Alaska: Land Without Counties. You may have noticed every election results website (that I saw) showed you results by county for every state except Alaska. That's because their vote is tallied by State House district instead,and it takes a bit of effort to reorganize the data for different geographic units - of which the closest equivalent to counties are boroughs and census areas. Here's the map of the 2008 election results by State House district:
Click to enlarge.
Each district had somewhere between about 5000 and 12000 votes cast. Democratic strength is centered in Anchorage and Juneau, while Republican strength is in the South Central region (outside of Anchorage) and Fairbanks.
So what about the Native Alaskan vote, about 10% of the total voters?
Precinct Level Map
Zooming in one geographic level, the map below shows 2008 presidential results by precinct - but it only shows precincts that were more than 85% Alaskan Native or Native American in the 2000 census.
Click to enlarge.
At first glance, this a patchwork crazy quilt. Part of this is because almost half the precincts had fewer than 100 votes, and when you have so few votes, things get squirrely. But there are some geographic patterns there if you squint.
Compare to the map of native languages, or the related map of Regional Corporations formed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Here's an overlay of the Regional Corporations on the results map:
Click to enlarge.
Overall Support
Overall, the exit polls show 52% support of Obama among the racial category of Other in Alaska, which made up 11% of the electorate. I'm willing to bet it's pretty hard to do an exit poll in the less populated areas of Alaska, though. So let's go back to estimates
The census records four main groupings of Alaskan Natives. Calculations of Obama's support among these groups statewide shows that the Alaskan Native population is far from uniform in voting behavior among these four groups as well:
Click to enlarge.
Why?
Well, Why Not? Why would we expect much homogeneity across such a huge expanse of territory?
The answer is we wouldn't - and one possible reason is economic interests. In the maps above, we see there is a region of low support for Obama in Northwest Alaska, including almost all of (but not limited to) the NANA Regional Corporation. This Alaska Native Regional Corporation owns the Red Dog Mine, the world's largest zinc mine. Census data show that in this area (NW Arctic Borough, Census Tract #1) 27% are employed in mining (which includes oil), far higher than any other part of Western Alaska. (Note that another area of weak support for Obama among Native Alaskans, in Southwest Alaska, does not show a similarly large proportion of workers in the mining industry.)
What we have is a large state, and a diverse population, relatively small in number, with varied economic and cultural interests. Diverse political views are no surprise.
__________________
This diary is the ninth in a series taking a close look at the 2008 electorate and exploring three themes: diversity within demographics, progressive feedback loops, and demographic change.
Tomorrow: The Latino Electorate: Increasing Influence
Cross posted at Open Left.
Diaries in this series (updated list):
Looking Back
Alternate History
Why Republicans Should Be Really Scared
African-Americans – We Are Not All of Us Alike
East and South Asian Americans – Diverse and Growing
West Asian Americans – Rapid Change
Native Americans – Increasing Participation
Islander Americans – In Need of More Representation
Native Alaskans – An Economic Factor?
Latino Electorate – Increasing Influence
European-Americans – Tribal Politics Persist
“Americans” – You Might Be Surprised
Appalachia – Surprisingly Democratic
Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really Scared
Why Republicans Should Be Really, Really, Really Scared
A Few More Tidbits
Related 2008 electorate diaries:
Maps: Blue America and the Changing Electorate
Maps: Obama and White Evangelicals