Lyin' and Cheatin' Midwest'ners
So, Rod Blogojovichmuskanuwazzisnameagin' has been accused of a corruption. This proves the Illinois political machine is the worst oiled int eh country, yes? Well, sort of. Chicago is historically a hotbed of trouble. It's hard to get somewhere in IL without involving Chicago, and to do that means rubbing shoulders with some freaky business. But I was a little surprised at this article. So I had to read it. I mean, seriously, those cattle traders need to be watched, yes?
It turns out that the situation is probably more flash and sparkle from USA Today, who did the analysis, than anything actually newsworthy. North Dakota is not, as the headline implies, the most corrupt state. It does top the particular analysis of corruption, however, so no lie has been made. The analysis that it tops? Take the number of federal convictions for corruption during ten years and divide by the state population. Um... okay? First off, even though some factor is being divided by a population, it's not being divided by the right population. What percentage of the people in the state could be involved in corruption? Theoretically everyone, but in practice no state is that pure of a democracy. Second off, federal laws are not the only laws that could be enacted against corruption.
A better measure for the first point, why not consider what percentage of the population is involved in government? Here are a few states
WY 11,810
SD 12,150
VT 13,682
ND 14,597
MT 17,013
RI 18,511
DE 22,810
AK 23,647
LA 77,597
IL 105,471
MI 118,667
OH 119,147
PA 141,478
FL 171,342
NY 236,719
TX 259,578
CA 334,432
Now, what is the ratio of state government employees to population in those states?
WY 2.259%
SD 1.526%
VT 2.202%
ND 2.282%
MT 1.776%
RI 1.750%
DE 2.638%
AK 3.460%
LA 1.801%
IL 0.821%
MI 1.178%
OH 1.039%
PA 1.138%
FL 0.939%
NY 1.227%
TX 1.086%
CA 0.915%
(Note that I cheated a little. I used November 2008 employment with 2007 populations. But my main point lies in the first digit or two of the percentage, which won't change much.)
Notice anything about those states? The smallest states by population (1,000,000 or so and under) have about twice as many state employees as the largest states by population (about 10,000,000 and over). This is an estimate for the amount of government in the state, and is probably related to the amount of people likely to be involved in corruption. True, it misses local and federal employees. Those should to be factored in as well, along with convictions on non-federal charges.
But seeing that small states have bigger governments, loosely speaking, raises a question. If we divide convictions on corruption by relative size of government, would states like North Dakota still be on top of the heap? In other words, if we took the number of corruption cases divided by the number of people in position to be corrupt, would the numbers line up the same way as when convictions are divided by population? My guess is no. States like Illinois would probably be higher. Disagree? Then why is a state like Louisiana, which the article mentions as pretty darn corrupt, conveniently located with a government to population ratio close to the smaller states?
If anyone has time to kill, a more detailed analysis (including all government employees, not just state; doign all states; etc.) would be fun to see. Of course states like Illinois and New York would probably end up on top, so in the end it woudln't be news.
It turns out that the situation is probably more flash and sparkle from USA Today, who did the analysis, than anything actually newsworthy. North Dakota is not, as the headline implies, the most corrupt state. It does top the particular analysis of corruption, however, so no lie has been made. The analysis that it tops? Take the number of federal convictions for corruption during ten years and divide by the state population. Um... okay? First off, even though some factor is being divided by a population, it's not being divided by the right population. What percentage of the people in the state could be involved in corruption? Theoretically everyone, but in practice no state is that pure of a democracy. Second off, federal laws are not the only laws that could be enacted against corruption.
A better measure for the first point, why not consider what percentage of the population is involved in government? Here are a few states
WY 11,810
SD 12,150
VT 13,682
ND 14,597
MT 17,013
RI 18,511
DE 22,810
AK 23,647
LA 77,597
IL 105,471
MI 118,667
OH 119,147
PA 141,478
FL 171,342
NY 236,719
TX 259,578
CA 334,432
Now, what is the ratio of state government employees to population in those states?
WY 2.259%
SD 1.526%
VT 2.202%
ND 2.282%
MT 1.776%
RI 1.750%
DE 2.638%
AK 3.460%
LA 1.801%
IL 0.821%
MI 1.178%
OH 1.039%
PA 1.138%
FL 0.939%
NY 1.227%
TX 1.086%
CA 0.915%
(Note that I cheated a little. I used November 2008 employment with 2007 populations. But my main point lies in the first digit or two of the percentage, which won't change much.)
Notice anything about those states? The smallest states by population (1,000,000 or so and under) have about twice as many state employees as the largest states by population (about 10,000,000 and over). This is an estimate for the amount of government in the state, and is probably related to the amount of people likely to be involved in corruption. True, it misses local and federal employees. Those should to be factored in as well, along with convictions on non-federal charges.
But seeing that small states have bigger governments, loosely speaking, raises a question. If we divide convictions on corruption by relative size of government, would states like North Dakota still be on top of the heap? In other words, if we took the number of corruption cases divided by the number of people in position to be corrupt, would the numbers line up the same way as when convictions are divided by population? My guess is no. States like Illinois would probably be higher. Disagree? Then why is a state like Louisiana, which the article mentions as pretty darn corrupt, conveniently located with a government to population ratio close to the smaller states?
If anyone has time to kill, a more detailed analysis (including all government employees, not just state; doign all states; etc.) would be fun to see. Of course states like Illinois and New York would probably end up on top, so in the end it woudln't be news.
Labels: common sense, fast'n'loose guvs, heckling, slimeballs, theory
posted by Nate at
02:42
2 Comments:
hmm, interesting train of thought there Nate. I like what you're trying to do, however I think you mayhave simplified it a bit much. There are other variables which I consider to play into the equation of corruption. a) How many major metropolitan areas exist in the state, b) the level of blue collar crime, c) major economic and domestic product production in the state, d) environments for union, organized labor, and organized crime syndication.
Yeah, that complicate it a bit, but consider that places like Idaho, Montana, N & S Dakota have very little population, little govenment, no major metro harboring establishments of unions, and have an agro based economy geared to interstate export and commerce.
Vise Versa take Chicago, Ill., Philly, PA, Trenton NJ, NYC, Detroit MI, etc. Dense population needs greater "services", demand for jobs via blue collar employment. Labor and Union groups targeting lower class citizens.
I believe the point really boils down to areas with people living en masse yeailds greater potential for corruption due to the limitless opportunity for the exploitation of control on basic human services.
Being the govt is really nothgin more than the collective's appointment of representation over said services ergo you are left with the same potential for corruption.
Frankly, a liberal is lying when their lips start moving. End of discussion.
Nice to be back though! LOL
By
ProLPconserve, at Wed Jan 28, 09:34:00 PM GMT
Welcome back! I've been meaning to call you.... And I haven't even been checking here much myself....
I know I simplified things a lot, and you bring up some interesting additions. Have you ever considered studying sociology? :)
The things we are saying complement each other nicely. I'm saying "When there is more government as a fraction of people, more corrupt people will be found in government" and you're saying "Where there are more people in as smaller area there is a more forceful push in the direction of corruption." And I think you're right about that.
I'll do some math and see how I can work in what you're saying.
By
Nate, at Fri Feb 06, 05:59:00 AM GMT
Post a Comment
<< Home