InquilineKea
Simfish
Rookie
Posts: 49
Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -5.22
|
 |
« on: November 08, 2010, 09:47:06 PM » |
|
|
« edited: November 08, 2010, 09:58:45 PM by Simfish »
|
So as we all know, the remote extreme north in the US is quite conservative and Republican-supporting. (by "remote" I mean Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota). Although Vermont/Maine/New Hampshire could fit in there as well, their climates are not as extreme as those of the aforementioned regions, and their population densities are higher (plus they're all close to major population centers). The northern US (minus Alaska) is still mild enough for farming/ranching of some sort. The far north of Canada/Scandinavia, though, however, is probably way too cold for farming (or anything other than resource extraction). Ranching/farming interests, in particular, are particularly supportive of Republicans.
What I find interesting is this: The Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories consistently support liberals. Also, northern Manitoba/Ontario/BC/Saskatchewan all seem to go New Democrat even when the rest of the country goes Conservative. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canada_Fed_election_2006_Ridings.svg). In Sweden, the Northern parts are also the most liberal. The same goes for the United Kingdom (although this is probably since the conservatives are least receptive to increased Scottish autonomy, and so UK's case probably doesn't fit in this analysis, especially since Scotland isn't much colder than England). I also looked at Finland and Japan, where statistics are somewhat more ambiguous (Northern Finland is dominated by a minority group, so they would be expected to be more liberal), and Japan doesn't seem to have any trends.
So why is that the case? I know that a lot of anti-Democratic sentiment in the northwestern US is due to the environmental policies of the Democratic Party (even though people there tend to be quite libertarian on social issues). Environmental issues tend to impact votes the most in areas where there are still significant areas of government ownership/wilderness (which is frequently the case in the far north), and labor issues also tend to be prominent as extraction industries also tend to be the most dangerous ones. But maybe there isn't as much "liberal/conservative" dichotomy with respect to environmental issues in other countries? I would presume that a significant amount of the employment in northern territories has to do with resource extraction, as it is one of the only "profitable" ways to live in the extreme remote North.
It's possible that these areas have lots of recluses who would want to "escape civilization" and live "with nature" (who would probably be more liberal [or libertarian]). But most of these northern countries have population densities so low that people can "live with nature" even in their warmer regions. And besides, if you wanted to "live with nature", you probably wouldn't want to live in the tundra. You'd probably want to live in the boreal forests.
Speaking of recluses, are there any places that have especially high densities of them? I would think that Montana would be popular, but only because I know of the Unabomber. And then there's Alaska (with Timothy Treadwill).
|
