[besson3c]

I know that there most be exceptions, but on the whole it does seem pretty consistently true that large urban populations vote Democrat more so than Republican. Why is that? I'm not just talking about cities like New York, Chicago, or LA either, but also many cities in red states too...

I'm not looking for the political science theory, and I'm definitely not looking for snide or confrontational answers either, but I'm wondering what you think and if you agree with whatever conventional wisdom might say?

I'm wondering if urban folk are a little more likely and willing to accept policy aimed at the collective, whereas rural folk tend to have a more libertarian streak to them? It goes beyond this too, I think... Think of your stereotypical left wing hippy type, you think of some crunchy granola San Francisco city type. Think of a stereotypical right wing dude and you think of some guy shooting tin cans off his back porch in the middle of nowhere.

Again, I'm not looking for a fight here, nor am I trying to insinuate anything here. Keep it clean and non-judgmental please! I expect that many of the answers will be sharing of personal experiences which is cool with me too, there isn't necessarily a "right" answer here. This is just something I want to explore a little...

[besson3c]

Here's another stereotype to kick around: the stereotype that sin and corruption comes from the big cities (I'm speaking in the religious sense here). The so called bible belt here in the States is not exactly a collection of large urban areas. As of late the big religious groups have found their home with the conservative party.

My take on this is that certain political issues have been framed a very particular polarizing way that heavily favors one side. Take abortion, for instance. The pro life crowd seems to have in large part successfully framed the pro choice crowd as heartless bastards that are cavalier about killing babies like it's a form of birth control. I think in actual reality the issue really involves sovereignty over one's body and the government's role in these sorts of decisions vs. protecting the rights of the unborn child, but the former hasn't gained very much traction.

I wonder whether the right/left, urban/rural sorts of patterns that exist in both of these areas are largely sort of framing of issues and stereotypes that have gained traction over the years? I mean, I see nothing inherent in a large population centers other than possibly my weak theory in my original post which would make cities a liberal heartland to the extent in which they are, just like I see nothing inherent in large population centers that makes them full of sin and corruption.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know that there most be exceptions, but on the whole it does seem pretty consistently true that large urban populations vote Democrat more so than Republican. Why is that? I'm not just talking about cities like New York, Chicago, or LA either, but also many cities in red states too...

I'm not looking for the political science theory, and I'm definitely not looking for snide or confrontational answers either, but I'm wondering what you think and if you agree with whatever conventional wisdom might say?

I'm wondering if urban folk are a little more likely and willing to accept policy aimed at the collective, whereas rural folk tend to have a more libertarian streak to them? It goes beyond this too, I think... Think of your stereotypical left wing hippy type, you think of some crunchy granola San Francisco city type. Think of a stereotypical right wing dude and you think of some guy shooting tin cans off his back porch in the middle of nowhere.

Again, I'm not looking for a fight here, nor am I trying to insinuate anything here. Keep it clean and non-judgmental please! I expect that many of the answers will be sharing of personal experiences which is cool with me too, there isn't necessarily a "right" answer here. This is just something I want to explore a little...

I think it would have to do with collective thinking and lack thereof. Those that live further away from their neighbors would have more of a sense of individuality when considering political issues, whereas those living in close proximity would generally be influenced towards group solutions. Take gun control for examples. Conservatives want more gun rights because they are further from help in suburban/rural areas and have to rely on themselves to a much greater extent to stay safe. Someone in a city can scream, cops are nearby, etc etc.

That of course doesn't explain all issues but it might be what tips the scales.

[besson3c]

Yeah, I guess my original theory makes sense. It would probably also hold true for certain taxes such as property taxes, a number of social programs, etc.

Snow: what do you think about the stereotypes that educated folk are more likely to hang out in cities? Do you think there is some truth to this? I think there is, mainly because many big city jobs with big companies require an education. The obvious conclusion is that educated people therefore are more likely to vote Democrat, but I tend to think that by the time you get this far out into trying to establish connections that you are usually just sort of spinning your tires. There are just far too many variables to come up with any useful actionable information once you have to work this hard to establish connections.

