to No Urban Under 10% 10.0to 25.0to 40.0to 55.0to 70.0to Urban 39. 9% 54. 9% 69. 9% 84. 9% Population Urban 24. 9% 39. 9% 54. 9% 69. 9% 84.9% Lg 115,601 ——- ——= ——— ——— 358,282 61,875 215,347 237,118 135,277 68,568 71,427 60,739 -—— —=— ,__ ——- 227,949 35,717 124,332 126,460 76,854 36,337 31,651 52.5 -—- ——- --— —-~ 63.6 57.7 57.7 53.3 56.8 53.0 44.3 129,842 -—— ——— ——- --— 336,782 54,931 201,892 225,111 138,058 75,480 81,146 72,968 —-- —-— ——- ——- 248,302 37,881 134,441 131,235 82,924 45,513 41,647 56.2 --- -—- —-— --— 73.7 69.0 66.6 58.3 60.1 60.3 51.3 33,159 ___ ___ ___ ——— 108,206 21,701 57,796 74,428 42,020 19,824 14,275 54.6 -—— --n ——— —-— 47.5 60.8 46.5 58.9 54.7 54.6 45.1 33,590 —-- —-- —-- —-— 101,259 22,915 55,450 69,353 39,946 22,385 16,478 46,0 ___ ___ __- ___ 40.8 60.5 41.2 52.8 48.2 49.2 39.6 -5,213 --- ——— -—- -—— «160,208 -52,517 -106,679 -79,110 —13,527 2,568 14,963 _z,7 -__ ___ ___ ___ -24.2 —39.0 —26.3 -19.3 -o.3.' 2.4 14.9 196,194 ___ _-- ___ ___ 660,979 134,654 405,446 410,670 214,725 106,378 100,746 229,764 ——- -—— -—- —-— 591,595 109,906 362,496 384,749 229,233 127,894 131,906 kg 151 Table XXVI. Voting participation and Democratic voting in 1952 and 1960, and Net Migration 1950-1960, in Wisconsin for SMA counties by size, to Adjacent and Non Adjacent areas by percent urbanity. ‘7 ‘-3‘l=_= (Type 1) SMA as of 1950 by size Voting Participation SMAS SMAS SMAS SMAS Und Democratic Voting, Population Under 250, 000- 500, 000- 1, 000, 000 Url: and Net Migration 250, 000 499, 999 999, 999 and More M Total No. Eligible Voters 21 53 and over in 1952 115,297 29,691 608,331 --- 39 Total Votes Polled in 1952 76, 711 21, 215 423, 951 --- Percent Political Participation in 1952 66.5 71.5 69.7 --- Total Eligible Voters in 1960 129,626 27,436 645,747 --- ‘31:: Total Votes Polled in 1960 90, 290 21, 217 444, 774 --- Percent Political Participation A in 1960 69.7 77.3 68.9 --- Total Democratic Votes in 1952 37, 987 11, 538 204,474 -.... 13,- Percent Democratic Votes in 1952 49. 5 54.4 48.2 --- Total Democratic Votes in 1960 47, 045 12, 910 257, 707 --- 17: Percent Democratic Votes in 1960 52. 1 60. 9 57. 9 —-- ‘ Net Migration 1950-1960 14,428 -6, 395 15, 221 --- ‘13, Percent Net Migration as of 1950 Population 8,5 -13,7 1,7 --- - Population 1950 169,357 46,715 871,047 --- 87. 222,095 45,008 1,036,041 --- 83. Population 1 960 152 12.; .