http://www.lsureveille.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/02/05/4021eaf00e797 Higher education levels affect voters' independence College scene may sway early choice By Alexandria Burris, Staff Writer February 05, 2004 A New York Times columnist recently told a crowd at Dartmouth College that people with college degrees vote less independently. David Brooks, aforementioned columnist, said rising education levels have helped shape modern politics and voting in the United States. "The effect of this increasing education level for voters should be to make voters independent minded, open to argument, rational and sophisticated," Brooks said. " It's just the opposite." He said the number of people voting independently decreases as the voting population becomes more educated. Robert Hogan, a political science assistant professor, said Brooks' argument makes sense to him, because college-educated people tend to vote along party lines. People with college degrees know more about politics, Hogan said. He said strong Democrats and Republicans happen to be well-educated people who understand more about what they believe and what each political party represents. Hogan said people who identify themselves as independent do not hold the staunch political positions of Democrats and Republicans. There is a lot of evidence that shows people who identify themselves as independent voters are more persuaded by political ads, Hogan said. It is hard to determine whether they are less educated than partisan voters. In a Jan. 14 article in The Dartmouth, Dartmouth College's campus newspaper, Brooks said education leads away from independent thinking. "The more educated you are, the more partisan you are, the less independently you think," Brooks said to the Dartmouth. Hogan said he thinks Brooks is not implying that staunch party supporters are closed-minded or that independent voters are more open-minded. He said partisan voters just have decided what they believe politically. Krystal Williams, political science senior, is one of the many students who identifies her beliefs with a certain political party. Williams is president of College Democrats at LSU. She said she believes the political ideas people have are set in them. Williams said her Democratic ideas were always a part of her because she came from a Democratic family. But Williams said she did not realize she wanted to work in Democratic politics until she came to the University. The political beliefs of her family were re-enforced when she began to do in-depth reading about political issues, ask questions and talk to professors. She said different campus organizations do have the power to shape the way people think, and she has talked to many students about their political beliefs when she is actively recruiting for the College Democrats at LSU. Williams said she believes college students identify themselves as either Democratic or Republican because universities have a concentrated environment that forces people to choose which political ideology is closest to their ideology. According to an October 2003 poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics, 39 percent of undergraduate students said they would vote for President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. Only 34 percent would vote for a Democratic candidate, while 27 percent said they were independent voters or they do not know who or which way they will vote. Williams said even people who register as independent tend to be more liberal or conservative. She said a lot of people saying they are independent do so because they do not know which group they fit into. Shawanesh Scott, College Republican Alliance president and economics senior, said attending a university can influence student voting. "College is a maturing stage of a young person's life in which he or she starts looking toward the future and making voting decisions," she said. "Therefore, we will take into consideration topics such as income, job creation and taxes to affect our decisions."
http://www.apgovernment.com/apgovernment/elections.html We can predict the way people will vote based upon different demographic, economic, and social factors. Let us first look at education. Election results have been studying and it shows that more highly educated people tend to vote compared to those with a lower education. It also shows that highly educated people tend to vote more Republican, whereas people with less education tend to vote Democrat. This stands to reason because those who are more highly educated tend to make more money and agree with the Republican economic perspective. Economic status also determines who will vote. Those who make more money tend to vote more than those who make less. Also, those with higher incomes tend to vote Republican, while those with lower incomes tend to vote Democratic. Religion tends to determine which party you will vote for. Protestants tend to vote Republican more than they do Democratic. Catholics often vote more Democratic, but not by a large margin. The Jewish population tends to vote heavily Democratic. Age is a major factor in determining voter preference and turnout. The older you are, the more likely you are to vote. The elderly population tends to vote more Republican, while the younger population tends to vote Democratic. It is often a toss-up as to whom the 30 to 55-year olds will vote for. Race plays a role in voter preference. Whites tend to vote more Republican, while African-Americans and the other minority groups tend to vote heavily Democratic. Finally, gender also is important when looking at voter preference. Women tend to be more Democratic than Republican, while men tend to be more Republican than Democratic. These factors all play a role in examining whom citizens vote for, and why they vote for that particular party.