Of course, I also realize that people with an education are not necessarily "smarter", so don't jump on my ass conservatives!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yeah, I guess my original theory makes sense. It would probably also hold true for certain taxes such as property taxes, a number of social programs, etc.

Snow: what do you think about the stereotypes that educated folk are more likely to hang out in cities? Do you think there is some truth to this? I think there is, mainly because many big city jobs with big companies require an education. The obvious conclusion is that educated people therefore are more likely to vote Democrat, but I tend to think that by the time you get this far out into trying to establish connections that you are usually just sort of spinning your tires. There are just far too many variables to come up with any useful actionable information once you have to work this hard to establish connections.

Of course, I also realize that people with an education are not necessarily "smarter", so don't jump on my ass conservatives!

Formal education is far more important to those which encounter varying social situations on a daily basis. It represents status, accomplishment, etc --all things that benefit being in close proximity to humans.

If you're out in the middle of nowhere, the only education you need is survival...and I think education says less about your status, accomplishments, etc. Your wife and kids respect you no more for having a master's than for fixing the fleet of f-150's for the ranch.

These theories aren't meant to explain all situations but instead tendencies and trends within our society. People are as smart and as dumb everywhere...Its a question of formal education. Its much easier to take the society as a whole then to analyze specific situations --the latter being impossible and at the same time useless whereas the former is present-day sociology.

I'd also agree that there is more opportunity to utilize formal education in a city...so many people who haven't established a livelihood yet will go where the jobs, money, and status are.

[ctt1wbw]

This is the reason that the Electoral College is in place.

[Chuckit]

My theory: People in rural areas are more likely to somehow make their own livelihood, and thus have a better idea where their money comes from. Working in an ordinary job where you're mostly isolated from parts of the company outside your own position tends to give people weird ideas about money and how it ought to be distributed "fairly." When the work you do is the sole determinant of your cash flow, it's easier to see why you deserve it and other people don't.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

This is the reason that the Electoral College is in place.

Right. The dichotomy between rural and urban values was something written about by Jefferson. This isn't something that CNN came up with before the last election.

[OreoCookie]

I think the most important factor is education rather than countryside vs. urban areas. Urban areas are typically close to more industrial complexes and services. These jobs (on average) require better education than work on the countryside where jobs are more sparse and typically involve more physical labor.

So, on average, urban areas attract people of better education from other parts of the country. Hence, there will be more of a potpourri of people from different parts of the country (and other countries), so you have to learn how to deal with less homogeneous crowds in your neighborhood.

[HenryMelton]

Living in a rural area that has gone from population 620, to 10xx, to 17,xxx (according to the city limits sign) during the years I've lived here, I find little support for the education theory. Perhaps it's going from neighbors you know and trust to a flood of strangers you don't and thus more willingness to give up freedoms for security.

[Dakar V]

Who is willing to give up freedoms for security?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Right. The dichotomy between rural and urban values was something written about by Jefferson. This isn't something that CNN came up with before the last election.

But Jefferson never had CNN's "Magic Wall."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Who is willing to give up freedoms for security?

That's basically the central tenet of liberalism — give the government more control in return for more protection from the government.

[Dakar V]

I guess that depends on what security we're talking about. As far as the War on Terror is concerned I'd say the liberals have been siding more on the decreased security for increased freedom side.

[besson3c]

Chuckit: torture being an exception there, I guess...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's basically the central tenet of liberalism — give the government more control in return for more protection from the government.

Sounds to me like hat shady looking Italian / Russian / Chinese / [insert mob ethnicity of your choice] guy offering me "protection" for a small fee...

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I guess that depends on what security we're talking about. As far as the War on Terror is concerned I'd say the liberals have been siding more on the decreased security for increased freedom side.

That's mainly them being contrary. They opposed pretty much anything Bush did. (Also, Bush was not really a conservative.)

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

(Also, Bush was not really a conservative.)

That really depends on who you compare him with.

In light of the current administration, he looks pretty conservative to me...

