Map of county by county vote -- election 2004

It's ironic really, that the urban areas tend to vote Dem and Rural vote Rep, considering how federal $ are collected and distributed. It demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of federal $ distribution. For instance, New York City attitude is, "I'll vote for whomever will get me more stuff," when the reality is, New York pays more in federal taxes than it gets back, to the tune of about 60 cents on the dollar last I checked. Personally, I believe it's because urban-dwellers are so far removed from the things that keep them alive - like farms and factories. It's very easy to forget that there is a huge support system out there that makes urban living possible. I wonder if the vote would be different if most urban-dwellers realized that their taxes could be cut with absolutely no effect on them other than more money in their pockets. Of course, the rural states would get less money for roads and things, but that could be remedied as well. Currently the federal government is the largest land-holder in rural states, owning as much as 75%, or more. Isn't it funny that the same folks who insists we have all the parks, wildlife areas, national forest, etc, and insist they can't be used for anything other than viewing, also don't want those things in their own back yards? Okay, that was a tad rambling, but here's a map:

Those were some good points, Idaho. And that's a very interesting map.

We use similar maps every year trying to convince Congressional members that Western counties are routinely screwed by federal land ownership. The area of public lands in the fifteen westernmost states is equal to the TOTAL area of the twenty-seven easternmost states. By contrast, the public land in those eastern states totals about the land area of one average-sized western county. Remember, federal lands do not pay propertly taxes, so local governments must furnish services on those lands without tax support from them. The PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) program was authorized in 1976 to address this inequity, but has never been fully funded. My county consists of three million acres, of which only eight percent is privately owned. At last year's funding levels, the federal land contributed thirteen cents at acre in PILT funding. Also, remember that Uncle Sam doesn't directly fund road programs, either. Those funds are generated by gas taxes and (formerly) revenues from timber sales by the Forest Service. Unfortunately, the liberal preservationists have almost totally shut down the timber industry, so funding for road departments and school districts in public lands counties was drastically diminished during the 1990's. The struggle continues. By the way, Idaho, if Montana is our neighbor to the West, just where are you - North Dakota?

Good points CowDoc. I think that is a problem for the District of Columbia, too. Not that they have national parks, but so much of their territory is federal property and not taxable by the city. On top of that they have no representation in the Senate. It would really be nice if this basic inequality could be addressed.

Actually, I think Idaho might have underestimated the dollar sense of the urban dwellers. I'll accept that NYC pays more in taxes than it receives, but which New Yorkers are paying and which are voting. There could be lots of poor voting and receiving, who may overbalance wealthy, but non voting corporations and financial institutions. Just an unsupporoted guess.

I wonder too, CowDoc. Our member named Montana is from New Brunswick, by the way.

Idaho - if we are out of touch with you all, and we may be, then the feeling is mutual. We city slickers don't vote gimme votes and we, or at least I, would love to have a huge federal land reserve out this way so I could actually visit it more than one every 5-10 years.

Oops - a moment of being directionally challenged, I guess. I'm from Idaho. So, our neighbor to the EAST, Montana.

Littlek - my assessment if 'city slicker' votes came from my east-coast friends who've moved out west, a generalization on my part. The problem with the fed land reserves, aside from the tax issue, is that more and more, we are not allowed to use them. So much of it falls under the "roadless" rules and numerous other restrictions that it's getting ridiculous. These are lands that have been traditionally used for seasonal cattle grazing, mine (followed by reclamation), timber, etc. Then we get new laws passed by Congress (primarily pushed by East Coast folks) restricting the use of our own back yard. It's just a little warped for Hillary Clinton (or insert the name of any other urban congressperson here), from her concrete jungle, to tell those of us who have been good stewards of the land that we can't use it.

For the convenience of those disinclined to view a PDF, here's your population density map, FreeDuck:



and the comparison map showing county-by-county election results:



Hey, CowDoc ... good ta see ya around again. Don't be such a stranger!

Thanks for that, timber.

NP FreeDuck ... sorry its a little sloppy; I prolly shoulda better equalized the size and resolution, but it was a freebie :wink:

Thanks for remembering me, timber! I've been a little busy for the past several months. At least I'm now relieved that I don't have to start over building contacts with a new administration. Maybe we can actually accomplish something during the next four years - I hope!

Looks like this one might belong here, too -- kind of combines the two:

From here btw:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

That's wild, visually, soz..

Is this one of the pictures that we are supposed to guess what we think it is. Kind of like on the psych tests.

Looks like a chicken with a punk rocker stapled to it!

I think that it looks like a whale holding a can of beer!

Yes, it's a Roar-splatch...

I see a rabbit (ears to the left, laying on back looking up) with a hangover!

I think I scraped that off my windshield the other day.