Voting patterns in areas that are not communities should not be looked at in the same way as voting patterns in communities.
i.e., constant population change in suburbs make most historical "trend" data meaningless? I agree. 
That's part of it (a big part), yeah. But also, these places (
especially (though not only) the ones built over the past, I don't know, let's say three decades or so) are actually anti-community. You know, they're built in a way that is both insular and individualist (contrasting with the common urban pattern from the mid 19th century onwards, which was open and collective. Or with places before then; insular and collective). Or if there is community, it is not there but elsewhere. So voting patterns are typically much more loose, partisan ties less fixed, the effect of national campaigns all the greater, the impact of security issues
massive (because its easier to be afraid if you are "alone"). Not sure if that makes much sense; I'm ill again, haven't been able to eat for the past three days or so and am on strong painkillers and stuff. I might be a bit out of it.
Anyway. It's also interesting to see how different this suburban reality is from early 20th century suburban idealism. The idea was for places built along open-and-collective lines and for town and country to merge in an aesthetically pleasing way. While the reality of suburbia (especially, but not entirely, in the U.S)...
Poll