-t

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's mainly them being contrary. They opposed pretty much anything Bush did. (Also, Bush was not really a conservative.)

...and the conservatives too? So I should be expecting both sides to flip-flop on this soon, with conservatives calling for an end to phone-tapping and liberals calling it essential?

I think playing the partisan card is a bit of a weak out here.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

My theory: People in rural areas are more likely to somehow make their own livelihood, and thus have a better idea where their money comes from. Working in an ordinary job where you're mostly isolated from parts of the company outside your own position tends to give people weird ideas about money and how it ought to be distributed "fairly." When the work you do is the sole determinant of your cash flow, it's easier to see why you deserve it and other people don't.

Absolutely

-t

[ort888]

How exactly was Bush not a conservative?

[ort888]

It's because people in rural area's are real... honest, hard working folks... while people in cities are immoral godless heathens who are only interested in themselves.

[besson3c]

Guys, let's keep away from the editorials please. I would prefer that this thread not slip into yet another partisan wank fest.

[ort888]

I honestly think that it's mostly just momentum. If your parents are a <insert party here>, and all of your friends are <insert party here> and you've always been <insert party here>, then you will most likely continue down that path and automatically spin any news about <insert party here> into a positive and any news about <the other party here> into a negative and it just continues on and on and on...

Plus, if you are a person with liberal ideals, you are more likely to move to an area with similar ideals then to stay in a small town. And if you have conservative ideals you are more likely to move into an area that more closely falls in line with your leanings.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How exactly was Bush not a conservative?

I'll let William F. Buckley say it for me: "I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress."

Conservatives are supposed to be very skittish about government expansion. Instead, Bush was as bad as any liberal.

[ort888]

So not spending money is what makes you a conservative?

I guess Reagan wasn't a conservative either? I'll just make a note of that in my book here...

[ort888]

As bad as any liberal?

Can't we just say he was a bad president without trying to put a label on his failures?

Is doing anything bad considered "liberal" now? Is "liberal" the new word for bad?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ort888 

As bad as say liberal?

Can't we just say he was a bad president without trying to put a label on his failures?

Is doing anything bad considered "liberal" now? Is "liberal" the new word for bad?

READ THE POST.

That is all.

EDIT: OK, I'll clarify. I didn't say he was a bad president. I said he was very supportive of government expansion.

[Warren Pease]

I'd say that people who live in more densely populated areas are more "liberal" simply because they have to deal with so many people on a day to day basis; they basically are confronted by new ideas all the time and have to adapt to them in order to get along.

Along the lines of what Chuckit said, in urban areas, few people handle every aspect of living-food production, home repairs, entertainment-themselves, and seek these services from other people. Rural people, are often more self-reliant/insular in this respect, and less likely to depend on or interact with others.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's basically the central tenet of liberalism — give the government more control in return for more protection from the government.

Text book definitions don't really help: they simply don't fit politicians (Bush 2 was mentioned already ) Even if you find two people that agree on a common, clear-cut definition (say, Big Mac's favorite flavor, Goldwater conservatism), it's obvious that almost nobody of neither party will fit that definition. Sort of like `liberals are more likely to give up certain freedoms in exchange for government protection.' Just a quick look at the last Republican Congress during Bush 2 (it wasn't just `Bush's fault,' his ideas were put into law by Congress): attacks on privacy (warrantless wiretaps, for instance) or on habeas corpus -- in exchange for (a perceived) advantage in the fight against terror. (Not that the Democrats put up a valiant struggle against these measures.)

Both sides of the aisle are willing to `give up freedom,' but simply for different things. (I put this into quotation marks on purpose.)

Originally Posted by HenryMelton 

Living in a rural area that has gone from population 620, to 10xx, to 17,xxx (according to the city limits sign) during the years I've lived here, I find little support for the education theory. Perhaps it's going from neighbors you know and trust to a flood of strangers you don't and thus more willingness to give up freedoms for security.

Statistically speaking, blue states in the US tend to have a larger income per capita than red states. Keep in mind that statistical average says nothing about one particular location. The additional income is due to more industry (as opposed to farming), and these companies need well-educated employees.

