Skip to main content

Education and the 2020 Election Results

In 2017, I stumbled upon some 2016 election data and started to look at the relationship between educational attainment in the US and election results.  The title was only half serious, but some people took exception to it.  Still, it's remained a topic of interest to me since then.  

Before I begin writing about the latest visualization, let me point out a couple of things on this new display with the 2020 election data.  You'll likely notice some similar patterns, but patterns don't prove causality.  Even if they did, I could come up with two equally plausible explanations of this data that come at the answer from diametrically opposed political perspectives. Take your pick, or just look and see what you find interesting.  It doesn't always have to lead to something.

This time we're dealing with another hot political topic, COVID-19 and vaccinations.  And, it seemed to me that the political divisions in America tend to fall along the same lines.  Or so I thought (and maybe I still do.)

There are five views here, and while they're pretty easy to understand, I think, I'd recommend you read below before diving in.

Scatter arrays (almost) every county in the US on two scales: The percentage of votes cast for Biden (x-axis) and the percentage of adults age 24+ with at least a bachelor's degree (the definition of attainment throughout this post).  Each county is a bubble, and the bubble is sized by the number of votes cast.  Hover for details.  What is most interesting to me is the way in which the pattern stays the same even if you select a region or a single state.

Thermometer breaks counties into bands based on attainment, and then shows the total votes for Biden (blue) and Trump (red). Again, that pattern is clear: Counties with higher educational attainment tend to vote for Democrats; lower attainment indicates more votes for Republicans.  On this visualization, the colored filters in purple (half way between blue and red) refer to the counties selected, not the voters.  So if you choose to slide to at least 50% Hispanic, for instance, you will only show counties that are at least half Hispanic.  In this case, it would not show you how Hispanic voters voted. Vulnerability refers to the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, which you can read about here. And play around with the vaccine data here too.  It's interesting, and, maybe, surprising. (Note: I removed very small groups in the "under 5%" and "over 65%" to make the chart easier to read.)

Note: The filters are cumulative, and you can see how your choices affect the population in the visualization at top left.  But if you try to choose a county that's at least 51% White and 51% Black, you won't get any data because that's mathematically impossible. And data from Alaska is not reported by county, fyi.

Attainment by county is a reference guide.  Choose a state if you'd like, and hover over the county to see a lot of data about it.

Perhaps the most surprising display is the Vaccine Hesitancy view.  What is so compelling here is how borders seem to create extremely sharp lines of demarcation, especially compared to the attainment view; if you expected them to look the same (I did) this is curious, to say the least.  I have no explanation for it.  Maybe someone does?

And, getting back to the original point is the final view, Vote Totals, showing how many votes each party got from each group of counties, clustered by attainment.  The top shows counts, the bottom percentage of their totals. Democrats got 51M votes, or 64% of their total, from the counties with the highest educational attainment. Republicans got 33M, or 45% of theirs from that same group.

As always, play around with this; you won't break it, and you can always use the reset button to start over.  And, of course, let me know what you see that strikes you as interesting.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Baccalaureate origins of doctoral recipients

Here's a little data for you: 61 years of it, to be precise.  The National Science Foundation publishes its data on US doctoral recipients sliced a variety of ways, including some non-restricted public use files that are aggregated at a high level to protect privacy. The interface is a little quirky, and if you're doing large sets, you need to break it into pieces (this was three extracts of about 20 years each), but it may be worth your time to dive in. I merged the data set with my mega table of IPEDS data, which allows you to look at institutions on a more granular level:  It's not surprising to find that University of Washington graduates have earned more degrees than graduates of Whitman College, for instance.  So, you can filter the data by Carnegie type, region or state, or control, for instance; or you can look at all 61 years, or any range of years between 1958 and 2018 and combine it with broad or specific academic fields using the controls. High school and indep

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

So you think you're going back to the SAT and ACT?

Now that almost every university in the nation has gone test-optional for the 2021 cycle out of necessity, a nagging question remains: How many will go back to requiring tests as soon as it's possible?  No one knows, but some of the announcements some colleges made sounded like the kid who only ate his green beans to get his screen time: They did it, but they sure were not happy about it.  So we have some suspicions about the usual suspects. I don't object to colleges requiring tests, of course, even though I think they're not very helpful, intrinsically biased against certain groups, and a tool of the vain.  You be you, though, and don't let me stop you. However, there is a wild card in all of this: The recent court ruling prohibiting the University of California system from even using--let alone requiring--the SAT or ACT in admissions decisions next fall.  If you remember, the Cal State system had already decided to go test blind, and of course community colleges in