Geology and Election 2000: Overview
Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences,University
of Wisconsin - Green Bay
First-time Visitors: Please visitSite Map and Disclaimer.
Use "Back" to return here.
This site has a large number of supporting graphics. This page presents an overview. Click the links to view the supporting graphics in more detail.
On the map of electoral returns for the presidential election of 2000 is a feature instantly recognizable to a geologist: in the otherwise pro-Bush South, an arcuate band of pro-Gore counties sweeps from eastern Mississippi, across Alabama and Georgia and into the Carolinas
A geologist finds this feature immediately familiar because it coincides almost exactly with a series of rock units on the Geologic Map of the United States:
Comparison with the geologic maps shows that the pro-Gore band of counties corresponds very closely with the units labeled uK - upper Cretaceous. The correlation is strongest for Alabama, somewhat weaker in Mississippi. It is surprisingly evident in Georgia considering how narrow and discontinuous the outcrop band of Cretaceous rocks is there. But the correlation breaks down in South Carolina. Although the band of Democratic counties is well defined across South Carolina, it is consistently seaward of the Cretaceous rock units. In fact, on some maps there seems to be a weak anti-correlation between the Cretaceous rocks in South Carolina and the political and demographic trends noted for the other three states.
This band shows up with varying degrees of prominence for previous elections as well. It shows the same correlation with rock units in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia and the same lack of correlation in South Carolina. It further shows strong correlation with demographic trends.
View pre-2000 election return data
Demographics
 |
Given the electoral patterns, the demographic trends of the region are very understandable. There is a pronounced arc of black population. Note that the band follows the Cretaceous rocks from Mississippi to Georgia but, like electoral trends, lies seaward of the band in South Carolina. |
 |
The white population is essentially a mirror image of the black map. The color scheme is inverted to bring out the similarity. |
 |
And the arc shows up as a diffuse band of high poverty. |
We can now understand why the arc is missing from the 1964 electoral map. 1964 was the last Presidential election before the civil rights reforms of the 1960's took effect, and the lack of any signature on the 1964 map reflects the systematic exclusion of black voters.
Why Geology?
The demographic and electoral patterns we see above are easy to understand. Much less obvious is why they should correlate with a particular set of rock units. The rock units are not particularly rich in resources and differ little from adjacent units. And why is there a continuous band of trends across four states but a geologic correlation in only three of them?
 |
The arc correlates in part with low elevations |
 |
The arc also correlates in part with a band of low relief. However, neither the elevations nor the relief offer any obvious explanation for the political and demographic patterns. |
The most obvious candidate for a causative factor is soils and agricultural productivity. Most of the soils of the arc are vertisols, and the soil belt is called the Black Belt or Blackland Prairie in Alabama and Mississippi. The belt has higher than average grass cover, lower than average forest cover, but no dramatically different patterns of crop production or productivity. A recent map of U.S. soil productivity shows above-average soil productivity in this belt.
An here I am. What next?
Return to Professor Dutch's Home Page
Created 23 January 2002, Last Update 14 December 2009
Not an official UW Green Bay site