Ethnic and religious breakdown of the voting

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
josh
Ethnic and religious breakdown of the voting

Conservatives won the religious, Protestant, Jewish (52%.  in the U.S., the Republicans are lucky to break 30%), and those born outside of Canada.  The NDP and the Cons were just about even among those born in Canada.

The NDP won the secular, Catholic, and "visible minorities."

The Liberals won the Muslim vote.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/religion%20split%20federal%20vote%20pol...

Lord Palmerston

An important thing to keep in mind is the equivalents of the "enlightened Wall Street types" who gave millions to Obama would have supported Harper here.  

ravenj

Gee, I guess the Conservatives micro-targeting is working with the Jewish community - twice as high as for the Liberals.

The Catholic preference for the NDP surprised me - would that be a result of the strong support in Quebec?

Lord Palmerston

I'm pretty sure it is.  According to a poll conducted by Angus Reid, over 50% of Catholics outside Quebec supported the Conservatives.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43856/canadian-catholics-more-likely-to-...

Unionist

ravenj wrote:

The Catholic preference for the NDP surprised me - would that be a result of the strong support in Quebec?

Something like 83% of Quebecers identified as Roman Catholic in the last census, when asked.

In 2008, 12.2% of Quebeckers voted NDP. In 2011, 42.9% of Quebeckers voted NDP.

The Catholic Church didn't change. The NDP didn't change. Quebeckers didn't change religious identification.

This "religious" polling is bullshit.

josh

But in addition to being culled to less than half its size, the constituency that the Liberal Party now represents has also changed. It is poorer, less ethnically diverse, and more concentrated on the Atlantic coast.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-new-liberal-constituenc...

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Something like 83% of Quebecers identified as Roman Catholic in the last census, when asked.

In 2008, 12.2% of Quebeckers voted NDP. In 2011, 42.9% of Quebeckers voted NDP.

The Catholic Church didn't change. The NDP didn't change. Quebeckers didn't change religious identification.

This "religious" polling is bullshit.

This is why I think it would have made more sense to distinguish between catholics in Quebec with those in English Canada and maybe also screen out people who identify with a certain religion but who literally never attend any services etc...

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Exit polls should be banned.  The data is both unreliable and easily manipulated.  

I know I would not want anyone asking me in person who I just voted for and to then share more data than a long form census.  I agree with Unionist this focus on religion is not only unhelpful it is a divisive sorting of our population into faith based xenophobia.

Lachine Scot

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Exit polls should be banned.  The data is both unreliable and easily manipulated.  

I know I would not want anyone asking me in person who I just voted for and to then share more data than a long form census.  I agree with Unionist this focus on religion is not only unhelpful it is a divisive sorting of our population into faith based xenophobia.

Agreed, this is just another manifestation of blaming "l'argent et la vote ethnique"..

bekayne

josh wrote:

Conservatives won the religious, Protestant, Jewish (52%.  in the U.S., the Republicans are lucky to break 30%), and those born outside of Canada.  The NDP and the Cons were just about even among those born in Canada.

The NDP won the secular, Catholic, and "visible minorities."

The Liberals won the Muslim vote.

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/religion%20split%20federal%20vote%20pol...

Of the 50 ridings with the highest % of "visable minorities", Con-25, NDP-13, Lib-12

Unionist

What about the visible majority ridings? How did they vote?

And how about transsexual and transgender persons? Any numbers there? Or do they come under "visible minority"?

[thread drift about this offensive and paternalistic and white supremacist topic]

In the early 90s, when they starting doing "employment equity" surveys in my workplace, I asked if I could list myself as "visible minority". This caused a bit of a tizzy. After some investigation, management called me in and told me "no" - because I didn't fit the so-called "definition":

Quote:
... persons, other than aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour...

I replied: "Do you think I look Jewish?" Being from HR, she tried not to nod her head, and groped around for something noncommittal to say. She finally settled on: "You could list yourself as Jewish, if you wish." I said, "Thanks, but there's no category for religion on the survey." [She had forgotten that employment equity isn't about religion - and I didn't want to get into the fascinating topic of how Judaism, like other religions, is a pile of crap. Instead I said:] "Would Jewish be a racial category, or perhaps a disability?"

