390-07 Comparisons of Ethnicity 1993
,~ .---1
CHANGES AMONG MIAMI BEACH VOTERS
FROM 1991 TO 1993:
COMPARISONS OF ETHNICITY, AGE,
GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGINS, AND POLITICAL
AFFILIATIONS
by
Abraham D. Lavender. Ph.D. .
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Florida International University
North Miami. Florida 33181
305-940-5923
Election Data as of: January 1993
Report Completed: May 1993
CHANrns AMJNG MIAMI BEACH VOl'ERS FRGt 1991 TO 1993:
OOMPARISCNS OF m'HNICITY, AGE,
GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGINS, AND POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS
by Abraham D. Lavender, Ph.D.
DepartnEnt of Sociology and Anthrcpology
Florida International University
North Miami, Florida 33181
May 1993
Electoral data as of January 1993
'Ibis article analyzes changes that have taken place in Miami Beach's
voters fran February 1991 to January 1993, essentially shOfling two years of
changes in a city that is undergoing major demographic, econanic, social, and
political Changes. Several earlier publications described the historical
develo);Xrent of ethnic, age, and regional characteristics of voters within the
city of Miami Beach. Two of these publications were "Jews, Hispanics, Blacks
and Others in Miami Beach: An Ethnically Divided City or a Cosmopolitan
Multiethnic City"l and "Diversity Within Ethnic Groups: Hispanic Jews,
Colombians, Caribbean Blacks, and Other Ethnic Subgroups Among Miami Beach
Voters, 1991." This article specifically is a fOllOfl-up to those articles. 2
In February 1991, Miami Beach had 37,018 registered voters. In January
1993, the city had 38,552 voters, a 1,534 (4%) increase fran February 1991.
More significant than the increase, however, is the high turnover of voters
and the changes in the voters' characteristics. Of the 37,018 voters in 1991,
8,519 (23.0%) were no longer registered voters in 1993. Of the 38,552 voters
in 1993, 10,053 (26.1%) are new voters, i.e., people who were not registered
voters in 1991. We now turn to a comparison of the 1991 and the 1993 voters.
Four major ethnic groups are analyzed: Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, and
"Others." Comparisons also are made for subgroups within these four groups,
for example: Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Israeli Jews; Cubans, Puerto Ricans,
Colombians, and other Hispanics; United States born African-Americans,
Haitians, Jamaicans, and other Blacks; and Others, comprised of all voters who
are not Jewish, Hispanic, or Black. A small number of voters are counted as
both Hispanic and Jewish, or both Hispanic and black, so that the total is
slightly over 100% when discussing all ~our groups together. In tables where
ethnic gr<t>s are compared, the total percentages will be about 102% because of
this overlap. A very small number of voters probably are both Jewish and
black, but the number was too small to analyze separately. The groop referred
to as "Others" (frequently, including Jews, incorrectly referred to as
"Anglos" in Dade County) consists of WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) and
a significant number of ethnic groups, e.g., IriSh-Americans, Italian-
Americans, Polish-Americans, and Asian Americans. This groop is a very diverse
group, consisting of everyone who is not identified as Jewish, Hispanic, or
Black.
The electoral board in Dade County defines as Hispanic only those pe<t>le
born in eight Spanish-speaking countries (Chile, Colanbia, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Honduras, Mexico, Spain, Venezuela), Puerto Rico, and "Other
Spanish-speaking countries." However, there are also large numbers of United
States-born Hispanics. Because these voters are coonted as Non-Latins by the
electoral board, this article uses the "Distinctive Hispanic NaIres" technique
to estimate the number of United States-born Hispanics and to provide a sample
for analysis. These voters are not counted as non-Latins in this article, but
rather are added to the total Hispanic numbers. Because Jewish voters are not
identified by religion or ethnicity, the "Distinctive Jewish NaIreS" (roN) and
the "Distinctive Sephardic NaIres" (DSN) are used to estimate the numbers for
these two groups and to provide samples to analyse for these groups. 3 Blacks
are identified in the electoral data, and along with places of birth, provide
2
numbers and analyzes for several black subgrOlps. As noted, Others are all
voters ~o were not identified as Jewish, Hispanic, or Black. Because of the
diversity of this grOlp, and because it is a residual grOlp after the other
groups are identified, caution nust be exercised in interpreting results for
this grOlp. To the extent that the DJN and the OHN are estimates, the Others
group is an estimate with double dependence on the accuracy of the nanes
techniques.
