Correlation vs Causation: Education and the Electoral College

Photo via: U.S. Department of Agriculture/Public domain/Wikimedia Commons

Following the results of the 2024 Presidential Election, voters found that the Electoral College map looked very familiar to maps showing the levels of education in certain areas of the United States. Although Vice President Kamala Harris’ voters may use this to claim that all voters for President-elect Donald Trump are uneducated, more layers need to be pulled back.

While historically, highly-educated states are more likely to vote for a Democrat, different societal conditions have led to lower quality education in certain locations. 

Over the past two decades, rural areas have become increasingly red. In 2000, Republicans held a small majority over Democrats in rural areas (51% vs 45%), but now, Republicans have a 25 percentage point advantage over Democrats in those same areas. 

The common theme between rural areas' tendency to vote red and their low education rates is apparent, and many try to antagonize those in rural areas for it. However, many people do not realize that access to education in those areas is limited. For example 25% of adults in rural areas have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, which is 12 percentage points lower than adults in both suburban and urban areas. 

Starting with K-12 education, people in rural areas are already at a disadvantage. Rural areas typically get less funding than urban schools which directly affects their quality of education. 

Rural areas struggle because of their lack of funding through the Title I program. Title I provides financial assistance for school districts for children in low-income families. In almost every state in the country, the formula used to distribute funds results in much higher funds for urban schools. For example, in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Michigan, urban districts received 50% more funding than rural districts. Additionally, property taxes tend to be lower in rural areas, meaning there is less money circulating in the community that can be used for schools.

Additionally, rural areas have a hard time keeping teachers because of their inability to pay the same amount as their urban or suburban counterparts. Many people who grow up in rural areas and get the education required to become a teacher move to other locations to have a better teaching experience (i.e. better pay, more resources). Many rural schools are taking desperate measures to ensure their students can get an education. For example, Montana—the state which holds roughly 75% of rural schools— reported hiring nearly 400 people without full teaching credentials to make up for their education crisis. 

Finally, college recruiters don’t visit rural communities very often, so students aren’t seeing what is out there. Public high schools in affluent areas are much more likely to see college recruiters than schools in less affluent areas. 

Many issues like these have contributed to an overall lack of education in rural areas and have discouraged students from enrolling in undergraduate education programs. The U.S. Department of Education reports that only 29% of rural residents aged 18-24 are enrolled in higher education, compared to 48% of their urban counterparts. 

The lack of education in red states is not a secret, and the argument could be made that Republicans use this to their advantage. 

To contextualize, the less education a person has, the more likely they are to be in poverty. For example, 31% of young adults who do not have a high school degree live in poverty,while only 24% of young adults who have a high school degree live in poverty. This percentage continues to lower with the more education a person has. This means that for a lot of low income people without access to quality education, the economy is their number one issue. 

During his campaign, Trump promised to cut taxes for all American citizens and eliminate levies on tips and overtime pay, but the probability that he follows through on these claims is very small. Trump’s tax plan would be very expensive and comes at a time when the national debt is rising quickly, but the promise of economic prosperity under a Trump administration was enough to make voters turn their heads. 

However, looking at Trump’s tax plan, it becomes clear that Trump only intends on helping the rich. Trump plans to cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% and raise taxes for everyone else. The 1% will see a tax break of roughly $36,000, while most other people will see an increase of $1,500 annually. 

Additionally, with perhaps the most dangerous of his economic proposals, Trump proposed eliminating income tax and subsidizing the loss in revenue with intense tariffs. While proposing this, Trump and his team relied on the knowledge that the average American does not know what a tariff is or how it affects the economy. Tariffs are a form of import tax where the domestic business pays a tax to the government in addition to the cost of the goods. Often, this tax is actually paid by the consumers, because domestic companies can choose to sell imported goods for the price that they paid including the tax, instead of the price the foreign company sold the goods for.

These tariffs will put a heavy weight on international trade, and it will be almost impossible to get enough revenue with trade to make up for the lost revenue from income taxes. In 2023, the U.S. imported roughly $3.8 trillion worth of goods. In order to generate the same amount of revenue that income taxes bring in, the tariffs would need to be set at 70%. Trump’s plans to ramp up tariffs will harm international trade on a level seldom seen.

Because a lack of education has already become detrimental, Trump’s plan to eliminate the Department of Education will only harm America more. As of now, the Department of Education oversees special education funding, Title I funding and so much more, so the future of those programs is at risk. 

Additionally, the elimination of Title I and special education funding could cause more harm to communities that already face adversities. Dissolving the Department of Education could destroy Title I, which would effectively eliminate the funding going to schools with low-income students. Additionally, it would also impact the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which gives $14.2 to special education programs across the country annually. 

Prior to the development of the Department of Education, programs that helped disadvantaged people did not have an equal seat at the table with the state and defense departments. When Former President Jimmy Carter established the Department of Education, he did so with the intention of elevating existing programs meant to help students, and establish new ones. Today, the elimination of the Department of Education would be detrimental, as states and local school districts do not have enough money circulating to subsidize the lost funds from the DOE.

The erosion of educational access will affect people of all demographics, whether or not the government intends for it to have that effect. Although it is too late for people to educate themselves enough to reject another Trump presidency, it is not too late to educate themselves on the effects.