Population per suare mile

[JerzeyJake]

Hiya.

Taking a look at state population trends in an ever increasingly urban nation, I thought it would be interesting to compare states with the highest population density, and the political direction theyve gone in (possibly as a result?)

Here are the states with the highest population per square mile,color coded in blue and red to show which way each had voted in the 2004 presidential election (red for Bush, blue for Kerry)

New Jersey 1,134.5

Rhode Island 1,003.2

Massachusetts 809.8

Connecticut 702.9

Maryland 541.9

New York 401.9

Delaware 401.0

Florida 296.4

Ohio 277.3

Pennsylvania 274.0

Illinois 223.4

California 217.2

Hawaii 188.6

Virginia 178.8

Michigan 175.0

Indiana 169.5

North Carolina 165.2

Georgia 141.4

Tennessee 138.0

New Hampshire 137.8

South Carolina 133.2

Louisiana 102.6

Kentucky 101.7

Wisconsin 98.8

Washington 88.6

Alabama 87.6

Missouri 81.2

Texas 79.6

West Virginia 75.1

Vermont 65.8

Minnesota 61.8

Mississippi 60.6

Iowa 52.4

Arkansas 51.3

Oklahoma 50.3

Arizona 45.2

Colorado 41.5

Maine 41.3

Oregon 35.6

Kansas 32.9

Utah 27.2

Nebraska 22.3

Nevada 18.2

Idaho 15.6

New Mexico 15.0

South Dakota 9.9

North Dakota 9.3

Montana 6.2

Wyoming 5.1

Alaska 1.1

As you can see, in most cases, the more urbanized states tended to lean Democrat, where as the lesser urbanized states often tended to lean towards the Republicans.

Is this a reflection of what naturally occurs when increased urbanization replaces previously rural areas?

As the U.S. continues to urbanize, what might the political future look like? Will the current urban/rural political divide continue, or erode?

Population per Sq Mile data provided by US Census Quickfacts: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/rankings/PL0200000r.html

2004 State Election result data provided by 270towin.com: http://www.270towin.com/

Edit for NM's redness

[jarrodslc]

Hey, don't forget about:

D.C. - 9,378

Sorry, it's my new, often over-looked, home what can i say.

I love the density stat for DC, even though it includes just a city it looks pretty impressive. Too bad it also mean housing is $$$$.

[MJLO]

It is my feeling that the current polititcal divide, will pretty much stay the same with Florida, and Ohio being the deciding factors in the elections. Because for the past few years they have been the only true swing States. Not to mention the Fly over states aren't growing at a rapid rate.

and to make a quick correction, NM went Bush by one percent in the last election it should be red.

[JerzeyJake]

I love the density stat for DC, even though it includes just a city it looks pretty impressive.

Ha! True. Check out the highest pop per sq mile data for counties

New York, NY 66,834.6

Kings, NY 34,722.9

Bronx, NY 31,729.8

Queens, NY 20,453.0

San Francisco, CA 16,526.2

4 of the top 5 in NYC? Now THAT'S impressive!

and to make a quick correction, NM went Bush by one percent in the last election it should be red.

Drat! You're right, my bad.

[Recchia]

Well one thing I've noticed, and this is most likely coincidental, the two most densely populated states always seem to be surrounded by political scandals, especially good old Rhode Island, which has had its fair share of political corruption and scandal over the years (look at my signature). This probly has nothing to do with voting Democrat though...

And by the way, it is interesting to note that RI is also the most Catholic state (67% Catholic), yet it consistently votes Democrat. Interesting...

[hudkina]

Just because an area has a high density doesn't automatically mean it will go "blue" or "red". I think the topic should be about the suburban vote. Rural areas will most likely go red and urban areas will most likely go blue, but it's the suburban areas that are the "swing" areas of the state.