The purpose of this report is to (1) sheM the number of registered voters
of different ethnic groups, ethnic subgroups, and age groups, (2) show the
diversity of birthplaces of the registered voters, and (3) present the
political affiliations of the different groups and subgroups.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the number of voters for the four major ethnic groups and
for variOls subgrOlps. As ShCMn, Jewish voters canprise the largest ethnic
group among voters, b.1t the number of Jewish voters has decreased 9% in the
last two years. In 1991, there were an estimated 19,687 Jewish voters; by
1993, the number was 17,900. Despite the overall decrease, Sephardic Jews
increased 4%. Because of their relatively small numbers, heMever, the
Sephardic increase did not significantly affect the overall Jewish numbers.
The number of Israeli-born voters increased 16%, but the numbers are very
small overall.
The n~r of Hispanic voters increased from 10,334 in 1991 to 11,954 in
1993, and from 27.9% to 31.0% of the total voters. The overall increase was
16%, and was sizeable for all Hispanic groups. However, there were sizeable
3
differences for the percentage increase for different Hispanic groups, from
10% for those voters born in Puerto-Rico to 35% for those voters born in the
DcIllinican Republic. Cuban-born increased 12%, bJt are still by far the largest
Hispanic subgroup. The United States-born Hispanics increased 21%, somewhat
higher than the overall increase for Hispanics.
The number of black voters increased 7%, from 947 to 1,016. Their
percentage of the total voters remained basically the Sam:!. United States-born
blacks increased the Sam:! as the overall voters for the city, 4%. Most of the
other subgroups increased more than the United States-born blacks, bJt the
numbers were too small to have Ill.Ich effect on the overall changes. Hispanic
blacks increased more than non-Hispanic blacks, bJt the numbers are small.
The number of Others increased 23%, from 6,850 to 8,441, and from 18.4%
to 21.9% of the total voters.
The only one of the four major ethnic groups to lose voters was the
Jewish, with about half of the loss being filled by Hispanic votes and about
half being filled by Others.
Table 2 shCMs the changes for three age groups, 18-40 year olds (Young),
41-65 year olds (Middle), and over 65 (Elderly). The number of elderly voters
decreased 3%, from 17,821 to 17,273, and their percentage of total voters
decreased from 48.1% to 44.8%. Young voters had the largest increase, 15%,
from 9,101 to 10,494 voters. The young accounted for 24.6% of the total voters
in 1991, and 27.2% in 1993. Middle-aged voters increased 7%, from 10,092
voters in 1991 to 10,780 voters in 1993. Their share of the total voters went
fr0m 27.3% in 1991 to 28.0% in 1993.
Table 2 also ShCMS the relationship between the four ethnic groups and
the three age groups. The two most striking findings are the large decrease in
4
the number of young Jewish voters and the large increase in the number of
young Other voters. Young Jewish voters decreased by 34%, and young Others
voters increased by 61%. Middle-aged Jewish and Others voters increased at a
rate similar to the overall increase for the city, while both groups
(e~pecially Others) decreased among the elderly. Hispanics had an increase in
each age group, especially for the young (18%) and the elderly (21%). Blacks
increased at aboot the average rate for the city, except for the elderly who
increased at a higher rate (16%). However, because of the small number of
elderly blacks, the randan error coo1d be high.
Table 3 shows the areas of the world in which voters were born. '!he
percentage of voters born in the United States increased slightly above the
total for the city, but the biggest changes were the increase in the number of
voters born in SpaniSh-speaking areas and the decrease in the number of voters
born in Eastern Europe.
Table 4 shows more details for the United States-born figure in Table 3.
