Government Workers Consolidate Voting Clout Around Capitals

Brian Baugus and George Diemer, Government Accountability Institute

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, seven of the 12 counties with the highest median household incomes (around $100,000) are suburbs of Washington, D.C. Three of the 12 are suburbs of state capitals – in New Jersey and Colorado. The top 20 are more geographically diverse, but still include three more outlying Washington suburbs. As recently as 2000 only five Washington suburbs were in the top 20.

This concentration of wealth in and around seats of government raises a question: Could bureaucrats running the federal and state governments constitute the most powerful special interest group in America? That could well be the case.

In a recent research paper, we examined the influence non-military federal and state government workers have on election outcomes and found that this well-off and influential group votes in higher proportions than any other group and far differently than the American electorate at large. Studies going back to the 1930s support these conclusions.

In the 2008 and 2012 elections, for example, overall voter turnout was 63.6% and 61.8% of eligible voters respectively, but the turnout of government employees was over 76% in both elections -- by far the largest turnout by employment category. 

As for their voting preferences, our research shows that they lean Democratic, in some cases heavily, in the counties roughly within 30 miles of Washington or a state capital; Census figures indicate these places are where 90 percent of government employees live.

Over the nine presidential elections from 1980 to 2012 (in which Republicans won five races and Democrats four), Democratic candidates won their home states by the comfortable margin of 13.5% on average. But that pales in comparison with the vote they pulled in Washington, D.C. There voters went overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate with an average of 75% of the vote, never once voting Republican.

The capital-area effect is magnified if you factor in government workers' spouses, and contractors, suppliers and others highly dependent on the government for their income.

In the most recent election, our research indicates that four states were impacted by capital-region bias. Michigan and Wisconsin, which flipped from Obama to Donald Trump, both had lower turnouts in the capital region in 2016 and a slightly more Republican preference than in 2008. If the capital regions of these two states had performed as they did in 2008, both states would have gone for Hillary Clinton. In two others, New Hampshire and Virginia, if the capital region had voted like the rest of the state, Trump would have won them. In Virginia’s case, just two D.C. suburban counties made the difference.

We found a similar pattern when we examined voting in all the nation's counties except Alaska. We looked where government employees are more concentrated, in the counties home to state capitals and Washington, D.C., as well as counties bordering either -- roughly 330 counties in all. In 2008, those counties gave Barack Obama 13.4 percent more of the vote than John McCain, while the nation as a whole favored Obama over McCain by 7.5 percent.

Depending on the state and other population factors, such capital-region bias may be worth up to 2.5 percent of the total vote for the Democratic candidate. Our research shows that in 2008, capital-region bias gave Obama the edge in four states totaling 49 electoral votes -- not essential to his victory but not insignificant either. But capital-region bias was crucial to Democratic wins in Virginia when Mark Warner was re-elected to the U.S. Senate in 2014 and Terry McAuliffe was elected governor in 2013. Their races were decided by 17,000 votes (less than 1 percent) and 56,000 votes (less than 2 percent) respectively.

As a percentage of the overall workforce, the proportion of federal employees has nearly doubled since 1950. And that has corresponded with an increase in influence. Bureaucrats are below the political radar, but the balance of power may be tilting irrevocably toward this special interest and the growing government it serves, with the American taxpayer picking up the tab. 

Brian Baugus is an assistant professor of economics at Regent University in Virginia.  George Diemer is an assistant professor of business at Chestnut Hill College in Pennsylvania. This article is based on their research in The American Economist titled “How Do Government Employees Influence Election Outcomes.”