Category: Current Affairs

And now, a prettier county-by-county map (this one shows counties as purple based on how many red and blue votes were cast in them) . . .  (CLICK TO ENLARGE; SOURCE.)

Down yonder I linked to a page describing various third party candidates in the presidential election. I hadn’t heard of all these folks, but I kept an eye on how they did. Turns out that they made less of an impact (particularly Nader) than many expected.

THE TOP THREE THIRD PARTIES DIDN’T MANAGE TO NET A PERCENTILE OF THE VOTE BETWEEN THEM.

Here’s C-SPAN’s state-by-state breakdown of how they did.

And here’s a Wikipedia summary of the popular vote (click to enlarge):

What I’d really like to see is a breakdown of the 56,964 people in the "Others" category. I heard such a list a number of elections ago, and when you’re getting down to characters like Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse getting a few votes each, you’re in some pretty funny territory. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find such a list for this election. May not have been compiled yet.

Looking at these figures, it’s interesting how poorly Nader did. He had been polling well above the .43% he got. Perhaps in the heat of election day a bunch of Nader supporters decided to flip to Kerry. Or perhaps the GOTV (get out the vote) efforts of Bush and Kerry simply overwhelmed Nader. As it was, he got barely more votes than Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate (who presumably would generally hurt Bush the way Nader would generally hurt Kerry). Nader probably would have done better if he had been on the ballot in more places. Note that he was only on the ballot in 34 states plus DC. This was in significant measure due to the Kerry campaign’s efforts to suppress his efforts to be listed on the ballot.

So, the third parties didn’t make much of an impression this time.

Oh, well, better luck next time, guys!

(Makes me want to hum an old Frank Sinatra song, sung here by DS9’s Vic Fontane [WMP];  Lyrics; BUY JIMMY [Vic Fontane] DARREN’S ALBUM)

Walter ("He’s So Smart") Williams takes on the question of why America is so divided at the moment. His answer may surprise you.

FASCINATING STUFF.

Walter ("He’s So Smart") Williams takes on the question of why America is so divided at the moment. His answer may surprise you.

FASCINATING STUFF.

Some years ago I was reading a book of interviews by ultra-liberal "journalist" Bill Moyers. One interview was with economist Peter Berger, who has studied the effects of capitalism on different countries around the world (and who is also a sociologist specializing in religion). Berger points out that capitalism tends to maximize the potential for freedom in given countries but will not of itself guarantee a free society. Much of Berger’s work has focused on the development of capitalist societies in Asia.

In the interview, Moyers showed his agenda by trying to get Berger to sign off on the idea that Asians are more spiritual, more generous, than Americans.

Berger would have none of it.

He argued that, by comparison to Americans, Asians on average tend to be more materialistic and less willing to donate to charitable causes. He stated that Americans give far more money (proportionate to our standard of living) than those in Asia, where charities simply cannot raise money the way American charities can.

I’m no expert in Asian economics, so I don’t know whether what Berger said is true (and, as always, I’m cautious about generalizations). Perhaps some of the Asian folks and Americans living in Asia can comment on whether they think Berger’s claim is accurate.

But if Asian charities can’t raise support the way American ones can (proportionate to the local standard of living) then the reasons might be several: For example, most Asians have suffered endless years of oppression by brutal governments,
which would incline anybody look out for their own interests. Also, Asia as a continent has not (yet) been Christianized, and thus the charitable imperative that is present in Christianity may not have taken root there the same way it has here.

The Christian imperative to give may play a role in giving here in America as well.

HERE’S AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH U.S. STATES ARE THE MOST CHARITABLE POPULATIONS.

Each state is given a "Having Rank" based on its average adjusted gross income per person and a "Giving Rank" based on the average itemized amount of charitable donations per person. These figures are related to each other ("Rank Relation") by subtracting the "Giving Rank" from the "Having Rank." The resulting "Rank Relations" for each of the 50 states are then compared to each other to determine the state’s overall place in the Generosity Index.