The only region of the country to lose voters was the Northeastern,INew England
states, but a perusal of the data shows that nearly all of this decrease was
accounted for by New York. '!he other states in this region maintained about
the Sam:! percentage of voters as in 1991. However, this region still accounted
for the largest number of voters. The state of Florida, the SouthernjBorder
states, and the North CentraljMidwestern states had sizeable increases, but
the largest increase by far was for the Western states. However, the Western
states still account for only 1.9% of the total voters.
Table 5 shows more details for the non-Uni ted States-born figures in
Table 3. The non-Spanish Caribbean increased more than the Spanish Caribbean,
but the non-Spanish part still accounted for a small part of the total
5
Caribbean. The increase for Central/South Aroorica was larger than for the
Caribbean, but, as shown, there were major differences between cotmtries.
Again, sane of the numbers are very small and hence sane of the variation in
increases should not be viewed necessarily as patterns.
Table 6 shows more details than Table 3 for Spanish-speaking areas. Cuba
had an increase of 12% and Puerto Rico had an increase of 12%, but the
Spanish-speaking camtries wi th smaller numbers had nuch larger percentage
increases. Mexico and Honduras each had a 41% increase, but both are ~till
very small numbers. Cuba and Puerto Rico remain by far the largest two
Spanish-speaking places of birth.
Table 7 shows more details for the Eurcpean, Balkan, and other places
listed in Table 3. Only Spain, France, Israel, and the Phillipines showed
sizeable numerical increases, but all were very small relative to the total
number of voters.
Table 8 shows changes in political affiliation for different ethnic and
regional subgroups. For all Jewish voters, as well as for both Ashkenazim and
Sephardim, there was a very small decrease in both Democrats and Republicans
and a small increase for Independents. For all Hispanic voters, as well as
specifically for voters born in Cuba, there was a small increase in Democrats
and Independents, and a small decrease for Republicans. For voters born in
Puerto Rico and in the Daninican Republic, there was a decrease for both
Democrats and Republicans, and an increase for Independents. '!his was
partirolarly true for the Daninican Repaublic. The number of voters born in
Colanbia in~reased for both Democrats and Independents, and decreased for
Republicans. United States-born Hispanics showed a small increase for
Democrats, and a small decrease for Republicans and Independents. For all
6
black voters, there was a decrease for Democrats and Republicans, and an
increase for Independents. United States-born blacks, by far the largest
percentage of all black voters, showed this pattern. However, Cub~born
blacks and non-Cuban-born Hispanic blacks showed a fairly sizeable decrease
for Republicans and an increase for Democrats and Independents. Blacks born in
Jamaica and the Virgin Islands showed a decrease for Republicans and an
increase for Democrats. Blacks born in Haiti showed a decrease for Democrats
and an increase for Independents. '!be "Others" votes were similar to Jewish
and black voters in showing a small decrease in the number of Democrats and
Republicans, and a small increase in the number of Independents.
Table 9 shows the ch~es in political affiliations for the three age-
poli tical subgroups. Each of the three young political subgroups had an
increase in the total share of voters. Young independents had a 63% increase,
the largest percentage and absolute increase for any age-political group, and
increased this subgroup's share of the total voters from 3.2% to 5.0%. Middle-
aged Democrats and Independents increased their shares of the total voters.
Middle-aged Republicans had a small decrease in their share of the total
voters because their increase was lower the city's overall increase in the
number of voters. The only subgroup to lose voters were elderly Democrats who
decreased 8%. However, elderly Democrats still comprise by far the largest
single age-political subgroup. Of the nine subgroups, the elderly Republicans
had the second largest increase, although young Democrats and young
Repllblicans were close behind.
