Thread: Top and Bottom 25 Congressional Districts by tax burden and their voting

This came out of originally wanting to look into what has been spread around (some) in Liberal circles about "Moocher" States, or those taking in more than they give to the government. However came across some information on Congressional Districts and their federal income burden and got curious to the voting record of the districts, which later became top 25 and bottom to see more the extremes (and save time). By no means is this something to say is perfect or anything, just a curiosity. Voting data came from wikipedia, with me being unable to find Presidential voting information for 4 of the districts. The data for the tax burdens (linked down a bit) is from 2004 so it is old, another reason it isn't close to perfect).

I figured that majority of the districts would vote Republican, because well the common idea and/or stereotype is that those taxed more tend to support Republicans, those not being taxed much vote Democrat. What I found, is that in Presidential elections it was more districts voted for Democrats (2000-2004, in 2008 18 of the 22 I have data for voted for Obama, and don't have enough for 2012). When it came to Representatives though, It was slightly more Republican. The bottom 25 I'll do in the next post (as I still have to do them)

Presidential 2000-2004: 21 Districts
Democrat both elections: 7
Republican Both: 12
One Republican, One Democrat: 2

Representatives: 34 Representatives total from 2000-2013
Republican: 18
Democrat: 16

States and number of Top 25 Districts:
California: 7 (CA-8; 12; 14; 15; 30; 48; 50)
New Jersey: 4 (NJ-5; 7; 11; 12)
New York: 4 (NY-3; 8; 14; 18)
Texas: 2 (TX-7; 32)
Virginia: 2 (VA-10; 11)
Connecticut: 1 (CT-4)
Florida: 1 (FL-22)
Illinois: 1 (IL-10)
Michigan: 1 (MI-9)
Minnesota: 1 (MN-3)
Maryland: 1 (MD-8)

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfo...s/docs/wp2.pdf (For the Ranks/Tax Burden numbers, pdf)

Again want to stress I'm not saying this is perfect, hell their data could be crooked (I tried reading through it and admit it got a bit overly mathematical for my brain). There work has been cited a fair bit, but popularity doesn't mean right. Why share it then? I thought it was interesting, and I'd already looked into it the voting and everything so why not share (and for the record, I was going to share either way the data came out).

So, to turn it into a discussion and not just a spam of words and numbers. What do you think? Does it prove/disprove anything? Is it just a bunch of pointless numbers and words? Do you agree with the assumption prior to the numbers? Or is it mostly other factors that matter?

Okay Did the bottom 25, before the numbers forgot to mention some other flaws. First being redistricting can effect the voting record and I haven't adjusted for that, why I'm using 2000-2004 for the Presidential in the hope it is fairly accurate, the reps is probably not super accurate though (and like I said this isn't meant to be, more a rough curiosity quencher). There was another one too, but I forgot it now, bah.

Last before the bottom, if you are curious the highest and lowest its: Connecticut's 4th (avg burden 58,943), and New York's 16th (4,571). They both voted democrat in the presidential elections, with the 16th being the most ridiculous numbers I've seen (2000 Gore got 92%, 2004 Kerry got 89% and 2008 Obama got 95% O_O).

Okay first states and number of districts in the bottom 25:
Arizona: 2 (AZ-1, AZ-7)
Arkansas: 2 (AR-1, AR-4)
Georgia: 2 (GA-2, GA-12)
Kentucky: 2 (KY-1, KY-5)
Mississippi: 2 (MS-2, MS-4)
Texas: 2 (TX-15, TX-28)
Alabama: 1 (AL-7)
California: 1 (CA-20)
Florida: 1 (FL-17)
Louisiana: 1 (LA-5)
Michigan: 1 (MI-1)
Missouri: 1 (MO-8)
New Mexico: 1 (NM-2)
New York: 1 (NY-16)
North Carolina: 1 (NC-1)
Oklahoma: 1 (OK-2)
South Carolina: 1 (SC-6)
Virginia: 1 (VA-9)
West Virginia: 1 (WV-3)

I don't have enough to do the Presidential, with 10 of the districts not having information right now. Of the 15 that do, just to say something (instead of not enough); 6 voted Republican twice, 6 voted Democrat twice, 3 voted 1 and 1. 2008 7 voted for Obama, 8 voted for McCain. 2012 have data for 9, with 7 of the 9 voting for Romney, 2 voting for Obama. Again that's only 9 (though can probably safely assume NY-16 voted for Obama, so 10, 7 Romney, 3 Obama).

For the Representatives, there was a total of 41 from 2000-2013
Democrats: 23
Republicans: 18


So there is, take what you want from it. I thought it was interesting, if a bit time consuming (though a caffeine high makes the time fly). Be interesting to see what the districts got from the Federal Government for both lists, and a list of the districts getting the most and least federal funds and how they vote, perhaps another time (There is data for state's, but the districts are better in my opinion, since you could have a republican state but districts taking most of the money be democratic and vice versa.

An interesting exercise. From my own personal experience members of the 1% are distributed along the political spectrum just like the 99%. I am fortunate to make a living that places me in the 1% - and I've been there for a number of years. In my social circles, made up of other 1%'ers for the most part you essentially get all kinds.

That fact doesn't surprise me - what does though is when you look at the bottom end which I would expect to be solidly DEM based solely on economic standing. However, the GOP does well in many poor areas which in my opinion is based on their positions on the 'social' issues.

Originally Posted by iravedic

An interesting exercise. From my own personal experience members of the 1% are distributed along the political spectrum just like the 99%. I am fortunate to make a living that places me in the 1% - and I've been there for a number of years. In my social circles, made up of other 1%'ers for the most part you essentially get all kinds.

That fact doesn't surprise me - what does though is when you look at the bottom end which I would expect to be solidly DEM based solely on economic standing. However, the GOP does well in many poor areas which in my opinion is based on their positions on the 'social' issues.

And from the other end of the spectrum..... Im not even close to a 1%er (was closer at one point), but many in my social circle are, and i agree, they are all over the place. The only common thread is, the guys that built their business up from nothing tend to lean right, the ones that are in State (State government or Academia) positions, which are inherently Democrat in NY, lean left.

On the other side of my social circle are the 99%ers, and even in heavily Democrat NY, in upstate the are mostly right leaning, but for fiscal reasons. Almost all of them are socially liberal, regardless of party. But hey, i have to remember, this is MY circle, and my circle is not really going to contain radicals on either side of the spectrum, maybe a couple, but certainly not the norm.

Scott, who is that in your avatar?

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Scott, who is that in your avatar?

Me. Or the southern comfort guy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Me. Or the southern comfort guy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

LOL, correct, the SOCO guy. Though, he and i share a similarity or two.

Originally Posted by SpecOpsScott

LOL, correct, the SOCO guy. Though, he and i share a similarity or two.

Like.....The same swim trunks.

General rule of thumb up here is the closer you get to tall buildings, the more left-leaning it gets. The Twin Cities and Duluth tend to go Dem, while outstate pretty much goes Rep. That is why we usually have a pretty decent mix of the two.......usually. We always go Dem in the Presidential elections, but our govs and reps are almost always pretty diverse.