She was admirably patient, and finally said that the survey forms were anonymous anyway. I said, thank Allah for that!

[end of thread drift]

 

 

Stockholm

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Exit polls should be banned.  The data is both unreliable and easily manipulated.  

I know I would not want anyone asking me in person who I just voted for and to then share more data than a long form census.  I agree with Unionist this focus on religion is not only unhelpful it is a divisive sorting of our population into faith based xenophobia.

We do not have "exit polls" in Canada the way they do in the US and UK where tenns of thousands of people get intercepted in person as they leave polling stations. What Ipsos did was an ONLINE poll of their panelists on election day.

I think its wonderful from a social research POV to have information on voting patterns by age, income, gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof) its all good. I don't see this leading to "faith based xenophobia" any more than I see generational war being caused by the fact that young and old people have different voting patterns or that people in Quebec vote differently than people in Alberta.

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
I think its wonderful from a social research POV to have information on voting patterns by age, income, gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof) its all good.

Yeah, as I said above, it's "all good" for those that want to emphasize every conceivable difference between people in order to develop strategies to divide them further and trick them into voting for their natural enemies.

The only divisions that should be studied and surveyed are the ones that need to be eliminated - rich vs. poor, worker vs. exploiter.

 

Caissa

Unionist wrote:

The only divisions that should be studied and surveyed are the ones that need to be eliminated - rich vs. poor, worker vs. exploiter.


Standing ovation.

Wilf Day

(double post)

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
I think its wonderful from a social research POV to have information on voting patterns by age, income, gender, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof) its all good.

Yeah, as I said above, it's "all good" for those that want to emphasize every conceivable difference between people in order to develop strategies to divide them further and trick them into voting for their natural enemies.

The only divisions that should be studied and surveyed are the ones that need to be eliminated - rich vs. poor, worker vs. exploiter.

Right, but in order to do that, in Ontario, one wants to study the barriers to bridging those differences. It has been said for generations that the Anglican Church was the Conservative Party at prayer. Similar comments abut the NDP and the United Church, and the Liberal Party and the Catholic Church, had some basis. But in the city where I grew up, this was clearly perverse, since the Catholics tended to be more working class. At one time the priests had warned parishioners against the socialists and against the unions that were run by socialists. So it was worthwhile to see if we had succeeded in breaking that down. It happened in the North, then in the Italian community in Toronto, and then everywhere else in Ontario.

Stockholm

I think we should also study divisions between the religious and the non-religious - since I would like all religiousness in the long run to be eliminated!!

Meanwhile, I think that if there are statistically significant differences in how people vote by religion, ethnicity, gender, occupation, etc...than its absurd to try to pretend those cleavages don't exist. Its like saying we should stop collecting data on the gender of victims of violent crime and shut down all efforts to combat violence against women on the grounds that its divisive to collect such data. Or maybe we should stop looking at the racial makeup of the poor in Canada and since we no longer collect the data - we can just assume that people of colour are just as likely to be rich as to be poor.

There is only one reason i can think of for NOT trying to analysing voting behaviour by religion and that would be if studies showed that religion showed no correlation whatsoever with voting behaviour in three straight federal elections. If that happened - then i would say fine - its no correlating with anything so its a waste of a question - cut it - but as long as there are significant patterns they must be studied and understood. Trying to censor data collection is using the Tory playbook with their getting rid of the long form census

Maysie Maysie's picture

[drift]

In 2007, the United Nations called Canada racist for the continued governmental use of the term "visible minority" in its references to:

Employment Equity Act wrote:

"persons, other than aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."

I've hated the VM term for a long time. Also, the official classifications and definitions of "visible minority groups" that Canada uses is appalling.

[/drift]

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Maysie wrote:

[drift]

In 2007, the United Nations called Canada racist for the continued governmental use of the term "visible minority" in its references to:

Employment Equity Act wrote:

"persons, other than aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."

I've hated the VM term for a long time. Also, the official classifications and definitions of "visible minority groups" that Canada uses is appalling.