Finally, Table 10 compares ex-voters (1991 only) and new voters (1993
only), and shows the percentage of each group accounted for by a munber of
demographic and political subgroups. ReIrember, as noted on page 1, that 23.0%
7
of all voters in 1991 were no loo;}er voters in 1993, and that 26.1% of all
current voters are new voters--added since 1991.
previoos tables have shCMll hC1.l1 subgroops changed fran 1991 to 1.993 in
absolute numbers, wt figures shC1.l1ing recent chao;}es might give a better
innication of the future. For example, the Hispanic percentage of total voters
chao;}ed only fran 27.9% in 1991 to 31. 0% in 1993 (Table 1). Hispanics lost
aboot their share of the 1991 voters. While Hispanics accounted for 27.9% of
the total voters in 1991, 26.8% of the ex-voters are Hispanic. However, while
Hispanics are losio;} voters at aboot the overall city rate, and account for
31.0% of all current voters, they account for 42.2% of the new voters.
Likewise, young voters accounted for 24.6% of all voters in 1991 and 27.2% in
1993 (Table 9), and they lost 29.0% of their 1991 voters--a little more than
their percentage of the 1991 voters. But, 56.0% of all new voters are young.
Voters born in Florida show a similar pattern: they lost a little more than
their share of 1991 voters (Table 4), wt they gained enoogh new voters to
offset this loss and to increase their overall share of the voters. Jewish
voters accounted for 53.2% of the voters in 1991, and accounted for 42.3% of
the ex-voters. In other words, the Jewish camnunity lost 1991 voters at less
than the overall loss, ,wt because of a small number of new Jewish voters
(only 18.3% of all new voters) the overall Jewish percentage decreased to
46.4% in 1993 (Table 1). Black voters comprised 2.6% of the total voters in
1991, and lost voters at a nuch higher rate (4.9%) than their share. However,
Blacks also gained new voters at a higher rate (4.8%) than their share of the
total, and r.emained at about the same percentage of the overall voters. A
unique pattern occurred for Others. Others accounted for 18.4% of the voters
in 1991, and had a relatively large loss--accounting for 28.2% of the lost
8
voters. However, by accoonti~ for 36.7% of all new voters, Others still
increased their overall share fram 18.4% to 21.9% (Table 1).
In Sllllllllary, these tables shOVl hOVl Miami Beach' s voters have changed in
two years. Miami Beach has had a large turnover in voters, with an overall
increase of 4%. There has been a fairly sizeable decrease in the Olnnber of
Jewish voters, and this loss has been made up for about equally by Hispanic
and Other voters. Other voters had the largest increase of the four ethnic
groups, followed by Hispanics. However, because of the large base fram 1991,
Jewish voters still accoont for 46.4% of all votes, and Hispanics nOVl accoont
for 31.0%. Others account for 21.9%, and Blacks have remained about the saJOO
at 2.6% of the total. The elderly have decreased slightly, but still comprise
44.8% of all voters. '!be remainder are divided about equally between Young
voters and Middle-Age voters. However, young voters have had the largest
increase. '!be most noticeable cha~es in geographical origins for voters are
the large increase in number of voters born in Spanish-speaki~ areas and the
large decrease in number of voters born in Eastern Eurq>e. '!be number of
voters born in the Northeastern,/New England states (especially New York) have
decreased, and the number of voters born in all other regions of the United
States have increased. Western states had the largest increase by far, but
still account for a small percentage of the total voters.
The number of Democrats has decreased fram 62.1% to 58.8%, but much of
the decrease has been filled by Independents who have had the largest
increase. Elderly Democrats are the only political-ethnic subgroup to lose
voters, and, Young Independents have by far the largest increase. Recent
changes can give a more accurate prediction of the future than overall changes
by themselves.
