Abstract
Geographic sorting of the electorate along partisan lines has received increased attention by scholars following the publication of Bill Bishop’s and Robert Cushing’s The Big Sort (2008). The evidence presented in this paper stems from an original public opinion survey in two Wisconsin landslide counties. We find that the majority among migrants to these partisan strongholds have shared the partisanship of the respective political majority. Using logistic regression analysis, we show that partisanship as well as specific lifestyle preferences mattered in people’s decisions to migrate into these partisan strongholds. We also find that partisanship is a factor in potential out-migration: residential satisfaction is lower among the respective political minorities, and relevant shares of the political minority say they consider moving away for political reasons. Among the members of the minority who consider leaving the county about one third say they do so because they dislike the politics of the people there. Our findings on the two counties, each a prototypical Democratic and Republican stronghold, lend further support to the Big Sort hypothesis.
About the authors
Torben Lütjen is Assistant Professor at the Heinrich-Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany. In his current research, he analyzes the mechanisms behind the rise of ideological polarization in the US and the decline of ideological competition in Europe. The project is funded with a Schumpeter-Fellowship by the Volkswagen Foundation.
Robert Matschoß is a research associate at the Heinrich-Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany. His research interests include political parties and elections, political communications and transatlantic relations.
Acknowledgments
Research for this paper was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. The authors are deeply indebted to Charles Franklin from Marquette University whose advice on drafting the questionnaire and whose vast experience with polling in the state of Wisconsin was most valuable for the project. We also gratefully acknowledge the help of Stephan Schütze in data analysis.
Appendix 1: Question Wording
Former party identification:
Thinking back to the time when you moved to (Dane County/Waukesha County), which party did you identify with back then? Did you think of yourself as a Republican, Democrat or Independent?
1 Republican
2 Democrat
3 Independent
(DO NOT READ)
4 Other/no preference
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Back then, did you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or to the Democratic Party?
1 Republican
2 Democrat
(DO NOT READ)
3 Neither/just independent (VOL)
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Back then, would you have called yourself a strong (REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT) or a not very strong (REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRAT)?
1 Strong
2 Not very strong
(DO NOT READ)
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Questions about potential out-migration:
“Do you sometimes think about moving away from (Waukesha County/Dane County)?”
1 Yes
2 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Follow-up: “Is this because you dislike the political views of the people in (Dane County/Waukesha County)?”
1 Yes
2 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
“If you had to move to a different county within Wisconsin, which one would you prefer?”
(Pre-coded list of Wisconsin counties and cities)
997 City not assignable
998 Don’t know/undecided
999 Refused
“Which county or city within Wisconsin would you rather avoid moving to?”
(Pre-coded list of Wisconsin counties and cities)
997 City not assignable
998 Don’t know/undecided
999 Refuse
Question about satisfaction:
“Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with living in (Dane County/Waukesha County)? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?”
1 Very satisfied
2 Satisfied
3 Dissatisfied
4 Very dissatisfied
(DO NOT READ)
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Lifestyle preferences (list was scrambled):
“Many people consider multiple places before choosing where they will live. Thinking back to when you moved to your current residence, what sort of factors affected your choice of neighborhood? For each of the following factors, please tell me whether they were ‘very important,’ ‘somewhat important,’ ‘not too important’ or ‘not important at all’ to you.
The (first/next) factor is (INSERT ITEM). How important is this factor to you?”
Low taxes
Safety
Affordable housing
Availability of locally produced or organic food at nearby grocers
Businesses, such as restaurants, coffee places or movie theatres that are within walking distance
A local church near the neighborhood
Not having to use the car all the time
A neighborhood where people share your political views
Good public infrastructure, such as good public transportation, bike paths, and public libraries
All shopping facilities are easily accessible by car
Living in a neighborhood where people display their patriotism, for example by putting up flags on national holidays
Responses for each factor:
1 Very important
2 Somewhat important
3 Not too important
4 Not important at all
(DO NOT READ)