[/drift]

I also really don't like term.  First of all it is meaningless for many people.  The part of the country I live in more than a third of weddings are mixed ethnicity couples. Trying to define children as one or the other based on which parent their the physical characteristics resemble the most is a fools game.  So is having people identify blood lines.  I grew up in a "white" Canadian family but given the centuries my ancestors lived in community with the Mi'kmaq I can "pass" at a powwow or a Back to Batouche celebration.  That doesn't make me any less privileged or "white".

In the end it all comes down to class.  

In Burnaby where I live the the majority could tick that stupid box so, so much for "minorities." 

Uncle John

Unions run by socialists?

hmm. I guess the IWW is pretty socialist.

But most of them are not.

And the IWW started up the Starbucks Workers Union. The AFL-CIO did not.

Coffee anyone?

Heavy burn with a shot of vanilla please...

Might make me feel a bit less Wobbly...

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

Right, but in order to do that, in Ontario, one wants to study the barriers to bridging those differences.

I see. Religion must play a bigger role in people's voting choices in Ontario than my empirical observations have led me to believe. Do you have an explanation to offer for what I said above:

Quote:

Something like 83% of Quebecers identified as Roman Catholic in the last census, when asked.

In 2008, 12.2% of Quebeckers voted NDP. In 2011, 42.9% of Quebeckers voted NDP.

 

Unionist

Stockholm wrote:
Or maybe we should stop looking at the racial makeup of the poor in Canada and since we no longer collect the data - we can just assume that people of colour are just as likely to be rich as to be poor.

No, Stockholm. I never said that. No one said that. What I said is that we should condemn media and political pundits who try to connect people's religious faith with the party they vote for. I'm still trying to understand Wilf's point, which appears to be that in order to break down the ugly influence of some religious organizations, we have to measure it - maybe I misunderstand. But to say "Jews voted x% for Harper" is, in my opinion, a filthy anti-semitic comment which deserves to be called bad names. Compare it to: "37% of women who were sexually assaulted and made a police report voted for male candidates over the age of 50". It's disgusting, and is of interest only to those who are trying to manipulate and poison healthy political life and debate.

 

Unionist

Maysie wrote:

I've hated the VM term for a long time. Also, the official classifications and definitions of "visible minority groups" that Canada uses is appalling.

Thanks, Maysie, I fully agree. Likewise, when I hear people (especially Zionists, but not exclusively) generalize about "Jews", the image of Hitler springs unbidden to my mind's eye.

 

ygtbk

Maysie wrote:

[drift]

In 2007, the United Nations called Canada racist for the continued governmental use of the term "visible minority" in its references to:

Employment Equity Act wrote:

"persons, other than aboriginal people, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."

I've hated the VM term for a long time. Also, the official classifications and definitions of "visible minority groups" that Canada uses is appalling.

[/drift]

Maysie, if they said "employment equity group", would you be ok with that term? If not, what terminology would you be comfortable with?

Unionist

ygtbk wrote:

Maysie, if they said "employment equity group", would you be ok with that term? If not, what terminology would you be comfortable with?

I know you asked Maysie, but personally I would prefer, "People who don't look like they're from around these here parts."

 

KenS

Unionist wrote:

But to say "Jews voted x% for Harper" is, in my opinion, a filthy anti-semitic comment which deserves to be called bad names. Compare it to: "37% of women who were sexually assaulted and made a police report voted for male candidates over the age of 50". It's disgusting, and is of interest only to those who are trying to manipulate and poison healthy political life and debate.

Seriously, I think you are so very consumed by the poisonous nature of religious beliefs and their role in dividing people, that you go way over the top to equate every attempt to understand as an attempt to manipulate peoples religious beliefs, and/or to manipulate the fears and divisions around religion.

It is analogous to Tarek Fatah's consuming paranoia about Islamists. Islamists and their influence among Muslims in North America and Europe are a serious issue. And Tarek and others forced this out in the open when few in the communities wanted to talk about it.

But Tarek became so consumed by what he saw as the pervasive influence of Islamists, that it became the ONLY thing he saw. To the point that Islamaphobia dissapeared as a problem to Tarek Fatah, and he will justify anything the US does.

I dont see you doing anything nearly so extreme. But I think the analog is still valid.

