Voting Inequalities in Charlottesville:

A Practical Application of the 2004 APSA Study “American Democracy in an Age of Rising

Inequality”

Tonsler Park PrecinctTonsler Park PrecinctJenn Gillyard Jenn Gillyard

Mellisa McDowell Mellisa McDowell Jonathan MooreJonathan Moore

Tonsler Park Precinct

Political Signs

Items of Interest

Church

Flag

Precinct Map

Observations: Pre-Election

• Signs overwhelmingly Democratic

-Kerry/Edwards- 32 observed

-Bush/Cheney- 2 observed

• Income-Housing-Cars

• Other factors-Churches-Minorities in the Majority

Observations: Election Day

• Apparent Democratic party mobilization

-Poll workers

-Transportation

-Signs• Partisan Handouts• Communal Ties• “Poll Watchers”

Archival Research-Census Data

• Income levels

-per capita income

-household• (Un)Employment

Stats• Poverty Level• Housing• Education

Median Household Income in 1999:2000

Per Capita Income in 1999: 2000

Percent of Persons 25 Years and Over with High School Diploma or More Education:

2000

Archival Research 2-Voting

• Voter Turnout

-TP: 58%

-Charlottesville: 67%

-nation: 60%

• Voting History of the Tonsler Park Precinct

-Kind of one-sided

Archival Research 3-Political Participation

• Political party membership

-Republican: 4.6%

-Democrat: 12%• Campaign

Contributions

Conclusions 1

• Exit polls vs demographic statistics

• Income level and voting– APSA: low-income do not vote in high

numbers– TP district predominantly poor so exit poll data

on income should reflect this right?

Reminder: Per Capita Income in 1999: 2000

precinct * income Crosstabulation

30 37 22 14 17 4 124

24.2% 29.8% 17.7% 11.3% 13.7% 3.2% 100.0%

19.9% 21.0% 25.3% 14.3% 21.3% 20.0% 20.3%

4.9% 6.0% 3.6% 2.3% 2.8% .7% 20.3%

24 42 24 28 6 0 124

19.4% 33.9% 19.4% 22.6% 4.8% .0% 100.0%

15.9% 23.9% 27.6% 28.6% 7.5% .0% 20.3%

3.9% 6.9% 3.9% 4.6% 1.0% .0% 20.3%

32 35 13 13 6 4 103

31.1% 34.0% 12.6% 12.6% 5.8% 3.9% 100.0%

21.2% 19.9% 14.9% 13.3% 7.5% 20.0% 16.8%

5.2% 5.7% 2.1% 2.1% 1.0% .7% 16.8%

55 30 5 13 10 8 121

45.5% 24.8% 4.1% 10.7% 8.3% 6.6% 100.0%

36.4% 17.0% 5.7% 13.3% 12.5% 40.0% 19.8%

9.0% 4.9% .8% 2.1% 1.6% 1.3% 19.8%

10 32 23 30 41 4 140

7.1% 22.9% 16.4% 21.4% 29.3% 2.9% 100.0%

6.6% 18.2% 26.4% 30.6% 51.3% 20.0% 22.9%

1.6% 5.2% 3.8% 4.9% 6.7% .7% 22.9%

151 176 87 98 80 20 612

24.7% 28.8% 14.2% 16.0% 13.1% 3.3% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

24.7% 28.8% 14.2% 16.0% 13.1% 3.3% 100.0%

Count

% within precinct

% within income

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within income

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within income

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within income

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within income

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within income

% of Total

Carver

Clark

Tonsler

Venable

Walker

precinct

Total

1.00 lt 25k2.00 25to 50k

3.00 50to 75k

4.00 75to 100k

5.00 100to 200k 6.00 200k

income

Total

Exit Poll Results: Middle Income Rules

Conclusions 1.5

• An interesting note on low-income individuals not coming out to vote

-Most important issue: Indigents should care most about economic inequalities and problems, yet this did not occur in our survey, since these individuals did not come out to vote.

Tonsler Park Precinct Most Important Issue

mip1

Negative Bush

Character

Morals & Values

Terrorism and Homeland security

Iraq/Afghanistan/Draft

Health

Education

Economic inequality & Economic justice

Social security

Economy

Taxes & Budget

Supreme Court & Courts issues

Abortion & Women's rights

Country headed in right/wrong direction

Foreign Affairs Other

Conclusions 2

• Political Parties

-APSA: parties only care about high income individuals

-TP: since the precinct is overwhelmingly poor, parties don’t care about them, right?

precinct * demcash Crosstabulation

51 76 127

40.2% 59.8% 100.0%

20.8% 19.6% 20.1%

8.1% 12.0% 20.1%

62 62 124

50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

25.3% 16.0% 19.6%

9.8% 9.8% 19.6%

38 76 114

33.3% 66.7% 100.0%

15.5% 19.6% 18.0%

6.0% 12.0% 18.0%

35 92 127

27.6% 72.4% 100.0%

14.3% 23.7% 20.1%

5.5% 14.5% 20.1%

59 82 141

41.8% 58.2% 100.0%

24.1% 21.1% 22.3%

9.3% 13.0% 22.3%

245 388 633

38.7% 61.3% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

38.7% 61.3% 100.0%

Count

% within precinct

% within demcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within demcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within demcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within demcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within demcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within demcash

