4 ms·

This has been long predicted... since people who are pro-choice would be more likely to be having abortions or not conceiving in the first place; while those wh

This has been long predicted... since people who are pro-choice would be more likely to be having abortions or not conceiving in the first place; while those who are pro-life are more likely to have children of their own and pass their beliefs on.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
tjic 17y ago
Why was this down-modded? It's a basic demographic fact that folks have been talking about for 20 years: there is a strong correlation between political values and average family size. Red state folks have slightly more kids, and they have them younger (which means that you pack more generations in per unit time). If a composite blue state person has 0.9 kids per generation, and has 3 generations per century, then you get 0.9 ^ 3 = .729 blue staters in the fourth generation for every 1 in the first. If a composite red state person has 1.1 kids per generation, and has 4 generations per century, then you get 1.1 ^ 4 = 1.46 red staters in the fourth generation for every 1 in the first. Modest changes in growth rates can be HUGE. It's always dangerous to extrapolate out 100 years based on 15 or 20 years of data, but the last 20 years HAVE played out much as some have predicted. I'd also add that the proliferation of low cost ultrasound, which has let people see prenatal ( babies / fetuses ) has had a demonstrable effect on abortion rates. This is true even despite the fact that crusading moralist / Client #6 Elliot Spitzer tried to (and mostly succeeded in) banning ultrasound for merely curious pregnant women. http://www.reason.com/news/show/120792.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/120792.html
- sethg 17y ago
  The graph accompanying the article doesn't show a gradual change in the pro-life direction. The proportion calling themselves "pro-life" stayed in the mid-forties through 2001-2008 and then spiked this year. And your model of different reproductive rates for blue-state vs. red-state people assumes that children have the same values as their parents. I know quite a few folks who were raised in red states and fled them.
  - tjic 17y ago
    > And your model of different reproductive rates for blue-state vs. red-state people assumes that children have the same values as their parents. I know quite a few folks who were raised in red states and fled them. Anecdote != data. There are "defections" in both directions. Even if kids have the same values as their parents 51% of the time, you'll see the effect.
    - sethg 17y ago
      Yes, but is the defection rate in both directions equal? If conservative parents have been having more children than liberal parents for the past few decades, then why hasn't the voting population become more conservative since Reagan was president?
      - mtinkerhess 17y ago
        This sounds like a question for Wolfram: ((birth rate of pro-life families) * (rate of (children of pro-life families) that are pro-life)) vs. ((birth rate of pro-choice families) * (rate of (children of pro-choice families) that are pro-choice))
      - jimbokun 17y ago
        "If conservative parents have been having more children than liberal parents for the past few decades, then why hasn't the voting population become more conservative since Reagan was president?" Is this a joke? We just finished one of the most pronounced conservative swings in American history, with all 3 branches of federal government and many local governments all under Republican control. How much more conservative did it have to get to convince you? The Republicans really had to do massive amounts of damage to get Obama elected and break the trend. His election does not, in and of itself, prove that the U.S. has decisively shifted away from conservatism. If he is perceived to have some success, it might, but it is still to early to say for sure.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

tjic 17y ago

Why was this down-modded? It's a basic demographic fact that folks have been talking about for 20 years: there is a strong correlation between political values and average family size. Red state folks have slightly more kids, and they have them younger (which means that you pack more generations in per unit time). If a composite blue state person has 0.9 kids per generation, and has 3 generations per century, then you get 0.9 ^ 3 = .729 blue staters in the fourth generation for every 1 in the first. If a composite red state person has 1.1 kids per generation, and has 4 generations per century, then you get 1.1 ^ 4 = 1.46 red staters in the fourth generation for every 1 in the first. Modest changes in growth rates can be HUGE. It's always dangerous to extrapolate out 100 years based on 15 or 20 years of data, but the last 20 years HAVE played out much as some have predicted. I'd also add that the proliferation of low cost ultrasound, which has let people see prenatal ( babies / fetuses ) has had a demonstrable effect on abortion rates. This is true even despite the fact that crusading moralist / Client #6 Elliot Spitzer tried to (and mostly succeeded in) banning ultrasound for merely curious pregnant women. http://www.reason.com/news/show/120792.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/120792.html

sethg 17y ago
The graph accompanying the article doesn't show a gradual change in the pro-life direction. The proportion calling themselves "pro-life" stayed in the mid-forties through 2001-2008 and then spiked this year. And your model of different reproductive rates for blue-state vs. red-state people assumes that children have the same values as their parents. I know quite a few folks who were raised in red states and fled them.
- tjic 17y ago
  > And your model of different reproductive rates for blue-state vs. red-state people assumes that children have the same values as their parents. I know quite a few folks who were raised in red states and fled them. Anecdote != data. There are "defections" in both directions. Even if kids have the same values as their parents 51% of the time, you'll see the effect.
  - sethg 17y ago
    Yes, but is the defection rate in both directions equal? If conservative parents have been having more children than liberal parents for the past few decades, then why hasn't the voting population become more conservative since Reagan was president?
    - mtinkerhess 17y ago
      This sounds like a question for Wolfram: ((birth rate of pro-life families) * (rate of (children of pro-life families) that are pro-life)) vs. ((birth rate of pro-choice families) * (rate of (children of pro-choice families) that are pro-choice))
    - jimbokun 17y ago
      "If conservative parents have been having more children than liberal parents for the past few decades, then why hasn't the voting population become more conservative since Reagan was president?" Is this a joke? We just finished one of the most pronounced conservative swings in American history, with all 3 branches of federal government and many local governments all under Republican control. How much more conservative did it have to get to convince you? The Republicans really had to do massive amounts of damage to get Obama elected and break the trend. His election does not, in and of itself, prove that the U.S. has decisively shifted away from conservatism. If he is perceived to have some success, it might, but it is still to early to say for sure.