9
Table 1. Ethnic Subgroups, 1991 and 1993
. % . % %
1991 1991 1993 1993 Change
TOrAL JFH> 19,687 53.2 17,900 46.4- -9
Ashkenazic Jews 19,171 51.8 17,365 45.1 -9
Sephardic Jews 516 1.4 535 1.4 +4
Israeli-born 117 0.3 136 0.4 +16
TOrAL HISPANICS 10,334 27.9 11,954 31.0 +16
Cuban-born 5,842 15.8 6,540 17.0 +12
Puerto Rican-born 1,007 2.7 1,105 2.9 +10
Colanbian-born 370 1.0 499 1.3 +35
Dominican Republic-born 121 0.3 163 0.4 +35
Other foreign-born 1,115 3.0 1,422 3.6 +28
U.S.-born 1,879 5.1 2,265 5.9 +21
TOrAL BLACKS 947 2.6 1,016 2.6 +7
Cuban-born 53 0.1 63 0.2 +19
Non-Cuban Hispanics 68 0.2 89 0.2 +31
All Hispanics 121 0.3 152 0.4 +26
Haitians 68 0.1 74 0.2 +9
Jamacians 45 0.1 53 0.1 +18
Virgin Islands 29 0.1 26 0.1 -10
U.S.-born 649 1.7 672 1.7 +4
TOrAL "OTHERS" 6,850 18.4 8,441 21.9 +23
TOrAL 37,018 100.0 38,552 100.0 +4
TCYl'AL IOCLUDING OVERLAP 37,818 102.2 39,331 102.0
10
Table 2. Age Subgreups, 1991 and 1993
. , . , ,
1991 1991 1993 1993 Change
Yeung (18-40) 9,101 24.6 10,494 27.2 +15
Jewish 2,967 8.0 1,965 5.1 -34
Hispanic 3,269 8.8 3,861 10.0 +18
Black 520 1.4 557 1.4 +7
Others 2,659 7.2 4,289 11.1 +61
Middle (41-65) 10,092 27.3 10,780 28.0 +7
Jewish 3,388 9.2 3,564 9.2 +5
Hispanic 3,914 10.6 4,323 11.2 +10
Black 351 0.9 371 1.0 +6
Others 2,768 7.5 2,928 7.6 +6
Elderly (66+) 17,821 48.1 17,273 44.8 -3
Jewish 13,332 36.0 12,371 32.1 -7
Hispanic 3,120 8.5 3,809 9.9 +21
Black 76 0.2 88 0.2 +16
Others 1,423 3.8 1,161 3.0 -18
'lUrAL 37,018 100.0 38,552 100.0 +4
11
Table 3. Birthplaces of Miami Beach's 37,018 Voters in 1991
and 38,552 Voters in 1993
. % . , %
1991 1991 1993 1993 Olange
UNITED STATES (50 states and DC) 21;147 57.1 22,301 57.8 +5
OOTSIDE UNITED STATES 15,871 42.9 16,251 42.2 +2
CARIBBEAN
Spanish-speaking Car ibbean 6,970 18.8 7,808 20.2 +12
Non-Spanish-speaking Caribbean 222 0.6 267 0.7 +20
SUB-TOl'AL 7,192 19.4 8,075 20.9 +12
MEXICO 44 0.1 62 0.2 +41
CENTRAL/SOOTH AMERICA 1,417 3.8 1,811 4.7 +28
CANADA 191 0.5 186 0.5 -3
TOI'AL AMERICAS/CARIBBEAN 29,991 81.0 32,435 84.1 +8
0lY1SIDE AMERICAS AND CARIBBEAN
Western and Southern Eurcpe 1,183 3.2 1,126 2.9 -5
Eastern Eurcpe 4,666 12.6 3,809 9.9 -18
Balkan Ar eas 342 0.9 327 0.8 -4
Middle East 251 0.7 257 0.7 +2
Other areas and unspecified areas 583 1.6 598 1.6 +3
SUB-'IDrAL 7,027 19.0 6,117 15.9 -13
TOI'AL VOTERS 37,018 100.0 38,552 100.0 +4
12
Table 4. Number of Voters Born in Eadl u.s. State, 1991 and 1993
i % t % %
1991 1991 1993 1993- Change
FLORIJlll. 2,501 ' 6.8 2,969 7.7 +19
SOUTHERN/OORDER STATES
Alabama 112 105
Arkansas 31 39
District of Columbia 160 161
Georgia 242 279
Kentucky 101 124
Louisiana 84 109
Maryland 271 278
MississiWi 40 66
Missouri 151 186
North Carolina 140 187
Ok 1 ahana 46 49
