Areal Variation in the 1976 Presidential Vote: a Case Study of Akron

A comprehensive, city-wide analysis, based on electoral precincts, was done for the City of Akron concerning the Presidential election of 1976. By superimposing a voting pattern map showing precinct votes, on a census data map showing socioeconomic data by census tracts, certain observations were made concerning the Presidential election in Akron. Black voters and lower income groups overwhelmingly supported Carter, higher income groups and college educated voters tended notably to support Ford, and middle income groups supplied the "swing" votes. The election of 1976 could be called both a maintaining and a deviating type of election in which the majority party, the Democrats, elected a President largely because numerous lifelong Democrats were bolstered by overwhelming percentages of black voters who voted for their party. There are also indications of white voter deviation, particularly among middle and upper income groups. OHIO J. SCI. 79(3): 120, 1979 There have been several limited efforts to analyze voting behavior with regard to local elections in such cities as Los Angeles, (McPhail 1971), Seattle, (Hetrickand Calkins 1972), and Christchurch, (Johnston 1974). McPhail divided Los Angeles into numerous statistical divisions much larger than precincts and collapsed the election results and socioeconomic data into those units to apply factor analysis. Hetrick and Calkins combined precincts into precinct-groups to tally with census statistical areas in Seattle. Their precinct groups were aggregated to form 88 analysis zones, and voting patterns were then correlated with socio-economic status. Johnston studied the information flow effect and the local flow effect insofar as they related to a city election in Christchurch. He then applied "R" and "Q" mode analyses and established a correlation of polling booth location with local effect. We have analyzed on a precinct basis a national Presidential election's spatial pattern as it related to a mid-sized, midAmerican city, Akron, Ohio (fig. 1). Manuscript received 5 December 1977 and in revised form 18 October 1978 (#77-89). The 1976 Presidential election should be viewed from at least two perspectives: 1. It might be considered a "typical" kind of election, similar to those of 1968, 1960, 1956, and 1948, in that it did not demonstrate the extraordinary characteristics of either the Johnson landslide of 1964 or the McGovern debacle of 1971. 2. the 1976 election might be considered "atypical" because there is evidence that the winning candidate failed to attract as much support from white, middle-class voters as appears to have been the case with other socalled "typical" elections. To speak of the 1976 election as more or less representative of the American electoral scene depends upon how the results are interpreted. An analysis of election results as they relate to city space in Akron, Ohio, should help us to decide which of these viewpoints is generally correct. Angus Cambell has classified elections as "maintaining, deviating, and realigning," (Campbell 1967). The deviating election is one in which a defeat of the majority party occurs, although voters'