If the US Congressional Election were held today, what would be the outcome? A striking question that one cannot answer with any given certainty nor without stating opinion is exactly how many seats would be lost or gained by the party in power. Fortunately, we have a statistic that can give us more scientific insight and can answer this question objectively.
Based on a 71% correlation between presidential approval rating and congressional seats lost by election, an econometric regression analysis has provided us the following:
If the election were held today, November 8, 2009, based on a 51.5% presidential approval rating the Democratic Party will LOOSE 24 +/- 15 (-39 to -9) seats considering a 95% confidence interval.
Reference:
"President/Congress Correlation Metric"
CA Analytics a division of
CA Evans Corporation of Delaware
Friday, November 6, 2009
Friday, May 9, 2008
Return to Party Roots
Many of us Conservatives in the Republican Party are feeling an ongoing pressure from mainstream hardliners to moderate our views. Perhaps this paradox is because our electorate is becoming more liberal or maybe it is because voters are getting tired with the grand old way of doing things. On the national stage we have a nice "oil on canvas" portrait of how the nation's political ideologies are ever swooning towards the left. If we take a closer look at the presidential candidates we find two very liberal democrats and one very moderate Republican.
According to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. ranked number one, the 1st most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2007. Not far behind him, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was ranked 16th most liberal Senator in 2007. This may be significant, possibly indicating that democrats are becoming more liberal at a faster rate in recent years looking across past elections and the National Journal's Vote Ratings from 1980 - 2007.
As for Senator John McCain, he did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score according to the National Journal. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories and therefore could not be ranked in 2007. However in 2006, Sen. John McCain was ranked the 46th most conservative Senator amongst conservative Senators.
So what do we have? That is for the voters to decide. However, one thing is for certain, American voters favor moderates over radicals, which is a positive overlay for the McCain candidacy.
As for us after the presidential election, the Republican Party needs a return of conservative normalcy with the "Contract with America" type mentality. We need to be steadfast on holding our conservative ground on both the fiscal and social issues. We need to reposition ourselves in the minds of Americans, that we are the party of the people, ensuring life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. If we can accomplish this, then we like Abraham Lincoln, will succeed in securing the future of America for generations to come.
According to the National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. ranked number one, the 1st most liberal Senator in the Senate in 2007. Not far behind him, Hillary Rodham Clinton, was ranked 16th most liberal Senator in 2007. This may be significant, possibly indicating that democrats are becoming more liberal at a faster rate in recent years looking across past elections and the National Journal's Vote Ratings from 1980 - 2007.
As for Senator John McCain, he did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score according to the National Journal. He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories and therefore could not be ranked in 2007. However in 2006, Sen. John McCain was ranked the 46th most conservative Senator amongst conservative Senators.
So what do we have? That is for the voters to decide. However, one thing is for certain, American voters favor moderates over radicals, which is a positive overlay for the McCain candidacy.
As for us after the presidential election, the Republican Party needs a return of conservative normalcy with the "Contract with America" type mentality. We need to be steadfast on holding our conservative ground on both the fiscal and social issues. We need to reposition ourselves in the minds of Americans, that we are the party of the people, ensuring life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. If we can accomplish this, then we like Abraham Lincoln, will succeed in securing the future of America for generations to come.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Murrieta Initiative on Term Limits
As many may know, I am the Chief Financial Officer of the Limited Government Political Action Committee (LGPAC) and one of three proponents for the Murrieta Initiatives. Over the past few months many have asked me, "why term-limits?" It always seems monotonous to respond as I usually do by saying, "it holds a government official accountable to their constituency.” Even though there is a great deal of truth to the statement, it seems cliché and really only skims the surface of the fuller, deeper story.
The reasoning behind the initiative for Term Limits for the Murrieta City Council is well founded in principle and has integrity in its reasoning. Today, term limits are widely used throughout the United States, from local and municipal governments all the way to the federal government and the presidency. These limits on terms of office are viewed by mainstream political scientists as tools, implemented by the people to provide protection from corruption and the unknown corridors of the political spectrum.