(Type II) . (Type III) Non-SMA Adlacent t0 SMA Countles Non—SMA Not Adjacent to SMA Counties by % Urban 1950 by % Urban 1950 Under 25% 25.0 to 40. 0 to 55.0 to 70.0 to No Urban Under 10% 10,0 to 25,0 to 40. O to 55.0 to 70.0 to Urban 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% Populauon Urban 24.9% 39.9% 54.9% 69.9% 84.9% “H4 '7 , 53,259 163,705 67,034 61’802 126:678 90,451 28,380 162,669 199,697 138,678 239,157 166,085 1 39.292 121.260 47.010 43.020 94,554 67,046 19,747 116,800 145,747 100,423 168,135 117,009 73~8 74-5 70-1 69=6 74-6 74.1 69.6 71.8 73.0 72.4 70.3 70.5 3 49,483 196,438 69,308 67,212 142,950 87,196 26,813 152,553 197,568 139,948 245,480 176,731 39,524 151,354 50,155 48,869 103,083 68,322 20,096 116,017 149,281 109,277 181,932 131,789 79.9 77.0 72.4 72.7 72.1 _ 78_4 74,9 76,1 75,6 78.1 74.1 74.6 13,886 38,302 13,828 15,183 45,009 22,166 4,894 35,682 43,303 39,999 56,758 39,166 35.3 31.6 29.4 35.3 47.6 33,1 24.8 30.6 29.7 39.8 33.8 33.5 17,878 61,497 18,870 19,194 53,552 30,294 7,822 48,651 62,639 52,787 81,416 58,543 45.2 40.6 37.6 39.3 52.0 44,3 33,9 41.9 42.0 48.3 44.8 44.4 -13,042 56,459 -265 4,277 22,349 -13,637 -6,416 ~44,916 -29,266 -22,319 -18,802 —1,766 -15.0 23.6 ~0.3 4.6 12.1 __12.7 43.3 —16.6 -9,2 -9.8 —5.0 4.0.7 87,042 239,479 100,680 92,778 184,823 147,133 46,379 271,394 319,202 227,779 373,763 257,004 83,034 341,547 113,264 113,913 242,396 146,682 45,024, 261,145 332,591 244,346 419.216 305,475 .1 A 1:2. J 4 1 - 1” 5.42m >cm Pam: “0C mvov ~30me ~3qu 00.24%... 33:25.2». :52;me >0 mmmkm :m he.“ 93me crab] cw .oomanomod COSMumSZ “oz Una. .oom: «Em. wmml 2.” m230> USMAUOEmQ USN «5.3.2833ka %:CO> QE>XX 03m 153 .2222 .2; 8.2.32 222...; 2:13 2.. -- 63.1.2.3 $2 confismom 2.2.3 32 .22 2.3.5 2% .3 -- -- NNm .bom 82.2 822622292 23m ~.2 2..22- 6.2.2- -- -- 0.2;.- 822822292 0mm; mo mm 220322.232 202 300.20% .2222. .2 2.2% .2 So .02. 82 .m2- -.. 2:. NE. .mw- 82.2-82.2 8232?: .672 2.6m n :2. m .2. 22.8 -- .5. 22.2.2. 82 c2 38> 622388622 838.2 22. .m mom .23.. $2.52 32. .2.2 -- -.... mom .mm 32 c2 38> 62228860 286.2. 2 .6... 6.2 22.8 6.9.2 2.. 2: ~13 $.62 .22 38> 622288622 25626.2 oo2..~ won .52 2o2..22 522 .w -- -- mom .wm $52 2.2 38> 6228288622 280.2. ~.~w 21$ m A: 6.2: -- -- 21$ 32 :2 2202322203qu 303.20% 2280qu 86 .2 n3 .3 .225 .22. m8 .8. -- -- 2.41.22 $52 :2 22.-0226.2 6.8.32 2302. go .262 23 :8 8.2.3 2....» .3 -- -- m: .32 32.2 222 8.2382 62.2235 286.2. 