Inoljt Posts

The stereotype is that Californians are very socially liberal. California is, after all, home to San Francisco and Berkeley — the natural environment of the godless hippie and homosexual. Hollywood is also located in California, and Hollywood's not exactly a bastion of social conservatism. It may surprise some then to note that in the past four years, Californians have voted against gay marriage, marijuana and the abolition of the death penalty.

88 percent of governors (about every nine out of ten) in the United States are male, and another 88 percent are white. America is a very diverse place. Its governors, on the other hand...not so much.

There is a reason Mississippi, once a solidly Democratic state, is a modern-day Republican stronghold. But it's not the reason you might think.

This is the seventh part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:
Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan


Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting


Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

This is the sixth part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

This is the second part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:
Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

This is the third part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

V...

This is the second part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

...

This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing California'™s propositions.

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

This is the fourth part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

...

This is the fourth part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting
...

This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing California'™s propositions.
Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

VO...

This is the first part of a series of posts analyzing California's propositions:

Vote Yes on Proposition 30 - Jerry Brown's Budget Plan

Vote No on Proposition 31 - Changes to State Budgeting

Vote No on Proposition 32 - Union-busting

By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

College education is different in many ways from K-12 education. Unlike high school or elementary teachers, for instance, professors actually know what they are talking about. Another difference: America's colleges are the best in the world, while its high schools are quite mediocre.

More below.
There are many reasons why this is so. One reason is that the average college student pays several thousand dollars for his or her education, funding the average public high school can only dream of. Another one is that American society respects college professors, but not high school teachers so much.

Nevertheless, there is at least one thing colleges undeniably do better than high schools - and which high schools can readily adopt. This is the professor evaluation. At the end of every class, college professors hand out anonymous evaluations for students to fill out. College professors then get an unbiased view of what students think of them, and what their weaknesses are.

For some strange reason, high schools have never implemented this procedure. Most probably nobody has thought of it before.

They should. Nowadays education reformers are quite passionate about improving teacher performance. What better way to do so than by asking the students themselves?

For this reason, however, teacher unions may be resistant to the idea; they may argue that high school students are not mature enough to effectively evaluate a teacher. There is also a simple way to address this opposition: keep teacher evaluations for teacher's eyes only. This does little to dilute the effectiveness of this reform, because teacher evaluations have their greatest effect on the teachers themselves. It also gets rid of the fear that bad evaluations may lead to teachers being fired.

Teachers truly do care about their job, and they often strive to improve themselves. Yet often they are groping in the dark. A teacher may hear rumors that he or she is boring or too political, but students are naturally reluctant to say this to his or her face. Anonymous student evaluations enable teachers to actually find out what they're doing right and wrong. Indeed, they probably are the most effective way of doing this.

Teacher evaluations are simple, extremely effective, and cost practically no money. There's no magic cure to the ailments that assail America's high schools, but instituting teacher evaluations may come the closest that there is to one.

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

The United States has permanent membership in the Security Council along with the China, France, Russia, and United Kingdom. Each of these countries may veto any resolution they desire to.

There have been occasional calls to reform the Security Council. The most discussed option has been adding Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan as permanent members.

Let's take a look at each of the current Security Council members:

More below.
China - China has the world's second-largest economy and - probably - the world's third most powerful military. Its relative influence, however, is still limited. China today is far more of a great power than it was in 1945 (indeed, in 1945 it probably didn't deserve to be labeled a great power). Moreover, China is indisputably becoming stronger.

France - France has the world's fifth largest economy and a very modern and powerful military, probably in the world's top five. On the other hand, its influence is somewhat limited outside the former French Empire. Compared with 1945, France is substantially less of a great power, having lost its empire and fallen under the American umbrella. Indeed, like most of Europe it has been in relative decline ever since 1918 and looks set to continue to decline in relative terms. This is because the Third World is slowly catching up to the First World, rather than any fault of France itself.

Russia - Russia has the smallest economy of the five, barely (or not at all) breaking into the world's top ten biggest economies. However, Russia's military is unquestionably the world's second strongest, and it dominates the region it is located in. Russia fell into steep decline after the fall of the Soviet Union, when it was on par with the United States, and has only recently begun to recover.

United Kingdom - The United Kingdom has much in common with France. Its economy is the world's sixth largest, and its military is probably in the world's top five. Nowadays, the United Kingdom's influence is more cultural than anything else; it neither dominates Europe or the former British Empire. Out of all the powers, the United Kingdom has declined the most since 1945 - losing both its empire and economic preeminence.

