Planning Decisions, Inc.

THE BOTTOM LINE FROM CHUCK LAWTON

How to Define “The Two Maines”

Published Saturday January 26, 2008

One of the most persistent debates in Maine public policy surrounds the question of “the two Maines.” What are they? Where are they? How are they defined? Generally we agree that one is northern, rural and natural resource oriented while the other is southern, urban/suburban and service oriented. The questions arise less around what they are than around where to draw the lines.

I am increasingly convinced that this emphasis on geography misses a more fundamental point, one brought to the fore most recently with all the bickering about where the Land Use Regulation Commission should hold its hearings for the Plum Creek proposal.

While noodling around with the election return numbers from last fall’s bond and referenda questions, it occurred to me that geography really has little to do with “the two Maines.” Consider for a moment three groupings of voters—those who voted “Yes” for a Washington County racino and “No” for both the R&D bond and the Higher Education bond. Then consider four broad areas of Maine—South (York, Cumberland and Sagadahoc counties), Central (Androscoggin, Kennebec and Penobscot counties), Coastal (Lincoln, Waldo, Knox and Hancock counties) and the Rim (Washington, Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin and Oxford counties).

In the South, 48,147 people voted “Yes” for the racino, 48,636 voted “No” for the R&D bond and 48,077 voted “No” for the higher education bond. While acknowledging that the 48,000 who voted Yes” for the racino aren’t necessarily the very same 48,000 who voted against the two bonds, it is nonetheless quite interesting that the variation between the high and the low of these three totals is only 559 votes, barely a one-half percent variation around the average of the three.

Compare these totals to those of the Rim counties. In the Rim, 26,673 people voted “Yes” for the racino, 26,894 voted “No” for the R&D bond and 27,580 voted “No” for the higher education bond, a variation from high to low of 907 votes or about 1.5 percent around the average.

Central and Coastal Maine were even more tightly clustered. In the three central counties, 36,567 people voted “Yes” for the racino, 36,555 voted “No” for the R&D bond and 36,552 voted “No” for the higher education bond, a variation from high to low of just 15 votes, a virtually insignificant variation.

In the four coastal counties, 18,696 people voted “Yes” for the racino, 19,952 voted “No” for the R&D bond and 19,921 voted “No” for the higher education bond, a variation from high to low of just 31 votes, again a virtually insignificant variation.

So what’s to be made of all this?

If in fact there is a state of mind that believes that gambling is a positive form of economic development while state support for R&D and higher education is a waste of money, it certainly isn’t confined to counties bordering Canada. In fact, while Washington County generated just over 6,600 votes for their proposed racino, York County generated over 15,000 “Yes” votes. Indeed racino proponents in the South outnumber supporters in the Rim counties almost two to one. To say that “the two Maines” is defined by geography is to look only at percentages not absolute numbers. If people are defined by values rather than residence and if values are expressed in voting patterns, then, “the two Maines” exists more between the ears than between the counties.

COMMENTARY