South Carolina 91 99
Tennessee 119 152
Texas 171 229
Virginia 187 219
West Virginia 95 112
SUB-TOI'AL 2,041 5.5 2,394 6.2 +17
NORl'HEASTERNjN&l E~IAND STATES
Connecticut 301 338
Delaware 37 39
Maine 53 69
Massachusetts 814 837
New Hanpshire 47 45
New Jersey 1,259 1,269
New York 9,398 9,049
Pennsylvania 1,691 1,699
Rhode Island 103 107
Vermont 23 24
SUB-'IDI'AL 13,726 37.1 13,476 35.0 -2
NORTH CEm'RAL/MILWESTERN STATES
Illinois 909 977
Indiana 162 196
Io<>'a 69 90
13
Table 4 continued.. .Nwnber of Voters Born in Each u.s. State, 1991 aoo 1993
i % t % %
1991 1991 1993 1993 Change
Kansas 40 61
Michigan 339 434
Minnesota 101 110
Nebraska 38 42
NOL th Dakota 15 22
Ohio 584 671
South Dakota 17 8
Wisconsin 111 146
SUB..J!'Ol'AL 2,385 6.4 2,757 7.2 +16
WESTERN STATES
Alaska 5 5
Ar izona 31 36
California 263 402
Colorado 49 65
Hawaii 12 17
Idaho 7 12
Montana 11 13
Nevada 7 9
New Mexico 13 16
Oregon 19 31
Utah 9 12
Washington 59 77
Wyaning 9 10
SUB-'IDrAL 494 1.3 705 1.9 +46
TOrAL UNITED STATES 21,147 57.1 22,301 57.9 +5
14
Table 5. Number of Voters Born in the Caribbean
and in Central and South America, 1991 and 1993
. % . % %
1991 1991 1993 1993 - Change
~SPANISH CARIBBEAN
BahGBnas 15 11 -27
Haiti 78 0.2 88 0.2 +13
Jamaica 66 0.2 85 0.2 +29
Virgin Islands 35 0.1 39 0.1 +12
Other West Indies 28 0.1 44 0.1 +57
SUB-TC7I'AL 222 0.6 267 0.7 +20
SPANISH CARIBBEAN
Cuba 5,842 15.8 6,540 17.0 +12
Dominican Republic 121 0.3 163 0.4 +35
Puerto Rico 1,007 2.7 1,105 2.9 +10
SUB-TC7I'AL 6,970 18.8 7,80B 20.2 +12
TOI'AL CARIBBEAN 7,192 19.4 8,075 20.9 +12
CENTRAL/sourH AMERICA
Honduras 59 0.2 83 0.2 +41
Canal Zone B6 0.2 90 0.2 +5
Co1anbia 370 1.0 499 1.3 +35
Venezuela 51 0.1 67 0.2 +31
Chile 66 0.2 B5 0.2 +29
Other Spanish areas 785 2.1 987 2.6 +26
SUB-TOI'AL 1,417 3.B 1,B11 4.7 +2B
15
Table 6. Number of Voters Born in Spanish-SpeaJd~ Areas, 1991 and 1993*
. % . % %
1991 1991 1993 1993 Change
Mexico 44 0.1 62 0.2 +41
Honduras 59 0.2 83 0.2 +41
Co 1 anbi a 370 1.0 499 1.3 +35
Venezuela 51 0.1 67 0.2 +31
Chile 66 0.2 85 0.2 +29
Cuba 5,842 15.8 6,540 17.0 +12
Dominican Republic 121 0.3 163 0.4 +35
Puerto Rico 1,007 2.7 1,105 2.9 +10
Spain 110 0.3 138 0.4 +25
Other Spanish areas 785 2.1 987 2.6 +26
SUB-TOI'AL 8,455 22.8 9,729 25.2 +15
16
Table 7 continued.. .NlUOber of Voters Born in Foreign Countries Other than
Americas and Caribbean, 1991 and 1993
t % f , - %
1991 1991 1993 1993 Change
arHER AREAS
Japan 11 11
Philippines 49 60
Guam 2 3
Unspecified areas 521 524
SUB-TOl'AL 583 1.6 598 1.6 +3
SUB-'lOl'AL AREAS OIHER
THAN AMERICAS AND CARIBBEAN 7,027 19.0 6,117 15.9 -13
18
Table 8. Ethnic and Regional Subgroops by Political Affiliation,
1991 and 1993
Total , % %
. Dem. Ind.* Rep.