The attempt to understand the role of religious belief in people's political inclinations is no more manipulative than understanding any other kind of belief.

Certainly, the motivation is political persuasion- pulling people in your direction. But how is understanding the role religious belief [or the lack of it] plays in politics inherently any more manipulative than understanding other kinds of beliefs?

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
Religion must play a bigger role in people's voting choices in Ontario than my empirical observations have led me to believe.

It used to. I don't know if that has completely disappeared without survey evidence. I hope so.

Maysie wrote:
[drift]I've hated the VM term for a long time. Also, the official classifications and definitions of "visible minority groups" that Canada uses is appalling.[/drift]

The only one of these questions I have to deal with every week is "do you self-identify as First Nation, Métis or Inuit?" "It is important to identify yourself as an Aboriginal person so that your lawyer or duty counsel can follow the areas of law that deal with Aboriginal rights. For example, the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Child and Family Service Act all have parts that consider the unique legal status of Aboriginal people in Canada." I have no problem with that. Although the term "non-status Indian" is more common around here than "Métis." 

Unionist

KenS wrote:

Seriously, I think you are so very consumed by the poisonous nature of religious beliefs and their role in dividing people, that you go way over the top to equate every attempt to understand as an attempt to manipulate peoples religious beliefs, and/or to manipulate the fears and divisions around religion.

It is analogous to Tarek Fatah's consuming paranoia about Islamists.

Ken, with all due respect, your analogy is - ok, forget the respect - it's not only insulting, it's stupid.

Do you really not get that I am saying that religion DOES NOT SIGNFICANTLY INFLUENCE people's political choices and behaviour in this country? And that Tarek Fatah is saying THE OPPOSITE?

I charge Tarek Fatah with being divisive, diversionary, and pro-imperialist by virtue of his campaign to attack some irrelevant Islamic ideas and personalities - thus sowing division among ordinary people who don't need division of any kind.

Likewise, I charge those who organize politically on the basis of race, ethnicity, and religion as being racists, bigots, xenophobes, enemies of the unity of working people.

Your foolish superficial "analogy" is based on the fact that I personally believe that religion is a steaming pile of shit. But I would never, ever, treat workers differently on the basis of their religious beliefs. These are private matters which must not be allowed into the political sphere (or the unions or the peace movement or the women's movement etc.).

 

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:
Although the term "non-status Indian" is more common around here than "Métis." 

Of course you're right, Wilf - Aboriginal people have distinct rights based on their identity, which so-called ethnic minorities do not. It is essential for the safeguarding of those rights that Aboriginal people have full rights when it comes to self-identification. In other words, First Nations exist - "visible minorities" are a construct of the dominant class.

Thread drift: I don't follow your quoted statement, though. I thought "non-status Indians" were First Nations who have not signed treaties. Metis are Metis - they're not "First Nations". Am I missing something here?

 

Stockholm

Unionist wrote:

Do you really not get that I am saying that religion DOES NOT SIGNFICANTLY INFLUENCE people's political choices and behaviour in this country?

YOu keep trying to shoot the messenger - but the fact remains that it is a FACT that religion is a powerful factor that affects people's political choices. People who attend religious services on a weekly basis are VASTLY more likely to vote Conservative. People who never attend religious services are vastly more likely to vote NDP. Do you think this is just a coincidence?

Survey data also shows that in this election, people who self-identify as Jews are more likely than the average Canadian to have voted Conservative. People who self-identify as Muslim or Sikh are more likely to vote NDP or Liberal than the Canadian average and so on...You can stand on your head and count to 100 backwards and it won't change these uncontravertible FACTS.

Lord Palmerston

I'm guessing we're going to be hearing ad nauseum from the likes of Ezra Levant and David Frum and the National Post etc. about how finally Jews have embraced the neocon/Likudnik worldview...

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
Wilf Day wrote:
Although the term "non-status Indian" is more common around here than "Métis."

Thread drift: I don't follow your quoted statement, though. I thought "non-status Indians" were First Nations who have not signed treaties. Metis are Metis - they're not "First Nations". Am I missing something here?