I would like to reposition the view of term limits; they should not be seen as just a tool or a means to an end or just a way to curb corruption and temptation, but as a system and a means in itself, a system that works with fluidity and efficiency and that respects the due process of the electorate. It is this vision that has guided the Limited Government PAC in its mission to hold government true to the people they govern.
The Murrieta city council term limit initiative proposed by LGPAC would confine the number of terms an official can serve to two consecutive four (4) year terms of similar office. Once a limit has been reached by an officeholder they would have to wait either two (2) years and run in the off-year cycle or four (4) years and run for their seat again. This initiative, is not a limit on terms as its name implies, moreover it is a parameter that allows for oversight. The candidate can serve an unlimited number of terms so long as they are elected by the people.
The benefit of this system comes directly from new people entering the electorate, who have a presumable political freshness. These people are also able to offer something new and provide an initial unplugged oversight to the people.
One concern that I have heard from critics is that term limits take the power away from the people. I would agree with this, true enough, when you have term limits it does take away the elected officials that we believe in. For example, the "term limits" in the California State Legislature have done this. However, with the new re-envisioned LGPAC endorsed system, officials will be able to run again, however they finally have to compete for office, not as an incumbent, but as a resident citizen accountable to no one other than the people.
Casey Evans CFO, LGPAC
The reasoning behind the initiative for Term Limits for the Murrieta City Council is well founded in principle and has integrity in its reasoning. Today, term limits are widely used throughout the United States, from local and municipal governments all the way to the federal government and the presidency. These limits on terms of office are viewed by mainstream political scientists as tools, implemented by the people to provide protection from corruption and the unknown corridors of the political spectrum.
I would like to reposition the view of term limits; they should not be seen as just a tool or a means to an end or just a way to curb corruption and temptation, but as a system and a means in itself, a system that works with fluidity and efficiency and that respects the due process of the electorate. It is this vision that has guided the Limited Government PAC in its mission to hold government true to the people they govern.
The Murrieta city council term limit initiative proposed by LGPAC would confine the number of terms an official can serve to two consecutive four (4) year terms of similar office. Once a limit has been reached by an officeholder they would have to wait either two (2) years and run in the off-year cycle or four (4) years and run for their seat again. This initiative, is not a limit on terms as its name implies, moreover it is a parameter that allows for oversight. The candidate can serve an unlimited number of terms so long as they are elected by the people.
The benefit of this system comes directly from new people entering the electorate, who have a presumable political freshness. These people are also able to offer something new and provide an initial unplugged oversight to the people.
One concern that I have heard from critics is that term limits take the power away from the people. I would agree with this, true enough, when you have term limits it does take away the elected officials that we believe in. For example, the "term limits" in the California State Legislature have done this. However, with the new re-envisioned LGPAC endorsed system, officials will be able to run again, however they finally have to compete for office, not as an incumbent, but as a resident citizen accountable to no one other than the people.
Casey Evans CFO, LGPAC
The Effects of Democracy
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried before, said Sir Winston Churchill as he was speaking to the House of Commons in 1947.1 He was arguing for the conservative opposition party in favor of the House of Lords. The Labour party was putting forth a bill that would yet again reduce the power of the Lords, who were not elected by the democracy serving for life as a direct result of their heredity, with the Labour party’s ultimate goal to further nationalize the steal industry. Ironically, Churchill didn’t always have this conservative view, years earlier he had stated that the lords powers to impede acted outside democracy and it is not possible for reasonable men to defend such a system.2 This brings us to an important question, which is best; rule under a system like the House of Lords or like the House of Commons, with this idea in mind, which is best for economic growth and prosperity; a democracy or an autocracy?