'IDrAL J9'1S 1991 19,687 82.0 6.0 12.0
1993 17,900 81.2 7.2 11.7
Ashkenazic Jews 1991 19,171 82.9 5.9 11.2
1993 17,365 82.2 7.0 10.8
Sephardic Jews 1991 516 46.5 10.1 43.4
1993 535 46.4 12.5 41.1
Israel-born 1991 117 58.1 20.5 21.4
1994 136 54.4 21.3 24.3
'IDrAL HISPANICS 1991 10,334 30.8 9.5 59.7
- 1993 11 , 994 31.9 10.7 57.4
Olban-born 1991 5,842 21.6 8.9 69.6
1993 6,540 22.2 9.5 68.3
Puerto Rico-born 1991 1,007 53.3 10.5 35.2
1993 1,105 52.8 13.0 34.2
Co lanbi a-born 1991 370 46.2 9.2 44.6
1993 499 48.1 11.6 40.3
Dani n. Rep. -born 1991 121 49.6 1.6 48.8
1993 163 46.0 11.0 42.9
Other foreign-born 1991 1,115 35.2 11.7 53.0
1993 1,422 35.2 14.2 50.6
U.S.-born 1991 1,879 42.4 10.2 47.5
1993 2,265 44.8 9.6 45.7
'IDrAL BIACKS 1991 947 74.2 8.5 17.2
1993 1,016 70.6 13.7 15.7
Olban-born 1991 53 28.3 9.4 62.3
1993 63 34.9 11.1 54.0
Non-Cuban Hispanics 1991 68 58.8 5.9 35.3
1993 89 62.9 11.2 25.8
19
Table 8 continued.. .Ethnic and Regional Subgroops by Political Affiliation,
1991 and 1993
Total % % %
t Dem. Ind. Rep.
All Hispanics 1991 121 45.5 7.4 47.1
1993 152 51.3 11.2 37.5
Haiti-born 1991 68 76.4 7.5 16.2
1993 74 67.6 16.2 16.2
Jamaica-born 1991 45 64.4 17.8 17.8
1993 53 71.7 17.0 11.3
Virgin Island-born 1991 29 62.1 13.8 24.1
1993 26 65.4 15.4 19.2
U. S-born 1991 649 80.7 8.0 11.2
1993 672 76.0 13.3 10.6
TOI'AL "OTHERS" 1991 6,850 48.8 19.7 31.5
1993 8,441 47.3 23.9 28.8
*Independents include a small number of third-party nembers.
20
.,
Table 9. Age and Political Affiliation for 1991 and 1993
% of % of
11 * Total Total %
1991 1993 1991 1993 Change
Ages 18-40
Democratic 4,733 5,124 12.8 13.3 +8
Independent 1,174 1,911 3.2 5.0 +63
Republican 3,194 3,459 8.6 9.0 +8
Sub-Total 9,101 10,494 24.6 27.2 +15
Ages 41-64
Democratic 5,440 5,727 14.7 14.9 +5
Independent 1,120 1,415 3.0 3.7 +26
Republican 3,532 3,638 9.5 9.4 +3
Sub-Total 10,092 10,780 27.3 28.0 +7
Ages 65+
Democratic 12,813 11,829 34.6 30.7 -8
Independent 1,158 1,206 3.1 3.1 +4
Republican 3,849 4,238 10.4 11.0 +10
Sub-Total 17,821 17,273 48.1 44.8 -3
All Voters
Democratic 22,986 22,680 62.1 58.8 -1
Independent 3,452 4,532 9.3 11.8 +32
Republican 10,575 11,335 28.5 29.4 +7
'IDI'AL 37,013 38,547 100.0 100.0 -3
21
Table 10. Canparison of Ex-Voters and New Voters*
t of
Ex-
Voters
I of
New
Voters
% of
Ex-
Vtrs.
