Quote (Voyaging @ May 11 2017 10:35am)
Outside of the few most densely populous states, the correlation between population density and quality of life doesn't appear to be particularly strong.
You have e.g. Ohio and Florida with high population density and mediocre quality of life, and e.g. Colorado and Minnesota with low population density and high quality of life.
I misspoke, should have said high population density areas. These large cities become cultural hubs and tend to take over the politics of the larger area, because large groups of people tend to be more progressive than small groups.
Mississippi vs. Illinois being a great example. Mississippi has no real major cities, whereas Chicago surburbs are larger than Jackson MI. The entire state of IL has bent to the Chi political machine on a lot of issues and will continue to do so.
You're not wrong to say that democratic governments in big cities contribute to the quality of life, i just think its overplaying one's hand to suggest this is anything but happenstance based on the natural resources and lack there of that led to the rise of cities. tbh, if you'd stated liberal or progressive vs. conservative instead of Dem vs. Rep i would have fully accepted that. i'm mainly nitpicking any ways because im bored and like to talk about developmental historical topics.
This post was edited by thesnipa on May 11 2017 10:44am