The most popular voices in the world tend to believe that democracy is the better option for economic growth in the long run. Essentially, the study of democracy has been broken into four schools of thought: the optimists, pessimists, neutralists, and agnostics. Optimists feel, like the first Churchill, that democracy is best, yet it is a poor best, and promotes growth resting on the faith in universal suffrage and participation as the best way to keep high-level mistakes in check.3 Pessimists fear that democracy lowers income and growth by yielding to demagogues and to demands for current consumption, in the form of aid to declining sectors, power to unions, and taxation for safety nets.4 They ultimately believe that it was these traits of democratic government, like in the Weimar democracy that lead to Hitler, Salvatore Allende in Chile, and Lukashenko in Belarus. For the pessimists, democracy was responsible. Neutralists, like their name implies, feel that there is little to gain or loose and there is no difference in economic prosperity between democracy and autocracy. In the long run, neutralists feel that they both produce equal results. Lastly, there are agnostics, who dismiss all past attempts to measure growth effects of democracy as flawed and inconclusive, and with good reason.5 Tests are only as good as the human who conducted them.
In the history of the Americas, the same argument between the elite franchise and full franchise is at the heart of differences in schooling, income equality, and economic growth.6 It seems to play a major role in explaining why southern states fell behind in the United States, and why Costa Rica is so far ahead of Guatemala and El Salvador, and why North America pulled so far ahead of the rest of the hemisphere.7 The act of law making to protect ones human and non-human capital, in a democracy, according to Peter H. Lindert, a professor of Economics at UC Davis, has always been a positive attribute and contributes to the welfare of a country over the long run. It is this that protects the interests of society, with the foundation of protecting ones property rights that allow for further attainment. By protecting property rights, people and business can grow with the economy with piece of mind in ownership. Moreover, democracies, according to Lindert, seem to play a role in the most key item of economic prosperity: education. Educational attainment is a key determinate of economic growth and democracies put more money into education with willingness to spend tax money on primary education than any other type of government.8 Highly educated people yield economic success and there is strong indirect evidence that poor societies systematically under-finance primary education, and as a result their economy suffers, with slower than average growth and income inequality among citizens. Interestingly enough, democracy alone does not necessarily yield direct economic prosperity, it is democracy coupled with an emphasis in property rights and education that lends the way to economic growth, prosperity, and success.
As we have noted, there are extensive correlations between economic success over the long run and democracy coupled with an emphasis on property rights and education. Countries with human and non-human capital protections tend to do much better economically than those who do not have these protections. However, some countries that are indeed democracies, have a high democracy index, and property protections still suffer from income inequality as a direct result from a lack of investment in primary education. Education shows to be the key to success.
The United States of America, with an overall democracy index of 8.22 out of 10, has one of the best education systems in the world coupled with a booming economy.9 The United States is currently ranked 17th amongst full democracies, partly because of the US’s republic nature in some aspects of government. The United States also has a corruption index of 7.2, ten being the most honest, and was ranked 21st among the worlds countries.10 The United States has a real annual GDP growth rate around 2.9%, an unemployment rate of 4.8%, and less than 12% of the population is below the poverty line.11 This data signifies that the United States, while not perfect, has a very strong economy with reasonable economic growth. However, one of the most important tools economists use in determining income inequality, the Gini coefficient, is 45 for the United States.12 A score of zero means that the population has a perfect equal income distribution and a score of one hundred means perfect inequality in income. The US is nestled somewhere in between these coefficients, meaning the country does have some inequality in income, but in order to fully understand the effects of democracy and education on income inequality and economic growth, we are going use a test group: the country of Ireland.