For example, the least-generous state is New Hampshire. It has a "Having Rank" of 9 (the 9th most income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 48 (meaning 47 states give more money on average per person than New Hampshire). This means its "Rank Relation" is -39 (9 – 48 = -39), which is the worst ranking in the nation.

By contrast, the most generous state is Mississippi. Its "Having Rank" is 50 (making it the least income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 5 (only 4 states give more money on average per person than Mississippi). This means that its "Rank Relation" is 45 (50 – 5 = 45), which is the highest ranking in the nation.

When you examine the full list of states, a pattern emerges: The most generous states are all red.

In fact, you don’t hit a blue state until you reach the 26th item on the list (New York). All of the blue states are thus in the lower half of the generosity index.

Why this is is an interesting question. It may be due in part to the fact that there are more red states than blue states. But not one blue state in the top half of the list? There were 18 blue states and not one of them is in the top 25 for generosity? All 18 blue states are in the bottom 25 states in terms of charitable giving? There’s more going on here than just the predominance of red states.

An obvious possible factor is the higher percentage of practicing Christians in such states (this is something that should be checkable via some number-crunching).

I also wonder whether another factor may also be in play: Many of the blue states (such as where I live: California, number 29 on the list) have more social welfare programs in place via the government. Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving (and thus rob individuals of the chance to exercise the virtue of charity).

It would be interesting to see some number-crunching on whether that is the case.

As it is, the "Have Not" states are the most generous givers.

This brings to mind the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)–and the fact that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

Some years ago I was reading a book of interviews by ultra-liberal "journalist" Bill Moyers. One interview was with economist Peter Berger, who has studied the effects of capitalism on different countries around the world (and who is also a sociologist specializing in religion). Berger points out that capitalism tends to maximize the potential for freedom in given countries but will not of itself guarantee a free society. Much of Berger’s work has focused on the development of capitalist societies in Asia.

In the interview, Moyers showed his agenda by trying to get Berger to sign off on the idea that Asians are more spiritual, more generous, than Americans.

Berger would have none of it.

He argued that, by comparison to Americans, Asians on average tend to be more materialistic and less willing to donate to charitable causes. He stated that Americans give far more money (proportionate to our standard of living) than those in Asia, where charities simply cannot raise money the way American charities can.

I’m no expert in Asian economics, so I don’t know whether what Berger said is true (and, as always, I’m cautious about generalizations). Perhaps some of the Asian folks and Americans living in Asia can comment on whether they think Berger’s claim is accurate.

But if Asian charities can’t raise support the way American ones can (proportionate to the local standard of living) then the reasons might be several: For example, most Asians have suffered endless years of oppression by brutal governments,

which would incline anybody look out for their own interests. Also, Asia as a continent has not (yet) been Christianized, and thus the charitable imperative that is present in Christianity may not have taken root there the same way it has here.

The Christian imperative to give may play a role in giving here in America as well.

HERE’S AN ANALYSIS OF WHICH U.S. STATES ARE THE MOST CHARITABLE POPULATIONS.

Each state is given a "Having Rank" based on its average adjusted gross income per person and a "Giving Rank" based on the average itemized amount of charitable donations per person. These figures are related to each other ("Rank Relation") by subtracting the "Giving Rank" from the "Having Rank." The resulting "Rank Relations" for each of the 50 states are then compared to each other to determine the state’s overall place in the Generosity Index.

For example, the least-generous state is New Hampshire. It has a "Having Rank" of 9 (the 9th most income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 48 (meaning 47 states give more money on average per person than New Hampshire). This means its "Rank Relation" is -39 (9 – 48 = -39), which is the worst ranking in the nation.

By contrast, the most generous state is Mississippi. Its "Having Rank" is 50 (making it the least income-rich state), but its "Giving Rank" is 5 (only 4 states give more money on average per person than Mississippi). This means that its "Rank Relation" is 45 (50 – 5 = 45), which is the highest ranking in the nation.

When you examine the full list of states, a pattern emerges: The most generous states are all red.

In fact, you don’t hit a blue state until you reach the 26th item on the list (New York). All of the blue states are thus in the lower half of the generosity index.

Why this is is an interesting question. It may be due in part to the fact that there are more red states than blue states. But not one blue state in the top half of the list? There were 18 blue states and not one of them is in the top 25 for generosity? All 18 blue states are in the bottom 25 states in terms of charitable giving? There’s more going on here than just the predominance of red states.

An obvious possible factor is the higher percentage of practicing Christians in such states (this is something that should be checkable via some number-crunching).

I also wonder whether another factor may also be in play: Many of the blue states (such as where I live: California, number 29 on the list) have more social welfare programs in place via the government. Many have conjectured that creating government-mandated benevolence will depress personal benevolent giving (and thus rob individuals of the chance to exercise the virtue of charity).

It would be interesting to see some number-crunching on whether that is the case.

As it is, the "Have Not" states are the most generous givers.

This brings to mind the story of the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41-44)–and the fact that "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9:7).

SAYS THE DEMS NEED TO "GET" RELIGION.

Say a bunch of other insightful things, too.

Wonder if this’ll show up on The McLaughlin Group.

(Too bad I can’t stand watching that show.)

. . . and I enjoy reading his stuff. Have several of his books on my shelves.

He also does a little politics, and from what I have seen his politics are far more sane than another linguist-turned-political-commentator (Noam Chomsky).

IN THIS ARTICLE MCWHORTER ARGUES WHY AFRICAN-AMERICANS NEED TO BECOME A SWING VOTE.

He’s right. At present African-Americans vote so solidly for one party that neither party is incentivized to go out of its way to foster their interests. The way to gain influence with parties is to make it clear to them that you will not support them if they don’t look out for your interests.

That’s one reason I’m happy that the Catholic vote can’t presently be taken for granted by either party. In the old days, Catholics voted solidly Democrat–and they got taken for granted. Now they are starting in a greater way to vote based on principle (e.g., support of life issues) than on partisan grounds. This means that both parties have a reason to take the principled Catholic voter seriously, as he represents a body that–like Evangelicals–can swing an election.

Republicans cannot take pro-lifers for granted either. Almost enough Evangelicals stayed home in 2000 to cost Bush the election. This time the GOP get-out-the-vote effort focused strongly on Evangelicals. The same clout will be wielded by pro-life Catholics in future elections if real progress (in the form of anti-Roe SCOTUS appointments) is not made in advancing the pro-life cause.

Catholics will have this clout as long as they vote–or withhold their votes–based on principle rather than on party.

In the wake of the recent Democratic defeat there are sure to be calls for the abolition of the electoral college and its replacement with the election of the president by a direct vote with a simple majority.

The way the electoral college works, the president is elected by a majority vote of the electors. Each state has one elector per member in the House of Representatives plus one elector per member of the Senate. States have members of the House based on their population (with the stipulation that each state has at least one), with a total of 435 House members.  But the Senate does not have proportional representation. Each state has two senators, regardless of its population. With fifty states, that means a hundred senators. The District of Columbia also gets three electors, so 435 + 100 +3 = 538, the current number of electors.

Of those, you need a simple majority, or 270 for a clear win. (If there is a tie, then there is a special procedure in which the House picks the president and the Senate picks the vice president, but let’s not go there.)

Now, a word about the way the House and the Senate: As you likely know, the reason that the House has proportional representation and the Senate does not is that it’s an attempt to balance the interests of the many with the interests of the few. The fact that populous states get more representatives in the House means that the interests of populous states get looked after. The fact that all states have equal representation in the Senate means that the interests of low-population states are looked after, so that the representatives of a simple majority of the population can’t simply step on the interests of the low-population states.

A similar role is played in the electoral college by having electors corresponding to a state’s Senate representation. It keeps the electoral college from having purely proportional representation and thus helps balance the interests of high and low population states.

That’s a good thing.

