Andrew Martinez, a PhD student from Bridgeport, has started a new website socialecologicalresearch.tumblr.com/ that examines demographic and social issues in the city such as education, neighborhood economics and voter trends. “I have an interest in issues impacting inner-city communities and developed the blog as a resource to the community so that people can be more informed about current issues,” he says. “I grew up in Bridgeport, attended Bridgeport schools, and am currently a resident.”
Martinez tells OIB “I tend to analyze primary resources on various social issues within the Bridgeport community and share the data in a user-friendly fashion the reader can understand. I try to remain impartial on issues as my main focus is to provide information that could be beneficial within the current discourse of Bridgeport social issues. One of my main themes is for individuals to think more critically on issues and for research and evidence to be used within community discussions.”
In recent posts he shares insight into gender population voting, for instance the voter performance disparity between women and men.
Based on recent data for the 2012 election, 36,246 people voted in Bridgeport during this election. The majority were female voters (60.6%) and 39.4% were male voters. Thus, the bulk of voters in Bridgeport are women and it is likely political campaigns may benefit by attending to the specific concerns of women voters. Not surprisingly, Democrats constituted the majority of voters (68.6%), followed by Unaffiliated (24.3%) and Republican voters (6.7%). These data can also be analyzed for specific voting districts, which is likely to shed light on how these patterns may vary across different neighborhoods.
He also examined the average age of voters from Bridgeport political parties and those unaffiliated, associated with the chart at the top of this post.
I have recently been examining Bridgeport election data for my own research purposes, but thought I would share some interesting findings. The following graph displays the average age of Democrat, Republic, and Unaffiliated individuals (Note: unaffiliated simply means that the voter is not affiliated with a specific party) who voted during the 2012 election.
As displayed in the graph above, the average age of voters across these three categories differed. Republicans have the oldest voters whereas unaffiliated voters are the youngest voters. In fact, the age difference between each group is statistically significant (p < .001) suggesting that these groups actually differ.
I am curious to hear what others have the say about this. Specifically, I am curious to hear what people may have to say about why unaffiliated voters are the youngest group? Do younger voters in Bridgeport feel less inclined to affiliate with a specific party? Are they more likely to vote across party lines? If so, does this mean that the traditional parties will become older and we will see a growing trend of younger voters who prefer not to affiliate with a specific party? These are all plausible, but can probably be best examined longitudinally by examining elections trends of time.
You are speaking my language now, Andrew. It is amazing what insights can be provided when related in terms of quantification. The stories that are told do not lie. From what I am told the current PTB in Bridgeport have historically shunned quantification, as it sheds too much light on the gross disparities that are present in City government at this time. The only choice they have is to make stats go away, or spin yarns that are fairy-tale quality. Keep the numbers coming! You have my attention.
Sally, thanks for the good feedback. Yes, quantification is important, but equally important is how the quantification takes place, the validity of the process and the methodology that is used. So just keep that in mind because stats and figures can always be distorted. Thanks for your input and I encourage you to get a Tumblr account and follow my page.
One thing the data does not show is the breakdown by race and sex. Nationwide numbers have shown the most loyal voter in democratic election in cities the size of Bridgeport or larger are black females and I’m sure the numbers would be the same here.
Ron, good point. I did not break the data down by gender. However the majority of voters are female and this tends to be consistent across all parties (with perhaps a narrower margin for Republicans). Also, I have looked at variation across voting districts and there is some variability in the ratio of women to female voters as well which is interesting. Regarding the African American voting community, this is also an interesting point you make, especially during the more recent presidential elections. Unfortunately, the voting data does not provide race/ethnicity information. However I did map the voting data and what is interesting is voting tends to be similar in African and Latino neighborhoods. However this is just crude examination, but may be something I can look into more closely. Please follow my Tumblr account and post your thoughts and feedback on my site.
Excellent, Andrew. Keep up the good work. Bridgeport is underexamined by people who actually live there rather than by people who make assumptions based on national models.
Since this is a political webzine, I offer the following observation: Don’t overlay a presidential election map from Bridgeport onto a mayoral election map.
They do not always work out the same.
In New Haven, they do. In Hartford, they do. In Bridgeport, they do not.