[Chuckit]

It takes a lot more education to screw in cogs on a conveyor belt than to run a farm?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I honestly think that it's mostly just momentum. If your parents are a <insert party here>, and all of your friends are <insert party here> and you've always been <insert party here>, then you will most likely continue down that path and automatically spin any news about <insert party here> into a positive and any news about <the other party here> into a negative and it just continues on and on and on...

Plus, if you are a person with liberal ideals, you are more likely to move to an area with similar ideals then to stay in a small town. And if you have conservative ideals you are more likely to move into an area that more closely falls in line with your leanings.

There is a lot of sociological research to indicate otherwise. Yes on an individual level what you're saying has some truth to it, but on a large scale that simply isn't enough to create the trends that we see.

I could reference some empirical studies and known sociologists if you like.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Statistically speaking, blue states in the US tend to have a larger income per capita than red states. Keep in mind that statistical average says nothing about one particular location. The additional income is due to more industry (as opposed to farming), and these companies need well-educated employees.

Yes, and the culture of academia is HIGHLY slanted to the left, which also impacts formal education and political alignment correlations. You're more likely to stay in school if you share ideals and get along better with the environment created there.

Why are universities and their faculties slanted to the left? Well, my own opinion is that socialism and communism are far better in theory (and on paper)than capitalism will ever be. However, practically speaking...it won't work until the resources we have are far greater than the demands of our society. There is some research that lends to my opinion however it isn't conclusive enough or thorough enough to say with much certainty...so I'll just leave it at my formally educated opinion given my background in sociology. :-)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It takes a lot more education to screw in cogs on a conveyor belt than to run a farm?

It takes more education to design a car or fix bugs in the kernel of an operating system.
(Again, I was talking about averages.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes, and the culture of academia is HIGHLY slanted to the left, which also impacts formal education and political alignment correlations.

Those are some pretty big assumptions here and it sounds as if there was some grand conspiracy. There is none. Have you considered the possibility that being more liberal is the product of a grander world view due to better education?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why are universities and their faculties slanted to the left? Well, my own opinion is that socialism and communism are far better in theory (and on paper)than capitalism will ever be.

Socialism and communism? We were talking about liberalism and conservatism.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think the most important factor is education rather than countryside vs. urban areas. Urban areas are typically close to more industrial complexes and services. These jobs (on average) require better education than work on the countryside where jobs are more sparse and typically involve more physical labor.

So, on average, urban areas attract people of better education from other parts of the country. Hence, there will be more of a potpourri of people from different parts of the country (and other countries), so you have to learn how to deal with less homogeneous crowds in your neighborhood.

I've seen the opposite. By and large the majority of those attracted to "urban" areas are poor and undereducated in my experience. Sure, there is some draw for brainpower, but this is deluged by the opposite. At least this holds true in the US.

There was a point, however, that the poor and undereducated came to urban areas to get jobs and send money home. Kind of like now.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Those are some pretty big assumptions here and it sounds as if there was some grand conspiracy. There is none. Have you considered the possibility that being more liberal is the product of a grander world view due to better education?

Socialism and communism? We were talking about liberalism and conservatism.

Liberal ideologies are intertwined with socialism and communism.

Conservatism is aligned with capitalism and free market ideologies.

I'm not implying conspiracy in the least bit. I'm not sure where you are getting that from my posts.

I would agree with you that a "grander" world view leads to liberal ideologies...however the practicality of those ideologies is what comes into question.

Socialism and Communism (the ultimate destination for liberalism as it is today) would be ideal situations if they could be implemented properly...however issues such as personal greed, motivation, selfishnes etc. etc. will prevent that from being practical until the resources necessary for our standard of living become so abundant that an economy and the distribution of wealth becomes meaningless. We are far from that. Very far, and therefore those ideologies become unteneble and the current system of personal responsibility and freedom is absolutely necessary for a high quality of life for the highest number of people.

