Sorry for the light posting lately. Long list of excuses (budget talk, budget meetings, etc.), but the bottom line is that I'll be back at it strong next week.
In the meantime, here are some interesting links:
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Did the Confederate Flag Matter in 2008?
Did the Confederate Flag Matter in 2008? Some experimental research suggests that it may have. A team of researchers from Florida State University found that when people were primed with a Confederate Flag, they were less likely to say they would vote for Barack Obama than those who were primed with a neutral symbol. Further, those who were forced to view the flag were more likely to hold "anti-black sentiments among whites, regardless of their stated beliefs on racial issues."
This seems to me to be a very important study and one that should be getting more media attention. Other than the Miller-McCune article I liked to above, I can't find anyone else covering it. Especially during the anniversary of the Civil War, this seems like a newsworthy and relevant article. And, it sure raises a bunch of questions about the placement of the Confederate Flag on the SC State House grounds (for a great picture of the flag in SC, click here).
This seems to me to be a very important study and one that should be getting more media attention. Other than the Miller-McCune article I liked to above, I can't find anyone else covering it. Especially during the anniversary of the Civil War, this seems like a newsworthy and relevant article. And, it sure raises a bunch of questions about the placement of the Confederate Flag on the SC State House grounds (for a great picture of the flag in SC, click here).
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Heath Shuler, the Wild (Mid)West and Opinions on Gun Control
Following fears from the Arizona shooting, Heath Shuler now says he plans to carry a gun into public events. This inspired me to look into public opinion on gun control--who supports it, who doesn't. Evidently the folks at the Pew Center for the People and the Press had the same idea and fortunately, they've got a nice breakdown of what their data find. They asked people whether they believe it is more important to control gun ownership or to protect the right of Americans to own guns. Keep in mind that these data were collected in September, 2010--before the AZ shootings. Data collected after the tragedy might shift opinion a bit.
The first lesson is that more Americans support protecting the rights of Americans to own guns than they did in the early 1990s.
So how does this vary? Here are a few unsurprising stats:
The first lesson is that more Americans support protecting the rights of Americans to own guns than they did in the early 1990s.
- Men are more likely than women to support gun rights (57%-37%).
- Republicans are more supportive of gun rights than Democrats (70%-30%)
- Folks residing in rural areas support gun rights more than those living in urban areas (63%-38%)
- Tea Party supporters are gun rights supporters (78% support).
- The South is NOT the region of the country that is most supportive of gun rights. That honor goes to the Midwest (52% support in the Midwest vs. 49% in the South, 44% in the West and 36% in the East).
- People who make more than $75K are more supportive of gun rights than those who make less than $30K (49%-40%).
- Registered voters are more supportive of gun rights than those who are not registered (51%-35%).
Quick Links
- Larry Sabato has been called "the most quoted college professor in the country" and with good reason. He's a good writer, has a sense of what is newsworthy and refuses to speak in Academic-speak. I don't always agree with what Sabato has to say, but I really like this quick analysis of the 2012 election--particularly the section at the beginning when he talks about why presidential elections are predictable and why primaries aren't.
- Giles Morris has a terrific piece in the TuckReader about why academics should communicate with the public. I could not agree more (hence, this blog). This is one of the things that worries me about these looming budget cuts. If we cut faculty and we all teach more students and more classes (all possibilities that are on the table), then the time for this kind of dialogue will be gone. I think it's a real missed opportunity.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Books I Like That I Think You'd Like Too
From time to time, I'd plan to feature a few relatively recent books that are influencing my thinking about politics and that I can recommend. And don't worry, I'll focus on books aimed at a popular audience, not ones aimed at pointy-headed intellectuals. Here's a few recent ones that I've been digging:
The Big Sort
There have been a few good books lately about place and politics, but this is my favorite. Bill Biship, an Austin journalist and Robert Cushing, a retired professor teamed up on this book that argues that what is tearing us apart as a nation is mobility and geography. While we used to live around lots of different types of people, we now can and do choose to live among people who are just like us. These changes, according to Biship are most obvious and vexing at the local level. When we're surrounded by folks like us, it's awful hard to have meaningful political dialogue. There's a lot of political science literature that supports Biship's findings (and to his credit, Biship cites a good bit of it), but Biship's presentation of the evidence is a lot more accessible for non-academics. Although he frequently uses Austin, Texas as his example, you could just as easily substitute Asheville, Durham, or Charlotte.
There's a lot to like about this book--it's well-written, data-based, has important political consequences, and holds Democrats and Republicans responsible. Indeed, Biship doesn't just lay the blame on the doorstep of those who live in the suburbs and surround themselves with other white Republicans, but also at young liberals who are equally as closed-minded towards Republicans as they claim the Republicans are to them. Given the debates over redistricting that are about to start, this is a great time to read this book.
