America Is Not Representative Of America
by Chris Bowers, Thu Jul 27, 2006 at 10:59:21 AM EDT
So, CNN has conducted a study that looks at twelve demographic statistics and ranks how close to the national average each state comes to the national average. They don't list exactly which statistics were used, but here is the general outline:Holland identified 12 key statistics -- four that measure race and ethnicity, four that look at income and education, and four that describe the typical neighborhood in each state -- and added up how far each was from the figures for the average state on each measure.
Holland said he chose these 12 different categories because "they have a strong impact on the political landscape in every state." My first comment is that if he wanted to look at demographic factors that have an impact on politics, he should have looked at religion and union membership. Few demographics have more of an impact on political landscapes than those two factors.
Anyway, it seems that Wisconsin is the most average state nationwide. Is that something to brag about? Others were close: Close behind Wisconsin are four other Midwestern states that look most like a hypothetical average state -- Missouri, Kansas, Indiana and Ohio. Most of the least-typical states tend to come from the Northeast, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. West Virginia is in 49th place, while Mississippi comes in dead last. A second comment I have on the survey is how the CNN write-up seems to have completely failed to recognize the DNC's goal in choosing two states to go along with Iowa and New Hampshire. CNN writes: West Virginia is in 49th place, while Mississippi comes in dead last.
Interestingly, West Virginia and Mississippi both petitioned the Democratic National Committee to be chosen for early slots on the party's presidential nominating calendar in 2008. So did Michigan. They all lost. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee recently recommended that Nevada and South Carolina join Iowa and New Hampshire for this coveted placement on the presidential nominating calendar. The full DNC membership is likely to ratify the recommendations next month. The implication here is that Democrats should have chosen states that were high on this list. However, that isn't what Democrats were looking for. The DNC didn't just want avergae demographics, they wanted regional diversity, plus high minority and union density states. Being "average" was not the only goal.
Finally, I would like to point out that for some reason this study finds that America is not representative of itself. The scale for the study was 0.0 to 50.0, with 50.0 being the most average. However, thirty-one states composing roughly 60% of the national population came in with scores below 25.0, which I suppose would be the "half-average" score. Overall, the median score for the study was around 20, a full 20% below "half average." Also, eight states were more "non-average" than Wisconsin was "average." My question is, how exactly does it work out that over half of the nation is not representative of the nation as a whole? That seems like a mathematical impossibility to me.
A strange study.
Holland said he chose these 12 different categories because "they have a strong impact on the political landscape in every state." My first comment is that if he wanted to look at demographic factors that have an impact on politics, he should have looked at religion and union membership. Few demographics have more of an impact on political landscapes than those two factors.
Anyway, it seems that Wisconsin is the most average state nationwide. Is that something to brag about? Others were close: Close behind Wisconsin are four other Midwestern states that look most like a hypothetical average state -- Missouri, Kansas, Indiana and Ohio. Most of the least-typical states tend to come from the Northeast, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. West Virginia is in 49th place, while Mississippi comes in dead last. A second comment I have on the survey is how the CNN write-up seems to have completely failed to recognize the DNC's goal in choosing two states to go along with Iowa and New Hampshire. CNN writes: West Virginia is in 49th place, while Mississippi comes in dead last.
Interestingly, West Virginia and Mississippi both petitioned the Democratic National Committee to be chosen for early slots on the party's presidential nominating calendar in 2008. So did Michigan. They all lost. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee recently recommended that Nevada and South Carolina join Iowa and New Hampshire for this coveted placement on the presidential nominating calendar. The full DNC membership is likely to ratify the recommendations next month. The implication here is that Democrats should have chosen states that were high on this list. However, that isn't what Democrats were looking for. The DNC didn't just want avergae demographics, they wanted regional diversity, plus high minority and union density states. Being "average" was not the only goal.
Finally, I would like to point out that for some reason this study finds that America is not representative of itself. The scale for the study was 0.0 to 50.0, with 50.0 being the most average. However, thirty-one states composing roughly 60% of the national population came in with scores below 25.0, which I suppose would be the "half-average" score. Overall, the median score for the study was around 20, a full 20% below "half average." Also, eight states were more "non-average" than Wisconsin was "average." My question is, how exactly does it work out that over half of the nation is not representative of the nation as a whole? That seems like a mathematical impossibility to me.
A strange study.
Tags: Demographics (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
13 Comments