I have always been interested in sociopolitical phenomena commonly referred to as “red state, blue state.” The phrase circulates more and more in the coming months of a presidential election, and even more so afterwards. After the somewhat infamous 2004 election in which President Bush (eventually) edged passed Senator Kerry in a Florida recount, the “red state, blue state” phenomena became more of a controversy and less of an accepted realization of the American political demographic. At the epicenters of this controversy was a blogger who was (apparently) one of the first to notice the striking similarity between the 2004 Election Map and a map of the Free States ca. the Civil War. She commented on the similarity and posted both of the maps on her blog where eventually many prolonged discussions and heated debates ensued.

The general consensus that I found from reading the debates that were sparked from this blog post was that the 2004 Election results were widely a function of Rural/Suburban Vs. Urban voters. It just so happens that most rural populations are located in the south and far north, and most suburban populations in the Midwest. Compare this to the fact that most urban populations are in the Northeast and West and it’s no longer such a huge surprise that our 2004 Election results resemble a map of Free States from the Civil War.

However all of this begs the question, why did the election boil down to Rural Vs. Urban? Again the prevailing winds of digital opinion tend to agree that the 2004 election was heavily influenced by the moral and ethical opinions of Americans – more so than say the economy or education. And speaking in demographic generalities, it appears that rural & urban voters in 2004 had somewhat differing moral and ethical beliefs. So then the argument tends to go that rural states were inclined to vote for the Republican candidate because of that parties similar moral beliefs; the south & mid-west are rural, i.e. they vote red.

However I can’t help but wonder what network effects have lead to the current “red state, blue state” dynamic that we see every four years and if there is perhaps some structure to this process. The question can become even more involved (and exciting) when we consider the difference in social and political networks and interactions that take place in a rural vs. urban settings. One interesting question that I think a study of this phenomena could propose to answer would be “Why are people from large urban areas generally voting democratic.” Another interesting question would be to determine how the social networks of rural voters differs from that of urban voters and whether or not this difference is responsible for how a state votes.

I think the network of voting Americans is perhaps one of the most interesting networks to study because in a Democracy like ours, it’s the opinions of these networks that (in theory) decide the fate of our country. So when I see that the proximity of someone’s neighbors is determining the political landscape in such a way as to influence the presidency, I can’t help but wonder if the concepts we discuss in class such as weak/strong ties, balancing networks and closure processes are determining our democratic future. Is a disparity between rural and urban social/political networks the difference between voting democratic and republican?

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html