% of
New
Vtrs.
% of
1993
Vtrs.
Jewish 3,604 1,843 42.3 18.3 46.4
Hispanic 2,281 4,245 26.8 42.2 31.0
Cuban-born 914 1,611 10.7 16.0 17.0
Other-foreign 711 1,289 8.4 12.4 8.3
U.S.-born 656 1,345 7.7 13.8 5.9
Black 414 483 4.9 4.8 2.6
Others 2,400 3,690 28.2 36.7 21.9
Young 2,468 5,628 29.0 56.0 27.2
Middle-Age 2,131 2,898 25.0 28.8 28.0
Elderly 3,913 1,526 46.0 15.2 44.8
Florida 680 1,148 8.0 11.4 7.7
New York 2,096 1,747 24.6 17.4 23.5
Eastern EurCfle 1,130 273 13.3 2.7 9.9
Democratic 5,226 4,862 61.4 48.4 58.8
Republican 2,419 3,233 28.4 32.2 29.4
Independent 867 1,957 10.2 19.5 11.8
TOrAL 8,512 10,052 100.0 100.0 100.0
*Ex-Voters are those who were voters in 1991 who were no longer voters in
1993. New Voters are those who were not registered as voters in MiCllli Beach in
1991, but were registered in 1993.
22
,.~
F'OO'lWOI'ES
l"Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, and Others in Miami Beach: An Ethnically
Divided City or a Cosmopolitan Multiethnic City?" (see below) also includes a
30-page ethnic and political history of Miami Beach in order to give a
backgroond perspective to recent and current changes.
2Articles in this author's ethnic political series on Miami Beach,
including the two articles specifically updated by this article, are:
"Political Implications of Demographic Changes in Miami Beach from 1980 to
1990: A Look at Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Others." Completed in April 1991
(20 pages).
"Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, and Others in Miami Beach: An Ethnically Divided
City or a Cosmopolitan Multiethnic City?" Completed in June 1991, and
published in 1992 by the Institute for Public Policy and Citizenship Studies,
Florida International University, as Occasional Paper Series on Ethnic and
National Identity (62 pages) .
"Sephardic Political Identity in Miami Beach: An Ingathering of Exiles in
Historical Context." Completed in November 1991 (48 pages). In revised format
as "Sephardic Political Identity: Jewish and Cuban Interaction in Miami Beach"
it is forthcoming in Contemporary Jewry, fall/winter 1993,
"Diversity Within Ethnic Groups: Hispanic Jews, Colombians, Caribbean Blacks,
and Other Ethnic Subgroops Among Miami Beach Voters, 1991." Completed in
December 1991 (10 pages) .
"The Distinctive Hispanic Names (DHN) Technique: A Method for Selecting a
Sample or Estimating Population Size." Completed in February 1991. In revised
format it was published in Names: A Quarterly Journal, Volume 40, Number 1,
March 1992 (16 pages) .
3'lbe Distinctive Jewish Names (DJN) technique has been used for about five
decades by researchers in Judaica and by Jewish Federations for estimating
groop size and for obtaining samples. A critique of earlier lists of names and
suggestions for a refined list are discussed in "Sephardic Political Identity"
listed above. The Distinctive Sephardic Names (DSN) technique was developed by
this author and is described in "Sephardic Political Identity" listed above.
Selected Hispanic names have been used for research purposes for several
decades, rot the Distinctive Hispanic Names (DHN) technique was developed by
this author, and is described in "The Distinctive Hispanic Names (DHN)
Technique) listed above.
For moce information on Jewish and Hispanic names, see Ira Rosenwaike,
"Leading Surnames Among American Jews," Names: A Quarterly Journal, VolUJre 38,
Numbers 1 & 2, March-June 1990, and Abraham D. Lavender, "Hispanic Given Names
in Five United States Cities," Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, VolUJre
10, Number 2, June 1988.
23