The map below is intended to depict the precincts in the City of Tulsa, which had between 100 and 199 total voters, and which candidate won those districts. The data set represents 34% of the total Republican vote. Together with the data from yesterday, it represents 77% of the total vote - more than enough to win.
Click here to see the map enlarged.This is what I see:
1. This map, along with the map from yesterday, appears to demonstrate the homogeneity of Republican votes across a vast area south of 21st street, west of say, Garnett, and east of the Arkansas River. Rather than lumping the blame or praise, as the case may be, on a mythological concentrated power source, the voters turn out - precinct by precinct in nearly the same manner.
2. The more voters turn out, the greater the likelihood of Bartlett winning the precinct.
3. As to Mayoral appointees. Its a bit disingenuous and possibly outright misleading to intimate that a 10 year old Tulsa World report has any relevance whatsoever in a 2009 mayoral primary.
To propose a conspiracy is rather foolish without first giving consideration of the qualifications held by mayoral appointees, without consideration for a citizen's willingness and/or ability to serve. I definitely want my Mayor to appoint qualified people to these important positions.
I would make the observation that for many middle class and low income families, where both the father and mother work and have children in even one activity, probably wouldn't have the time, or the inclination to serve, especially on a voluntary basis, for anything. I know for me , that between my church responsibilities, work, cub scouts, piano lessons, violin lessons, and blogging, I wouldn't have time.
Many of the people who agree to do these jobs can do them at their regular jobs, in conjunction with their employment. If you work on the floor of a factory, or at a grocery, or a teller at a bank, it's going to be difficult, even if you are asked, to accommodate an afternoon meeting, a conference call, a planning crisis or any number of issues that crop up.
Further to support a theory of a "money belt," it is necessary to exclude, on a wholesale basis, the following legitimate reasons people use to determine who they will vote for (among many other legitimate reasons):
1. Who voters think is the most viable candidate;
2. Which candidate has the best policies;
3. Lesser of two evils.
4. Which candidate in a primary will do better against the opponent in the general election.
5. Status quo.
6. Change.
The money belt theory must also assume that a majority of the citizens in a particular area are in on the conspiracy.
What the money belt theory also does not take into account is how people vote based on the homogeneity of an area. specifically, common attributes citizens in a particular area share.
The commonality of property values, educational levels, whether there are transient residences such as apartments and rental houses in the area. Is there a close range of personal wealth and income that the people in a particular area fall into?
The only pattern a money belt theory contemplates is that large numbers of people, most of which are not acquainted with each other, conspire to control a city.
I would propose that where you have a greater commonality of sociological factors, you will have a greater commonality in voting patterns. You can depend on North Tulsa to vote a certain way, and they nearly always do. People who feel that they have been disenfranchised always vote for the person who promises to shake things up.
This is evident in other areas of town as well. People on the east side of Tulsa can be depended upon to vote a certain way, based upon the commonality they have. In areas where people enjoy a range of the same values, the residents will vote in predictable ways.
Finally, a money belt theory, in order to work, has to completely discount population densities. More people live in the path the "money belt" takes than in any other part of the city.
_________
Thanks again to the University of Oklahoma Center for Spatial Analysis, for their really fine precinct map. I fixed some of the colors the way I like them.
2. The more voters turn out, the greater the likelihood of Bartlett winning the precinct.
3. As to Mayoral appointees. Its a bit disingenuous and possibly outright misleading to intimate that a 10 year old Tulsa World report has any relevance whatsoever in a 2009 mayoral primary.
To propose a conspiracy is rather foolish without first giving consideration of the qualifications held by mayoral appointees, without consideration for a citizen's willingness and/or ability to serve. I definitely want my Mayor to appoint qualified people to these important positions.
I would make the observation that for many middle class and low income families, where both the father and mother work and have children in even one activity, probably wouldn't have the time, or the inclination to serve, especially on a voluntary basis, for anything. I know for me , that between my church responsibilities, work, cub scouts, piano lessons, violin lessons, and blogging, I wouldn't have time.
Many of the people who agree to do these jobs can do them at their regular jobs, in conjunction with their employment. If you work on the floor of a factory, or at a grocery, or a teller at a bank, it's going to be difficult, even if you are asked, to accommodate an afternoon meeting, a conference call, a planning crisis or any number of issues that crop up.
Further to support a theory of a "money belt," it is necessary to exclude, on a wholesale basis, the following legitimate reasons people use to determine who they will vote for (among many other legitimate reasons):
1. Who voters think is the most viable candidate;
2. Which candidate has the best policies;
3. Lesser of two evils.
4. Which candidate in a primary will do better against the opponent in the general election.
5. Status quo.
6. Change.
The money belt theory must also assume that a majority of the citizens in a particular area are in on the conspiracy.
What the money belt theory also does not take into account is how people vote based on the homogeneity of an area. specifically, common attributes citizens in a particular area share.
The commonality of property values, educational levels, whether there are transient residences such as apartments and rental houses in the area. Is there a close range of personal wealth and income that the people in a particular area fall into?
The only pattern a money belt theory contemplates is that large numbers of people, most of which are not acquainted with each other, conspire to control a city.
I would propose that where you have a greater commonality of sociological factors, you will have a greater commonality in voting patterns. You can depend on North Tulsa to vote a certain way, and they nearly always do. People who feel that they have been disenfranchised always vote for the person who promises to shake things up.
This is evident in other areas of town as well. People on the east side of Tulsa can be depended upon to vote a certain way, based upon the commonality they have. In areas where people enjoy a range of the same values, the residents will vote in predictable ways.
Finally, a money belt theory, in order to work, has to completely discount population densities. More people live in the path the "money belt" takes than in any other part of the city.
_________
Thanks again to the University of Oklahoma Center for Spatial Analysis, for their really fine precinct map. I fixed some of the colors the way I like them.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment