Ethnic and religious breakdown of the voting

119 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston

Arthur, while I'm not from Winnipeg, you might appreciate this letter Leo Panitch wrote to Jack:

Quote:
Dear Jack, You are doing the right (or should I say left) thing on the Afghanistan prisoner cover-up, and I just can't believe you won't stand up for Libby now. As I wrote to my former student Judy Wasylycia-Leis a few months ago, it was wrong of her to join Kenney and Cotler on their McCarthyite committee.  As you saw when this came back to bite even Cotler in the rear, there is no way one can win on this one except by refusing to be intimidated by bullies whose sole aim is to repress legitimate dissent in relation to the Israel-Palestine issue. Even Judy's voters in my old neighbourhood of North Winnipeg will understand this if they are reminded of the traditional Jewish value of 'rachmones'. It is increasingly evident that those who speak in an 'Israel right or wrong' manner are not genuinely reflecting the views of most Jewish people in North America. 
Best regards, 
Leo  

Leo Panitch
Canada Research Chair in Comparative Political Economy
Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science
York University

 

Unionist

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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

I think you've just found a definition of Jews! Laughing

Quote:
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.

When I was little (and I'm older than you Arthur), developers in Tuxedo wouldn't sell to Jews - what an irony when you look at today's demographic, eh? This was not long after the numerus clausus era in the University of Manitoba law and medical faculties. I still recall the surprise in the Jewish community when Sid Spivak became leader of the provincial Tories. But we have to recall that in the time of Duff Roblin and some time after, the Tories were more "red" than the Liberals, so these categories can be misleading.

At the same time, Jews in the North End were voting CCF/NDP or communist (provinicially and municipally) in the post-war years. They were poor as dirt and they gravitated to their perceived class allies. Federally, if they had to choose between two enemies, the Liberals were the more natural choice. Also, in those days, the "ultra-orthodox" and Chasidic phenomena simply didn't exist there (don't know if they do now?) and barely were coming into being in Montréal. Jewish immigrants, pre and post WWII, tended to assimilate as fast as they could. And Zionism, while always a trend in the community, never ever translated into voting choices in Canadian politics. Anyway, Israel before 1967 was perceived mainly as secular idealist lefties.

Jews who got involved in politics did so primarily in the CCF/NDP or the communist party - can't recall all the names, but I'm sure you will.

As for shifting sands, it's based on class in my humble opinion, not Israel. Wealthier capitalist -> right, less wealthy worker -> left. Pretty standard equations. In Winnipeg, that divide was generally north/south, though I know demographics and geographics have changed. A well-known Winnipegger, lamenting the decline of the vibrant north-end Jewish community, once declared that "Moses had crossed Portage Avenue". Some see this as liberation from economic slavery. Not me.

Quote:
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.

I share your feelings. But as I grew up, I gradually came to understand that Israel was also founded on the dispossession of an entire people. The debates between kibbutz and moshav, or Labour vs. Herut, or secular vs. orthodox, paled into insignificance in the face of this overwhelming national tragedy for the Arab inhabitants - but also, by extension, for the Jewish settlers, because it robbed them of their innocence, their idealism, their socialism - and ultimately their soul.

 

ottawaobserver

The other thing about Catholic voters moving to the Conservatives is that it may be confounded with the fact that it's the older immigrant voters in the Italian, Greek and Polish communities who are making the switch, two of the three being heavily Catholic in their reported religious adherences.

Overall, the differences are more to do with attendance at church, and adherence to a more fundamentalist sect than one less so. The NDP tends to do well amongst the Catholics who are Irish, for some reason, and I bet that is confounded with class.

Correlation does not equal causation, as we all know.

Stockholm

The NDP also tends to do very well with francophones outside Quebec - who also tend to be be overwhelmingly nominally Catholic. It would be interesting to look at party preference among people who identify as Catholic AND actually attend mass regularly. To me, someone in downtown Montreal who never goes to church apart from the odd Xmas concert but who still thinks of themself as Catholic because they were baptized in 1962 - doesn't really count. For some reason when Protestants stop going to church - they tend to start to self-identify as "none" when asked their religion. Catholics - even if they are 100% "lapsed" tend to respond to the question with more of a 'once a Catholic always a Catholic" attitude.

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm, Angus Reid already did surveyed Catholics (outside Quebec).  Weekly attenders were 60% Conservative. 

Ottawa Observer, it seems quite evident that the Italian Canadian community (in the GTA anyway) swung Tory, big time. Julian Fantino won by one of the biggest margins in Ontario, and they got a majority of the vote in other ridings with large Italian Canadian populations like Caledon, Oak Ridges and Thornhill.  The bulk of Italian Canadians have moved out of their old working class neighborhoods and into the more well-off parts of the 905.

Stockholm

I'd like to look at Catholic weekly church attenders vs. non-attenders INSIDE Quebec as well. The thing about Italian Canadians is that they are now a very mature immigrant community. You now have mostly 2nd and 3rd generation Italian-canadians who are more or less totally assimilated into English Canada and their voting patterns tend to be in synch with their incomes and values and where they choose to live - second generation Italians who choose to buy a house in Vaughan tend to be just as small "c" conservative as their WASP neighbours. Second generation Italians who decide to live in the Annex or Seaton Village tend to be just as NDP as their neighbours. Having a last name that ends on a vowel is no longer a vote determining factor.

Lord Palmerston

And there's no specifically "Italian Canadian" issues, while one could argue in the case of the Jewish community Israel is an important issue for many (though certainly not all or even most) Jewish voters.  Though as I've argued above, I think Jewish voting patterns mirror their place in the Canadian social structure, for the most part.  

Stockholm

Maybe Harper can try to create an "Italian-Canadian" issue by publicly expressing total support for Silvio Berlusconi?

Lord Palmerston

takeitslowly wrote:
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.

I know that in 2008 the LGBT community was roughly evenly split between the Liberals and NDP, with less than 10% voting Conservative.  There may have been some improvement since, but I think they're just about the most anti-Tory demographic in the country.

Stockholm

I suspect that the NDP probably made major gains among LGBT this year - just looking at how the NDP vote massively increased in the ridings that we tend to think have the highest concentrations (ie: all the old City of Toronto ridings - even Toronto Centre would have gone NDP if Rosedale were lopped off - Laurier-Ste. Marie, Quebec, Ottawa Centre, Vancouver Centre etc...etc...). In 2008 the BQ probably did very well with LGBT in Quebec - that must have swung decisively NDP this time.

Lord Palmerston

To respond to Arthur's question...here's how I see it in Toronto.  

Generally, the Jewish community is more progressive further south and becomes more conservative as one moves north along Bathurst St.

So, starting with Trinity-Spadina...this is where the working class, immigrant Jewish community was located prior to WWII.  At the time they were a very left-wing constituency.  It had elected Communists to city council and Queen's Park.  J.B. Salsberg was the MPP until 1955.  Never federally though - the Liberal David Croll (who famously broke with the anti-union Hepburn Liberals) was very popular and got elected there in 1945.  During the 1940s and 1950s they became more affluent and most of them moved out into the suburbs of Forest Hill and North York.  However there is also a significant "new" Jewish community made up of academics and cultural workers and ex-suburban refugees, especially in and around the Annex.  I've read that the downtown Jewish community is growing at a very significant rate.  This group is very politically progressive and secular and vote NDP.  I would imagine many of these people would *not* declare their religion as Jewish and thus wouldn't count in the Ipsos exit poll.  I assume the elderly remnant of the old Spadina community remains left of center as well.

North of there, between Dupont and Eglinton, is the riding of St. Paul's.  This includes the wealthy enclave of Forest Hill as well as a lot of "uptown professional yuppie" and urban intelligentsia types. Most of the Jews here would be at least third generation Canadian and many belong to the Reform movement.  I would guess they mostly vote Liberal.

North of Eglinton, you're into North York and Thornhill.  This is where the Orthodox areas are, lots of immigrants from the FSU and Israel, as well as lot of high income suburban areas with monster homes, etc.  North York is an older suburb that was built up in the 1950s and 1960s, while Thornhill is mostly post-1980 housing.  The Jewish population in North York is more elderly and has been declining for a long time, while Thornhill is a fast-growing suburb and has a younger demographic.  It appears that this area has switched from Liberal to Conservative.  

 

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
I'd like to look at Catholic weekly church attenders vs. non-attenders INSIDE Quebec as well. The thing about Italian Canadians is that they are now a very mature immigrant community. You now have mostly 2nd and 3rd generation Italian-canadians who are more or less totally assimilated into English Canada and their voting patterns tend to be in synch with their incomes and values and where they choose to live - second generation Italians who choose to buy a house in Vaughan tend to be just as small "c" conservative as their WASP neighbours. Second generation Italians who decide to live in the Annex or Seaton Village tend to be just as NDP as their neighbours. Having a last name that ends on a vowel is no longer a vote determining factor.

I would guess that what remains of the Italian community (as well as the much larger and more working class Portuguese community) in Davenport voted along with their neighbors to trade their Silva for Cash!

Stockholm

There are a lot of old traditional stereotypes about Portuguese in places like davenport. A lot of the "old ladies in black dresses" have de-camped to Mississauga and in many cases the houses they own are rented out OR you have second generation people of Portuguese or Brazilian descent who are pretty "hip".

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:

There are a lot of old traditional stereotypes about Portuguese in places like davenport. A lot of the "old ladies in black dresses" have de-camped to Mississauga and in many cases the houses they own are rented out OR you have second generation people of Portuguese or Brazilian descent who are pretty "hip".

It seemed the Brazilians I met around Dufferin and College as an E day outside scrutineer were very supportive of Cash.  Unfortunately, one woman on our list was not a Canadian citizen and couldn't vote.

Lord Palmerston

Here are my crude geographic equivalencies:

St. Paul's/Forest Hill :: Westmount :: River Heights

North York :: Hampstead/Cote St. Luc :: Garden City

Thornhill :: Dollard :: (no Winnipeg equivalent?) 

 

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Here are my crude geographic equivalencies:

St. Paul's/Forest Hill :: Westmount :: River Heights

North York :: Hampstead/Cote St. Luc :: Garden City

Thornhill :: Dollard :: (no Winnipeg equivalent?) 

 

FYI: Dollard elected an NDP MP!!

Lord Palmerston

Well West Islanders are a hell of a lot more progressive than those 905ers. Laughing

It's been a while since I wrote my GREs...So #3 gets a Fail, what about the other 2?  

"North York" meaning more specifically Eg-Law and Wilson Heights, as I realize it encompasses an array of areas ranging from the Bridle Path to Flemingdon Park.

Wilf Day

ottawaobserver wrote:
The NDP tends to do well amongst the Catholics who are Irish, for some reason, and I bet that is confounded with class.

I love the fact that one can now say this. When I grew up, the Catholic Irish were heavily Liberal (as well as working class), and the NDP was overwhemingly Protestant -- including me.

Maysie Maysie's picture

I need to know how white men voted. As a block, a unit, a group, a class. It's very important and crucial for me to know this.

KenS

Thats an enigmatic quip.

Are you suggesting people want to know how those of various self-identifying ethnicities tend to vote because they are 'ethnics' [not white], in a way they would not want to know what drives white males?

And by the way, there is no imputation that anyone, any kind of group, votes as a bloc. Notions like that are absolutely antithetical to the purpose that anyone interested in this data has.

I agree it makes for good stereotyping though.

VanGoghs Ear

First define a white man?  Does that included transgender people? Anyone with a drop of "white" blood? only WASPS? Jews? light skinned Iranians?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Thanks to everyone for the thoughts on this. I don't think it really makes me feel any better. I guess this will sound naive but I always thought that Jews were thoughtful and left leaning. I am guess this is no longer the case. It makes me feel embarassed, and sad.

6079_Smith_W

dp

6079_Smith_W

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

First define a white man?  Does that included transgender people? Anyone with a drop of "white" blood? only WASPS? Jews? light skinned Iranians?

Practically speaking, I think that comes down to how one self-identifies. But if I understand correctly the point being made - and it is a good one - is that no one is interested in pointing fingers at white guys. It is always identifiable groups - not white guys, that means -  who are put on the spot as a "bloc", analyzed and blamed, and made to second-quess themselves.

White guys aren't an identifiable group of course, because we are the norm - even though we are the most powerful group there is.

I held back from commenting on Arthur's post because I am not Jewish, and don't claim to know the whole community. But I think I must have been hanging out with all the bad ones at the U of W, and in Fort Rouge, Wolseley and the North End. I have never even seen the inside of anyone's house in Tuxedo, and I lived in Charleswood for a few years (and i have been in enough places on the high end of Wellington Crescent and environs).  

Frankly Arthur, I think you will drive yourself crazy with questions like that. I don't guilt myself with what the Richardsons and the Eatons did. You shouldn't either.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@6079_Smith_W:

 

Hi. Thanks. I don't think it makes me feel any better, but thanks. In one, its even more ironic as I pretty much lost touch with the community a good 35 years ago to be honest. I never was all that comfortable in it at the best of times either.

Cheers!

VanGoghs Ear

6079_Smith_W wrote:

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

First define a white man?  Does that included transgender people? Anyone with a drop of "white" blood? only WASPS? Jews? light skinned Iranians?

Practically speaking, I think that comes down to how one self-identifies. But if I understand correctly the point being made - and it is a good one - is that no one is interested in pointing fingers at white guys. It is always identifiable groups - not white guys, that means -  who are put on the spot as a "bloc", analyzed and blamed, and made to second-quess themselves.

White guys aren't an identifiable group of course, because we are the norm - even though we are the most powerful group there is.

I held back from commenting on Arthur's post because I am not Jewish, and don't claim to know the whole community. But I think I must have been hanging out with all the bad ones at the U of W, and in Fort Rouge, Wolseley and the North End. I have never even seen the inside of anyone's house in Tuxedo, and I lived in Charleswood for a few years (and i have been in enough places on the high end of Wellington Crescent and environs).  

Frankly Arthur, I think you will drive yourself crazy with questions like that. I don't guilt myself with what the Richardsons and the Eatons did. You shouldn't either.

it seems wrong to be critical of categorizing people and using stereotypes of those categories to draw conculsions about large groups of diverse individuals and then using the very same type of labelling and stereotyping against an albeit doiminant group to make yr point.  

6079_Smith_W

@ VanGoghs Ear

I'm not sure what you are refering to.

Do you mean my refering to white guys as the norm, and the most powerful group there is? 

Its not actually a stereotype. and if you want to call it labelling, well - guilty, though I question the term, because I used the term "norm" ironically.. If we look at any identifyiable group it is usually in contrast to what we consider the norm - which is the white majority, as if they are somehow a group and we are not. And I don't think saying that by our numbers we are the most powerful group in this country is too far off the mark. It's not even a value judgment - it is a statement of fact that there are far more of us than there are of anyone else.

(edit) 

And I didn't criticize identifying people by group in all instances. Read my first post - #34. In this case I was just agreeing with Maysie's post that that same lens doesn't usually get turned on us in the same way.

Maysie Maysie's picture

It's amazing how this thread went to 68 posts and nobody felt any need to clarify a whole bunch of inaccurate, broad and undefined terms.

Then I swoop in with a one-liner hoping to show you all how ridiculous you sound, and only KenS and 6079 seem to get it.

The fact that this thread has drawn out a well-known racist (Van Gogh's Ear) should be, if not the first, then the gazillionth clue that this thread had a flawed premise.

voice of the damned

Then I swoop in with a one-liner hoping to show you all how ridiculous you sound

I don't think it's ridiculous at all to talk about how white men vote. Given that it's progressives themselves who usually make the point that white males benefit the most from the prevailing power structure, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that they are more likely to vote for parties supporting the status quo, than are, for example, white females or POC males.

Granted, there are other biographical factors which may intervene to determine someone's voting preferences. A low-income white male might be more likely to vote NDP than a multimillionaire POC female. But insofar as a voter identifies her/his interests as related to her/his racialization or gender(eg. a white guy seeking to protect his privileges, or a black woman seeking to break down social barriers), I would be quite surprised if there isn't a positive correlation between "white male-ness" and support for status-quo political agendas.

Unionist

Maysie wrote:

The fact that this thread has drawn out a well-known racist (Van Gogh's Ear) should be, if not the first, then the gazillionth clue that this thread had a flawed premise.

Thanks Maysie - I tried to express that view in post #4, and in several posts thereafter. But there seems to be a vibrant industry in dividing people up on the basis of race, colour, religion, gender, orientation, etc., and finding ways to trick each "group" into voting a certain way - then measuring the results of the trickery.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Then I swoop in with a one-liner hoping to show you all how ridiculous you sound

Granted, there are other biographical factors which may intervene to determine someone's voting preferences. A low-income white male might be more likely to vote NDP than a multimillionaire POC female. But insofar as a voter identifies her/his interests as related to her/his racialization or gender(eg. a white guy seeking to protect his privileges, or a black woman seeking to break down social barriers), I would be quite surprised if there isn't a positive correlation between "white male-ness" and support for status-quo political agendas.

I agree with Maysie.  

If you want to understand the correlation between voters and parties then break down ridings poll by poll for income distribution.  You will have no problem seeing that the ethnicity of people is far less important in predicting there voting pattern than class.

However when you take it too the individual level it is called sterotyping.  Just because most old white guys support Campbell doesn't mean I do or want to be included in that category.  When you try to take it to a personal level of course we all know some red neck white guys like the valley boys out here who hate the NDP and loved voting for that racist Chuck Strahl.  And it seems to me Oprah (not many POC women billionaires in the group) voted Democrat.

6079_Smith_W

I think this kind of research can be useful and even necessary - for instance in dispelling some of those nasty myths, or pointing out crises and inequities that many would otherwise not see. 

But of course it is a two-edged sword and there are always those who are going to use it (far more often, sadly) to manipulate, to attack , or to slur. And like most polls, I do think we rely on them far too much, But are they inherently wrong? I don't think so.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@Maysie:

I must admit that I did't see this as a thread about how white people voted. I'm focused on trying to understand why Jews vote so stupidly, and for me, seem so happy about abandoning a progressive, and socially responsible political heritiage. Its a g-d shame.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think this kind of research can be useful and even necessary - for instance in dispelling some of those nasty myths, or pointing out crises and inequities that many would otherwise not see.

How amusing and unsurprising - that your claim about this kind of bogus "research" helping to dispel nasty myths, should be followed, immediately, by a nasty myth stemming from that very fraudulent "research".

Anyway, I still want to know how under-40 male victims of sexual assault at the hands of monotheistic clergy residing in semi-arid climates voted. Any ETA on that research?

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Arthur

But again, how many white people beat themselves up over what "we" do and think? I must say I ponder those same frustrating questions about our province and region, but not about my culture. 

And as I said, those numbers about the Jewish community in Winnipeg? THey may be accurate, but they certainly aren't the whole truth, because they don't reflect the people I knew when I grew up there

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Sorry... what nasty myth did I use?

Come on. I recognize the dangers in it just as you do. And as I said I seem to remember you citing that same survey I mentioned  about U.S.  catholics being more moderate than protestants. 

These polls and studies are not going away, and there are no grounds for making them illegal. Really I think the important thing to remember is how dangerous they can be if they are misused, and given more weight than they deserve.

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Unionist

Sorry... what nasty myth did I use?

Oh come off it. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the post just before mine. Give me a break. It was my way of not chewing out my friend Arthur for spreading anti-semitic tropes, even though he was doing so with the best of intentions (and yes, I know he's Jewish, so let's get that diversion over with quickly).

Quote:
Come on. I recognize the dangers in it just as you do. And as I said I seem to remember you citing that same survey I mentioned  about U.S.  catholics being more moderate than protestants.