[Snow-i]

Let me also state that the ideologies of socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. I'm talking in extremes right now to illustrate a point. Please be aware of that, and don't blast me for being black and white at the moment.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I've seen the opposite. By and large the majority of those attracted to "urban" areas are poor and undereducated in my experience. Sure, there is some draw for brainpower, but this is deluged by the opposite. At least this holds true in the US.

There was a point, however, that the poor and undereducated came to urban areas to get jobs and send money home. Kind of like now.

The lower classes have much more to benefit by communal ideologies such as liberalism, and more extremely socialism and communism. They will always align left because they benefit the greatest from leftist policy. The most upper classes will always align right because they have the most to lose from wealth redistribution and community governance. They also have the most to gain from rightist policies. In the middle of those two extremes...well...they'll be in the middle and tend to align with whatever political platform they feel they will benefit the most from; either monetarily, ethically, or otherwise.

I'm not saying all rich people are conservative and all poor people are liberal. I'm talking in trends here and it is not to be taken as "all of this group feels this way or that way." It is meant to describe why people tend to align with the two main ideologies in this nation.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Guys, let's keep away from the editorials please. I would prefer that this thread not slip into yet another partisan wank fest.

This is why they added the /War to Political.

Nice try though. It was fun while it lasted.

[ghporter]

There's an education component to it, and perhaps a component of "I'm too busy to think about that, which is why I pay taxes." But I think it's a lot more complex than just where you live and how much education you have. There are a whole lot of VERY conservative people with a whole lot of really solid education, and they tend to live in large cities. It's more about life experiences and how the balance of government and self-sufficiency have imprinted themselves on a person.

Lyndon Johnson was very much a product of his upbringing, both when and where as well as by whom. So he championed legislation to help out rural communities (the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 was largely his doing and may have been passed only because of his influence) and identified with poor people because he saw them all over the place, working and getting by (barely) when he was growing up.

A liberal? Probably more of a progressive, in the classical sense. But he grew up in a VERY rural area-it still is. He got a basic education and then attended a relatively close-by college, the Southwest Texas State Teacher's College, and earned a living as a teacher-mainly for disadvantaged rural populations, mostly of Mexican heritage. So he was educated, but from a small town... He wound up being one of our most effective presidents in the social arena.

Of course people who grow up and stay in an urban area are probably greatly influenced by "momentum" or what I'd call "inertia" (because it also implies a LACK of momentum) and just go with teh flow of what they've experienced, while the converse is true of people who grow up and stay in non-urban areas.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

There's an education component to it, and perhaps a component of "I'm too busy to think about that, which is why I pay taxes." But I think it's a lot more complex than just where you live and how much education you have. There are a whole lot of VERY conservative people with a whole lot of really solid education, and they tend to live in large cities. It's more about life experiences and how the balance of government and self-sufficiency have imprinted themselves on a person.

Exactly!

But on a grand scale...the tendencies for certain groups to lean slightly in a particular direction because of given social factors. O

Lyndon Johnson was very much a product of his upbringing, both when and where as well as by whom. So he championed legislation to help out rural communities (the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 was largely his doing and may have been passed only because of his influence) and identified with poor people because he saw them all over the place, working and getting by (barely) when he was growing up.

That would definately be a reason why there is ingrained political shift that must be accounted for when analyzing the large scale sociology of our society.

A liberal? Probably more of a progressive, in the classical sense. But he grew up in a VERY rural area-it still is. He got a basic education and then attended a relatively close-by college, the Southwest Texas State Teacher's College, and earned a living as a teacher-mainly for disadvantaged rural populations, mostly of Mexican heritage. So he was educated, but from a small town... He wound up being one of our most effective presidents in the social arena.

Yep

Of course people who grow up and stay in an urban area are probably greatly influenced by "momentum" or what I'd call "inertia" (because it also implies a LACK of momentum) and just go with teh flow of what they've experienced, while the converse is true of people who grow up and stay in non-urban areas.

The modern study of sociology definately shows that "momentum" as you describe it has a minimal effect on people's political alignments. Though it influences many, there are other factors that I outlined above (and many many more) that create trends and paint political landscapes for our country. A lack of "momentum" only lends more towards other factors for groups of people.


