NYT debunked on divorce rates in red states (JUNK SCIENCE!)

Freeper Analysis ^ | 11-16-2004 | Beelzebubba

[Atlas Sneezed]

In a recent New York Times Article, Pam Belluck asked the question: "If blue states care less about moral values, why are divorce rates so low in the bluest of the blue states?" Pam's article went on to cite "divorce rates" from federal data showing that strongly pro-Kerry states have low divorce rates, while pro-Bush bible-belt states have high rates.

This is a deeply flawed misuse of statistics. The reported "divorce rate" is not the rate per marriage, but the rate per population. When one looks at CDC data, one finds that of the 10 states with the lowest ratio of divorces to marriage, half are blue states, half are red. The same 50-50 split holds true for the worst dozen states.

There appears to be no meaningful correlation between politics and divorce. Undoubtedly, because Kerry received most of his support from urban areas where young adults tend to defer marriage, many remain unmarried, and where unmarried gays congregate, the use of "divorce rates" per population creates a strong bias. (Would a higher "divorce rate" - per 1000 residents - among gays in San Francisco and Massachusetts have similar importance?)

The graph below shows the data, with marriage meccas Nevada and Hawaii topping the list with lowest number of divorces per marriage. College havens in New England also are high on the list, perhaps in part due to the number of young adults who live there at the time they get married, but who depart soon after, before potentially divorcing.

2004 presidential election winner is indicated by color, with a dark color indicating that the wonner took at least 55% of the state's vote.

1999 (latest) CDC data, which is incomplete for 4 states (including California) and the District of Columbia.

Data source:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/48_19_3.pdf

Chart data here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281125/posts?page=13#13

[MEGoody]

Puhleeze. NYC and LA and SF are in the blue states. No way any state has a higher divorce rate than those areas.

[Steve_Seattle]

The statistics ares also flawed because they don't show who is getting the divorces. Red states aren't entirely populated by Republicans.

[HitmanLV]

I agree. I live in Nevadas - 160,000 marriages to 15,000 or so divorces. Of course, plenty of folks from other states come to NV to marry in Vegas and go back to their home state and live happily ever after, or at the very least, get a divorce there.

Also, there was always a fallacy with the folks who insisted 'half of marriages end in divorce.' At any given time in the population there is a 'backlog' of several decades of married couples, and some of them get divorced, and many of them don't.

If a state has 40,000 marriages in one year and 20,000 divorces, a random dimwit would conclude that 'half of marriages end in divorce.'

That doesn't factor in, say, a 35 year backlog of married couples - some who have divorced, many who haven't, and who aren't really being factored in.

[vetvetdoug]

I wonder what the black crime rate in the blue states versus the black crime rate in the red states compares. Then I would like to see the overall crime rate of the blue versus red state comparison. Better yet, make the rates evaluated as to blue versus red COUNTIES instead of states. I believe there would be some eye opening results.

[Grampa Dave]

[Grampa Dave]

There are a few stats, that the libs have a hard time massaging:

1. Murder Rates
2. Armed Robery Rates
3. Auto Theft Rates
4. Assualt rates

This data needs to be worked by county/city. California for example is a blue state, yet the real voting area for the rats are in LA, San Jose and the Bay area. I'm sure that the murder rate is very high in those cities/counties versus the rest of the state.

[Lancey Howard]

Comparing "red states" against "blue states" is a flawed exercise to begin with. "Blue states" are blue mainly because they have larger (and a greater number of) concentrated parasite nests (cities). Better to compare red counties against blue counties.

[xusafflyer]

I have a bit more data (2001).
Average difference from National average.

Marriage Rate Divorce Rate

D -0.505263158 -0.442105263
w/o HI -1.2 -0.455555556

R 2.125 0.478125
w/o NV 0.04516129 0.403225806

Data Source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/vitstat.pdf
(last page)

I am now working on factoring in race. According to http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/adivorceusa.html :

"As of March 1997, the U.S. had more than 19 million divorced people, or 9.9 percent of those 18 and over. The
median age of divorced people is about 50, and 58 percent are women. Among whites, 9.8 percent are divorced, compared with 11.3 percent of blacks and 7.6 percent of Hispanics. Divorce rates in urban areas are higher than in rural areas."

Since Southern states have a higher population of black americans (who vote D), the southern divorce rates should be expected to be higher.

Are the liberals now saying that the Blacks are bad because they get divorced more? They've already called them a burden since the same states with higher populations of minorities (and more poor people) use more gov't/welfare money.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Good work taking up the analysis.

Be careful not simply to average states with each other to get your R and D numbers. You need to do weighted averages by population.

[omnidroid]

Sorry, but I always laugh when I see headers which include charges of “junk science”, as more often than not the debunk is more “junk” than the original target. And that seems to be the case, here. In this case, the statistics you provide are even more meaningless than the ones in the NYT.

Specifically, the New York Times clearly compares number of divorces per married person (not total population, as you state). This is a meaningful comparison, as it gives us a somewhat accurate benchmark to compare the relative likelihood of divorce occurring for a single individual.

You rebut with the number of divorces as a function of the number of marriages. While this is of marginal interest, it is far more misleading than the NYT data.

Why? Here's two examples:

---

PERSON #1: Gets married, stays married 25 years, divorces, and doesn't remarry.

PERSON #2: Gets married, divorces after 2 years, remarries, divorces again after 3 years, divorces again, and remarries - this time staying married.

Person #1 had one marriage, and 1 divorce. Or a 100% divorce rate by your math.

Person #2 had 3 marriages and 2 divorces. Or a lower 66.7% divorce rate by your math.

---

But which of those scenarios is really the more desirable? Or "moral"?

The point being that a simple count of the number of marriages vs. the number of divorces tells us almost nothing.

I've lived for years in both Texas and New York (I live in NH now), and there is certainly a noticeable difference in marriage patterns.

Very few people I've met in the North East get divorced at all, and when they do, they tend to get divorced late and stay divorced. I've never been to a second wedding in the North East.

In Texas, many (most) of the people my age I knew were on their 2nd - or sometimes their 3rd - marriage. And yes, my multiple-divorce friends in Texas are far more likely to go to church than my single-marriage friends in NY and NH.

Another quick note: Comparing the “rate of marriage” to the “total state population” – is equally pointless, and cannot be used to “prove” people are more likely to get married in red states. Very few people stay single forever anywhere, red or blue. If you want to prove or disprove that point, you need to compare the “rate of FIRST marriages only”, not ALL marriages.

Frankly, I don't particularly care about divorce one way or another. But sloppy use of statistics and data irate me. Sorry, hope I didn't offend.

[DBeers]

Very few people I've met in the North East get divorced at all, and when they do, they tend to get divorced late and stay divorced. I've never been to a second wedding in the North East.

Welcome to FR -your thorough opinion and failed attempt to debunk the debunk is noted.

[Lazamataz]

But sloppy use of statistics and data irate me. Sorry, hope I didn't offend.

27% of those we polled^* are offended.

^* Sample size: 3. Margin of error: + - 97%.

[Lazamataz]

Welcome to FR -your thorough opinion and failed attempt to debunk the debunk is noted.

I think his commentary holds weight.

[DBeers]

I think his commentary holds weight.

Although his opinions and experiences attempt to favor the false assertion debunked by the original poster -the 'commentary' at best only supports the original posters contention that: "There appears to be no meaningful correlation between politics and divorce."

[Nataku X]

Cool, I'm getting married in the Elvis Chapel at Las Vegas then.