You obviously didn't understand what I was doing there any more than you understood my post here. Some babbler had just made some insulting generalization about Catholics (not the church - the people) being socially conservative in their opinions - talking about abortion or something. So, as a mythbusting exercise, I quoted some poll showing that the opposite was true - just to show that bullshit is bullshit, you just have a choice for sale at the supermarket.

Quote:
These polls and studies are not going away, and there are no grounds for making them illegal.

I'm not suggesting they go away or be made illegal. I'm suggesting that when someone raises them in a progressive forum, that progressive people should mock, expose, and ridicule them for the dangerous and divisive and anti-scientific exercises that they are.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Except that I don't think that poll about catholics was nonsense. It is a bit of evidence - however non-scientific - that they aren't all brainwashed zombies. And there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Catholics are a bit more catholic (dictionary definition) than many fundamentalists are. 

And sorry, I know that WAS an example of gross generalization and stereotyping.

I agree with you that these kind of polls are popular primarily because they can be used by politicians and advertisers to manipulate. And while they can be divisive and dangerous, and are given far more weight than they deserve, I would suggest that they aren't all entirely inaccurate, or useless. 

I think the maxim about the law - that it should be a shield, and never a sword - is probably the best thing to remember when parsing this kind of information.

(edit)

Also, I agree it is a danger to think we are talking about people when we talk about race or religion, but really these several qualities among many which influence people.

VanGoghs Ear

please close my account

Surprised

Lord Palmerston

Wilf Day wrote:
I love the fact that one can now say this. When I grew up, the Catholic Irish were heavily Liberal (as well as working class), and the NDP was overwhemingly Protestant -- including me.

I'm not so sure about this.  I remember seeing some data on voting patterns by religion from the 1950s and 1960s and there wasn't much of a difference between Protestant and Catholic workers (outside Quebec) in terms of NDP support.  Catholic workers were much more likely to support the Liberals than Protestant workers though (who were much more likely to support the Tories).  That may have been the case in the community where you grew up however.  I could dig this up pretty easily and share, if you'd like.

I'd be surprised if one could extrapolate anything however about the "Irish Catholic vote" today though there does seem to be a big number of union leaders who have been Irish (i.e. Dennis McDermott, Bob White, Sid Ryan)

Wilf Day

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Catholic workers were much more likely to support the Liberals than Protestant workers though (who were much more likely to support the Tories).  That may have been the case in the community where you grew up however.  I could dig this up pretty easily and share, if you'd like.

If you have data on Peterborough in the 1950s, it might be interesting. However, you've already explained it. When people wanted to get the Tories out after the 1960 recession and Dief's other problems, the protestant Tory working class tended to switch to the NDP. The Catholic working class tended to say we should all vote Liberal. Yes, even then.

VanGoghs Ear

Maysie wrote:

It's amazing how this thread went to 68 posts and nobody felt any need to clarify a whole bunch of inaccurate, broad and undefined terms.

Then I swoop in with a one-liner hoping to show you all how ridiculous you sound, and only KenS and 6079 seem to get it.

The fact that this thread has drawn out a well-known racist (Van Gogh's Ear) should be, if not the first, then the gazillionth clue that this thread had a flawed premise.

do you have any evidence to prove that slanderous statement

Unionist

By the way, even though I agreed with Maysie's statement above, I was agreeing with the "flawed premise" part. I barely noticed her mention of Van Gogh's Ear. I don't know why she said what she did (she can answer for herself if she likes) and I'd like to clarify that I was not intending to accuse VGE of racism or anything else.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, I still want to know how under-40 male victims of sexual assault at the hands of monotheistic clergy residing in semi-arid climates voted. Any ETA on that research?

Sorry I can only give you some anecdotal evidence of over 60 male victims of sexual assault at the hands of a monotheist clergy residing in rain forests.  Would that be helpful?

Cool

Speaking of anecdotal evidence my catholic sister and her husband usually have two signs on the lawn during elections.  One Red and one Blue, no Orange.  My church going sister has the blue sign and the not so regular in attendance hubby has the Red.  Of course my sister is old school and votes the way her daddy and mommy voted.  They were part of that great demographic of church going catholics for Diefenbaker.  My devout catholic mother, with French as her first language, hated Trudeau but went to mass every week and organized church teas for decades.  

So what does that tell you about ethnicity and religion and language.  It tells me that voters are individuals and any party that wants to represent the whole community better understand that central truth.  This type of polling divides and has a history of being used to drive wedges between communities that normally function in overlapping circles when it comes to effective advocacy and community service.

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

People make assumptions about  race religion and culture just as much without asking these questions. Again, although I agree they are used too much, and more often than not for the best purposes, I do not agree that they are complete nonsense, or entirely useless.

I agree that our MSM makes assumptions every day based on race religion and culture.  They take half baked studies and report them for fun and profit. Or they take studies and extrapolate far beyond the authors own work again for fun and profit.

I see little of good and mostly I see nonsense if not in the reports then in the reporting of the reports.

I agree with Unionist and would rather heap scorn on the concept than listen to all the hype when a infinitesimal amount of real information might be buried in the bombast and obfuscation that always accompanies these types of polls and surveys.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Aw Van Gogh's ear, you're so funny.

Well, first there's your first post in this thread.

Quote:
 First define a white man?  Does that included transgender people? Anyone with a drop of "white" blood? only WASPS? Jews? light skinned Iranians?

It's like, I problematized whiteness and it lit a fuse for you. Meanwhile mostly everyone else in this thread (you didn't post except in Pavlovian response to mine) is happy to carry on with words such as "ethnic community" completely undefined. You not only missed my point, you took it a direction that only someone who doesn't see the system of whiteness as center with all others as "other" could. 

Here's some nonsense:

Quote:
 What I'm saying is that in Canada, harmony among all people should be the goal but that many old people of all ethncities hold on to old bigotries some and still divide families to this day

Ongoing baiting and trolling in this thread.

Trolling and baiting in this thread too.

You really enjoy disrupting conversations about Aboriginal people and to a lesser extend discussions about people of colour. Which are oh-so plentiful here on babble. You overtly deny systemic racism. There's kinda only one word for that, and that's the word I used.

P.S. Read some 101 will ya? 

6079_Smith_W

@ NS

Yes, when one wants to use it as a wedge. 

On the other hand it can be used to do the exact opposite - debunk myths that religious people all think and vote along with church dogma, or have a certain political slant.

People make assumptions about  race religion and culture just as much without asking these questions. Again, although I agree they are used too much, and more often than not for the best purposes, I do not agree that they are complete nonsense, or entirely useless.

(edit)

ooops.... I meant that they are used more often than not for the WRONG purposes.

 

oldgoat

VanGoghs Ear wrote:

please close my account

Surprised

 

 

ok

Sean in Ottawa

I have been seeing this thread grow for a while but each time I think I might add something it seems so pointless-- the entire thread is hard on the stomach.

What is the purpose of trying to figure out how religions and ethnicities are voting?

It comes from the false idea that "they" -- whoever you define as the "they" -- are a monolith.

It distracts from divisions in voting like rich and poor (I drove through various neighborhoods in Ontario in the last election -- Monster homes in the GTA were decked out in Conservative signs in spite of other "diversity." Poorer neighbourhoods did not like blue nearly so much.

But the premise behind looking at racial/ethnic/religious voting comes down to a desire to sort people this way and attract their vote. I would not want to vote for a party that presorts people by ethnicity, race or religion. As a result, I could not care less how one person defines this particular group to have voted and am only left wondering why this is not labelled for what it is-- racism, bigotry. Do people really think that when racism is boiled down to a statistic it becomes ok? Somehow scientific?

Still, I know the people where I live generally don't vote Conservative because they know the Conservative party hates poor people and the monster home crowd do. I am not sure that I need more information on this.

If there is one group that votes more for one party than another -- it is likely because that party targeted them. I know the Conservatives targeted advertising in to minority language newspapers. Maybe that got them a few extra votes but I don't think people vote along ethnic lines.

al-Qa'bong

Tory Prime Minister Benny Disraeli identified all one needs to know about politics, in his 1845 novel Sybil:

"Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor."

Benjamin Disraeli and the Two Nation Divide

Pages

Topic locked