The lack of interest by the national Republican Party in the interests of urban voters–let alone the northeast United States–has masked results in Bridgeport to make it seem as Democratic as the registration in both kinds of elections.
Of course, the registration is tilted to the Democratic Party, tilted heavily, but there is a substantive SOMETHING ELSE. Call ’em Republican, call ’em anti-Bpt-Dems–they are there.
They don’t always pop out of the stats.
And no, I can’t tell you why. I don’t know. My only guess is Jasper. That shouldn’t matter since he’s been dead since 1962; so are his voters; and so are most of the children of the people who were his voters.
Anyone who wants to throw hand grenades at my theory is welcome. I honestly don’t know and would enjoy hearing counter-opinions.
Jim, interesting point regarding “something else.” This can be a sub-portion of Democrats, which like you say, do not show up in the numbers because they are still within the Democrat domain. What I find to be noteworthy is the substantial percent of individuals who are unaffiliated (about 25% of the 2012 voters) and the fact these individuals are younger. I am curious if the fact these individuals are younger suggests younger voters are part of this thing called “something else.” For example, do they vote Democrat always, are they a swing vote? It is still somewhat unclear and warrants further analysis. However, I think there are ways to piece this together, but that’s a whole other topic.
Jim Callahan, no “hand grenades,” but you nailed it here when you said, “The lack of interest by the national Republican Party in the interests of urban voters–let alone the northeast United States–has masked results in Bridgeport to make it seem as Democratic as the registration in both kinds of elections.”
“Of course, the registration is tilted to the Democratic Party, tilted heavily, but there is a substantive SOMETHING ELSE. Call ’em Republican, call ’em anti-Bpt-Dems–they are there.”
“They don’t always pop out of the stats.” Jim I think what you said is more important for local Republicans than for Andrew but I’m sure he could work with it.
Excellent. Well done website that makes fascinating reading and viewing. Two thumbs up!
“… substantive SOMETHING ELSE.” One thing I have long wondered about is how many Democrats serving in city political roles are actually philosophically Republicans who have read the writing on the wall (the percentages) and figured out the only way they could get into a position of power, for whatever that would be worth, was to thoroughly masquerade as a Democrat.
indices, thanks! Please follow my page on Tumblr.
indices, using that same logic you can also imagine the number of Democrats masquerading as Republicans for positions of power, i.e. commissions and other positions that have party limits.
*** Democratic Party needs to be “reborn” again just like the Republican Party. Maybe a “political injection” of back to basics independence is needed for both parties to get voters interested again in local issues first, then national issues later. Got to worry about here first then there tomorrow, no? *** THE NUMBERS AT CITY HALL THIS EVENING SAID IT ALL. ***
Andmar:
When you register to vote in Connecticut, IF YOU DO NOT say you want to register with a political party, officials mark you down as “unaffiliated.”
Hence many young people–of all ethnic groups–when they first register to vote are registered as unaffiliated.
Several reasons: they think Republicans and Democrats alike are sleazy, or they don’t know what they want to be, or they assume the official registering them telepathically knows what party they want to join (OK, that last is being a little sarcastic).
Plus, no politician in their right mind registers someone to vote–willingly–unless they are sure they are on their side. (Please ignore all that League of Women Voters prattle ‘increasing participation in the process’ when talking to practical politicians.) If you don’t know, slap an unaffiliated label on the person. That way the person is at least disqualified in a primary.
In Bridgeport–in both the Democratic and Republican parties–when they go fishing for registration for a primary, they typically look to flip unaffiliated voters into their ranks when they NEED their votes.
This usually scoops up the younger voters who were unaffiliated.
Older unaffiliated voters who have been that way for 10 years or more, in my observation, really do not want to be a Republican or Democrat. The older they are, the more set they are.
These, of course, are generalizations on my observations.
Here’s the pickle for a researcher (and the newspaper reporter).
You would figure if you quantify things out long enough mathematically, you would have a pretty set group of predictions.
This collides with Callahan The Grumpy. I am an empiricist. I (a) hate the idea of algorithms being used to predict human behavior, and (b) don’t see it working all the time anyway.
This doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy reading more information!