Someone told a crowd something, so you post that? Why?? Except for Jews, right??? At least that is what you said before. So why are the Jews an exception? And why are the states with the higher percentage of educated voters voting for Democrats? (There aren't that many Jews!) Maverick, I really appreciate your convictions. You believe what you believe with all your heart. But I hope you can understand that just because you believe, that does not necessarily make it so. Your posts would fit better in one of the religion threads. They are about "faith" more than reason. (IMHO). You really need to lighten up on the cut and paste stuff. Why not explain your beliefs in your own words? Certainly any one here can find sources to enforce ANY point of view and cut and paste them here. Big deal. Unfortunately, however, you get so worked up in your responses that maybe cut and paste is your best bet. Using sweeping phrases like "most poor minorities, union people, dead beats on the welfare rolls, unemployed smucks (sic) vote for democrats", really does not help your cause. Rather it is insulting to our entire system. But I guess, like GWB, you don't believe in our system. You believe that a "ruling class" is a better system. Well it looks like maybe you will get your wish. The GWB machine certainly has the money now. And unfortunately for democracy, that seems like it may well be the deciding factor in this year's election. Oh, and blaming the NEA for the state of our educational system is really a powerful argument. Congratulations! Hey, how about this for a campaign slogan for Bush? "Money talks, freedom walks" ?? What do you think? BTW, are you EVER going to explain WHY the Jews vote for Democrats? Why did you leave us in suspense on that one? Peace, RS
Fine, I'll make an argument. Why do most Jews vote for democrats. Let's start with FDR. FDR was a hero to the Jews. His open defiance of Adolf Hitler (in the face of isolationists in this country who opposed American intervention in war) and his rebuttal of American anti-Semitism, which was ever-present and at times very public and open, endeared Roosevelt to Jews everywhere. It has often been argued that Jews vote Democratic because that partyâs political positions align more closely with the social values embodied in the Torah. This juxtaposition of liberal politics with Jewish religion has always been particularly well-cultivated by rabbis in the Reform Movement, whose historic commitment to social justice has given particular urgency and validation to this argument. "Remember the stranger" is a basic teaching in Judaism; when extended to support a vast array of social programs for the poor and disenfranchised, it has served to buttress the argument that Torah and Democratic values are one. That's one argument RS. Here's another. Some political writers have argued that the Jewish vote for Democrats is less about Torah and more about the latent insecurity of Jews in American life. Jews identify with liberal values, it is argued, because liberalism is inclusive; it welcomes everyone inside the tent. When government works to help one class or group of people, it inevitably helps other classes and groups as well. Anit-semitism plays a large role in this argument too RS. For some odd reason, those on the left love to portray republicans as these gun toting, white robe wearing, anti-semitic bigots. Republicans are perceived to hate blacks, hispanics, gays, jews, crippled people, you name it, just about any minority group. Obviously this is not true but enough people believe it. The Jewish people are never going to support a party that is believed to be anti-semitic. Never. Hell, even moveon.org has gone out of their way to connect the Bush family with Nazi Germany. Coincidence? I think not. They don't want to lose the Jewish vote, especially in a swing state like Florida. So there you have it. If you want to debate this, go ahead. Not much you can say because you know it's true. If I was Jewish, I would probably vote democratic too. Not because of FDR, but because the values I was probably raised on in my family will align more closely with those of democrats. And another thing RS, why is it that you can throw a blanket statement out like higher educated people vote democratic, yet you did nothing to back that up with facts. I actually refer to a study that was done and you accuse me of copy and pasting which I did, but you didn't even go that far. You just threw out a blanket statement that clearly is not true. Those states you mentioned, with all the educated people, also have the highest poverty rates, and the highest percentage of minorities. That is why they vote left, not because of the education level.
I wonder if they went to a weighted vote system, how it would affect politics. No high school diploma = 1 vote point high school diploma = 2 vote points college B.A. level degree = 4 vote points Master Level = 6 vote points Ph.D. = 8 vote points
Would you believe that DISCRETIONARY GOVERNMENT SPENDING by the Bush Administration has been in double digits the past 3 years, and has exceeded every year of spending of the Clinton years? True. http://www.factcheck.org/
The only answer I can come up with right now is.....who cares. I'm sorry Waggie, I don't have your spirit to attack Bush on spending because I think you will see this pattern of behavior continue for the next 50 years. We are a society of out of control spenders. We are at the household level, the city and county level, the state level, and yes, the federal level. All your doing is shouting at the rain. I am simply accepting the fact that until this nation suffers a deep economic depression, which I think we will, we will not be able to control our wallets. It blows my mind how much people spend. Even people on welfare rolls spend money like its going out of style....on welfare rolls!
