Town by town map of gubernatorial race results, with 99 percent reporting. Graphic by David Healy
This map is based on final unofficial results from several media sources, with 99 percent of municipalities reporting. David Healy of Stone Environmental in Montpelier contributed the map to VTdigger.org.
To see what VTdigger.org readers had to say about the candidates and election night, see our Live Blog.
For the most recent results for the races for Vermont lieutenant governor, secretary of state and auditor, click here and scroll down.
Permalink |
It would certainly be interesting to know what characteristics these tightly grouped demographics have in common, i.e., education, household income, age.
Permalink |
Doesn’t look like it’s income. Look, for example at Stratton and Stowe vs. Shelburne and Norwich. Or Winooski vs. Barre and Williamstown. It may represent something of a cultural divide, though, unfortunately. I feel sorry for those lone Shumlin supporters in Orwell!
Permalink |
Dorset supported Peter Shumlin. That is nothing shy of amazing.
Permalink |
Thanks, David, for producing and posting this map.
My guess is that education is the demographic variable most closely associated with vote choice in the gubernatorial election. The exit poll conducted by the major networks (869 Vermonters who voted in person on Tuesday) shows the following relationship between education and vote:
High school graduate (22% of sample)
Dubie 63 – Shumlin 31
Some college (22% of sample)
Dubie 57 – Shumlin 40
College graduate (32% of sample)
Shumlin 50 – Dubie 48
Postgraduate (22% of sample)
Shumlin 76 – Dubie 23
Shumlin’s highest percentage in the state was in Norwich, where he got 80 % of the vote. Because of the large number of Darmouth profs, doctors, etc. who live in Norwich, that town probably has the highest percentage of voters with a postgraduate degree in the state.
Permalink |
The spatial contiguity of the voting is telling as well. If demography had any big effect on this election, it means like-minded folks are pretty tightly clustered together. Except in Montgomery, anyway.
Permalink |
Thanks, David, for putting the data in visual form. I can only hope that the representation of voters with brains (albeit not a 1-1 match with college and post grad schooling) continues.
Now I understand why Republicans are so adamant about destroying the public school system, doing away with student loans (except as a profit center for banks), and insisting on leaving all the children behind. It’s their base.
Permalink |
Mr. Davis – From where do these post grads and profs get most of their research funding?
Permalink |
@John Perry,
As evidenced by these reactions at last weekend’s Restore Sanity rally, ignorant and superficial views and reactions show no partisan preference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpuEx6bzy4
HT Art Woolf
Permalink |
Caveat correlator. A constant reminder. Correlation is no proof of causation. And a corollary, lack of correlation is not proof of lack of causation. Further, squaring the correlation coefficient gives you a sense of the amount of variance accounted for. Correlation of .5 (usually viewed as strong) only accounts mathematically for 25% of variance. And even then, correlation is no proof of causation. This discussion is interesting, but fraught with many other variables- from issues (Yankee and abortion) to traditional party voting.