Ireland is quite a unique country, it has a rich history like that of the United States, and was founded on similar principals of government and property rights, resulting in a fair political match. Interestingly enough, Ireland has an overall democracy index of 9.01, currently ranked 11th, which is higher than that of the United States, thus meaning that Ireland is currently more a democratic institution than the United States.13 Ireland also has a corruption index of 7.5, ranked 18th, signifying that the government in Ireland is more honest and less corrupt than the United States, however but not by much, perhaps as a result of a more democratic government.14 Ireland has a real annual GDP growth rate around 5.7%, an unemployment rate of 4.3%, and less than 10% of the population is below the poverty line.15 Amazingly, in comparison with the United States, Ireland’s real annual GDP is almost two times that of the US, 0.5% more of the Irish population employed and 2% less of the population are below the poverty line than the United States. This signifies on the basis of economic growth alone, before considering education and the Gini coefficient, that Ireland’s economy is perhaps better off than that of the United States. To further support this argument is indeed the Gini coefficient, Ireland’s is 34.3 compared to the US’s 45.16 Implying that Ireland has much more equality amongst income than that of the United States, which could be a resultant from Ireland’s higher democracy index. However, in order to support the claim that economic success over the long run is an outcome of democracy, we must also look at the educational attributes of both the United States and Ireland.
The United States of America, unlike some democracies, has proved to be an advocate of primary education. The federal government of United States has left education up to the states to implement, with the basic foundation that no child shall be left behind without proper education. The United States’ programs and emphasis on education have proved essential to its economic affluence, and it shows. The US has a 99% literacy rate amongst all males and females aged 15+ and it is one of the most economically prosperous countries in the world.17 The US’s high primary education enrollment rate of 97.7% further affirms the correlation between education and economic affluence, however the percentage of population aged 15-29 enrolled in secondary education is lacking around 37.6%.18 This appears to be the case for Ireland as well, however their enrollment levels are slightly higher than that of the United States. Currently, Ireland has – like the United States – a literacy rate of 99% of all males and females 15+, with 100% of there 5-14 year old population enrolled in primary education (2.4% more than US) and 38.1% of the 15-29 year old population enrolled in secondary education (1.4% more than US).19 These figures beat the US figures by a slight margin, yet this may prove significant when comparing economic affluence. Ireland, in effect we have shown, has a slight advantage on the United States in terms of economic growth and in terms of education. Perhaps even more interesting is that there may not be a correlation between money the government spends on education (per pupil) and enrollment, literacy rates, or economic posterity. In 1993 the United States spent an average of $5,434 US dollars per student and Ireland spent an average of $2,328 US dollars per student.20 The US spent on average 2.33 times more than Ireland on education, and the result was equal literacy rates and a higher educational enrollment and a stronger economy in Ireland.
There is significant evidence that what the earlier Winston Churchill fought for was right. There are extensive correlations between economic success over the long run and a democratic government coupled with an emphasis on property rights and education. Countries with human and non-human capital protections, such as the US and Ireland, tended to do much better economically than those who do not have these protections. Nevertheless, a democracy proved vital to economic affluence, as shown by Ireland’s slight advantage in economic growth and in education. Interestingly enough, our research proved that educational attainment is a key determinate of income equality, growth, and economic prosperity. However, we also discovered that further study may be needed to explore the context of how money or tax dollars spent on education affects this outcome. Nevertheless, support and encouragement of both primary and secondary education is essential to a country’s welfare as is the democratic way of government.
References
1-8 Lindert, Peter H.. "Voice & Growth: Was Churchill Right?." UC Davis, Department of Economics Memo, no. Draft (October 23, 2002): 1-61.
9,13 Kekic, Laza. "The Economists Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy." The Economist, no. 1 (2007): 1-9.
10,14 "The Corruption Index." Transparency International. Available from http://www.transparency.org/. Internet; accessed 3 December 2007.
11,12,15-17 "The CIA Fact Book." The Central Intelligence Agency. Available from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html#Econ. Internet; accessed 3 December 2007.
18-20 "Elementary & Secondary Education: An International Perspective." National Center for Education Statistics, (2007): 151-152.