Big Girls Don't Cry
If there are a few good books about place and politics, there are ten times as many about the 2008 election. This one, however is a little different. Rebecca Traister reflects on what the 2008 election meant for feminism and women's issues. Traister's a Democrat and she makes that very clear, but her handling of what the Obama/Clinton primary meant for the Democratic Party is masterful and changed the way I think about women in politics. Unfortunately Traister doesn't consult any empirical evidence from political science (which is a shame since Political Scientists know quite a bit about these issues), but her first-person account of the election is well-written and taught me a great deal about what this election meant for many women at a personal level. Reading this book also led me to reflect on Bev Perdue's run for Governor and the rhetoric surrounding the election.
Amazing Grace
Robert Putnam is a Political Scientist at Harvard who writes big books with lots of data. He's also one of the race academics whose ideas effect how real people think about politics. His last book, Bowling Alone is easily one of the most important political books of the last 25 years. Sure it's controversial (see, in particularly this careful critique), but it's one of those books that every educated person should read. Amazing Grace is likely to be just as important. Putnam (this time with co-author David Campbell--a Political Scientist at Notre Dame) writes about the role of religion in American public life. Religious people will like some of it and hate other parts of it. As will agnostics and athiests. All educated people, however, should read it and deal with it somehow. Particularly in a state like NC where religion is a major, major player, this book should be required reading.
The Big Sort
There have been a few good books lately about place and politics, but this is my favorite. Bill Biship, an Austin journalist and Robert Cushing, a retired professor teamed up on this book that argues that what is tearing us apart as a nation is mobility and geography. While we used to live around lots of different types of people, we now can and do choose to live among people who are just like us. These changes, according to Biship are most obvious and vexing at the local level. When we're surrounded by folks like us, it's awful hard to have meaningful political dialogue. There's a lot of political science literature that supports Biship's findings (and to his credit, Biship cites a good bit of it), but Biship's presentation of the evidence is a lot more accessible for non-academics. Although he frequently uses Austin, Texas as his example, you could just as easily substitute Asheville, Durham, or Charlotte.
There's a lot to like about this book--it's well-written, data-based, has important political consequences, and holds Democrats and Republicans responsible. Indeed, Biship doesn't just lay the blame on the doorstep of those who live in the suburbs and surround themselves with other white Republicans, but also at young liberals who are equally as closed-minded towards Republicans as they claim the Republicans are to them. Given the debates over redistricting that are about to start, this is a great time to read this book.
Big Girls Don't Cry
If there are a few good books about place and politics, there are ten times as many about the 2008 election. This one, however is a little different. Rebecca Traister reflects on what the 2008 election meant for feminism and women's issues. Traister's a Democrat and she makes that very clear, but her handling of what the Obama/Clinton primary meant for the Democratic Party is masterful and changed the way I think about women in politics. Unfortunately Traister doesn't consult any empirical evidence from political science (which is a shame since Political Scientists know quite a bit about these issues), but her first-person account of the election is well-written and taught me a great deal about what this election meant for many women at a personal level. Reading this book also led me to reflect on Bev Perdue's run for Governor and the rhetoric surrounding the election.
Amazing Grace
Robert Putnam is a Political Scientist at Harvard who writes big books with lots of data. He's also one of the race academics whose ideas effect how real people think about politics. His last book, Bowling Alone is easily one of the most important political books of the last 25 years. Sure it's controversial (see, in particularly this careful critique), but it's one of those books that every educated person should read. Amazing Grace is likely to be just as important. Putnam (this time with co-author David Campbell--a Political Scientist at Notre Dame) writes about the role of religion in American public life. Religious people will like some of it and hate other parts of it. As will agnostics and athiests. All educated people, however, should read it and deal with it somehow. Particularly in a state like NC where religion is a major, major player, this book should be required reading.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Yankees Turned NC Blue in 2008
There's been a lot of talk on this blog and elsewhere about shifting party loyalties in North Carolina--particularly in the 2008 election. Probably the best article on the subject is by UGAs Trey Hood and South Florida's Seth McKee. Hood and McKee find that NC went for Obama not because of shifting partisan loyalties of long-time residents, but rather because of the influence of newcomers. In a very readable article that draws from multiple data sources, Hood and McKee document the large number of in-migrants to the state and find that these in-migrants are more likely to be partisan independents, but also were more likely to support Obama. These are the folks that shifted the Tar Heel state towards Obama. Given evidence that Raleigh is the fastest growing metro area in America, I'm guessing Hood and McKee's findings may be influencing NC politics for years to come. Who says academics don't write on stuff that matters?