5.2 21$ 22.:- mi. -- -- mg: ~32 2: 220223303an Hmoflflom 300.3% 32. .22 2.22. .3 2.2.2. .3 m2:- .w~ -- -- $8 .32 $52 222 25226.2 $282 2368 222.2 .62 $5 .222 m2; .8 .2522? -- -- 23.2: $52 222 .226 2:8 . 2N 382$ 62.223222 .62 236.2. 8? .2.w .252. .56 8? .4m .52. .3 682. .2.~ 5825 822822260 28222322 2672 2:8 8 22.2:- 3 o .3 8 o .2. 8 o .3 8 22.222 852: 262.25 822622262 .3222, 022388622 352 52.8.2222 0.. 522266222280 «Em-.82 $32.22..” 53 0322.2 2022 meow .30me 222.202 0082me Gan-23 OZ coflmm2ufiumnm1mcfio> 2352222525 22200qu .3. Ugflmmmfio 0.2-m 0.0322500 023 in .3Emnpd 22200an .3 .6122on :m 20w 23.0me 23.202 222 .ooanommH 220322.232 2.02 U25 6002 van mms 222 mason, 02320022290 98 22023303an M22229? .HH>XX 3nt -m2<_\4m >50 0:01 +C£ ucCT n+C~2nC (.150 <...-..U\ :1 G2 .000210mo2 C022m.2m2§ 2022 find. .0002 USN mm©2 :2 mCSO> UCMLCOEMWQ 32m cofimnfioflpfinw MQCO> ..~.2.~.>V-X QNQQL. 154 266 .262 666.66 666 .66 626.66 666 .62. 66622.6 6662 2822622362 2.2.6 .62; 62.6.6.6 2.6.6.66 666.66 2.62 .66 666 .666 6662 8226222662 6 .2. 6.62- 6 .62- 6.62- 6.26- 6 2.6- 6622622262 0mm: mo 00 cowumnwdz 2072 2.220020%. 666 .6 666.62- 662.22- 662 .6- 662122- 626 .66- 6662-6662 282.2622 262 6.66 6.62. 2.66 6.62. 2.62. 6.62. 6662 :2 68.622 6226866662 2:66.260 662.26 666 .62 626.62 666.6 662.62 666.62. 6662 222 63622 62228222622 232.2. 6.66 6 .66 6 .66 6.26 6 .2.6 6 .66 6662 2H2 38> 0226288662 266626.22 266 .62 666 .62 622. .62 666 .2. 666.6 666 .2.6 6662 2.2 662622 022285662 236.2. 2.66 6.26 6.66 6.2.6 6.66 2.2.6 6662 :2 2530622022an 226.026.2225” uc0un0nm 666 .66 666 .66 666.62. 666 .62 266 .66 «22 .622 6662 :2 2.62200 638/ 286.2. 2.62 .662 666.62. 266.66 266.62 2.66.66 666.662 662.2 62 6262622 6222262262 236.2. 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.2.6 6.2.6 6.66 6.662 222 2.20306220320nm 2003.206...” 2.220020% 2.66 .66 666 .66 662.66 626.62 2.66 .66 66.2..622 6662 2.2 2.62260 6622,. 2826.2. 666.66 626 .2.2. 666.66 622.62 666.26 666.662 6662 2.2 26.6 2.5... 26 6.26222 626226220 .62 236.2. .66 .2.6 .66 .66 .66 32.6 666 .66 .66 2.6 2822822260 282226222 262 2.28 8. 6.66 8 6 .66 8 6.62. 3 6 .66 8 6 .62 ..2.62 262.25 2.622.222. 32 66226222662 62.2232 6226.82.66.62 6662 $2266.25 .2. 622--6622560 6.226-872 cofimfiufinmm wn2uo> g 73222062222 6.2002062 .3. 26026266020 0.20 602222500 023 220 .62/32% >220 0.9022 .6022 60026 duoxmfl fisom 023$ $6255.25 2222092062 >0. 000.20 :0 20w waoxmfl nudom :2 .6662-6662 282262628 222 2.5... .6662 2.5... 6662 S. 6:285 62288222622 2.2.6 6622622622262 6622622 2.223.262 62.2.6.2.