PDA

View Full Version : Warning! Warning! Political Thread



GSTamral
11-18-2004, 02:50 PM
I wish I knew where it was, but some site actually had a literal formline equation correlating age vs political bias. They conducted a national sample by age over the course of 7 years (I believe the organizing foundation was 4 universities nationwide, with Texas A&M, Missouri (?), Florida A&M, and New Hampshire (?). They tried to see if they could analyze the whole red vs blue, which we currently see only in a geographic sense.

But the gist of it was basically this.
Blue is considered to be 1, Red is considered to be -1, Independent is considered to be 0. (Libertarians, due to mixed feelings about taxation and social values, were also considered a 0), Green Party, Communists and left groups were considered to be the equal of a 1, while Pat Buchanan supporters were considered to be a -1.

At the age of 18, basic voting age, nationwide, they found the gap to be 61% to 33% with 8% independent (which I know contrasts to the 56% to 41% we saw for the voting ages of 18-29 in this year's election), yielding a score of (.61 * 1 + .33* (-1) = .28

The basic form of equation they found was on the order of

.2something - .0something * (age - 18) + (.00something * (year-1995) - (.000something) * (age-18) * (year-1995)

What it means:

At younger ages, people tend to lean towards democrats: As they get older, they tend to lean more and more towards republicans.
Younger people, over time, are leaning more heavily to the left. 61% of 18 year olds this year, 61.5% next year, etc…
The tendency of people to lean more to the right is increasing with time as well. Instead of a 1% shift per year with this year's 18 year old group, it will be 2% with the people who are 18 next year, etc..

The threshold of crossing seems to be around the age of 33 for men, and 48 for women.

The number 1 stated influence in how the 18 year olds chose an initial side were their upbringing/teachers, which was the one thing I found to be the most appalling, for a few reasons.

1) Parents should be a larger influence than teachers in general.
2) Teachers in America aren't exactly the best group, and they have a political agenda.
3) Teachers should not be attempting to make political statements while teaching or during school hours. Being employees of the government, they should be barred from any political agenda during school hours or risk fines, the same way any other non-direct government paid employee is.

The number 1 reason that people decided to switch party affiliations for one reason or another was personal finances.

Here were some additional numbers that I remember:
1) People who work more than 60 hours a week were more than 65% to the right.
2) People who were on unemployment or employed part time were more than 70% to the left.
3) People who owned their own homes were more than 60% to the right.
4) Families with fewer than 3 children were more than 60% to the right.
5) Families with 3 children or more were almost evenly split, but I think slightly to the right.
6) Single people were more than 60% to the left.
7) Military and ex-military were more than 70% to the right, but the study was not scientific enough to make a statistical assessment with age.

Just looking at the numbers makes it kind of interesting to wonder how the socioeconomic perspectives of people, as well as factors other than geographic location influenced their personal agendas when voting.

If anyone has read the original article, or knows where it can be found now (It used to be somewhere on the Texas A&M political science pages, but since the study concluded in 2003, I guess they took it down), post up the link pls.

Wezas
11-18-2004, 04:00 PM
I love how communists are just thrown in there as part of the left.

Lyonis
11-18-2004, 04:50 PM
Eh the right got Pat so I'm not sure what's worse.

Back
11-18-2004, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Wezas
I love how communists are just thrown in there as part of the left.

The Communists have a bad rap for two reasons. One, Marx makes one mention of violent upheaval in The Manifesto, and everyone thinks Communism must include violence, which is not true. It can, of course, but it has nothing to do with the system.

The second reason it gets bad press is that Capitalism is on such a high tide right now... the richest, who are no doubt in control, will always denounce Communisim for fear of losing their profits, and their control.

The CP-USA's agenda (http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question29) is the most progressive I have seen or any party. A pipe-dream at this point in time, however, but certainly something to aspire to.

I like the logo, incorporating part of the union “cog” to form a C and a P with the sicle, but thought it would be even better with some blue in it.


http://www.zendada.com/images/cpusa-logo.jpg

GSTamral
11-19-2004, 12:07 PM
I have to agree with backlash here, which is very rare for a political thread. The communist party in america and the socialist party need to switch names. The american socialist party is run by a nutjob, while the communist party basically preaches the early teachings of marx. On the other hand, I must say that America is neither suitable nor ready for that type of system.

Most of America continues to stand by the principle of hard work. I personally for one, would have a difficult time knowing that I took all the extra time to get the education, to learn how to program, to learn how to manage, yet I still clear the same range of money as a janitor.