United States - The United States has the world's largest economy and most powerful military. It strongly influences the entire world. It is more powerful than in 1945, with the fall of its great rival the Soviet Union.

All in all the United States, Russia, and China (going in order of their great power strength) definitely ought to be in the Security Council. The case is more questionable for France and the United Kingdom. Europe is still a very powerful entity in the world and should have a permanent member in the Security Council. But having two members in the Security Council - as is currently the case - certainly overstates its status.

The trouble is that by themselves, France or the United Kingdom aren't powerful enough to have one seat. Nor is the European Union influential or coherent enough to deserve a seat. Under an ideal situation, one-third of a seat each would go to France and the United Kingdom, with the other third going to Germany. This, of course, wouldn't be feasible in the real world.

Finally, let's take a look at the countries which some propose adding as permanent members:

Brazil - Brazil has the world's seventh or eighth largest economy, which is why people propose adding it. However, Brazil has no substantial military presence to speak of. Its influence is limited to Latin America (where the United States is probably more influential). While Brazil has become relatively more powerful since 1945, it is still not in the category of great power status.

Germany - Germany probably has the strongest claim to being added to the permanent Security Council. Germany's economy is the world's 4th largest (bigger than the United Kingdom or France), but its military is still quite weak due to the restrictions imposed upon it after World War II. Germany is generally seen as Europe's first-among-equals; it is Germany, not France or the United Kingdom, which is coordinating the response to the European Union debt crisis. Germany has thus definitely become more powerful after rising from the ashes of 1945.

India - India is similar to Brazil in many respects, except weaker. It has the world's tenth or eleventh biggest economy. Like Brazil, its military is essentially nonexistent. It has very little influence even in its neighborhood. India has certainly strengthened since 1945, when it was under foreign rule. However, it definitely is not yet a great power. One could make a stronger case for adding Italy or Canada to the permanent Security Council than India (or Brazil, for that matter).

Japan - Japan is a unique case. Its economy is the world's third largest, which seems to say that Japan ought to be included in the permanent Security Council. Japan's military, however, is extraordinarily weak. Furthermore, Japan has no regional influence; it is regarded negatively by its neighbors for its crimes in World War II. Indeed, Japan has been bullied quite recently both by Russia and China over disputed islands, with Russia and China getting the better of it each time. While Japan has advanced economically since 1945, its regional influence is still lower. Before World War II, for instance, Japan occupied Korea and much of China as a colony; this would be impossible today.

Out of these four countries, probably only Germany truly ought to be in the permanent Security Council. Brazil and India are still middle powers. Japan, while economically strong, lacks the other qualifications that go along with Great Power status.

Indeed, none of these countries have been able to exert their strength in ways the Security Council Five have in the past decade. The United States invaded and occupies Iraq and Afghanistan, countries half around the world. Russia invaded Georgia. The United Kingdom and France are currently bombing Libya. Perhaps only Germany - and even this is fairly uncertain - can do something similar today.

The world has changed a lot since 1945, but it has also changed a lot less than many believe. The five great powers in 1945 still are, by and large, the five great powers in 2010.

This is the second part in a series of posts examining how to create super-packed congressional districts of one race. The other posts in this series pack Asians, blacks, Native Americans, and whites.

Packing Hispanics

The previous post created a 94.8% black congressional district, carved out of Chicago.

Chicago is probably the only place in America where such a district can be created. Only Chicago has sufficient numbers of blacks and sufficient levels of segregation.

This is not true for Hispanics. It is a lot easier to pack Hispanics. This because there are simply more Hispanics than blacks in the United States.

More below.
Hispanic living patterns are also rather different than black living patterns. There are often sharp lines between black and non-black neighborhoods; one can cross a street and suddenly go from an 80% white neighborhood to an 80% black one. This makes it easy to draw a 90%-black district - at least until the 90% black precincts run out.

Hispanic neighborhoods, on the other hand, tend to become Hispanic more gradually. One precinct may be 10% Hispanic, the next one 30% Hispanic, the one after that 50% Hispanic, and the center of the neighborhood 80% Hispanic.

To create an extremely Hispanic congressional district, one needs a 95% Hispanic neighborhood - or city, really - big enough to fill an entire congressional district.

There are three such places in America: Miami, Los Angeles, and South Texas.

Miami

Miami is home to one of the most diverse and concentrated population of Hispanics in the United States. Unlike many areas, most Hispanics here tend to be Cuban or from areas outside of Mexico.

Currently this area elects three Hispanic Republicans to Congress. Let's take a look at the demographics:

There is more than enough room here to create an extremely Hispanic district, by taking in the most Hispanic precincts in this area. There will then still be enough Hispanics left to probably create another Hispanic-majority seat.

Here is the district:

This is a 93.2% Hispanic district, located in the heart of Miami. The V-shaped district swerves southeast and then west, avoiding several 80% Hispanic precincts in the middle to take in 95% Hispanic precincts. Interestingly, the adult population is more Hispanic than the overall population - something one rarely sees with Hispanics.

This district almost certainly votes strongly Republican. The representatives currently in its vicinity are all Hispanic Republicans. It's hard to know for certain its exact political balance; the numbers aren't there, and the data doesn't distinguish between Cuban Hispanics (strongly Republican) and non-Cuban Hispanics (who vote Democratic). I'll go out on a wild guess and say that President Barack Obama got 42% of the vote here.

(Edit: Numbers for Florida have now come out, and my guess was a bit off. Mr. Obama took 36.2% of the vote, while Mr. McCain took 63.8% of the vote.)

Los Angeles

Unfortunately, Dave's Redistricting Application - the program used to generate these districts - lacks sufficiently detailed 2010 data for California to pack Hispanics effectively.

Nevertheless, the center of Los Angeles constitutes one of the greatest concentrations of Hispanics in America. Most of these Hispanics are of Mexican origin, and the center of the city is almost 100% Hispanic. Indeed, it is very difficult to not draw an 80% Hispanic district in this area.

A 95% or so Hispanic district in the heart of Los Angeles would constitute a Democratic stronghold. Judging from the behavior of individual precincts, such a congressional district probably would give Mr. Obama 80-85% of the vote.

South Texas

Located next to the Mexican border, South Texas is likely the most Hispanic part of the United States:

There are a lot of ways to draw a strongly Hispanic district here. On the other hand, there are several limitations. The most problematic is the Mexican border. If one draws a district along the Mexican border, one has to include all the precincts along it - otherwise a precinct may be trapped with no way to connect to another district. This is generally not a problem in maintaining Hispanic percentages, but occasionally one runs into 75% Hispanic precincts, rather than 95% Hispanic ones.

Nevertheless, after several experiments drawing a district along the border does seem to be the best way to pack Hispanics. Here is the result:

This district tries to include only precincts which are more than 95% Hispanic. The result is a 96.5% Hispanic congressional district.

As a gerrymander, this district encompasses both extremely rural and urban Hispanic areas. The cities are hard to picture clearly, so here are some detailed views.

Here is Laredo (located at the northernmost point along the border):

Here is the Rio Grande Valley:

It is also possible to find almost exactly how liberal this congressional district is, since Dave's Redistricting Application gives precinct-by-precinct numbers on how Texas voted in 2008. As it turns out, this district gave Mr. Obama 80% of the vote and Senator John McCain 20% in the 2008 presidential election.

This is not, in fact, representative at all of South Texas. The region is much more conservative than these numbers suggest. For some strange reason, while 95+% Hispanic areas vote 80% Democratic, 80% Hispanic areas only vote 60% Democratic in this area. This is either because Hispanics in more integrated areas vote more Republican, or Hispanic turn-out is so low (and whites so strongly Republican) that even a 20% white area in South Texas will have a 40%-white electorate - or it could be both. The data isn't there to evaluate which hypothesis is true. Whatever the case, it is actually possible to create a 68% Hispanic congressional district which gave Senator John McCain 52% of the vote.

Packing Whites

This post has shown above that one can create a 96.5% Hispanic district, when Hispanics compose only 16.3% of America's population. Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, are more than 60% of the U.S. population. How white, then, can one make a congressional district?

The next post will attempt to pack as many whites as possible into one congressional district - a task which is a lot harder than it seems.

Editor's Note: In fact, packing whites is turning out to be so time-consuming that I did a post on Asians first.

--Inoljt

By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

Mitt Romney has a big problem.

It's not "Romneycare."

It's not his Mormonism.

It's not his shifting positions on social issues, such as abortion.

All the above are merely symptoms of Mr. Romney's big problem.

Mr. Romney, simply put, is just not a very good politician.

More below.
Americans take a look at him, and they just don't like him on a personal, instinctual level. They then find a reasonable - or perhaps not so reasonable - rationalization to explain why they don't like him. He's fake. He doesn't have much in common with the average American. He's a flip-flopper. He's Mormon. Romneycare. Etc.

This is the same problem John Edwards had running for president. There was nothing specifically which Mr. Edwards did wrong; he said all the right things, he had all the right credentials. But voters just didn't like Mr. Edwards; on some level they felt uncomfortable with him. Eventually the media came up with stories tapping into this gut discomfort: Edwards was insincere, Edwards got incredibly expensive hair cuts, etc.

Back in the 2008 presidential primaries, Republican analyst Jay Cost wrote a revealing post:

[Mitt Romney's] candidacy has been the most transparently strategic this cycle. McCain is up? Go after McCain. McCain is down? Leave McCain alone. Thompson enters the race and seems a threat? Take a cheap shot about Law and Order. Thompson fades? Ignore him. Rudy is up? Go after Rudy. Huckabee is up? Go after Huck. You need to win a Republican primary? Make yourself the most socially conservative candidate in the race. And on and on and on.

If somebody asked me which candidate on the Republican side has won just a single election (in a year that his party did very well nationwide) -- I would answer Mitt Romney, even knowing nothing about anybody's biography. This kind of transparency is, to me, a sign of political inexperience. He's only won one election, and it shows.

...Romney's campaign is, I must say, the least authentic seeming of any on the GOP side...Unlike Kerry-Edwards, the Romney campaign knows how to stay on script. That is not its problem. Its problem is that the script changes are obviously induced by its standing in the polls. There is little subtlety to the Romney campaign. Too much of what it does is obviously strategic.

Mr. Romney's 2008 campaign went on underperform expectations significantly. Mr. Romney promised to win Iowa and then lost to Mike Huckabee. He went on to New Hampshire and then lost again, this time to John McCain. Mr. Romney's sole victory came in Michigan. After that, his campaign lost yet another contest to John McCain in Florida. On Super Tuesday, Mr. Romney's campaign promised to sweep the South and win states from California to Illinois to New York. As it turned out, Mr. Romney came in third place in many southern states, and lost badly in states like California, Illinois, and New York.

Were Mr. Romney to be a better politician, none of his current weaknesses would matter. Good politicians can and have overcome significantly more daunting obstacles than Mr. Romney currently faces. John F. Kennedy was a Catholic at a time of heavy anti-Catholic sentiment. Ronald Reagan was exceptionally old. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife - and got caught doing so. Barack Obama was a black liberal from the inner-city. Yet all still were successfully elected president.

If Mr. Romney were a good politician, he too would be able to overcome anti-Mormon sentiment and "Romneycare." The problem is that he is not.

This is part of a series of posts examining, somewhat lightheartedly, the electoral effects of adding Canada and then Mexico to the United States.

The previous post noted that if Mexico joined the United States, and if Mexico voted for the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party would at first glance seem benefit very much indeed. President George W. Bush would have win Delaware to become president. Double-digit Republican victories would turn into ties.

But this assumes that American voting patterns remain unchanged if the United States joined Mexico.

Imagine how the typical American would react to the last six words in the sentence above, and one can begin to see why that assumption is probably extremely inaccurate.

More below.
If the United States were to join Canada, the result would probably be fairly free of friction. The United States and Canada have very similar or the same cultures, histories, income levels, languages and ethnicities. It is impossible to tell a Canadian and an American apart.

None of this is true regarding Mexico and the United States. Mexicans and Americans are truly separate peoples to an extent Canadians and Americans are not. Their cultures, histories, income levels, languages, and ethnicities are different. It is not hard to tell a Mexican and an American apart.

For these reasons, it is pretty simple to predict voting patterns in a union of Mexico and the United States. The typical election would probably look like this:

Adding the United States to Mexico would probably spark an enormous racial backlash amongst Americans. The effect would be similar to that of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the South. This might not be confined merely to whites; if there is one way to break the Democratic Party's lock on the black vote, adding the United States to Mexico might be it. Elections would come to resemble those which happen in Mississippi today: everybody from Mexico would vote one way, everybody from the United States would vote another.

This is not just a guess. Many countries today experience similar problems, where two different peoples happen to share the same borders. Tribal voting often happens in Africa, due to its colonial history. Another example is Ukraine, which has an enormous east-west divide. People in the west are Ukrainians, who speak Ukrainian and want to join NATO. People in the east are Russians, who speak Russian and want to re-create the Soviet Union. It's not pretty:

It's not very hard to imagine a similar electoral dynamic playing out in an American-Mexican union.

--Inoljt

The previous two posts in this serious dealt with what would happen if Canada's electoral votes were added to the United States. This post will examine what would happen if the same occurred with Mexico.

A note to all Mexican readers: this post was written for serious political analysis along with it. It is not meant to offend, and sincere apologies are offered if any offense at all is taken.

Mexico is a lot bigger than Canada. Canada has a population of 34 million; Mexico has a population of 112 million. Indeed, it's one of the most populous countries in the world. The effect of adding Mexico to the United States would have far more of an impact than adding Canada.

More below.
One can calculate the number of electoral votes Mexico has this way. The first post in this series noted that:

A state's electoral vote is based off the number of representatives and senators it has in Congress. For instance, California has 53 representatives and 2 senators, making for 55 electoral votes...

The United States Census estimates its population at approximately 308,745,538 individuals. The House of Representatives has 435 individuals, each of whom represents - on average - approximately 709,760 people. If Canada was part of the United States, this would imply Canada adding 48 (rounding down from 48.47) representatives in the House.

This is a simplified version of things; the process of apportionment is quite actually somewhat more complicated than this. But at most Canada would have a couple more or less representatives than this. It would also have two senators, adding two more electoral votes to its 48 representatives.

Mexico's population in 2010 was found to be exactly 112,322,757 individuals. Using the same estimates as above, one would estimate Mexico to have 158.25 House representatives. Adding the two senators, one gets about 160 electoral votes in total:

This is obviously a lot of votes. For the sake of simplification let's also not consider Mexico's powerful political parties in this hypothetical.

How would Mexico vote?

Well, it would probably go for the Democratic Party (funny how that tends to happen in these scenarios). This is not something many people would disagree with. Most Mexican-Americans tend vote Democratic. The Democratic platform of helping the poor would probably be well-received by Mexicans, who are poorer than Americans. Moreover, the Republican emphasis on deporting illegals (often an euphemism for Mexican immigrants, although some Republicans make things clearer by just stating something like "kick out the Mexicans") would probably not go well in Mexico.

Here's what would happen in the 2004 presidential election, which President George W. Bush won:

Senator John Kerry wins a pretty clear victory in the electoral vote. He gains 409 electoral votes to Mr. Bush's 286 and is easily elected president.

What states would Mr. Bush need to flip to win?

In the previous post, where Canada was added to the United States, Mr. Bush would merely have needed to flip one: Wisconsin. Given his 0.4% loss in the state, this would require convincing only 6,000 voters to switch.

Mexico is a lot harder. In order to win, Mr. Bush needs to shift the national vote 4.2% more Republican. This flips six states: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and finally Oregon (which he lost by 4.2%). They go in order of the margin of Mr. Bush's defeat to Mr. Kerry:

But there's a caveat here: in this scenario the entirety of Mexico is assumed to only have two senators. The fifty states have 435 representatives and 100 senators, making for 535 electoral votes in total (plus Washington D.C.'s three). Mexico, on the other hand, has 158 representatives and two senators, making for only 160 electoral votes. Obviously, Mexico's influence is strongly diluted.

Mexico itself is organized into 31 states and one federal district. Assume that instead of the entire country voting as one unit, Mexico is divided in the electoral college into these districts. Each Mexican state (and Mexico City) would receive two senators, giving Mexico 222 electoral votes instead of 160.

But that's not all. There are several states in America - Wyoming, for instance - whose influence is magnified due to their low population. The "Wyomings" of Mexico are Baja California Sur, Colima, and Compeche - which each have less than a million residents. Overall, this would probably add three more electoral votes to Mexico.

This means that Mr. Bush has to flip three more states to win:

New Jersey, Washington, and Delaware go Republican under this scenario. To do this, Mr. Bush would have to shift the national vote 7.59% more Republican (the margin by which he lost Delaware).

One can see that Mexico has a far more powerful effect than Canada; a double-digit Republican landslide has turned into a tie here. That's what happens when one adds a country of more than one hundred million individuals.

Before Democrats start celebrating however, one should note that this the hypothetical to this point has been in no way realistic. It assumes that the residents of America will not alter their voting habits in response to an extremely fundamental change.

The next post explores some conclusions about what the typical election would look like if the United States became part of Mexico.

--inoljt