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) was founded in 1971 as the Native Council of Canada (NCC). It was established to represent the interests nationally of Métis and nonstatus Indians. At present the mandate of the Council is to represent off-reserve Indian and Metis peoples regardless of status under the Indian Act.

Non-status Indians are not, in my part of Ontario, in distinct communities. They are individuals who have First Nation descent but not status. Some are descendents of First Nation members who chose to give up status many decades ago. Others are descendants of people with mixed blood who did not qualify for status certificates under the rules of the time. It gets complicated. I have met First Nation members who say they are "Bill C-31 status" Indians. Just over 117,000 people who had lost status through discrimination, or whose parent or earlier ancestor had lost status in that way, have been "reinstated" to Indian status. Some non-status Indians here got status back under various amendments to the Indian Act; others did not.

You are eligible for registration if:

Quote:

  1. You were entitled to registration prior to the changing of the Indian Act on April 17, 1985;
  2. You lost your Indian Status as a result of your marriage to a non-Indian man (s. 12(1)(b)), including enfranchisement upon your marriage to a non-Indian man (s. 109(2));
  3. Your mother and father's mother did not have status under the Indian Act, before their marriage and you lost your status at the age of 21 (s.12 (1)(a)(iv) - referred to commonly as the double-mother rule);
  4. Your registration was successfully protested on the grounds that your father did not have status under the Indian Act, however your mother had status;
  5. You lost your registration because you or your parents applied to give up registration and First Nation membership through the process known as "enfranchisement"; or
  6. You are a child of persons listed in 1 to 5 above;

You may also be eligible for registration if only one of your parents is eligible to be registered under Section 6(1) of the Indian Act.

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I'm guessing we're going to be hearing ad nauseum from the likes of Ezra Levant and David Frum and the National Post etc. about how finally Jews have embraced the neocon/Likudnik worldview...

If that's the case, it means that we need to counter their arguments and do a better job of promoting the NDP in the Jewish community. Trying to pretend that this issue doesn't exist by refusing to measure it is NOT a solution.

Unionist

Thanks for the information, Wilf.

 

josh

Seems some on here want to put a lot of political scientists out of business.  I fail to see how studying ethnic and religious breakdowns of voting patterns is somehow encouraging some sort of ethnic or religious division.  It's simply a matter of observing a phenemona and reporting on it.  Its definitional accuracy always remains open for debate.

Max Bialystock

Stockholm wrote:
If that's the case, it means that we need to counter their arguments and do a better job of promoting the NDP in the Jewish community. Trying to pretend that this issue doesn't exist by refusing to measure it is NOT a solution.

I agree.  The lesson here is that by being a pro-Israel fanatic Harper was able to clean up with the Jewish vote.  The Jewish Left is on its deathbed and work needs to be done to revive it, so this data is helpful. 

In fact, I would say the NDP needs to be more critical of Israel.  They're never going to win over the Zionists and they shouldn't try (are you listening Mr. Mulcair????) This election result makes that clear.

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist #27

I agree. 

I think the validity of this kind of research depends on the intent, the questions asked, and understanding the meaning of the data.

Of course one should never discriminate based on culture or religion, but I doubt anyone would deny there are some blocs within certain religions which TEND to support certain politics and causes - some of them progressive, and some of them oppressive.

I don't have time to look it up right now, but I am sure you remember that U.S, study - Pew Foundation, if I remember -  which showed that catholics tended to be more progressive than protestants. I believe you made refererence to it not too long ago.   Clearly the study was skewed because they did not make the distinction between fundamentalist protestants and the many other sects. 

Research on religion and politics and values can be useful in dispelling myths and illustrating trends which are valid. Where it becomes dangerous is when it is used as a tool to generalize and attack. 

To say that many fundamentalists think a certain way does not give us the right to attack a fundamentalist person based on his or her belief.

Do I think it should be banned? No, because most research can be twisted and used in a destructive way. It's just that when it comes to matters of race. belief and culture the potential for discrimination is a lot more overt. But you can do the same thing with gender, income, region, or any number of things.

But I think, as you rightly point out, that it can be dangerous -  particularly if abused by people who don't understand how to use the data.

And if you want to get closer to the edge.... throw race into the mix: 

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-a...

There's some data that could be used in a destructive way if someone wished to do so. On the other hand, some of it makes sense when you factor in that religion is ultimately based on belief, not facts, and that the catholic church spent much of its history trying to PREVENT the laity from knowing what was in the big book, or even from having it translated out of latin so they could read it.

Really, that study is just a measure of book-learning, which is a pretty narrow field.

 Personally, I think most of the hard facts in those books are only useful in teaching a lesson to those who think they know it all and use religion to put down other people. I think belief is ultimately a matter of personal faith, and that a person's understanding of dogma and technicalities has no bearing on the validity of their faith or their intelligence..

But in the wrong hands it would be very easy to use that data to discriminate.

josh

Well, about half the Jewish vote did not go to the Conservatives.  So, I'd be wary about exaggerating the results and portraying the situation as more desparate than it acutally is.  Still, it's rather curious why Canadian Jews seem more disposed to vote right than, for example, U.S. Jews, who are typically more often portrayed as single-issue voters.

KenS

Max Bialystock wrote:

The lesson here is that by being a pro-Israel fanatic Harper was able to clean up with the Jewish vote.  

Here is where Unionist and I have tended to agree. And others- Stockholm included I think, who you are responding to here.

There is no evidence that Harper "cleaned up on the Jewish vote". That is very different than saying that the Cons did well, and better, among Jews. Its different in pricnciple. But its hugely more different when it comes to the false stereotype the left tends to have in mind whan talking about 'the Jewish vote'.

Being fanatically pro-Israel does get the loyalty of a minority slice of Jews.

But it is ingratiating with a much larger number of WASPS. The latter is what makes it a win-win for crude politics.

KenS

Unionist wrote:

Do you really not get that I am saying that religion DOES NOT SIGNFICANTLY INFLUENCE people's political choices and behaviour in this country?

Stockholm wrote:

You keep trying to shoot the messenger - but the fact remains that it is a FACT that religion is a powerful factor that affects people's political choices. People who attend religious services on a weekly basis are VASTLY more likely to vote Conservative. People who never attend religious services are vastly more likely to vote NDP. Do you think this is just a coincidence?

What I get Unionist is that you find it offensive saying that religion effects political choices. Hence the general puzzlement about why shoot the messenger? As has been said a few times by a number of people, where is the evidence that studying a relationship increases divisiveness?

It is news to me that you dont believe religion influences political choices. It explains things, though not really. Anyway, I have not seen you say it. Where is the evidence for that.

But bear in mind we are not talking about religion only. And as you have noted yourself, self-identification for Jews is about ethnicity, not religion. What practicing/beleiving Jews do for political choices would take a more sophisticated survey than is possible with exit polls.

Which ties into what Smith noted, this is a very complex animal.

Some implications for that:

The finding that in the last election the NDP did better among Catholics is no doubt very misleading. That is probably measuring the number of Quebecoise who voted NDP. People who are about as nominal as religious identification as they could possibly be. If you did a more rigorous survey, you'd probably find that being Catholic had just about nothing to do with their political choices.

On the other hand- if its true that there was a major shift of self-identifying Jews to the Conservatives, that probably is measuring something that is going on. Though dollars to doughnuts, digging in would find that the causal factors are the changing nature of who Jews are in the social structure, and where they are located socialy as well as geographically. [And not likely have much to do with Israel, or with explicitly religion-rooted factors.]

Stockholm

josh wrote:

Well, about half the Jewish vote did not go to the Conservatives.  So, I'd be wary about exaggerating the results and portraying the situation as more desparate than it acutally is.  Still, it's rather curious why Canadian Jews seem more disposed to vote right than, for example, U.S. Jews, who are typically more often portrayed as single-issue voters.

There would be a couple of explanations for that:

1. The Conservative party in Canada is NOT the GOP. The GOP more or less makes itself unelectable among the vast majority of Jews because they are so blatantly controlled by evangelical christian nutbars who want to ban abortion, send gays to internment camps and start ridiculous wars. The GOP is also blatantly xenophobic and racist. Whatever their views on foreign policy, American Jews are extremely "liberal" on social issues. The Tories in Canada have managed to avoid being stigmatized in the same way and they have avoided taking any of those policy stances that make the GOP so kooky in the eyes of American Jews.

2. American Jews are much more likely to be descended from people who came to North American over 100 years ago and that vast majority of them are in the Refom movement. The Jewish community in Canada tends to have much more recent arrivals and are less assimilated and a smaller proportion are Reform.

josh

I think your second point probably carries more weight.  Even when the Republicans were not as far right as they are now, the best they could do with Jewish voters was approach 40% in the '72 and '80 elections. 

Lord Palmerston

KenS wrote:
And as you have noted yourself, self-identification for Jews is about ethnicity, not religion. What practicing/beleiving Jews do for political choices would take a more sophisticated survey than is possible with exit polls.

The question in the Ipsos survey though was about religion.  So many people of Jewish ethnicity who explicitly identify as atheists, agnostics, no religion, Buddhists, etc. (of which there are plenty) would likely not be counted as "Jewish."  I would guess in a riding like Trinity-Spadina there are a lot of "ethnic Jews" who wouldn't necessarily say their religion is Jewish.  Add in these Jews of no religion and I'm sure it falls below 50%. And while I don't have hard data for this, I would imagine at the other end of the spectrum, Orthodox Jews went overwhelmingly (probably over 80%) Conservative.  So even of religiously identified Jews, remove the Orthodox and it probably falls below 50%.  No evidence of block voting. 

Quote:
The finding that in the last election the NDP did better among Catholics is no doubt very misleading. That is probably measuring the number of Quebecoise who voted NDP. People who are about as nominal as religious identification as they could possibly be. If you did a more rigorous survey, you'd probably find that being Catholic had just about nothing to do with their political choices.

Very true.  Angus-Reid did some polling of Catholics and Protestants outside Quebec, and broke it down by church attendance.  Catholics outside Quebec were over 50% Conservative and weekly attenders were more like 60%.

Quote:
On the other hand- if its true that there was a major shift of self-identifying Jews to the Conservatives, that probably is measuring something that is going on. Though dollars to doughnuts, digging in would find that the causal factors are the changing nature of who Jews are in the social structure, and where they are located socialy as well as geographically. [And not likely have much to do with Israel, or with explicitly religion-rooted factors.]

Very good point.  We do know in 2006 that there was still a good deal of reservation about the Tories among Jewish voters (they got less than 25%).  Since then, the Liberals have completely collapsed and much of that vote went over to the Conservatives.  So while Israel likely was a factor, I think the collapse of the Liberals played at least as an important a role in the shift in the Jewish community.

I think the other thing to keep in mind - and this was the point I made earlier in the thread about "enlightened Wall Street types" - is that we now have more of a UK-style "Labour vs. Tory" polarization based more on class factors and less of a "Democrat vs. Republican" polarization based more on social issues.  Would Heather Reisman be a Republican if she lived in the US?  The data I've seen on UK voting patterns - where Jews are overwhelmingly middle class - is that they vote Tory in large numbers, but less when one controls for class factors they're actually more progressive (i.e. Jewish doctors and professors are to the left of non-Jewish doctors and professors).  In other words, it's not ethnicity that's driving these Tory votes, but their place in the social structure.  

 

 

Stockholm

Yes, but the whole Republican embrace of Israel is also something quite recent. Back in the 60s and 70s - the GOP was widely seen to be very lukewarm about Israel and being pro-Israel was seen as a very "liberal Democratic" cause. Even in 1992, George Bush Sr. was regarded as "anti-Israel" because he and James Baker were pushing for settlement freezes. Clinton at the time attacked Bush Sr. for not being pro-Israel enough! 

By the time the GOP became the ultra pro-Israel party they are today - they also developed other kooky characteristics (see above) that made them totally unpalatable to the vast majority of American Jews.

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
The Conservative party in Canada is NOT the GOP. The GOP more or less makes itself unelectable among the vast majority of Jews because they are so blatantly controlled by evangelical christian nutbars who want to ban abortion, send gays to internment camps and start ridiculous wars. The GOP is also blatantly xenophobic and racist. Whatever their views on foreign policy, American Jews are extremely "liberal" on social issues. The Tories in Canada have managed to avoid being stigmatized in the same way and they have avoided taking any of those policy stances that make the GOP so kooky in the eyes of American Jews.