8 Don’t know
9 Refused.
Appendix 2: Additional Regression Tables
Logistic Regression “Very Satisfied” in Dane and Waukesha Counties
| Dane County | Waukesha County | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (standard error in parentheses) | Prob. | Log Odds | Coefficient (standard error in parentheses) | Prob. | Log Odds | ||
| Party id: | |||||||
| Independent | 0.095 (0.345) | 0.782 | 1.100 | –0.081 (0.314) | 0.796 | 0.922 | |
| Democrat | 1.289 (0.234) | 0.000 | 3.631 | –0.996 (0.224) | 0.000 | 0.369 | |
| Sex: male | –0.592 (0.189) | 0.002 | 0.553 | –0.299 (0.204) | 0.142 | 0.741 | |
| Age | |||||||
| 18–29 years | 0.008 (0.396) | 0.984 | 1.008 | –1.306 (0.506) | 0.010 | 0.271 | |
| 30–44 years | –0.172 (0.270) | 0.524 | 0.842 | –0.939 (0.316) | 0.003 | 0.391 | |
| 45–59 years (contrast: 60+ years) | –0.459 (0.239) | 0.055 | 0.632 | –0.854 (0.263) | 0.001 | 0.426 | |
| Education | |||||||
| Elementary/some HS | –0.300 (0.591) | 0.612 | 0.741 | 0.573 (0.598) | 0.338 | 1.773 | |
| Finished HS | –0.778 (0.318) | 0.015 | 0.459 | 0.578 (0.322) | 0.073 | 1.783 | |
| Some college | –0.664 (0.294) | 0.024 | 0.515 | 0.342 (0.322) | 0.289 | 1.407 | |
| College degree (2 or 4 year) | –0.456 (0.231) | 0.049 | 0.634 | 0.195 (0.261) | 0.455 | 1.215 | |
| (contrast: Graduate work+) | |||||||
| Marital status | |||||||
| (contrast: Married) | |||||||
| Widowed | –0.169 (0.353) | 0.631 | 0.844 | –0.025 (0.365) | 0.945 | 0.975 | |
| Divorced/Separated | –0.078 (0.328) | 0.811 | 0.925 | –0.192 (0.312) | 0.539 | 0.826 | |
| Never married | –0.303 (0.279) | 0.278. | 0.739 | –0.188 (0.366) | 0.607 | 0.828 | |
| Race: Non-White | –0.958 (0.364) | 0.009 | 0.384 | –0.314 (0.401) | 0.434 | 0.731 | |
| Religiosity | |||||||
| More than once a week | 0.207 (0.486) | 0.670 | 1.230 | 1.385 (0.555) | 0.013 | 3.995 | |
| Once a weak | 0.154 (0.333) | 0.643 | 1.167 | 0.902 (0.393) | 0.022 | 2.465 | |
| Once or twice a month | –0.368 (0.365) | 0.313 | 0.692 | 0.665 (0.419) | 0.113 | 1.945 | |
| A few times a years | –0.397 (0.336) | 0.237 | 0.672 | 0.307 (0.402) | 0.445 | 1.359 | |
| Seldom (contrast: Never) | –0.277 (0.314) | 0.378 | 0.758 | 0.753 (0.415) | 0.070 | 2.124 | |
| Rel. Confession: | |||||||
| (Contrast: Protestant) | |||||||
| Roman Catholic | –0.140 (0.242) | 0.563 | 0.870 | –0.352 (0.246) | 0.152 | 0.704 | |
| Other Christian | 0.193 (0.301) | 0.523 | 1.212 | –0.232 (0.321) | 0.468 | 0.793 | |
| Non-Christian Religion | –0.061 (0.383) | 0.873 | 0.941 | 0.151 (0.465) | 0.746 | 1.162 | |
| No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic | 0.418 (0.324) | 0.196 | 1.520 | 0.233 (0.423) | 0.582 | 1.262 | |
| Income | |||||||
| <10 k | –0.724 (0.564) | 0.199 | 0.485 | –1.151 (0.740) | 0.120 | 0.316 | |
| 10 to under 20 k | –0.350 (0.515) | 0.497 | 0.705 | –1.473 (0.643) | 0.022 | 0.229 | |
| 20 to under 30 k | –0.614 (0.456) | 0.179 | 0.541 | –1.277 (0.486) | 0.009 | 0.279 | |
| 30 to under 40 k | –0.407 (0.456) | 0.371 | 0.665 | –1.338 (0.462) | 0.004 | 0.262 | |
| 40 to under 50 k | –0.095 (0.418) | 0.821 | 0.910 | –0.942 (0.435) | 0.030 | 0.390 | |
| 50 to under 75 k | –0.467 (0.359) | 0.194 | 0.627 | –1.024 (0.381) | 0.007 | 0.359 | |
| 75 to under 100 k | 0.161 (0.367) | 0.661 | 1.175 | –0.411 (0.380) | 0.279 | 0.663 | |
| 100 to under 150 k | –0.284 (0.369) | 0.442 | 0.753 | –0.540 (0.380) | 0.155 | 0.583 | |
| (contrast: ≥150 k) | |||||||
| Constant | 0.558 (0.490) | 0.255 | 1.747 | 1.711 (0.534) | 0.001 | 5.533 | |
| Nagelkerke’s R2 | 0.222 | 0.180 | |||||
| –2Log-Likelihood | 732.469 | 646.702 | |||||
| χ2 | 110.915 | 77.927 | |||||
| % Correctly Predicted | 66.3 | 70.4 | |||||
| Number of Cases | 609 | 554 | |||||
Dependent Variable based on the question “Generally speaking, how satisfied are you with living in (Dane County/Waukesha County)? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied? Recoded as Very satisfied as “1”; the other three as “0.”