% of Total

Carver

Clark

Tonsler

Venable

Walker

precinct

Total

1.00 yes 2.00 no

demcash

Total

precinct * repcash Crosstabulation

19 109 128

14.8% 85.2% 100.0%

21.3% 20.0% 20.2%

3.0% 17.2% 20.2%

10 113 123

8.1% 91.9% 100.0%

11.2% 20.7% 19.4%

1.6% 17.8% 19.4%

11 103 114

9.6% 90.4% 100.0%

12.4% 18.9% 18.0%

1.7% 16.2% 18.0%

18 109 127

14.2% 85.8% 100.0%

20.2% 20.0% 20.0%

2.8% 17.2% 20.0%

31 111 142

21.8% 78.2% 100.0%

34.8% 20.4% 22.4%

4.9% 17.5% 22.4%

89 545 634

14.0% 86.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

14.0% 86.0% 100.0%

Count

% within precinct

% within repcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within repcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within repcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within repcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within repcash

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within repcash

% of Total

Carver

Clark

Tonsler

Venable

Walker

precinct

Total

1.00 yes 2.00 no

repcash

Total

Do Political Parties Care?

Survey says…no

Conclusions 3

• Voting and Education

-Lower levels of education and the perception of nonvoting

-What did the survey say about this idea?

Percentage of Residents With a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

precinct * educatio Crosstabulation

7 12 41 37 11 10 118

5.9% 10.2% 34.7% 31.4% 9.3% 8.5% 100.0%

35.0% 10.5% 18.2% 23.4% 52.4% 17.2% 19.8%

1.2% 2.0% 6.9% 6.2% 1.8% 1.7% 19.8%

4 18 52 37 0 9 120

3.3% 15.0% 43.3% 30.8% .0% 7.5% 100.0%

20.0% 15.8% 23.1% 23.4% .0% 15.5% 20.1%

.7% 3.0% 8.7% 6.2% .0% 1.5% 20.1%

5 35 31 21 0 7 99

5.1% 35.4% 31.3% 21.2% .0% 7.1% 100.0%

25.0% 30.7% 13.8% 13.3% .0% 12.1% 16.6%

.8% 5.9% 5.2% 3.5% .0% 1.2% 16.6%

4 29 48 27 2 12 122

3.3% 23.8% 39.3% 22.1% 1.6% 9.8% 100.0%

20.0% 25.4% 21.3% 17.1% 9.5% 20.7% 20.5%

.7% 4.9% 8.1% 4.5% .3% 2.0% 20.5%

0 20 53 36 8 20 137

.0% 14.6% 38.7% 26.3% 5.8% 14.6% 100.0%

.0% 17.5% 23.6% 22.8% 38.1% 34.5% 23.0%

.0% 3.4% 8.9% 6.0% 1.3% 3.4% 23.0%

20 114 225 158 21 58 596

3.4% 19.1% 37.8% 26.5% 3.5% 9.7% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

3.4% 19.1% 37.8% 26.5% 3.5% 9.7% 100.0%

Count

% within precinct

% within educatio

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within educatio

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within educatio

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within educatio

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within educatio

% of Total

Count

% within precinct

% within educatio

% of Total

Carver

Clark

Tonsler

Venable

Walker

precinct

Total

1.00 lessthan high

school2.00 High

school

3.00 Associate or

Bachelor 4.00 MA/MBA 5.00 JD 6.00 Ph.D

educatio

Total

Education Data

Education Levels By Precinct

less than high

school

High school

Associate or

Bachelor

MA/MBA JD Ph.D

educatio

0

10

20

30

40

50P

erc

en

tprecinct

Carver

Clark

Tonsler

Venable

Walker

Highest Level of Education

Per cen t

of

Cases

Conclusions 4

• Race and gender and voting

-APSA: Minority men vote in disproportionately lower numbers

-TP: Black males are 28% of the total population. Did they turnout to vote?

female * race Crosstabulation

20 35 0 0 3 1 1 60

33.3% 58.3% .0% .0% 5.0% 1.7% 1.7% 100.0%

55.6% 64.8% .0% .0% 100.0% 33.3% 50.0% 60.0%

20.0% 35.0% .0% .0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.0% 60.0%

16 19 1 1 0 2 1 40

40.0% 47.5% 2.5% 2.5% .0% 5.0% 2.5% 100.0%

44.4% 35.2% 100.0% 100.0% .0% 66.7% 50.0% 40.0%

16.0% 19.0% 1.0% 1.0% .0% 2.0% 1.0% 40.0%

36 54 1 1 3 3 2 100

36.0% 54.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

36.0% 54.0% 1.0% 1.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.0% 100.0%

Count

% within female

% within race

% of Total

Count

% within female

% within race

% of Total

Count

% within female

% within race

% of Total

1.00 female

2.00 male

female

Total

1.00 White/

Caucasian/European

2.00 AfricanAmerican

3.00 Latinoor Hispanic 4.00 Asian

6.00 JustAmerican

7.00 Multiplenon-white

8.00 Multiplewith white

race

Total

Tonsler Park Precinct Race and Gender

Final Conclusions

• APSA article on the right track

-income and voting

-education and voting

-gender/race and voting

-political party apathy

• Social Implications

-Pre-election observations vs exit poll

Questions???