This document summarizes a presentation on spatial models of intra-urban electoral behaviors. It hypothesizes that urban spaces develop central-periphery social patterns and political forces have different geographical patterns depending on their strength and proximity to power. The methodology uses the Geary index and Duncan index to analyze voting patterns in French cities. The main results found center-periphery structures in medium and large cities and links between political force strengths and spatial configurations, though results were deceptive. The discussion notes limitations and questions the relevance of the center-periphery political offer model outside of France.

1. Spatial Models of Intra-Urban Electoral
Behaviours
Laurent Beauguitte
CNRS, UMR IDEES
September 8th 2013
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 1 / 18

2. 1 Context
2 Postulates & Hypothesis
3 Methodology & Data
4 Main results
5 Discussion
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 2 / 18

3. Context
So much data & so few analysis
Elections every two years (at least)
36 000 communes, more than 60 000 polling stations
Shapes are changing, political offer is changing
Short-term interest
Urban vote commented a lot, yet nearly unknown : no French polling
stations map available until 2013 (Cartelec project, htpp ://cartelec.net)
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 3 / 18

4. Objective
Reverse the perspective
Propose a (urban) model as general as possible
Find methods to validate it
Tests on empirical data
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 4 / 18

5. Postulates & Hypothesis
Postulates
Three main postulates
Urban spaces gets central-periphery social pattern
Political offer presents à central-periphery pattern (governmental vs
protest forces)
Political forces present different geographical patterns according to 1)
their strength 2) their proximity to power
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 5 / 18

6. Postulates & Hypothesis
Urban socio-political patterns
City centres : middle & upper classes spaces (gentrification process).
Persons supposed to have a “responsible” electoral behaviour (i.e. vote,
vote for governmental forces)
City peripheries : middle & lower classes spaces. Persons to have a “less
responsible” electoral behaviour (i.e. abstain, vote for protest forces)
Main forces get bastions but are able to gather voices from all spaces ;
secondary forces get hot spots but do not gather voices everywhere.
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 6 / 18

7. Postulates & Hypothesis
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 7 / 18

8. Methodology & Data
Methodology
Global Geary index crossed with Duncan index
Expected
Governmental forces : high Geary, low Duncan
Non-governmental forces : high Geary, high Duncan
Mapping of cold & hot spots (Getis-Ord local index) to highlight
centre-periphery structure
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 8 / 18

9. Methodology & Data
Data
Results on polling stations level for
Presidential 2007, first round
European 2009
Regional 2010, first round
For all cities > 30 000 inh. where polling station map is available.
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 9 / 18

10. Main results
Regarding spatial structure, it seems to work
Small cities (< 40 polling stations) : no clear pattern
Medium cities (40 to 80 polling stations) : centre-periphery structure
(as expected)
Large cities (> 80 polling stations) : centre-periphery plus sectorial
structure (as expected)
Regarding links between political forces strengths & spatial configuration,
deceptive results (except Duncan/abstention)
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 10 / 18

11. Main results
Spearman rank correlations (tested on 15 indicators)
Duncan index & score (% registered citizens*)
Score UMP07 UMP09 UMP10 PS07 PS09
Duncan - 0.18* - 0.46*** - 0.26** - 0.16* - 0.22*
FN07 FN10 ABS09 ABS10
- 0.23 * - 0.3* 0.39*** 0.44***
Geary index & score (% registered citizens*)
Score UMP09 UMP10 PS10 FN09 ABS07 ABS10
Geary - 0.28** - 0.2 * - 0.24* - 0.24* - 0.17* - 0.26**
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 11 / 18

12. Main results
Paris - 2007 Sarkozy vote
Royal votes’ map is the exact opposite. . .
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 12 / 18

13. Main results
Paris - protest vote
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 13 / 18

14. Main results
Marseille - protest vote, Le Pen 2007
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 14 / 18

15. Main results
Besançon 2090 : governmental forces
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 15 / 18

16. Main results
Besançon 2010 : governmental vs protest behaviours
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 16 / 18

17. Discussion
Discussion
Social structure assumed by remains here a black box (GWR to test)
Depends on size (larger the city, higher the spatial autocorrelation)
Depends on shape (i.e. polling station split in different parts)
Why using 3 different indices ?
Data remains costly to collect
Is centre-periphery structure of political offer relevant outside France ?
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 17 / 18

18. Discussion
If you wanna play
One good news : all these data (electoral results, shape,
socio-demographical indicators) are freely available
http ://www.cartelec.net/ ?page_id=3609
L. Beauguitte (CNRS) Urban electoral models September 8th 2013 18 / 18