Logistic Regression: Relocation Because of Politics
| Dane County | Waukesha County | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (standard error in parentheses) | Prob. | Log Odds | Coefficient (standard error in parentheses) | Prob. | Log Odds | ||
| Party id | |||||||
| Republican | 2.155 (0.504) | 0.000 | 8.632 | contrast | |||
| Independent | 1.450 (0.627) | 0.021 | 4.262 | –0.611 (0.894) | 0.494 | 0.543 | |
| Democrat | contrast | 1.306 (0.506) | 0.010 | 3.690 | |||
| Sex: male | 0.295 (0.446) | 0.508 | 1.343 | 0.380 (0.490) | 0.438 | 1.462 | |
| Age | |||||||
| 18–29 years | –1.210 (0.913) | 0.185 | 0.298 | 0.049 (0.934) | 0.958 | 1.051 | |
| 30–44 years | –0.570 (0.599) | 0.342 | 0.566 | 0.108 (0.743) | 0.885 | 1.114 | |
| 45–59 years | 0.129 (0.518) | 0.803 | 1.138 | 0.472 (0.589) | 0.423 | 1.603 | |
| (contrast: 60+ years) | |||||||
| Education: | |||||||
| High school or less | 1.144 (0.651) | 0.079 | 3.140 | 0.246 (0.661) | 0.710 | 1.279 | |
| Some college through college degree | –0.422 (0.535) | 0.430 | 0.656 | –1.625 (0.633) | 0.010 | 0.197 | |
| (contrast: Graduate work+) | |||||||
| Marital status: | |||||||
| Not married (incl. separated) | 0.098 (0.552) | 0.859 | 1.103 | 0.404 (0.551) | 0.463 | 1.498 | |
| Race: Non-White | 0.924 (0.584) | 0.114 | 2.519 | –1.318 (1.118) | 0.239 | 0.268 | |
| Income: | |||||||
| ≤50 k | 0.226 (0.690) | 0.743 | 1.254 | 0.585 (0.751) | 0.436 | 1.794 | |
| 50 to under 100 k | –0.663 (0.597) | 0.266 | 0.515 | 0.765 (0.651) | 0.240 | 2.150 | |
| (contrast: 100 k or more) | |||||||
| Constant | –3.023 (0.703) | 0.000 | 0.049 | –2.546 (0.827) | 0.002 | 0.078 | |
| Nagelkerke’s R2 | 0.286 | 0.268 | |||||
| –2Log-Likelihood | 159.227 | 123.033 | |||||
| χ2 | 43.255 | 29.439 | |||||
| % Correctly Predicted | 86.8 | 84.2 | |||||
| Number of Cases | 250 | 171 | |||||
Dependent Variable based on the question “Is this because you dislike the political views of the people in (Dane County/Waukesha County)?
References
Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bickford, Susan. 2000. “Constructing Inequality: City Spaces and the Architecture of Citizenship.” Political Theory 28: 355–376.10.1177/0090591700028003003Search in Google Scholar
Bishop, Bill, and Robert Cushing. 2008. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Search in Google Scholar
Brooks, David. 2001. “One Nation, Slightly Divisible.” The Atlantic Monthly 288 (5): 53–65.Search in Google Scholar
DellaPosta, Daniel J., Yongren Shi, and Michael Macy. 2013. “Why Do Liberals Drink Latte?” Unpublished working paper.Search in Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Samuel J. Abrams. 2012. “‘The Big Sort’ That Wasn’t: A Skeptical Reexamination.” PS Political Science and Politics 45: 203–210.10.1017/S1049096512000017Search in Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511803123Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, Craig. 2010. “Tale of Two Key Counties in Wisconsin Elections: Dane and Waukesha.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 1 2010. Accessed December 16. http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/106443208.html.Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, Craig. 2013. “Wisconsin Partisan Divide Deeper than Most, Polls Show.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 10. Accessed March 29, 2014. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/hedgj-hedgj-hedgj-hedgj-ng9343i-196781801.html.Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, Craig. 2014a. “Democratic, Republican Voters Worlds Apart in Divided Wisconsin.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 3. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/democratic-republican-voters-worlds-apart-in-d.Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, Craig. 2014b. “Far from Creating Fatigue, Partisan Battles Energize Voters.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 10, 2014. Accessed December 16. http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/far-from-creating-fatigue-partisan-battles-energize-voters-b99256305z1-258676961.htmlivided-wisconsin-b99249564z1-255883361.html.Search in Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G. 2012. “More Thoughts on the Big Sort.” The Monkey Cage, March 23. http://themonkeycage.org/2012/03/23/16243/.10.12968/prps.2012.1.134.23aSearch in Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G., and Jason E. Schuknecht. 2004. Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.17820Search in Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G., and Iris S. Hui. 2013. “Seeking Compatible Neighbors: Partisan Composition, Neighborhood Evaluation and Residential Sorting.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 29–September 1.Search in Google Scholar