In the study of sociology you cannot take individuals and base research or theories on them, you must take society as a whole to get any useful or coherent information. I suggest reading Durkheim and Marx for their sociological discourse. They basically created the science (along with a few others). Though I must say their political ideologies differ greatly from mine, I do respect their work in the field of sociology and have learned much from their research and subsequent study.

[Wiskedjak]

If you boil it down to conservative=resist change and liberal=seeks change, it's possible that by being more exposed to different ways of thinking and doing things, people in urban areas develop a tendency to be less resistant to change.

One could also say the same thing about university students and instructors: more exposure to different things = less resistance to change.

[hyteckit]

Urban populations tend to have more of a diverse culture of different races, languages, ideas, and religions.

Rural populations tend to have less diversity.

When people living in rural areas come to a big city, it's usually a big culture shock to them.

As wiskedjak have mentioned. More exposure to different things, less resistance to change.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'll let William F. Buckley say it for me: "I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress."

Conservatives are supposed to be very skittish about government expansion. Instead, Bush was as bad as any liberal.

What about Reagan and Bush Sr.?

Reagan was a big fat spender. He tripled the national debt from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during his tenure.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes, and the culture of academia is HIGHLY slanted to the left, which also impacts formal education and political alignment correlations. You're more likely to stay in school if you share ideals and get along better with the environment created there.

Let me guess. You believe:

FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Church speaks the truth.

Academia, mainstream media, internet, wikipedia, and facts are HIGHLY slanted to the left.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's basically the central tenet of liberalism — give the government more control in return for more protection from the government.

Have to totally disagree.

Both conservatives and liberals seem to want more government control in return for more protection from the government.

Liberals want more protection for equality, diversity, and civil liberties.

Conservatives want more protection for conservative Christian values.



The central tenet of liberalism is equality and diversity.

Liberals are willing to trade less freedom for more equality and diversity.

Liberals want to decrease spending on national defense and increase spending on social and public services.



The central tenet of conservatism seems to be conservative values.

Conservatives are willing to trade less freedom (for others mainly) for more conservative (Christian) values.

Who wants to ban prostitution, sex toys, sodomy, gay marriages, dancing, and so forth? Conservatives.

How many conservatives actually want a smaller government? No many. Maybe Ron Paul supporters.

Conservatives want to decrease spending on social and public services and increase spending on national defense and social services related to Christian values such as abstinence education.



Libertarians are the ones who want less government control, less spending, and more freedom.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let me guess. You believe:

FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Church speaks the truth.

Academia, mainstream media, internet, wikipedia, and facts are HIGHLY slanted to the left.

Do you have to politicize and ruin every thread you enter?

I'm attempting to outline the field of sociology of which this is a highly analyzed topic. I'm quite sure your experience in this field is rather limited, and would appreciate if you kept your mindless drivel to yourself.

If you have something progressive and supportive to add, be my guest...but don't attempt to take on the entire field of sociology because you don't like what it says. Most of the education I've gotten on the subject came from people who I fall completely against politically, from a top 10 PUBLIC university and thats what I'm attempting to enlighten you with here.


Read my posts, more than just the first sentence, you'll find I'm attempting to answer the OP's discussion topic with fair and objective responses...instead of reading my first sentence and ruining an otherwise decent thread with your moronic and short-sighted non-points.

I've left my personal political views out of this one. I ask you do the same and actually add to this thread something useful for everyone, not just your own petty desires.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Urban populations tend to have more of a diverse culture of different races, languages, ideas, and religions.

Rural populations tend to have less diversity.

When people living in rural areas come to a big city, it's usually a big culture shock to them.

As wiskedjak have mentioned. More exposure to different things, less resistance to change.

Show me something to support your assertions. All the studies I've ever researched don't support your arguments at all.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is why they added the /War to Political.

Nice try though. It was fun while it lasted.

Yeah, wonderful question to pose... I enjoyed thinking about it and postulating a response.

I'm out of this one. The pundits are here.