3 ms·

From the article: > Democrats, surveys have shown, are more likely than Republicans to prioritize walkable neighborhoods with good public transit. Republicans,

by js2 6y ago

From the article: > Democrats, surveys have shown, are more likely than Republicans to prioritize walkable neighborhoods with good public transit. Republicans, on the other hand, prize neighborhoods with more Christians and larger houses. From the study the article links to just below that paragraph: > We explain a paradox in the literature on partisan polarization and sorting: partisans differ in their stated preferences over the partisanship of communities and numerous correlates of partisanship, but these preferences do not lead to meaningful partisan differences in residential migration. ... Despite the statistically significant influence of community partisan composition on partisans’ community ratings, partisanship’s direct effect on where people live is likely to be weak due to the low priority that Americans assign to the partisanship of their communities and neighbors. ... potential movers with a stated propensity to move to more copartisan neighborhoods are, regardless of their underlying motivations, more likely to have few choices if they select first on affordability and quality. ... those who have the most desire and most latitude to sort by party are not doing so. ... Our study shows, neither partisan affect nor its correlates are sufficient to overcome the substantial material concerns that inform a decision as weighty as residential choice. When it comes to one extremely important household decision, politics remains, in Robert Dahl’s (2005) words, a “sideshow in the great circus of life.” I don't think the study supports the article.

w0de0 6y ago
The quote from the paper asserts republicans and democrats self-sort in housing choices by weighting different property features - walkability, yard size - differently. The study extract asserts that people do not use the partisan composition of communities to make housing decisions. This are not exclusive assertions. At first glance they even look complimentary.
- js2 6y ago
  Here's a link to the paper: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/687569#d5683181e714 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/687569#d5... The article concludes: > By making it easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side, President Biden might also restore some of our trust in one another. But the paper already says: > crime, school quality, and commuting time rank much higher on both Democrats’ and Republicans’ “hierarchy of needs” (Maslow 1943) than explicitly political concerns. ... for all their differences in stated preferences, we show that partisans are not, on balance, moving to more compatible communities. While Republicans are moving to more Republican communities, on average, Democrats are as well. An analysis of the moving histories of our survey respondents shows that movers tend to relocate to communities similar to their current residences. Overall partisan residential migration is best described as regression to the mean, with both Democrats and Republicans in extremely copartisan zip codes moving to more moderate neighborhoods, on average. Indeed, we find no evidence that even ideologically consistent partisans (liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans), those who might be most likely to sort because of the strength of their political concerns, are more likely to sort. So I don't think the paper really supports the article.
  - w0de0 6y ago
    Hmm. I think we may be parsing that last sentence differently. I read "making it easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side [by addressing public policy issues], President Biden might [cause trust to be restored]." Do you read: "President Biden [should] restore some our trust in one another, [thereby] making is easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side."?
    - js2 6y ago
      The article makes this specific claim, > Democrats, surveys have shown, are more likely than Republicans to prioritize walkable neighborhoods with good public transit. Republicans, on the other hand, prize neighborhoods with more Christians and larger houses. Followed by the graph lifted from the paper, with the intro "When deciding where to live, Democrats were more likely to prioritize ..." The article is implying these lifestyle choices are why Democrats and Republicans live in different places. But that is contradicted by the study which says that while Democrats and Republicans do indeed express those preferences, those are low priority and that the higher priority things which predict where people will move, Democrats and Republicans agree on. That's my first issue, that the article is misstating the study. Separately, the article claims: > Middle-income Democrats who can’t afford a single-family home should still be able to raise their children in a duplex with a front yard. And young, lower-income Republicans shouldn’t be priced out of the cultural amenities that city life provides. But, I don't follow this reasoning. Is there evidence of Republicans who would live in cities but for the cost? Isn't it more likely there are Democrats who would rather live in cities but for the cost? Similarly, aren't there likely to be more middle-income Republicans interested in those duplexes? The article seems poorly reasoned to me. I think Biden should try to help Democrats and Republicans alike and not worry about how this influences where folks end up living. Partisan districting is a whole separate issue that needs to be addressed separately, independent of housing policy.

by js2 6y ago

w0de0 6y ago

The quote from the paper asserts republicans and democrats self-sort in housing choices by weighting different property features - walkability, yard size - differently. The study extract asserts that people do not use the partisan composition of communities to make housing decisions. This are not exclusive assertions. At first glance they even look complimentary.

js2 6y ago
Here's a link to the paper: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/687569#d5683181e714 https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/687569#d5... The article concludes: > By making it easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side, President Biden might also restore some of our trust in one another. But the paper already says: > crime, school quality, and commuting time rank much higher on both Democrats’ and Republicans’ “hierarchy of needs” (Maslow 1943) than explicitly political concerns. ... for all their differences in stated preferences, we show that partisans are not, on balance, moving to more compatible communities. While Republicans are moving to more Republican communities, on average, Democrats are as well. An analysis of the moving histories of our survey respondents shows that movers tend to relocate to communities similar to their current residences. Overall partisan residential migration is best described as regression to the mean, with both Democrats and Republicans in extremely copartisan zip codes moving to more moderate neighborhoods, on average. Indeed, we find no evidence that even ideologically consistent partisans (liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans), those who might be most likely to sort because of the strength of their political concerns, are more likely to sort. So I don't think the paper really supports the article.
- w0de0 6y ago
  Hmm. I think we may be parsing that last sentence differently. I read "making it easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side [by addressing public policy issues], President Biden might [cause trust to be restored]." Do you read: "President Biden [should] restore some our trust in one another, [thereby] making is easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side."?
  - js2 6y ago
    The article makes this specific claim, > Democrats, surveys have shown, are more likely than Republicans to prioritize walkable neighborhoods with good public transit. Republicans, on the other hand, prize neighborhoods with more Christians and larger houses. Followed by the graph lifted from the paper, with the intro "When deciding where to live, Democrats were more likely to prioritize ..." The article is implying these lifestyle choices are why Democrats and Republicans live in different places. But that is contradicted by the study which says that while Democrats and Republicans do indeed express those preferences, those are low priority and that the higher priority things which predict where people will move, Democrats and Republicans agree on. That's my first issue, that the article is misstating the study. Separately, the article claims: > Middle-income Democrats who can’t afford a single-family home should still be able to raise their children in a duplex with a front yard. And young, lower-income Republicans shouldn’t be priced out of the cultural amenities that city life provides. But, I don't follow this reasoning. Is there evidence of Republicans who would live in cities but for the cost? Isn't it more likely there are Democrats who would rather live in cities but for the cost? Similarly, aren't there likely to be more middle-income Republicans interested in those duplexes? The article seems poorly reasoned to me. I think Biden should try to help Democrats and Republicans alike and not worry about how this influences where folks end up living. Partisan districting is a whole separate issue that needs to be addressed separately, independent of housing policy.