That's what it is.  A lot of people who vote Tory here would vote Democrat in the States, while I suspect the US-style "New Democrats" and blue dogs and the "enlightened Wall Street types" would vote Tory here.  

When Republicans pass a certain litmus test on social issues, the Jewish vote can indeed swing Republican.  For instance, Rudy Giuliani got 75% of the Jewish vote when he ran again for mayor in NYC against a Jewish liberal Democrat (shades of Peter Kent vs. Karen Mock) and probably would have beaten Hillary Clinton among Jewish voters had he run for Senate.  I was living in New York State in 2002, and the GOP governor George Pataki was said to have received the majority of the Jewish vote.

Lord Palmerston

Also, when Canada really did have a "GOP north" party on the ballot - the Canadian Alliance - they got totally CRUSHED among Jewish Canadians (probably less than 10% of their votes) in spite of Stockwell Day's pandering to the Jewish vote by attacking the Liberals for being anti-Israel and for promising to fund Jewish day schools etc.

voice of the damned

Seems some on here want to put a lot of political scientists out of business.

Yeah, I'm kind of wondering how there could be any discussion of Canadian politics without occassionally veering into sectarian voting preferences.
When somone mentions La Grande Noirceur in Quebec, it is immediately understood that we are talking about a period in which one political party commandeered the votes of rural Catholics. And the only reason we know that is because, somewhere along the way, someone did a study about who rural Catholics in Quebec were voting for.
I would agree that, for the most part, Catholic identification in Quebec is today mostly nominal, and of little consequence to voting habits. But even there, though, it's not completely irrelevant to political behaviour. As has been discussed here before, the vast majority of Quebeckers opposed removal of the Crucifix from the Assembly(as had been recommended by Bouchard-Taylor), a sentiment almost certainly linked to residual Catholic identity. Such a fact is useful to know. (And no, I'm not saying that progressives in Quebec should abandon the policy of removing the Crucifix, just that they should clearly understand that pusuing the policy is not likely to be much of a vote-getter).

voice of the damned

The formatting did not work in my post above. The sentence beginning with "I would agree that..." should be the start of a new paragraph.

takeitslowly

i wonder about the breakdown of the GLBT votes, chances are, more GLB people are voting Conservative since same sex marriages are not likely to be overturned.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

As a Jew, I really don't know for certain how Jews vote.

My own, truly best guess in Winnipeg is that at least in the South End (Tuexedo) of Winnipeg, I think it would be very fair to think it likely Jews in that part of town, where the largest portion of Jews live, are likely Tories, and to a lesser degree Libs. I am not really convinced there are large numbers of lefties. Here in the North End, I am guessing more Jews vote NDP then Lib, and that fewer still in this part of town, vote Tory.

I feel sad about this you know, especially considering how Israel was originally founded with the intention of being a truly progressive and democartic, left wing state. I look at what has happened here to the community in Winnipeg and I feel badly for my parents and grand parents who dedicated themselves to the CCF and NDP.

If there are any Jews on this board from Winnipeg who have better insight then I do on this, I would love to hear what you think. This invitation also exteds to any other Jewish Lefties reading these threads and who want to chime in.

I don't know for sure that my conclusions regarding Winnipeg are bang on; it is my best "gut" guess.

Lord Palmerston

josh wrote:
Well, about half the Jewish vote did not go to the Conservatives.  So, I'd be wary about exaggerating the results and portraying the situation as more desparate than it acutally is. 

Yes.  Since Harper and the right-wing Zionist lobby have decided to frame it that "only the Conservatives support the Jewish people" etc. - 50% not drinking the Kool Aid is a good thing, as they can't claim to have the support of the "vast majority" and how those who oppose the Tories are a marginal fringe.  I remember an op-ed by George Jonas in 2006 saying that due to Harper's support for Israel in its attack on Lebanon, the Tories would get 75% of the Jewish vote for now on - not even close!

Pages

Topic locked