Here’s a map I came up with illustraing why:

The blue colored states are what you might call "the Big 9"–i.e., the states with the most population. Together, the Big 9 have more than 50% of the U.S. population in them. The other 41 states–"the Little 41," as we might say–have just under 50%.

Since the Big 9 have nowehere near 50% of the U.S. landmass, the only way they can have more than 50% of the population is for them to have Big Cities in them. They are Urbanized (even Texas and California, though to a lesser degree than the northeastern blue states in this illustration).

(FWIW, the states are not all shown to scale due; Alaska in particular should be way bigger.)

Here is why we need the electoral college: It’s a way of protecting the small (less populous) states from domination by the giant (high population) ones. All a candidate would need to do to win the presidency with a simple majority of the population vote would be to get the votes of the Big 9 (e.g., by making them elaborate promises to be paid for by the Little 41) and then he could completely ignore the interests of the Little 41.

In practice, of course, no candidate would get all and only the votes of the folks in the Big 9. His opponent would get some of those votes as well, but then he himself would get some votes in the Little 41, so the principle still remains: By targeting just these nine states, which in the main are urbanized or at least contain large urban centers, a candidate could win the presidency and completely ignore the interests of the Little 41.

The electora college prevents that from happening by giving the Little 41 extra clout in the presidential election, meaning that a broader mix have their interests taken into account than otherwise would happen. It’s not a perfect system, but there’s a logic to it that you might want to be aware of the next time you hear someone calling for the abolition of the electoral college.

I’ve been doing some analysis of historical electoral college voting maps, and I hope to have it ready to share soon. There are some interesting history lessons on these maps about how politics in America has evolved over time. One thing struck me in examining the recent ones: The conversion of the South from a Democrat stronghold to a Republican stronghold wasn’t a complete and instantaneous thing. In fact, the two most recent Democrat presidents (Carter and Clinton) were both Southerners who pulled significant electoral votes from Southern states.

This, of course, suggests an obvious potential strategy for Democrats: Nominate Southerners in the future and you’ll do better in the electoral college. Picking up a few Southern states can allow the Northern Alliance to get enough votes to push you over the magic 270. This is an obvious thing, one I’ve thought about before, and one I’m sure many Democratic movers and shakers have thought about. But Bob Novak points out a problem resulting from Tuesday’s election:

In the wake of
Kerry’s unimpressive candidacy, Democrats ponder the alternative of
Howard Dean’s radicalism that is even further removed from the
political mainstream. The more attractive course would be a return to
the artful Southerner model of Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton —
conservative in style, liberal in substance. But with the Republican
sweep in Dixie, there are no such Democrats to choose from — certainly
not Sen. John Edwards, who as vice presidential candidate exerted no
impact in his own state of North Carolina. Sen. Hillary Clinton as the
presidential nominee in 2008 would only compound the party’s dilemma [Source].

This is something that hadn’t quite struck me before. Even if the Dems might want to nominate more candidates on the mold of Bill Clinton, they will find it increasingly difficult to do so. There are only two basic offices that put you in position to run for the presidency: senator and governor (vice-president doesn’t count since  vice-presidents are almost invariably senators or governors first). You have to be one of these two things before you are likely to be perceived as a credible presidential candidate.

But the Dems can’t come up with a Southern nominee if there are no Southern Democratic senators and governors. We’re not at the zero number just yet, but we’re getting close, with Republicans holding all but four Southern senatorships and a similar number of governors, and many of these are not suitable presidential candidates for a variety of reasons. Not every senator or governor makes a good candidate for president: Just look at Howard Dean (a governor) or Ted Kennedy (a senator).

If the Republican consolidation presently underway in the South gets to a certain point, it may become impossible for Democrats to pursue a Southern strategy for lack of potential candidates, quite apart from the increasing radicalization of the party (which would disincline them to nominate a moderate Southern Democrat).

It may be possible for them to raid other red state areas for candidates with Southern appeal, but not for long if the consolidation continues apace there as well.