1. Voting Inequalities in Charlottesville: A Practical Application of the 2004 APSA Study “American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality” Tonsler Park Precinct Jenn Gillyard Mellisa McDowell Jonathan Moore

2. Tonsler Park Precinct

3. Political Signs Items of Interest Church Flag Precinct Map

4. Observations: Pre-Election Signs overwhelmingly Democratic -Kerry/Edwards- 32 observed -Bush/Cheney- 2 observed Income -Housing -Cars Other factors -Churches -Minorities in the Majority

5. Observations: Election Day Apparent Democratic party mobilization -Poll workers -Transportation -Signs Partisan Handouts Communal Ties “Poll Watchers”

6. Archival Research-Census Data Income levels -per capita income -household (Un)Employment Stats Poverty Level Housing Education

7. Median Household Income in 1999:2000

8. Per Capita Income in 1999: 2000

9. Percent of Persons 25 Years and Over with High School Diploma or More Education: 2000

10. Archival Research 2-Voting Voter Turnout -TP: 58% -Charlottesville: 67% -nation: 60% Voting History of the Tonsler Park Precinct -Kind of one-sided

11. Archival Research 3-Political Participation Political party membership -Republican: 4.6% -Democrat: 12% Campaign Contributions

12. Conclusions 1 Exit polls vs demographic statistics Income level and voting –APSA: low-income do not vote in high numbers –TP district predominantly poor so exit poll data on income should reflect this right?

13. Reminder: Per Capita Income in 1999: 2000

14. precinct Total 1.00 lt 25k 2.00 25 to 50k 3.00 50 to 75k 4.00 75 to 100k 5.00 100 to 200k6.00 200k income Total Exit Poll Results: Middle Income Rules

15. Conclusions 1.5 An interesting note on low-income individuals not coming out to vote -Most important issue: Indigents should care most about economic inequalities and problems, yet this did not occur in our survey, since these individuals did not come out to vote.

16. Tonsler Park Precinct Most Important Issue

17. Conclusions 2 Political Parties -APSA: parties only care about high income individuals -TP: since the precinct is overwhelmingly poor, parties don’t care about them, right?

18. Do Political Parties Care? Survey says…no

19. Conclusions 3 Voting and Education -Lower levels of education and the perception of nonvoting -What did the survey say about this idea?

20. Percentage of Residents With a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

21. Education Data

22. Education Levels By Precinct Highest Level of Education P e r c e n t of C a s e s

23. Conclusions 4 Race and gender and voting -APSA: Minority men vote in disproportionately lower numbers -TP: Black males are 28% of the total population. Did they turnout to vote?

24. Tonsler Park Precinct Race and Gender

25. Final Conclusions APSA article on the right track -income and voting -education and voting -gender/race and voting -political party apathy Social Implications -Pre-election observations vs exit poll

26. Questions???