Updates
Sorry for the light posting as of late--beginning of the semester and all that.
A few cool links, however:
A few cool links, however:
- The Washington Post had a piece on whether DC is southern and they feature our research. See here and here. For the original papers, see here and here
- The Charlotte Observer published our op-ed about voter ID laws based on a blog entry that we posted here.
- I just had a nice interview with WBTV in Charlotte about voter ID laws in NC. I think the story will air tonight.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Eclectic and Interesting Links
- From the US Census Bureau: Foreign-born people are a smaller proportion of the US population now than they were in 1890.
- From the Pew Center on Religion and the NY Times: The religious affiliation that is most underrepresented in Congress is "none."
- From the Pew Center for the People & The Press: The Internet is the most popular news source among young people. See the Tuck Reader for a local angle on a similar story.
- From the NY Times: Hal Herzog says my basset hound doesn't make me healthier.
- From Fox News: A psychology journal that I would sacrifice a finger to be published in publishes paper claiming to provide evidence of ESP. What am I doing wrong?
- From the Elon Poll: Most North Carolinians don't like school vouchers.
- From the Pew Center:A terrific summary of one of the most important books on politics and society to come out in the last few years.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
More Polling Data from NC
The folks at Public Policy Polling recently released data from two fascinating polls of NC registered voters. Here are the seven major story lines as I read them:
1) Obama is going to be competitive in NC in 2012. Obama's approval numbers are higher than the favorability numbers for all of his major potential Republican opponents (see below). He either ties or beats all of them in potential match-ups.
2) Obama has an age problem. 57% of young (18-29) voters approve of his job performance, compared to 41% among people 45-65 and 43% among those above 65. As we all know, older people are more likely to vote than young people, and this gap is likely to be an issue for the Obama campaign.
3). Despite being members of different political parties, Hagan (D) and Burr (R) have identical job approval numbers (36% approve of each). Purple state, anyone?
4) Obama's tax deal was popular with North Carolinians. 51% of registered voters support it, compared to 35% who oppose it.
5) North Carolinians express greater support of Democrats than Republicans in the General Assembly (38-33), but are slightly more likely to believe that NC will be better off with a GOP majority in Raleigh (41% better off; 37% worse off). Obviously that one's confusing, but these numbers are very, very close. I see this as more evidence of a purple state.
6) Men have strong opinions on the Governor. Governor Purdue has approximately the same approval numbers among men and women (37% among women, 34% among men), but women are much more likely to say they're not sure.
7) Mike Easley is sliding towards John Edwards on the list of unpopular figures in NC. PPP shows that less than 1/5 of NC voters are favorable towards Mike Easley.
1) Obama is going to be competitive in NC in 2012. Obama's approval numbers are higher than the favorability numbers for all of his major potential Republican opponents (see below). He either ties or beats all of them in potential match-ups.
2) Obama has an age problem. 57% of young (18-29) voters approve of his job performance, compared to 41% among people 45-65 and 43% among those above 65. As we all know, older people are more likely to vote than young people, and this gap is likely to be an issue for the Obama campaign.
3). Despite being members of different political parties, Hagan (D) and Burr (R) have identical job approval numbers (36% approve of each). Purple state, anyone?
4) Obama's tax deal was popular with North Carolinians. 51% of registered voters support it, compared to 35% who oppose it.
5) North Carolinians express greater support of Democrats than Republicans in the General Assembly (38-33), but are slightly more likely to believe that NC will be better off with a GOP majority in Raleigh (41% better off; 37% worse off). Obviously that one's confusing, but these numbers are very, very close. I see this as more evidence of a purple state.
6) Men have strong opinions on the Governor. Governor Purdue has approximately the same approval numbers among men and women (37% among women, 34% among men), but women are much more likely to say they're not sure.
7) Mike Easley is sliding towards John Edwards on the list of unpopular figures in NC. PPP shows that less than 1/5 of NC voters are favorable towards Mike Easley.
The Rise of Texas, The Decline of Virginia
Over at Animals and Us my friend Hal Herzog has some fun with the NGram viewer--a tool that allows you to quickly and easily search and graph the presence of any word (or combination of words) in over 5 million books spanning two centuries. Hal finds that chicken is now a lot more popular than beef. He also documents the similar rise in the gay rights and animal rights movements. Most importantly, he demonstrates that, contrary to what John Lennon said, the Beatles were never more popular than Jesus.
The possibilities for uncovering trends in politics are limitless--for a great example, see here, Although I wasted far too much time goofing with this, the graph below (popularity of various southern states over time) perhaps the most interesting one.
There are a lot of stories here, but the most obvious include the relative popularity of Virginia and Texas. Virginia once dominated as the most written-about Southern state, and still maintains a good bit of popularity. Around the 1940s, though, Virginia began to take a nose dove. Texas has experienced a steady rise and is now the most written about southern state. As for the Tar Heel state--we're mired in the murky middle.
The possibilities for uncovering trends in politics are limitless--for a great example, see here, Although I wasted far too much time goofing with this, the graph below (popularity of various southern states over time) perhaps the most interesting one.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Making Sense of Redistricting
I'm working on a cold beer at the Westville Pub (Wedge IPA if you're interested) while waiting for new tires to get put on my car. While I've been here, I've gotten a call from a smart reporter from the Citizen-Times who is (like I am) trying to make sense of the new Census numbers and what they mean for redistricting--particularly in North Carolina. Not a bad way for a politics and beer geek to spend a rainy day. I'll hopefully have something more intelligent to say soon, but in the meantime, here are a few random notes about, or inspired by redistricting and the new Census :
- North Carolina population increased by over 18% since 2000. That's the largest increase of any southern state (unless you consider Texas the South. And let's be honest--no state that considers beef to be bar-b-que can be the South).
- We're now the 10th biggest state in the country (up from the 11th). Despite this gain, we don't pick up any congressional seats.
- Most of the pick-ups were in the sunbelt. In the traditional South, South Carolina and Georgia picked up seats. In the questionable South, Texas and Florida picked up seats as well.
- Despite this increase in population, North Carolina is unlikely to make any move to increase the General Assembly's capacity to govern. I'll have more on this soon.
- Although we're not picking up seats in NC, the General Assembly can still redraw district lines. I don't expect this to have too much influence on the 11th Congressional District (I don't see how it could look substantially different), but it could on districts throughout the rest of the state. It will probably have the greatest impact on state legislative seats.
- Mike McDonald at George Mason has a nice set of resources on redistricting here.
- As this Census suggests, the country's population keeps climbing, but despite this >200% increase in population since the early 1900s, we've held at 435 seats in Congress for over a century. See this book for a case that we should increase the size of the House.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
A Few Quick Links
- The battle for the 2012 Presidential election calendar has begun. Check out the always interesting Frontloading blog for more.
- Nice article by Rob Christensen about the talk about independent redistricting commissions, Turns out the Republicans supported it when the Democrats were in charge. Now that the Republicans are taking over, guess who thinks they are a great idea?
- The Tuckreader reports on an NC Policy watch piece showing that the poorest counties are the ones investing the most money in the lottery.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Just in time for The Holidays (2 years ago)
If you are interested in North Carolina politics and you don't have it already, I hope you'll check out our edited book on NC politics, which came out a couple of years ago. If you can get past the stuff Gibbs and I wrote, then there are some really terrific chapters in this book covering all of the major parts of North Carolina politics. The book really is a who's who of Political Scientists who cover the state so I hope you'll pick up a copy.
You might also want to check out Rob Christensen's excellent historical treatment of the same subject. Rob's the preeminent journalist covering Tar Heel politics and after reading this book, you'll see why.
I think the two books complement each other quite nicely.
You might also want to check out Rob Christensen's excellent historical treatment of the same subject. Rob's the preeminent journalist covering Tar Heel politics and after reading this book, you'll see why.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Moving Towards Purple, Again
I wrote before on the decline of Democrats on County Commissions in NC here and here. The story there was that all of the focus on the national level has missed the real story in North Carolina: that North Carolina is a divided state that has been moving towards purple for a while. It therefore shouldn't be surprising when Obama wins the state, but the Republicans keep a number of important seats in Congress. I have been wanting to simulate this analysis with the General Assembly for a while, but state legislative historical data are surprisingly hard to come by. Fortunately, Jeff Stonecash at Syracuse was kind enough to send me his data from 1901-2008. I cleaned it up in a few places, added the last few elections and here's the result:
The bumpy lines are the actual percent Democrat in the state Senate and House. The smoothed lines with the long title (sorry--I meant to change it, but didn't have time) represent a fancy way to smooth the data so it's easier to see the trend. This is interesting in isolation, but it's even more interesting when we compare it to other states around us. Consider South Carolina:
How's that for a nosedive? I think the Palmetto state left purple behind a while ago. Looks pretty red to me. Also, for historical comparison, look how strongly Democratic it was until the 1960s--we're talking 100% Democratic.
Most of the South looks similar, but check out this weird outlier: West Virginia:
Somehow the Democrats have gained ground in WV. I know WV isn't really the South, but I still find this surprising. My friend and colleague Roger suggested that it has to do with the lack of race being an issue in WV, or perhaps with the industrial (instead of agricultural) base of the state's economy. Gibbs wondered about the influence of the Byrd machine. I'm not sure the reason, but I sure find it interesting.
Most of the South looks similar, but check out this weird outlier: West Virginia:
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Looking Forward to 2012
Sure it's too early to be looking forward to 2012 and sure we have a lot of actual, you know, policy to be talking about, but the folks at PPP have recently completed two interesting polls in North Carolina that I'd like to speculate about. Of course this makes me part of the problem of highlighting horse-race coverage at the expense of policy, but what the hell?
First, PPP polled GOP voters in North Carolina about who they plan to vote for in 2012. I graphed the results below:
My guess is that every Democrat who's reading this blog is licking their lips at the prospect of a Palin candidacy and, at least early on, Republican voters might be up to the challenge. I don't know about you, but I'll be watching Sarah Palin's Alaska with a slightly different eye now.
PPP also polled general election voters (without a partisanship screen) and found tested a few match-ups:
- Obama vs. Romney (tied)
- Obama vs. Huckabee (Huackabee up, but barely within the margin of error)
- Obama vs. Palin (Obama up)
- Obama vs. Gingrich (tied)
Perhaps more interesting, PPP also reports their results in bivariate form so we can see whether how many Obama voters are planning to defect to the Republican party and how many McCain voters are planning to defect to the Democrats. If we see of Obama voters planning to defect, then that would be a terrifically bad sign for the incumbent President. Fortunately for Obama, however, that is not what the results suggest. There are just as many McCain voters are planning to vote for Obama as there are Obama voters who are planning to vote for McCain. Simply put: Obama is not losing any ground in the Tar Heel state (at least thus far).
Of course, a lot can (and will) happen in the next months and years. And a good deal of it will likely be bad for the incumbent
First, PPP polled GOP voters in North Carolina about who they plan to vote for in 2012. I graphed the results below:
My guess is that every Democrat who's reading this blog is licking their lips at the prospect of a Palin candidacy and, at least early on, Republican voters might be up to the challenge. I don't know about you, but I'll be watching Sarah Palin's Alaska with a slightly different eye now.
PPP also polled general election voters (without a partisanship screen) and found tested a few match-ups:
- Obama vs. Romney (tied)
- Obama vs. Huckabee (Huackabee up, but barely within the margin of error)
- Obama vs. Palin (Obama up)
- Obama vs. Gingrich (tied)
Perhaps more interesting, PPP also reports their results in bivariate form so we can see whether how many Obama voters are planning to defect to the Republican party and how many McCain voters are planning to defect to the Democrats. If we see of Obama voters planning to defect, then that would be a terrifically bad sign for the incumbent President. Fortunately for Obama, however, that is not what the results suggest. There are just as many McCain voters are planning to vote for Obama as there are Obama voters who are planning to vote for McCain. Simply put: Obama is not losing any ground in the Tar Heel state (at least thus far).
Of course, a lot can (and will) happen in the next months and years. And a good deal of it will likely be bad for the incumbent
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Another Way to Look at the 2010 Election Outcomes
Most of the pundit attention about the last election has focused on the changes in the partisan distribution in Congress and the state legislatures. This, of course, makes sense. Party identification is the single-most important variable in American politics. If you want me to predict how a legislator votes and you can only give me one piece of information about that person, it would be party ID.
Most important variable doesn't mean the only important one, however. A large literature in both American and comparative politics shows that male a female legislators act differently. Women introduce different kinds of legislation, vote differently, and even relate to their constituents differently. Further, when there are more women in office, women voters tend to feel more efficacious towards government.
With this in mind, I called the folks at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics to see if they had updated their data on the number of female legislators to reflect last month's election returns. Although they hadn't gotten it all on their web site, they had collected it and were nice enough to share it with me and I graphed the results below.
As you can see, female representation dipped a bit in 2011, both in NC and nationally. Although I don't know for sure, I assume this is because female legislators are more likely to be Democrats and this was, as everyone including my basset hounds knows, a bad year for Democrats.
Two parts of this trend worry me. (1) We weren't exactly knocking the top out before. We were hovering around 25% representation for a group that makes up half the population. Now we're decreasing. That's not good. (2) As I discussed above, men and women act differently when in office. A dip in the number of women in office suggests that we might see a small dip in bills of interest to women. (3) State legislatures are like the AA ball of national politics. Some people stay in AA forever, but almost everyone in the majors played in AA at some point. State legislatures help train people for national politics, but if we don't have as many women in the farm system, very soon we won't have as many in the majors.
Most important variable doesn't mean the only important one, however. A large literature in both American and comparative politics shows that male a female legislators act differently. Women introduce different kinds of legislation, vote differently, and even relate to their constituents differently. Further, when there are more women in office, women voters tend to feel more efficacious towards government.
With this in mind, I called the folks at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics to see if they had updated their data on the number of female legislators to reflect last month's election returns. Although they hadn't gotten it all on their web site, they had collected it and were nice enough to share it with me and I graphed the results below.
As you can see, female representation dipped a bit in 2011, both in NC and nationally. Although I don't know for sure, I assume this is because female legislators are more likely to be Democrats and this was, as everyone including my basset hounds knows, a bad year for Democrats.
Two parts of this trend worry me. (1) We weren't exactly knocking the top out before. We were hovering around 25% representation for a group that makes up half the population. Now we're decreasing. That's not good. (2) As I discussed above, men and women act differently when in office. A dip in the number of women in office suggests that we might see a small dip in bills of interest to women. (3) State legislatures are like the AA ball of national politics. Some people stay in AA forever, but almost everyone in the majors played in AA at some point. State legislatures help train people for national politics, but if we don't have as many women in the farm system, very soon we won't have as many in the majors.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
County Commission Article in the N&O
Today's N&O includes an op-ed by Gibbs and me based on the county commission data discussed here last week
Monday, December 6, 2010
Voter ID Laws in North Carolina?
The Raleigh News and Observer reports that the Republicans are planning to introduce a bill to require photo ID before voting. The Republicans are arguing that this will reduce voter fraud and increase faith in the system. The Democrats will likely argue that this will reduce voter turnout--particularly among less educated and minority populations. So--what does the empirical evidence suggest about this debate?
There is very little evidence of voter fraud. As the N&O article points out, there were 18 documented cases of double-voting in NC in 2008 and I've seen similarly small numbers reported in Georgia. The NY Times reports very small incidents of voter fraud from a multiple-state study (see also here). I have not seen any reputable study that documents widespread voter fraud in the last 20 years (see, in particular, this book). Unless this research is missing something, it doesn't appear that voter fraud is a widespread problem.
There is some (very limited and contested) evidence that voter ID laws suppress turnout. Vercellotti and Anderson document a small decrease in turnout when voter ID laws are put into place. In perhaps the most sophisticated study to date, researchers from Cal-Tech (can you say Baysian multi-level analysis? Me neither) investigate the range of potential restrictions* and come to a similar conclusion: voter ID laws result in a small decrease in voter turnout. These findings are not uniform, however. A team of researchers from the University of Delaware found no effect of voter ID laws on turnout and Columbia's Robert Erikson and his colleague replicate this small (~2 point) effect, but note that it is "statistically inconclusive" and that "the data that have been analyzed to date do not allow a conclusive test." Sometimes science is frustrating.
There is some (very limited and contested) evidence that voter ID laws suppress turnout among people with lower socio-economic status. Minorities and the elderly (two groups who traditionally vote Democratic) are the least likely to have DMV issued photo IDs. From this, you would expect that these groups would be negatively influenced by photo ID laws. And some studies have documented a larger turnout decline among minority and less educated voters, but others remain more skeptical. The Cal-Tech group does not find that minorities are any more disadvantaged than other groups, but they do find that lower income folks and the elderly are comparatively more disadvanaged by voter ID laws. Again--a mixed bag of findings.
There is little evidence that voter ID laws increase trust in the electoral system. Harvard's Steven Ansolabehere (say that three times fast) finds that there is no relationship between the frequency of electoral fraud and whether someone votes. He also finds that "voters living in states with stricter identification laws did not report higher levels of confidence or higher rates of voting than those living in states with relatively weak identification rules." In other words, if we pass this law in NC, it probably won't give people more faith in the system or increase voter turnout.
Unfortunately the science here doesn't tell us unequivocally that voter ID laws are a good or bad thing. I think if anything, the evidence suggests that we should be skeptical of both sides. When Republicans say that fraud is rampant or that voter ID laws will increase trust in the system, be skeptical. Likewise, when Democrats say that voter ID laws will depress turnout in large and meaningful ways and that turnout will go down particularly strongly among low SES voters, be skeptical.
*Here are the possible rules, according to Alvarez and colleagues:
- Voter must state his/her name
- Voter must sign his/her name in a poll book
- Voter must sign his/her name in a poll book and it must match a signature on file
- Voter is requested to present proof of ID or voter registration card
- Voter must present proof of ID or voter registration card
- Voter must present proof of ID and his/her signature must match the signature
on the ID provided
- Voter is requested to present photo ID
- Voter is required to present photo ID.
There is very little evidence of voter fraud. As the N&O article points out, there were 18 documented cases of double-voting in NC in 2008 and I've seen similarly small numbers reported in Georgia. The NY Times reports very small incidents of voter fraud from a multiple-state study (see also here). I have not seen any reputable study that documents widespread voter fraud in the last 20 years (see, in particular, this book). Unless this research is missing something, it doesn't appear that voter fraud is a widespread problem.
There is some (very limited and contested) evidence that voter ID laws suppress turnout. Vercellotti and Anderson document a small decrease in turnout when voter ID laws are put into place. In perhaps the most sophisticated study to date, researchers from Cal-Tech (can you say Baysian multi-level analysis? Me neither) investigate the range of potential restrictions* and come to a similar conclusion: voter ID laws result in a small decrease in voter turnout. These findings are not uniform, however. A team of researchers from the University of Delaware found no effect of voter ID laws on turnout and Columbia's Robert Erikson and his colleague replicate this small (~2 point) effect, but note that it is "statistically inconclusive" and that "the data that have been analyzed to date do not allow a conclusive test." Sometimes science is frustrating.
There is some (very limited and contested) evidence that voter ID laws suppress turnout among people with lower socio-economic status. Minorities and the elderly (two groups who traditionally vote Democratic) are the least likely to have DMV issued photo IDs. From this, you would expect that these groups would be negatively influenced by photo ID laws. And some studies have documented a larger turnout decline among minority and less educated voters, but others remain more skeptical. The Cal-Tech group does not find that minorities are any more disadvantaged than other groups, but they do find that lower income folks and the elderly are comparatively more disadvanaged by voter ID laws. Again--a mixed bag of findings.
There is little evidence that voter ID laws increase trust in the electoral system. Harvard's Steven Ansolabehere (say that three times fast) finds that there is no relationship between the frequency of electoral fraud and whether someone votes. He also finds that "voters living in states with stricter identification laws did not report higher levels of confidence or higher rates of voting than those living in states with relatively weak identification rules." In other words, if we pass this law in NC, it probably won't give people more faith in the system or increase voter turnout.
Unfortunately the science here doesn't tell us unequivocally that voter ID laws are a good or bad thing. I think if anything, the evidence suggests that we should be skeptical of both sides. When Republicans say that fraud is rampant or that voter ID laws will increase trust in the system, be skeptical. Likewise, when Democrats say that voter ID laws will depress turnout in large and meaningful ways and that turnout will go down particularly strongly among low SES voters, be skeptical.
*Here are the possible rules, according to Alvarez and colleagues:
- Voter must state his/her name
- Voter must sign his/her name in a poll book
- Voter must sign his/her name in a poll book and it must match a signature on file
- Voter is requested to present proof of ID or voter registration card
- Voter must present proof of ID or voter registration card
- Voter must present proof of ID and his/her signature must match the signature
on the ID provided
- Voter is requested to present photo ID
- Voter is required to present photo ID.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Feeding our Growing Appetite for Apps
This holiday season millions of shoppers downloaded apps to stay at the top of their game on Black Friday. 2010 saw a dramatic increase in the role of cell phones as consumers used them to find the latest deals, scan bar codes to compare prices and products, and make purchases. Thrifty shoppers were standing in line with product in one store while trying to get a better deal online from the store’s competitor. At most major chains, just walking in the door activated a text message with special discounts and stores instantly added rewards to your account for visiting the store even if you didn’t make a purchase.
Apps are not just for holiday shoppers, they are for citizen consumers as well. The explosion of users and uses for cell phones will soon be coming to a government near you. With apps from the federal government <> , busy holiday shoppers can verify product safety before purchasing, pass time waiting in line by monitoring the status of their federal job application or touring the Library of Congress, then check the air quality before heading outside.
In Arkansas , holiday hunters can use Game Check for real-time game tagging or pay their property taxes without having to go to town. Government Technology reports that after only five months, the suite of mobile apps has become one of the Arkansas website’s most popular features. Sportswomen in California can use Department of Fish and Game apps to locate nearby fishing spots or the closest place to buy a fishing license, while car buyers can use iSmog to be sure the car they are purchasing will meet state standards.
City and county governments are tailoring apps to visitor and resident experiences as well. Some are creating their own apps and many are using apps by other developers. The Salem, MA Office of Tourism and Cultural Affairs <> created its own Haunted Happenings - 2010 travel and event guide for brave Halloween visitors. Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in an effort to encourage use of public transit, City-Go-Round </> provides real-time arrivals to waiting riders, but only if the transit service makes the data available. Want more of a two-way conversation? Now you can give feedback as well as get information. Ten cities across the country are piloting and participating in development of YouTown, a relationship and communication app designed specifically for local governments.
So how are we doing in North Carolina? It looks like local governments are leading the way in the Tar Heel state. On City-Go-Round the site recognizes the high level of participation of transit authorities in the Triangle area. MyCharlotte is widely viewed as a top-notch services and information product, and the app will soon be adding an avatar and personal help-desk to guide residents and visitors. The Center for Digital Government and Government Technology just unveiled the 2010 list of digital cities , and I found a North Carolina city in the top ten for three categories. Charlotte was number four in the nation for cities of 250,000+ population. Winston-Salem showed up at number five on the mid-sized cities, and High Point was number five for smaller cities. Here’s hoping for a top ten North Carolina City in the 30-75,000 category for 2011.
*Despite what the signature line says at the bottom, this post was written by Anne Cortes, Graduate Assistant at the Public Policy Institute at WCU
Apps are not just for holiday shoppers, they are for citizen consumers as well. The explosion of users and uses for cell phones will soon be coming to a government near you. With apps from the federal government <> , busy holiday shoppers can verify product safety before purchasing, pass time waiting in line by monitoring the status of their federal job application or touring the Library of Congress, then check the air quality before heading outside.
In Arkansas , holiday hunters can use Game Check for real-time game tagging or pay their property taxes without having to go to town. Government Technology reports that after only five months, the suite of mobile apps has become one of the Arkansas website’s most popular features. Sportswomen in California can use Department of Fish and Game apps to locate nearby fishing spots or the closest place to buy a fishing license, while car buyers can use iSmog to be sure the car they are purchasing will meet state standards.
City and county governments are tailoring apps to visitor and resident experiences as well. Some are creating their own apps and many are using apps by other developers. The Salem, MA Office of Tourism and Cultural Affairs <> created its own Haunted Happenings - 2010 travel and event guide for brave Halloween visitors. Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in an effort to encourage use of public transit, City-Go-Round </> provides real-time arrivals to waiting riders, but only if the transit service makes the data available. Want more of a two-way conversation? Now you can give feedback as well as get information. Ten cities across the country are piloting and participating in development of YouTown, a relationship and communication app designed specifically for local governments.
So how are we doing in North Carolina? It looks like local governments are leading the way in the Tar Heel state. On City-Go-Round the site recognizes the high level of participation of transit authorities in the Triangle area. MyCharlotte is widely viewed as a top-notch services and information product, and the app will soon be adding an avatar and personal help-desk to guide residents and visitors. The Center for Digital Government and Government Technology just unveiled the 2010 list of digital cities , and I found a North Carolina city in the top ten for three categories. Charlotte was number four in the nation for cities of 250,000+ population. Winston-Salem showed up at number five on the mid-sized cities, and High Point was number five for smaller cities. Here’s hoping for a top ten North Carolina City in the 30-75,000 category for 2011.
*Despite what the signature line says at the bottom, this post was written by Anne Cortes, Graduate Assistant at the Public Policy Institute at WCU
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Televised Attack Advertising on the Rise
It seems like every election people complain that attack advertising is increasing. I'm always skeptical of these claims. After all, in 1964 we saw about the nastiest ad imaginable.
So what's the answer? Fortunately, the folks at the Wesleyan Media Project can help us answer this question--at least from 2000-2010. They combined their 2010 data with previous data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project and compare the frequency of televised attack ads to promote ads to contrast ads. Contrast ads "mention both a favored candidate and his or her opponent" while attack ads "mention only the candidate being attacked." Promote ads just mention the candidate sponsoring the ad.
They conclude that "the 2010 House and Senate advertising is the most negative in the past decade." Further, although the Republicans sponsor slightly more attack ads than the Democrats, attack ads are on the rise in both parties. Below, I've graphed the Wesleyan/Wisconsin data and separated it out by party. The message here is pretty clear.
Here are the data for the Democratic sponsored ads:
And the Republicans:
So what's the answer? Fortunately, the folks at the Wesleyan Media Project can help us answer this question--at least from 2000-2010. They combined their 2010 data with previous data from the Wisconsin Advertising Project and compare the frequency of televised attack ads to promote ads to contrast ads. Contrast ads "mention both a favored candidate and his or her opponent" while attack ads "mention only the candidate being attacked." Promote ads just mention the candidate sponsoring the ad.
They conclude that "the 2010 House and Senate advertising is the most negative in the past decade." Further, although the Republicans sponsor slightly more attack ads than the Democrats, attack ads are on the rise in both parties. Below, I've graphed the Wesleyan/Wisconsin data and separated it out by party. The message here is pretty clear.
Here are the data for the Democratic sponsored ads:
And the Republicans:
Brace yourself for more negativity in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)