The most popular voices in the world tend to believe that democracy is the better option for economic growth in the long run. Essentially, the study of democracy has been broken into four schools of thought: the optimists, pessimists, neutralists, and agnostics. Optimists feel, like the first Churchill, that democracy is best, yet it is a poor best, and promotes growth resting on the faith in universal suffrage and participation as the best way to keep high-level mistakes in check.3 Pessimists fear that democracy lowers income and growth by yielding to demagogues and to demands for current consumption, in the form of aid to declining sectors, power to unions, and taxation for safety nets.4 They ultimately believe that it was these traits of democratic government, like in the Weimar democracy that lead to Hitler, Salvatore Allende in Chile, and Lukashenko in Belarus. For the pessimists, democracy was responsible. Neutralists, like their name implies, feel that there is little to gain or loose and there is no difference in economic prosperity between democracy and autocracy. In the long run, neutralists feel that they both produce equal results. Lastly, there are agnostics, who dismiss all past attempts to measure growth effects of democracy as flawed and inconclusive, and with good reason.5 Tests are only as good as the human who conducted them.
In the history of the Americas, the same argument between the elite franchise and full franchise is at the heart of differences in schooling, income equality, and economic growth.6 It seems to play a major role in explaining why southern states fell behind in the United States, and why Costa Rica is so far ahead of Guatemala and El Salvador, and why North America pulled so far ahead of the rest of the hemisphere.7 The act of law making to protect ones human and non-human capital, in a democracy, according to Peter H. Lindert, a professor of Economics at UC Davis, has always been a positive attribute and contributes to the welfare of a country over the long run. It is this that protects the interests of society, with the foundation of protecting ones property rights that allow for further attainment. By protecting property rights, people and business can grow with the economy with piece of mind in ownership. Moreover, democracies, according to Lindert, seem to play a role in the most key item of economic prosperity: education. Educational attainment is a key determinate of economic growth and democracies put more money into education with willingness to spend tax money on primary education than any other type of government.8 Highly educated people yield economic success and there is strong indirect evidence that poor societies systematically under-finance primary education, and as a result their economy suffers, with slower than average growth and income inequality among citizens. Interestingly enough, democracy alone does not necessarily yield direct economic prosperity, it is democracy coupled with an emphasis in property rights and education that lends the way to economic growth, prosperity, and success.
As we have noted, there are extensive correlations between economic success over the long run and democracy coupled with an emphasis on property rights and education. Countries with human and non-human capital protections tend to do much better economically than those who do not have these protections. However, some countries that are indeed democracies, have a high democracy index, and property protections still suffer from income inequality as a direct result from a lack of investment in primary education. Education shows to be the key to success.
The United States of America, with an overall democracy index of 8.22 out of 10, has one of the best education systems in the world coupled with a booming economy.9 The United States is currently ranked 17th amongst full democracies, partly because of the US’s republic nature in some aspects of government. The United States also has a corruption index of 7.2, ten being the most honest, and was ranked 21st among the worlds countries.10 The United States has a real annual GDP growth rate around 2.9%, an unemployment rate of 4.8%, and less than 12% of the population is below the poverty line.11 This data signifies that the United States, while not perfect, has a very strong economy with reasonable economic growth. However, one of the most important tools economists use in determining income inequality, the Gini coefficient, is 45 for the United States.12 A score of zero means that the population has a perfect equal income distribution and a score of one hundred means perfect inequality in income. The US is nestled somewhere in between these coefficients, meaning the country does have some inequality in income, but in order to fully understand the effects of democracy and education on income inequality and economic growth, we are going use a test group: the country of Ireland.
Ireland is quite a unique country, it has a rich history like that of the United States, and was founded on similar principals of government and property rights, resulting in a fair political match. Interestingly enough, Ireland has an overall democracy index of 9.01, currently ranked 11th, which is higher than that of the United States, thus meaning that Ireland is currently more a democratic institution than the United States.13 Ireland also has a corruption index of 7.5, ranked 18th, signifying that the government in Ireland is more honest and less corrupt than the United States, however but not by much, perhaps as a result of a more democratic government.14 Ireland has a real annual GDP growth rate around 5.7%, an unemployment rate of 4.3%, and less than 10% of the population is below the poverty line.15 Amazingly, in comparison with the United States, Ireland’s real annual GDP is almost two times that of the US, 0.5% more of the Irish population employed and 2% less of the population are below the poverty line than the United States. This signifies on the basis of economic growth alone, before considering education and the Gini coefficient, that Ireland’s economy is perhaps better off than that of the United States. To further support this argument is indeed the Gini coefficient, Ireland’s is 34.3 compared to the US’s 45.16 Implying that Ireland has much more equality amongst income than that of the United States, which could be a resultant from Ireland’s higher democracy index. However, in order to support the claim that economic success over the long run is an outcome of democracy, we must also look at the educational attributes of both the United States and Ireland.
The United States of America, unlike some democracies, has proved to be an advocate of primary education. The federal government of United States has left education up to the states to implement, with the basic foundation that no child shall be left behind without proper education. The United States’ programs and emphasis on education have proved essential to its economic affluence, and it shows. The US has a 99% literacy rate amongst all males and females aged 15+ and it is one of the most economically prosperous countries in the world.17 The US’s high primary education enrollment rate of 97.7% further affirms the correlation between education and economic affluence, however the percentage of population aged 15-29 enrolled in secondary education is lacking around 37.6%.18 This appears to be the case for Ireland as well, however their enrollment levels are slightly higher than that of the United States. Currently, Ireland has – like the United States – a literacy rate of 99% of all males and females 15+, with 100% of there 5-14 year old population enrolled in primary education (2.4% more than US) and 38.1% of the 15-29 year old population enrolled in secondary education (1.4% more than US).19 These figures beat the US figures by a slight margin, yet this may prove significant when comparing economic affluence. Ireland, in effect we have shown, has a slight advantage on the United States in terms of economic growth and in terms of education. Perhaps even more interesting is that there may not be a correlation between money the government spends on education (per pupil) and enrollment, literacy rates, or economic posterity. In 1993 the United States spent an average of $5,434 US dollars per student and Ireland spent an average of $2,328 US dollars per student.20 The US spent on average 2.33 times more than Ireland on education, and the result was equal literacy rates and a higher educational enrollment and a stronger economy in Ireland.
There is significant evidence that what the earlier Winston Churchill fought for was right. There are extensive correlations between economic success over the long run and a democratic government coupled with an emphasis on property rights and education. Countries with human and non-human capital protections, such as the US and Ireland, tended to do much better economically than those who do not have these protections. Nevertheless, a democracy proved vital to economic affluence, as shown by Ireland’s slight advantage in economic growth and in education. Interestingly enough, our research proved that educational attainment is a key determinate of income equality, growth, and economic prosperity. However, we also discovered that further study may be needed to explore the context of how money or tax dollars spent on education affects this outcome. Nevertheless, support and encouragement of both primary and secondary education is essential to a country’s welfare as is the democratic way of government.
References
1-8 Lindert, Peter H.. "Voice & Growth: Was Churchill Right?." UC Davis, Department of Economics Memo, no. Draft (October 23, 2002): 1-61.
9,13 Kekic, Laza. "The Economists Intelligence Unit's Index of Democracy." The Economist, no. 1 (2007): 1-9.
10,14 "The Corruption Index." Transparency International. Available from http://www.transparency.org/. Internet; accessed 3 December 2007.
11,12,15-17 "The CIA Fact Book." The Central Intelligence Agency. Available from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html#Econ. Internet; accessed 3 December 2007.
18-20 "Elementary & Secondary Education: An International Perspective." National Center for Education Statistics, (2007): 151-152.
Riverside County Voter Registration/Turnout Econometric Analytics
This study was performed with regard to voter registration and voter turnout from the years 2001 to 2007 and analyzed the correlation there within. The data was provided by the Riverside County Registrar of Voters. The study was stimulated as a result of an interest in knowing the growth rate of registered voters with regard to voter turnout, and in essence the number of voters who were registered and did not vote, ultimately in order to compare these numbers with regard to Republican voters in the market.
To start off the study, I found that the average number of registered voters in Riverside County is increasing by 40,711 voters or 5.95% annually with an R2 = .7386, secondly I found that the average number of registered voters who didn’t vote in Riverside County was increasing on average by 61,611 voters or 16.02% annually. With regard to Republican voters, the average increase in republican voters over the specified period has been 24,799 voters or 7.75% annually with an R2 = .9930, in addition the average number of registered Republicans who didn’t vote in Riverside County increased on average 26,789 voters or 13.29% annually with an R2 = .6375. This data that was gathered had something relatively important to show.
The number of registered Republicans in Riverside County were growing at a faster rate on average than the general voter population, in fact it was growing 1.80% faster. In addition, we noted that the R2 was greater for Republican registration than voter registration overall, amazingly almost 99.3% of the data fit the Republican regression while only 73.86% for voters overall, signifying that Republican growth is much more consistent and less volatile. In addition, I found that registered Republicans were voting more than voters as a whole in Riverside County, however voter apathy was probably the cause of these excessive growth rates in these registered non-voting voters.
In order to further the study, I wanted to compare the growth rate of the Republicans to that of the Democrats in Riverside County. After gathering more information from the registrar, I had found that the average annual increase in Democratic voters over the specified period was 17,194 voters or 7.25% with R2 = .8371 and the average number of registered Democrats who didn’t vote increased 11,578 voters or 13.77% with R2 = .2232. This data essentially shows us that that the Democrats have a very small share of the voting block in Riverside County, and that their annual growth rate is slightly less than that of Republicans.
However, an interesting attribute was that the number of registered Democrats who didn’t vote had an R2 = .2232, which means that the data may be too inconsistent to accept the 13.77%, but moreover it showed that Democrats may not be going to the polls in some elections, and in others they show a strong showing, like in the 2004 election.
I had performed several analysis like these with several different types of betas to test which factors may be keeping the Democrats at home in some particular elections. I had ultimately found, that when a Republican incumbent president was running, voter turnout for registered Democrats in Riverside County was much higher. No doubt this was a very interesting regression model.
Casey Evans
To start off the study, I found that the average number of registered voters in Riverside County is increasing by 40,711 voters or 5.95% annually with an R2 = .7386, secondly I found that the average number of registered voters who didn’t vote in Riverside County was increasing on average by 61,611 voters or 16.02% annually. With regard to Republican voters, the average increase in republican voters over the specified period has been 24,799 voters or 7.75% annually with an R2 = .9930, in addition the average number of registered Republicans who didn’t vote in Riverside County increased on average 26,789 voters or 13.29% annually with an R2 = .6375. This data that was gathered had something relatively important to show.
The number of registered Republicans in Riverside County were growing at a faster rate on average than the general voter population, in fact it was growing 1.80% faster. In addition, we noted that the R2 was greater for Republican registration than voter registration overall, amazingly almost 99.3% of the data fit the Republican regression while only 73.86% for voters overall, signifying that Republican growth is much more consistent and less volatile. In addition, I found that registered Republicans were voting more than voters as a whole in Riverside County, however voter apathy was probably the cause of these excessive growth rates in these registered non-voting voters.
In order to further the study, I wanted to compare the growth rate of the Republicans to that of the Democrats in Riverside County. After gathering more information from the registrar, I had found that the average annual increase in Democratic voters over the specified period was 17,194 voters or 7.25% with R2 = .8371 and the average number of registered Democrats who didn’t vote increased 11,578 voters or 13.77% with R2 = .2232. This data essentially shows us that that the Democrats have a very small share of the voting block in Riverside County, and that their annual growth rate is slightly less than that of Republicans.
However, an interesting attribute was that the number of registered Democrats who didn’t vote had an R2 = .2232, which means that the data may be too inconsistent to accept the 13.77%, but moreover it showed that Democrats may not be going to the polls in some elections, and in others they show a strong showing, like in the 2004 election.
I had performed several analysis like these with several different types of betas to test which factors may be keeping the Democrats at home in some particular elections. I had ultimately found, that when a Republican incumbent president was running, voter turnout for registered Democrats in Riverside County was much higher. No doubt this was a very interesting regression model.
Casey Evans
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)