1. The Political Significance of the Second Demographic Transition in the US – A Spatial Analysis Ron Lesthaeghe and Lisa Neidert Population Studies Center, University of Michigan Presented at annual meetings of the Population Association of America, March 30, 2007, New York

2. Earlier Links between Voting and Spatial Patterns of Demographic Transitions Julius Wolf, 1928 : statistical links between birth rates in German Kreise & voting for Socialists 1919. Massimo Livi-Bacci, 1971: connection between Portuguese marital fertility transition and voting for Leftist parties or marriages without Catholic rites. Ron Lesthaeghe, 1974: idem Belgium, controls for competing hypotheses. Ron Lesthaeghe, Chris Wilson, 1986 : idem connection with secular parties voting in Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Denmark; controls for economic modes of production. Massimo Livi-Bacci, 1974: also reverse – fertility transition (1900-1930) in Italy excellent predictor of divorce referendum 1974 ! Ron Lesthaeghe & Karel Neels, 2004 : similar findings for the SDT in France, Belgium, Switzerland. So.... HOW ABOUT THE US ???

3. Two way influence Ideational change (secularization, individual autonomy, expressive values, etc.) =>articulations of “culture war” issues, voting patterns => demographic change, leads & lags in SDT Also: Demographic regional patterns => voting outcomes when “culture wars” items on agenda.

4. Our questions: How strong is the link in the US between demographics and voting? Is that relationship resistant to controls for other structural and cultural variables? Are the results for the presidential election replicated in recent referenda on other “culture war” issues, like same-sex marriage or stem-cell research? Is the “US Culture War” a myth? “only a debate among polarizing elites; no or little change among centrist public” (Morris Fiorina)

6. Two basic demographic dimensions in the US (orthogonal principal components ) Dimension 1 high abortion rates, higher frequencies cohabitation and same sex cohabitants, postponement in fertility schedule among non-hispanic white population, sustained sub- replacement fertility, low teenage fertility (white and non- white) typical “Second demographic transition” features Dimension 2 high teenage fertility ( black + white), high extra-marital fertility, high divorce (already since the 60s), grandparent households responsible for grandchildren older pattern typical for US (and partially for the UK, not rest of western Europe)

7. USA 50 states : Demographic dimension 1: indicators and best correlates Demographic Dimension 1* (indicators and factor loadings) Abortions p 1000 live births ‘80 +.92 Abortions p 1000 live births ‘92 +.91 Abortion rate p 1000 w 15-44 ‘96 +.86 % hhlds same sex adults ‘00 +.80 NHWhites** Total Fertility Rate ‘02 -.72 % hhlds ‘families’*** -.64 NHWhites: Fertility postpone ‘02 +.64 % hhlds Cohabitation ‘00 +.56 NHWhites: ASFR 15-19 ‘02 -.54 * “ second demographic transition” dimension ** NHWhites = Non-hispanic whites *** families = married couples, married couples + children, parent + children Best Correlates (Indicators and correlations) % vote Bush ‘04 -.84 % pop Metropolitan ‘00 +.64 % pop Metropolitan ‘62 +.62 Disposable Personal Income ’00 +.60 % pop. Catholic ‘02 +.50 % pop 25+ with BA ‘90 +.50 % pop Evangelical * ‘02 -.56 % workers unionized +.47 Disposable Personal Income ‘80 +.45 * Plus estimate of Mormon in Utah

16. Same-sex marriage amendments: small extra effects: Large differences in wording of the amendments ! Minimum non-recognition of same-sex marriage/partnership Maximum non-recognition of any partnership other than marriage Vote in favor of amendments is slightly reduced: if amendment is “maximal” if voter initiated rather than initiated by legislature if referendum later in time

17. Conclusions SDT-dimension is very good and robust predictor of recent voting outcomes at state and county levels. But it explains regional/local differentials, not levels per se. Other “culture war” issues even better predicted by SDT than presidential elections. Regional variance in SDT is very large in US, reflecting a high degree of life style diversity. Evangelical backlash increased variance in value orientations. Result : “culture war” is not solely an elite affair but reflects an important degree of public heterogeneity as well.

18. BOTTOM LINE The US is a textbook example of how spatial ideational differentials shaped the map of the SDT, and how in its turn, the SDT-map co-determines the political outcomes at levels of states and counties.