Hawley, George. 2014. Causes and Consequences of the Geographic Partisan Sort in the United States. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hui, Iris. 2013. “Who is Your Preferred Neighbor? Partisan Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Satisfaction.” American Politics Research 41: 997–1021.10.1177/1532673X13482573Search in Google Scholar
Jagdozinski, Wolfgang, and Steffen Kühnel. 1990. „Zur Schätzung der relativen Effekte von Issueorientierung, Kandidatenpräferenz und langfristiger Parteibindung auf die Wahlabsicht.“ In Wahlen, Parteieliten, politische Einstellungen: Neuere Forschungsergebnisse, edited by Kartl Schmitt, 5–63. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Klinkner, Philip A. 2004. “Red and Blue Scare: The Continuing Diversity of the American Electoral Landscape.” The Forum 2: Iss. 2, Article 2.Search in Google Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., Rose McDermott, and Peter K. Hatemi. 2013. “The Dating Preferences of Liberals and Conservatives.” Political Behavior 35: 519–538.10.1007/s11109-012-9207-zSearch in Google Scholar
Lang, Corey, and Shanna Pearson-Merkowitz. 2013. “Partisan Sorting in the U.S. States, 1972–2012: New Evidence from a Dynamic Analysis.” Paper presented at the 13th Annual State Politics & Policy Conference in Iowa City, May 23–25, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Magleby, David B., Candice J. Nelson, and Mark C. Westlye. 2011. “The Myth of the Independent Voter Revisited.” In Facing the Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in the Analysis of Public Opinion and Political Participation, edited by Paul Sniderman and Benjamin Highton, 238–263. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400840304-012Search in Google Scholar
Massey, Douglas S., Jonathan Rothwell, and Thurston Domina. 2009. “The Changing Bases of Segregation in the United States.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 626: 74–90.10.1177/0002716209343558Search in Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. 2009. “Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?” American Journal of Political Science 53: 666–680.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00393.xSearch in Google Scholar
McDonald, Ian. 2011. “Migration and Sorting in the American Electorate: Evidence From the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.” American Politics Research 39: 512–533.10.1177/1532673X10396303Search in Google Scholar
Moscovi, Serge, and Marisa Zavalloni. 1969. “The Group as a Polarizer of Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 12: 125–135.10.1037/h0027568Search in Google Scholar
Motyl, Matt, Ravi Iyer, Shigehiro Oishi, Sophie Trawalter, and Brian A. Nosek. 2013. “How Ideological Migration Geographically Segregates Groups.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 51: 1–14.10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.010Search in Google Scholar
Nall, Clayton, and Jonathan Mummolo. 2013. “Why Partisans Don’t Sort: How Neighborhood Quality Concerns Limit Americans’ Pursuit of Like-Minded Neighbors.” Paper Draft, October 23, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, Tony, and Stephen Noriega. 2010. “Voter Migration as a Source of Electoral Change in the Rocky Mountain West.” Political Geography 29: 28–39.10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.12.012Search in Google Scholar
Sobel, Michael E. 1981. Lifestyle and Social Structure. Concepts, Definitions, Analyses. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2005. Why Societies Need Dissent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674267657Search in Google Scholar
Sussell, Jesse. 2013. “New Support for the Big Sort Hypothesis: An Assessment of Partisan Geographic Sorting in California, 1992–2010.” PS Political Science & Politics 46: 768–773.10.1017/S1049096513001042Search in Google Scholar
Sussell, Jesse, and James Thomson. 2013. “Yes to the Big Sort: Changing Constituencies as a Driver of Rising Polarization in the US House of Representatives.” For Comment Draft, June 20, 2013.Search in Google Scholar
Tam Cho, Wendy K., James G. Gimpel, and Iris Hui. 2012. “Voter Migration and the Geographic Sorting of the American Electorate.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers: n. pag.10.1080/00045608.2012.720229Search in Google Scholar
Williamson, Thad. 2008. “Sprawl, Spatial Location, and Politics: How Ideological Identification Tracks the Built Environment.” American Politics Research 36: 903–933.10.1177/1532673X08318589Search in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter
