Last year I made a post about majority-minority states. These are states where non-Hispanic Whites are not the majority. Currently only four states, CA, HI, NM, and TX, plus DC are considered majority-minority. However, the population of certain minority groups, mainly Hispanics and Asians, is growing rapidly. I made some predictions about when other states would become majority-minority states, which showed that by 2041, non-Hispanic Whites will be a minority in the US. These predictions used data from 2005-2008, so with the recent Census data, I updated the data with 2009-2010 figures.
What the 2010 Census revealed was that previous population estimates greatly underestimated the size of the Hispanic population. The predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward in all but 10 states. Only in three states, AZ, ME, and, MT, did the estimated minority population decline as a result of the new data. On average, the predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward ten years.
Next 10 majority-minority states:
Nevada - 2015
Maryland - 2017
Florida - 2020
Georgia - 2021
Arizona - 2024
New Jersey - 2024
Mississippi - 2029
Louisiana* - 2030
Delaware - 2033
New York - 2034
*The Louisiana estimate leaves out 2005 as there was massive, but temporary, decline in the Black population that skews the data.
The new data moves forward the date for when non-Hispanic Whites become an minority in the US from 2041 to 2034. Previous data showed only 12 majority-states by 2041, but new data shows 14 by just 2034 and 20 by 2041.
Only DC is showing a reversal as the non-Hispanic White population is increasing and could become the majority by 2026. Previous data showed Hawaii reversing, but the 2010 Census data disputes this, showing the non-Hispanic White population declining as a proportion.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query majority minority. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query majority minority. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Majority-Minority
Similar to my interest in population decline, another demographic trend that fascinates me is the growing diversity of the US. So far four states (CA, HI, NM, and TX) and DC are what are called "majority-minority" states, wherein non-Hispanic whites make up less than 50% of the population. I keep hearing that more states will soon join them, but I never hear of estimates of how soon that could possibly be. So armed with Census population data from 2005 to 2008, I made rough estimates of which states will be next.
What I found somewhat surprised me. Although my estimates say that non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority in the whole US by 2041, only eight more states will be considered majority-minority states by that time. So how could it happen that non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority across the country, but still be majority in 38 states?
You may have noticed that the two most populous states, California and Texas, are already majority-minority. By 2041, less than a third of their populations will be white. Many of the other 10 are either already very large or very quickly growing, while many of the states that will retain a white majority are small or have slow or negative growth.
Majority-Minority States by 2041:
Nevada - 2016
Arizona - 2020
Georgia - 2021
Maryland - 2022
Florida - 2024
Mississippi - 2026
New Jersey - 2030
New York - 2038
Only one state, Hawaii, and DC are going against the trend. Hawaii currently has the lowest proportion of whites in the US at less than a quarter of the population. However, all of the reversal trend is related to a massive jump in the white population between 2005 and 2006, after which there are no farther increases. DC, on the other hand, is becoming whiter, and at a very rapid pace. The white population gains one percentage point every year. By 2025, DC should have a white majority.
Fastest changing states (percentage points annually):
Nevada - 0.9
Wyoming - 0.7
Arizona - 0.7
Utah - 0.6
Idaho - 0.6
Slowest changing states (percentage points annually):
South Carolina - 0.2
Rhode Island - 0.2
Michigan - 0.2
Ohio - 0.3
Minnesota - 0.3
For comparison, the US is changing at a rate of 0.5 percentage points annually. So as of 2008, 65.4% of Americans were white, but in 2009, 64.9% should have been white.
What I found somewhat surprised me. Although my estimates say that non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority in the whole US by 2041, only eight more states will be considered majority-minority states by that time. So how could it happen that non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority across the country, but still be majority in 38 states?
You may have noticed that the two most populous states, California and Texas, are already majority-minority. By 2041, less than a third of their populations will be white. Many of the other 10 are either already very large or very quickly growing, while many of the states that will retain a white majority are small or have slow or negative growth.
Majority-Minority States by 2041:
Nevada - 2016
Arizona - 2020
Georgia - 2021
Maryland - 2022
Florida - 2024
Mississippi - 2026
New Jersey - 2030
New York - 2038
Only one state, Hawaii, and DC are going against the trend. Hawaii currently has the lowest proportion of whites in the US at less than a quarter of the population. However, all of the reversal trend is related to a massive jump in the white population between 2005 and 2006, after which there are no farther increases. DC, on the other hand, is becoming whiter, and at a very rapid pace. The white population gains one percentage point every year. By 2025, DC should have a white majority.
Fastest changing states (percentage points annually):
Nevada - 0.9
Wyoming - 0.7
Arizona - 0.7
Utah - 0.6
Idaho - 0.6
Slowest changing states (percentage points annually):
South Carolina - 0.2
Rhode Island - 0.2
Michigan - 0.2
Ohio - 0.3
Minnesota - 0.3
For comparison, the US is changing at a rate of 0.5 percentage points annually. So as of 2008, 65.4% of Americans were white, but in 2009, 64.9% should have been white.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Majority-Minority 2011
It's been awhile since I've looked at figures for the majority-minority states. In my last post on the subject, new data from the 2010 census revealed that minority populations had been under counted, and that the estimated year for when most states would become majority-minority states moved forward considerably. Well, I finally got around to including 2011 in my estimates. Not much has changed from 2010, the next ten states likely to become majority-minority states, remain the same, although the years change a little.
Nevada - 2014
Maryland - 2017
Georgia - 2019
Florida - 2022
New Jersey - 2025
Arizona - 2025
New York - 2029
Louisiana - 2030 (est. excludes 2005)
Mississippi - 2030
Delaware - 2031
Only three states, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, showed a proportional increase in the white population between 2010 and 2011, but in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, it wasn't large enough to reverse the trend, and in Hawaii, the white population is already so small, there is no significant trend. DC is the only region that clearly shows a reversal as the city becomes more gentrified. According to current trends, DC will be majority white by 2029. However, I'm skeptical this trend will continue as the pace of change decreased greatly between 2010 and 2011.
Nevada - 2014
Maryland - 2017
Georgia - 2019
Florida - 2022
New Jersey - 2025
Arizona - 2025
New York - 2029
Louisiana - 2030 (est. excludes 2005)
Mississippi - 2030
Delaware - 2031
Only three states, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, showed a proportional increase in the white population between 2010 and 2011, but in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, it wasn't large enough to reverse the trend, and in Hawaii, the white population is already so small, there is no significant trend. DC is the only region that clearly shows a reversal as the city becomes more gentrified. According to current trends, DC will be majority white by 2029. However, I'm skeptical this trend will continue as the pace of change decreased greatly between 2010 and 2011.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sweden Gets an 8th Party
Val.se Swedish Election results in Swedish
World Elections Analysis of the election in English
Swedish elections were last week. I waited a bit to post about it until official results were in. Given my interest in the nation, I seem almost required to post about it. During the elections in Germany, I made a pretty detailed post about all the parties in Germany, however, I can't really do the same for Sweden as despite my interest, I'm not terribly well aware of the political situation and the divisions between the parties. The 4 right-wing parties, known collectively as the Alliance all seem basically the same to me.
The Social Democrats managed to stay the largest party, but just barely, winning only 30.66% of the vote compared to the Moderates 30.06%. While they are the largest party, this is actually their worst result since 1914. It is also the best result by the Moderates since 1914. The World Elections site points to the fact that because the Moderates have largely embraced the welfare state, they have undermined the Social Democrats by giving them less to attack them on. To me, it's kind of sad to see the Social Democrats in such a weakened position as I really came to admire what they achieved while I was studying there.
Up until recently, it really seemed like the Social Democrats were going to win the election. They had largely lost the 2006 election due to an unpopular leader, however, once he resigned they retook a strong lead in the polls. As the election neared, support began to drop off as the new leader, Sahlin, has been rather ineffectual and conditions under the Moderates has been pretty good. Sweden is one of the few western nations with a solidly growing economy.
Prior to the 2010, it seemed likely that one of the minor parties would drop below the 4% threshold needed to get a seat in the Riksdag. As I mentioned before, the 4 parties that make up the Alliance have little to distinguish themselves from each other, so the more dominant Moderates were starting to take votes from the three smaller parties. Also, the Sweden Democrats, a far-right party not yet in the Riksdag, were gaining in the polls, reducing available votes to the established seven parties. Polling prior to the election showed the Christian Democrats dropping below 4% on a few occasion, but they managed to hold on to 5.6% of the vote in the end, even with the Sweden Democrats entering the Riksdag with 5.7%.
Even though there are now 8 parties in the Riksdag, it seems that the there is some concentration of votes happening. Of the the 8 parties, only 3 increased their share of the vote. The People's Party and the Left gained votes, but due to high turnout, they lost in relative terms. Of the 4 right-wing parties, only the Moderates increased their number of seats. Similarly, of the 3 left-wing parties, only the Greens gained seats (as predicted in my post about green parties, they are now the 3rd largest party).
The big controversy this election was the Sweden Democrats entering the Riksdag on a rather xenophobic platform. None of the other parties are willing to work with them, which creates kind of a problem in that the Alliance is two seats short of a majority. However, unlike most countries that require a government to have a majority, governments in Sweden can have a minority as long as a majority doesn't vote against them. Given that the alternatives are to have the Sweden Democrats be in government, have the Greens leave the Social Democrats coalition, or hold new elections, it seems unlikely that the Social Democrats will block the continuation of the Alliance government. Minority governments are actually the norm in Sweden. The Social Democrats rarely received more than 50% of the vote, but were able to form governments on their own as the Communists, now the Left, would not vote against them.
Here's a map of the largest party in Sweden by län back in 2006. Red is Social Democrat and Blue is Moderate.
Compare to 2010.
Even though the Social Democrats only have a 0.6% edge over the Moderates, the Moderates' votes are concentrated in the population centers of Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö, and Uppsala. The Social Democrats managed to get 51.86% in the northernmost, but sparsely populated, län of Norrbottens.
Another map of interest is how the coalitions as a whole did in each län. This back in 2006, Red is the Red-Green coalition led by the Social Democrats, blue is the Alliance led by the Moderates.
Even though the Moderates were only the largest party in Stockholm, together with the rest of the Alliance, they managed to get over 50% in much of southern Sweden.
The 2010 map is a bit different. Gray is where neither Red-Green nor Alliance hold majority due to the presence of the Sweden Democrats.
As the the Red-Green and Alliance received similar shares of the vote in the gray areas, the map basically show what by Swedish standards are swing län.
In case people are wondering, the Pirate Party increased their share of the vote, but only from 0.63% to 0.65%. In 2006, the district where the Pirates received the largest share of the vote (3.63%) was the district where my dormitory was located when I attended Uppsala. This year, the Pirates best district was one near Lund University that gave them 4.72%.
World Elections Analysis of the election in English
Swedish elections were last week. I waited a bit to post about it until official results were in. Given my interest in the nation, I seem almost required to post about it. During the elections in Germany, I made a pretty detailed post about all the parties in Germany, however, I can't really do the same for Sweden as despite my interest, I'm not terribly well aware of the political situation and the divisions between the parties. The 4 right-wing parties, known collectively as the Alliance all seem basically the same to me.
The Social Democrats managed to stay the largest party, but just barely, winning only 30.66% of the vote compared to the Moderates 30.06%. While they are the largest party, this is actually their worst result since 1914. It is also the best result by the Moderates since 1914. The World Elections site points to the fact that because the Moderates have largely embraced the welfare state, they have undermined the Social Democrats by giving them less to attack them on. To me, it's kind of sad to see the Social Democrats in such a weakened position as I really came to admire what they achieved while I was studying there.
Up until recently, it really seemed like the Social Democrats were going to win the election. They had largely lost the 2006 election due to an unpopular leader, however, once he resigned they retook a strong lead in the polls. As the election neared, support began to drop off as the new leader, Sahlin, has been rather ineffectual and conditions under the Moderates has been pretty good. Sweden is one of the few western nations with a solidly growing economy.
Prior to the 2010, it seemed likely that one of the minor parties would drop below the 4% threshold needed to get a seat in the Riksdag. As I mentioned before, the 4 parties that make up the Alliance have little to distinguish themselves from each other, so the more dominant Moderates were starting to take votes from the three smaller parties. Also, the Sweden Democrats, a far-right party not yet in the Riksdag, were gaining in the polls, reducing available votes to the established seven parties. Polling prior to the election showed the Christian Democrats dropping below 4% on a few occasion, but they managed to hold on to 5.6% of the vote in the end, even with the Sweden Democrats entering the Riksdag with 5.7%.
Even though there are now 8 parties in the Riksdag, it seems that the there is some concentration of votes happening. Of the the 8 parties, only 3 increased their share of the vote. The People's Party and the Left gained votes, but due to high turnout, they lost in relative terms. Of the 4 right-wing parties, only the Moderates increased their number of seats. Similarly, of the 3 left-wing parties, only the Greens gained seats (as predicted in my post about green parties, they are now the 3rd largest party).
The big controversy this election was the Sweden Democrats entering the Riksdag on a rather xenophobic platform. None of the other parties are willing to work with them, which creates kind of a problem in that the Alliance is two seats short of a majority. However, unlike most countries that require a government to have a majority, governments in Sweden can have a minority as long as a majority doesn't vote against them. Given that the alternatives are to have the Sweden Democrats be in government, have the Greens leave the Social Democrats coalition, or hold new elections, it seems unlikely that the Social Democrats will block the continuation of the Alliance government. Minority governments are actually the norm in Sweden. The Social Democrats rarely received more than 50% of the vote, but were able to form governments on their own as the Communists, now the Left, would not vote against them.
Here's a map of the largest party in Sweden by län back in 2006. Red is Social Democrat and Blue is Moderate.
Compare to 2010.
Even though the Social Democrats only have a 0.6% edge over the Moderates, the Moderates' votes are concentrated in the population centers of Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö, and Uppsala. The Social Democrats managed to get 51.86% in the northernmost, but sparsely populated, län of Norrbottens.
Another map of interest is how the coalitions as a whole did in each län. This back in 2006, Red is the Red-Green coalition led by the Social Democrats, blue is the Alliance led by the Moderates.
Even though the Moderates were only the largest party in Stockholm, together with the rest of the Alliance, they managed to get over 50% in much of southern Sweden.
The 2010 map is a bit different. Gray is where neither Red-Green nor Alliance hold majority due to the presence of the Sweden Democrats.
As the the Red-Green and Alliance received similar shares of the vote in the gray areas, the map basically show what by Swedish standards are swing län.
In case people are wondering, the Pirate Party increased their share of the vote, but only from 0.63% to 0.65%. In 2006, the district where the Pirates received the largest share of the vote (3.63%) was the district where my dormitory was located when I attended Uppsala. This year, the Pirates best district was one near Lund University that gave them 4.72%.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Reality Deficit
This is a subject that I've meaning to write about for a while but haven't because I want to open up a kind of dialogue, but I realize that vast majority of my friends and relations are in agreement with me, so I won't get the kind of critical response I want. However, I was prompted to write after reading an article that appeared in the American Conservative by a man, Bruce Bartlett who once worked for the Reagan and GHW Bush presidencies.
While he covers a lot of his criticisms of the current Republican Party, he touches on one subject in particular that interests me, that Republicans have seemed to escape to their own reality. Bartlett talks about how he wrote an article for the New York Times only to find out later while attending a reception for right-wing organizations "not one person had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything." From Bartlett's perspective, the NYT might be bias, but it was still an important newspaper.
This is basically what I've started noticing, that Republicans have started to flat out reject anything that even approaches a differing opinion. Of course, conservatives and liberals tend to group together, forming their own echo chambers, which is why I have been reluctant to criticize Republicans, because I was sure Democrats did the same thing. What got my attention though was when I was visited Quora, a website where people ask questions for others to answer. Someone asked, "Does Quora aspire to displace Daily Kos in the USA as the fever swamp for liberals and progressives?" Up until then, I had found the Quora community surprisingly open-minded and cordial, I hadn't considered that it might have a bias. Of course, websites are going to attract a certain demographic, but still Quora was open to everyone. Anyone could go the website and pose any question they wanted or offer any answer they wanted.
That's when I realized a pattern. Back when it first started, Wikipedia, a site open to anyone to edit, was criticized for having a liberal bias and being unamerican. In response, Conservapedia was created. Conservapedia didn't attempt to balance out what it saw as bias, it specifically sought out to present a single viewpoint and banish anything that opposed that viewpoint. It stuck me then that these conservatives weren't upset because their thoughts and ideas were being repressed, but that Quora and Wikipedia, by virtue of being open to everyone, where presenting thoughts and ideas that they opposed and wanted nothing to do with them.
I had also noticed how websites that specifically cater to conservatives appear to be the only ones that attract a large conservative community. Websites that are open to everyone and don't overtly express any political opinion tend to have a fairly liberal active user base, but there are still a few conservatives. Conservative websites however don't appear to have any kind of liberal minority. It makes me wonder if general websites seem to express a bias not because they attract liberals but because conservatives have sequestered themselves to their own websites.
This could be considered an internet phenomenon, but the election showed how much of an effect this is having on American politics. Looking at another media source, there is the constant attacks on liberal "mainstream media". While a case could be made for this, it is still a questionable position. For one, Fox News, despite being the most popular cable news source, somehow escapes the label of "mainstream media". Also, Fox News doesn't attempt to a balanced news source, if anything, it is the media outlet that is most overt about its partisanship.
To quote Bartlett again, "[Republicans] were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular." There was a pretty substantial Republican attack on pollsters this year for under-representing Republicans and doing other things to boost Obama's numbers, culminating in an attack on Nate Silver, a guy who might be a Democratic, but is first and foremost a statistician. In the end though, Obama and Democratic senators outperformed the polls and Nate Silver managed to predict every state correctly.
This wasn't just an issue for pundits and news consumers, the denial of the changing demographics of the US had a real impact on the outcome of the election. Romney's strategy for election assumed that 74% of voters would be white, the same as in 2008. This was an absurd assumption as the percentage of white voters has declined every election since 1992. The strategy also assumed that Obama wouldn't improve on the 80% of minority votes he received in 2008, but he did.
There is one last fact that makes me comfortable in saying that Republicans are unique in their level close-mindedness, I don't see this kind of behavior from conservatives from other countries. I mentioned how general websites tend to show a liberal bias, but this is starkest only when considering US politics. When politics for another country comes up, the debate is much less one-sided. In both the criticism of Quora and Wikipedia, the US was mentioned. For example, one of the criticisms of Wikipedia was that it adopted the more internationally-recognized British English as the standard for the English pages. The fact that the question on Quora that got me started on this analysis specifically mentioned the US struck me as odd given that a huge number of Quora's users live in India. Apparently Republicans aren't just escaping from other viewpoints, but from the rest of the world.
While he covers a lot of his criticisms of the current Republican Party, he touches on one subject in particular that interests me, that Republicans have seemed to escape to their own reality. Bartlett talks about how he wrote an article for the New York Times only to find out later while attending a reception for right-wing organizations "not one person had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything." From Bartlett's perspective, the NYT might be bias, but it was still an important newspaper.
This is basically what I've started noticing, that Republicans have started to flat out reject anything that even approaches a differing opinion. Of course, conservatives and liberals tend to group together, forming their own echo chambers, which is why I have been reluctant to criticize Republicans, because I was sure Democrats did the same thing. What got my attention though was when I was visited Quora, a website where people ask questions for others to answer. Someone asked, "Does Quora aspire to displace Daily Kos in the USA as the fever swamp for liberals and progressives?" Up until then, I had found the Quora community surprisingly open-minded and cordial, I hadn't considered that it might have a bias. Of course, websites are going to attract a certain demographic, but still Quora was open to everyone. Anyone could go the website and pose any question they wanted or offer any answer they wanted.
That's when I realized a pattern. Back when it first started, Wikipedia, a site open to anyone to edit, was criticized for having a liberal bias and being unamerican. In response, Conservapedia was created. Conservapedia didn't attempt to balance out what it saw as bias, it specifically sought out to present a single viewpoint and banish anything that opposed that viewpoint. It stuck me then that these conservatives weren't upset because their thoughts and ideas were being repressed, but that Quora and Wikipedia, by virtue of being open to everyone, where presenting thoughts and ideas that they opposed and wanted nothing to do with them.
I had also noticed how websites that specifically cater to conservatives appear to be the only ones that attract a large conservative community. Websites that are open to everyone and don't overtly express any political opinion tend to have a fairly liberal active user base, but there are still a few conservatives. Conservative websites however don't appear to have any kind of liberal minority. It makes me wonder if general websites seem to express a bias not because they attract liberals but because conservatives have sequestered themselves to their own websites.
This could be considered an internet phenomenon, but the election showed how much of an effect this is having on American politics. Looking at another media source, there is the constant attacks on liberal "mainstream media". While a case could be made for this, it is still a questionable position. For one, Fox News, despite being the most popular cable news source, somehow escapes the label of "mainstream media". Also, Fox News doesn't attempt to a balanced news source, if anything, it is the media outlet that is most overt about its partisanship.
To quote Bartlett again, "[Republicans] were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular." There was a pretty substantial Republican attack on pollsters this year for under-representing Republicans and doing other things to boost Obama's numbers, culminating in an attack on Nate Silver, a guy who might be a Democratic, but is first and foremost a statistician. In the end though, Obama and Democratic senators outperformed the polls and Nate Silver managed to predict every state correctly.
This wasn't just an issue for pundits and news consumers, the denial of the changing demographics of the US had a real impact on the outcome of the election. Romney's strategy for election assumed that 74% of voters would be white, the same as in 2008. This was an absurd assumption as the percentage of white voters has declined every election since 1992. The strategy also assumed that Obama wouldn't improve on the 80% of minority votes he received in 2008, but he did.
There is one last fact that makes me comfortable in saying that Republicans are unique in their level close-mindedness, I don't see this kind of behavior from conservatives from other countries. I mentioned how general websites tend to show a liberal bias, but this is starkest only when considering US politics. When politics for another country comes up, the debate is much less one-sided. In both the criticism of Quora and Wikipedia, the US was mentioned. For example, one of the criticisms of Wikipedia was that it adopted the more internationally-recognized British English as the standard for the English pages. The fact that the question on Quora that got me started on this analysis specifically mentioned the US struck me as odd given that a huge number of Quora's users live in India. Apparently Republicans aren't just escaping from other viewpoints, but from the rest of the world.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Nationalist Ireland
World Elections
World Elections is one of my favorite websites. The writer does great analysis of recent elections and providing interesting information. The post I'm linking to is the results and his analysis of the recent UK election.
I had made an earlier post about the prospects of a hung parliament and the inconsistencies of "first-past-the-post" elections. This election certainly exhibited a number of the problems with FPTP. Despite gaining more votes, the LibDems lost five seats, while Plaid Cymru lost votes but gained a seat. However, an element I found intriguing that "World Elections" pointed out was that this was the first year that the majority of Northern Ireland's representatives weren't Unionist.
Politics in Northern Ireland are much different than in the rest of the UK, where parties are defined by their stance on Northern Ireland's status, so instead of a battle between Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal-Democrats, it's between Unionists and Nationalists. Northern Ireland has long been dominated by Unionists, but the last few years have garnered victories for Nationalists. Over the last few Westminster elections, there has been a steady trend:
2010 - 9 Unionists, 8 Nationalists, 1 Other (18 Seats)
2005 - 10 Unionists, 8 Nationalists (18 Seats)
2001 - 11 Unionists, 7 Nationalists (18 Seats)
1997 - 13 Unionists, 5 Nationalists (18 Seats)
1992 - 13 Unionists, 4 Nationalists (17 Seats)
1987 - 13 Unionists, 4 Nationalists (17 Seats)
1983 - 15 Unionists, 2 Nationalists (17 Seats)
For comparison, here is how people actually voted.
2010 - 44% Unionists, 42% Nationalists, 14% Other (18 Seats)
2005 - 51% Unionists, 42% Nationalists, 7% Other
2001 - 51% Unionists, 43% Nationalists, 6% Other
1997 - 49% Unionists, 40% Nationalists, 11% Other
1992 - 56% Unionists, 34% Nationalists, 10% Other
1987 - 54% Unionists, 35% Nationalists, 11% Other
1983 - 57% Unionists, 33% Nationalists, 10% Other
Despite a steady change in seats, there have only been two major shifts in voting patterns in the last 7 elections. There was a big shift from Unionists to Nationalists in 1997, and a big shift from Unionists to Other (namely, Alliance, a non-sectarian party) in 2010. Until 2001, FPTP had kept the Nationalist minority from gaining proper representation, leading to Unionist domination in politics. In such an environment, it is not all that surprising that many Nationalists turned to violence as they were shut-out of the political process. I find it somewhat fitting that now that the Nationalists have overcome the electoral obstacles placed against them, that Alliance, the main non-sectarian party, gains its first Westminster seat.
World Elections is one of my favorite websites. The writer does great analysis of recent elections and providing interesting information. The post I'm linking to is the results and his analysis of the recent UK election.
I had made an earlier post about the prospects of a hung parliament and the inconsistencies of "first-past-the-post" elections. This election certainly exhibited a number of the problems with FPTP. Despite gaining more votes, the LibDems lost five seats, while Plaid Cymru lost votes but gained a seat. However, an element I found intriguing that "World Elections" pointed out was that this was the first year that the majority of Northern Ireland's representatives weren't Unionist.
Politics in Northern Ireland are much different than in the rest of the UK, where parties are defined by their stance on Northern Ireland's status, so instead of a battle between Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal-Democrats, it's between Unionists and Nationalists. Northern Ireland has long been dominated by Unionists, but the last few years have garnered victories for Nationalists. Over the last few Westminster elections, there has been a steady trend:
2010 - 9 Unionists, 8 Nationalists, 1 Other (18 Seats)
2005 - 10 Unionists, 8 Nationalists (18 Seats)
2001 - 11 Unionists, 7 Nationalists (18 Seats)
1997 - 13 Unionists, 5 Nationalists (18 Seats)
1992 - 13 Unionists, 4 Nationalists (17 Seats)
1987 - 13 Unionists, 4 Nationalists (17 Seats)
1983 - 15 Unionists, 2 Nationalists (17 Seats)
For comparison, here is how people actually voted.
2010 - 44% Unionists, 42% Nationalists, 14% Other (18 Seats)
2005 - 51% Unionists, 42% Nationalists, 7% Other
2001 - 51% Unionists, 43% Nationalists, 6% Other
1997 - 49% Unionists, 40% Nationalists, 11% Other
1992 - 56% Unionists, 34% Nationalists, 10% Other
1987 - 54% Unionists, 35% Nationalists, 11% Other
1983 - 57% Unionists, 33% Nationalists, 10% Other
Despite a steady change in seats, there have only been two major shifts in voting patterns in the last 7 elections. There was a big shift from Unionists to Nationalists in 1997, and a big shift from Unionists to Other (namely, Alliance, a non-sectarian party) in 2010. Until 2001, FPTP had kept the Nationalist minority from gaining proper representation, leading to Unionist domination in politics. In such an environment, it is not all that surprising that many Nationalists turned to violence as they were shut-out of the political process. I find it somewhat fitting that now that the Nationalists have overcome the electoral obstacles placed against them, that Alliance, the main non-sectarian party, gains its first Westminster seat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)