Good post Maverick...much better than just cutting and pasting. I am a bit short on time, but I will rebut your thesis as best as I can given time constraints. As for this paragraph I quoted of yours (above)...you say you "refer to a study that was done". So that makes your premise true? And you follow it with "Your just threw out a blanket statement that clearly is not true". Well then how do you explain Bung's post? Are all studies true? Is everything you read true? What makes one truth "truer" than another truth? Like I said, you can find anything you want to support any view you want to "prove". BTW, Roosevelt turned away the refugee ship St. Louis, and was considered an anti-semite by many. Dubya's grandfather WAS doing business with Hitler. Was he an anti-semite? I don't know. Never met the man. But obviously money was more important to him than right or wrong. (If right or wrong was even a consideration, which I doubt). It took an intervention of the Federal government to stop him from doing business with Hitler. The Bush family did do business with the Bin Laden family. Again, it's just business. I don't think the present Bush family is at all anti-semitic. As a matter of fact, I met George Bush Sr. And it was at a fund raiser for a Jewish Organization (ADL). He did get paid a LOT of money to address the function, but believe me, if Abe Foxman gave his approval, you can be sure there is no reason to believe Sr. is an anti-semite. And GWB is a better "friend to the Jews" than his father was. (Particularly regarding Israel). I assume you know about the James Baker "Fuck the Jews" comment? If not, I suggest you do a little research. That Bush Sr. could just accept that and go on with his day is just indicative of how things really are in America regarding the Jews. I would like to believe that JFK (for example) would have thrown the guy out of the Oval Office if he had made that remark under his watch. But I know I am probably deluding myself. Nixon had Kissinger. Still called him "that fucking Jew". Hey, that's just how it is. Bottom line is that the Bush family, just like most of the old money families in America have come to accept the Jewish community. They do not hate the Jews, nor do they embrace them. They accept them. This is no different in the Democratic party than it is in the Republican party. The states with the highest numbers of educated people may indeed have the most indigents as well. But what makes you think that they vote? I could go on, but I can't now. Later my friend. Again, I admire your faith in GWB. I just think you are misguided. I will attribute it partially to youth. I know you are a bright guy, and I know your heart is in a good place. I just happen to disagree with your politics. I also think you HAVE to start trying to look at issues from different perspectives. Maybe like Earl Warren and William O. Douglas (among many others), as you experience life, your outlook will become more "liberal". It is the natural progression. I find it almost impossible to believe that you can truly feel that GWB and his machine have ANY empathy for you and your life. You are not one of them. Virtually NONE of us here at ET is. I will go out on a limb and say that I am very likely one of the VERY VERY FEW here on ET that will benefit from Dubya's tax cuts. But you know what? I don't mind paying taxes if the money is well spent. And even though I will qualify for the tax cuts, I am STILL NOT ONE OF THEM. There is a huge difference between the wealthy and the VERY RICH. And I will NOT benefit from a repeal of the "death tax". If I came from that kind of family, I wouldn't really be concerned with how many millions of dollars I would be saving. Besides, no one really pays that tax anyway. That is what insurance is for. Meanwhile, my taxes are NOT being spent well. I would rather pay MORE taxes now and know it was being used effectively than see my money being wasted the way it is. Channeled to the Halliburtons and Bechtels of the world. I DO mind passing on debt to those yet unborn. There are some things that are just WRONG. Not everything should be judged on "this is/isn't good for ME". That is the kind of thinking that detracts from democracy. And can actually eventually destroy Democracy. Your "party line" is to accuse the Democrats of being "tax and spenders". I accuse the present administration of being "borrowers and spenders". And irresponsible ones at that. Where are you seeing this? Calm down Mav.... Peace, RS
As for this paragraph I quoted of yours (above)...you say you "refer to a study that was done". So that makes your premise true? And you follow it with "Your just threw out a blanket statement that clearly is not true". Well then how do you explain Bung's post? Are all studies true? Is everything you read true? What makes one truth "truer" than another truth? That was my point RS. I never claimed my study was valid. I was simply making a point that you made a statement, I made a statement. But why do you go throwing stones from inside your glass house? You are doing the same thing. You can make any blanket statement you want, just as I can. But you seem to think that my statements are of less value. Meanwhile you just throw stuff out there like most educated people vote democratic. Says who? You have no facts to back this up. Then you say poor people don't vote? They don't? Really? That's news to me. Considering I grew up in a relatively poor family and we always voted.
That's a cop-out Mav and you know it. Bush is giving tax breaks to the rich and spending on war. Guns and butter. And that idiot Cheney says that Reagan proved that 'deficits don't matter'. These idealogues have our economic future in their hands and they are screwing up. m