[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:


I did a correlation between federal aid received per dollar taxes and how the vote went. The correlation was .34, the more money they get per tax dollar paid, the more likely they are to vote Republican.

I don't think using a state-by-state count is going to be worthwhile (not enough resolution), but I applaud the effort.

[BRussell]

I thought you'd like that, but what's resolution? Some silly economist's idea, no doubt.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I thought you'd like that, but what's resolution? Some silly economist's idea, no doubt.

I guess that I could have said "degrees of freedom." By using only states, you don't have enough variation in your sample to overcome the small sample size. Thass all.

[Krusty]

Well, I generally agree with the point you're making BRussell but I think the numbers are a bit misleading. "Federal dollars spent" <> "Entitlement dollars spent". Lots of that money is spent on Military in many of the states topping your list such as OK, NM, VA et al for the big 'ole war machine -- completely expected that these states with a huge military presence relative to their populations would be Republican.

[BRussell]

Yeah, and my guess is that tax dollars are pretty evenly distributed per capita around the country. I'm sure it's not perfectly even, but I'd bet those ratios are determined primarily by per capita tax revenues rather than spending. Connecticut is at the bottom, and I believe it's the richest state. Many of the poorest states are near the top - North Dakota, Mississippi, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama.

I wonder why New Mexico tops the list? I wouldn't have thought of it is as either particularly poor nor particularly a big receiver of federal-spending.

[AKcrab]

Part of the reason Alaska is near the top is because our Senior Senators.
We get lots o pork...
Also, the 'missile defense' thingy probably inflates our numbers, too.

[voyageur]

Good points. I think religious affiliation may also explain the divide as well. Counties with higher proportions of fundamentalist and evangelical protestants very much favor Bush. Frontline had an excellent and even-handed report on The Jesus Factor last week, illustrating the influence the President's religion has on his policies, and the increasing involvement of evangelical Protestants in government.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Frontline had an excellent and even-handed report on The Jesus Factor last week, illustrating the influence the President's religion has on his policies, and the increasing involvement of evangelical Protestants in government.

Yes, that sounds really even-handed.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, that sounds really even-handed.

Check it out before you judge.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Check it out before you judge.

Fair enough. But the problem is if you start with a premise that is not even handed, the result isn't even handed no matter how well executed.

And this premise isn't even handed. If it were even handed, it would also look at the influence of secularism on government and the influence of people with secular beliefs in government.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Good points. I think religious affiliation may also explain the divide as well. Counties with higher proportions of fundamentalist and evangelical protestants very much favor Bush. Frontline had an excellent and even-handed report on The Jesus Factor last week, illustrating the influence the President's religion has on his policies, and the increasing involvement of evangelical Protestants in government.

What is wrong with religion being part of government?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by djohnson:
What is wrong with religion being part of government?

Isn't that uncostitutional in Estados Unidos?

[Krusty]

Originally posted by BRussell:

I wonder why New Mexico tops the list? I wouldn't have thought of it is as either particularly poor nor particularly a big receiver of federal-spending.

The list was per capita spending.
NM has:
1) a small total population
2) a large Native American population (read: federal spending)
3) national parks (again, federal spending)
4) numerous federal and/or other military installations (Sandia Labs, White Sands, ... and I hear "Area 51" costs and arm and a leg )

From http://www.usacitiesonline.com/nmlinks.htm
"A large portion of the economy is based on government trade and services. The government is the leading employer in the state. Many large federal installations are found throughout the state"

[Krusty]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Isn't that uncostitutional in Estados Unidos?

pfffft ... why do you 'foreigners" always have to go around pointing out that we often don't actually live up to our lofty principles

[djohnson]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Isn't that uncostitutional in Estados Unidos?

I didn't ask whether it was unconstitutional or not... I just asked what the problem with it was? I am sure that if the US has a majority of Muslim followers instead of Christian believers, then things would be different.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I didn't ask whether it was unconstitutional or not... I just asked what the problem with it was?

Yeah I noticed but that question (at least in the case of the USA) has to be answered by those who made your constitution.

There isn't any real problem with it as such. In Norway the Chrurch is a part of the state and has it's own minister of Church in the government. In fact Norway's prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik is a priest (protestant). That is one case of interwoven church and state that works just fine. Ain't nothing wrong with it as far as I can tell.

It's simply a constitutional matter in the US.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Isn't that uncostitutional in Estados Unidos?

The documentary is apparently about the influence of individuals in the government and their personal religious views. That is not only constitutional, it would be unconstitutional to exclude them on the basis of their religious views.

Excluding people on the basis of their personal religious beliefs would be a religious test. Religious tests for office are expressly forbidden under the US Constitution.

Article VI



All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Good points. I think religious affiliation may also explain the divide as well. Counties with higher proportions of fundamentalist and evangelical protestants very much favor Bush. Frontline had an excellent and even-handed report on The Jesus Factor last week, illustrating the influence the President's religion has on his policies, and the increasing involvement of evangelical Protestants in government.

I saw some of that. Aside from the fact that Frontline is without question the best documentary series in the country, they had more pro-Bush people and evangelicals on to talk than anyone else.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The documentary is apparently about the influence of individuals in the government and their personal religious views. That is not only constitutional, it would be unconstitutional to exclude them on the basis of their religious views.

Excluding people on the basis of their personal religious beliefs would be a religious test. Religious tests for office are expressly forbidden under the US Constitution.

That is the point I was trying to make. I need to wake up this morning...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by djohnson:
That is the point I was trying to make. I need to wake up this morning...

[aside]You know, everytime someone posts this ----> , the word "Thalidomide" pops involuntarily into my mind. Or maybe it should be

I guess it's a generational thing. The victims were just a bit older than me.

[voodoo]

Jeez Simey, that's a really rather icky connotation of

You really shouldn't make a 'thalidomide' kid connection, since that emoticon is in 0% of cases meant as such.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
The electoral college needs to go away.

On the contrary, The electoral college is one of the last 'checks' to ensure that the individual states have an equal say in the federal government and in the election of federal officials. If we didn't have the electoral college, CA and NY could determine the elections. I don;t know about you, but I don't want a state who elects Arnold as their governor deciding who the next President will be.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Jeez Simey, that's a really rather icky connotation of

You really shouldn't make a 'thalidomide' kid connection, since that emoticon is in 0% of cases meant as such.

Hey, I said it was involuntary.

When I was a small child, the thalidomide children were a really big issue. They were maybe 5 years or so years older than me. And I guess they still are. I don't think that lifespan was affected.

Oh well. [/aside]

[djohnson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[aside]You know, everytime someone posts this ----> , the word "Thalidomide" pops involuntarily into my mind. Or maybe it should be

I guess it's a generational thing. The victims were just a bit older than me.

Did a google search. Still trying to figure out what you are talking about...

[itai195]

Originally posted by dcolton:
On the contrary, The electoral college is one of the last 'checks' to ensure that the individual states have an equal say in the federal government and in the election of federal officials. If we didn't have the electoral college, CA and NY could determine the elections. I don;t know about you, but I don't want a state who elects Arnold as their governor deciding who the next President will be.

I thought you were a Republican? Arnold is basically Bush Lite.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcolton:
...I don;t know about you, but I don't want a state who elects Arnold as their governor deciding who the next President will be.

Gotta agree with that...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Did a google search. Still trying to figure out what you are talking about...

Your generation is lucky not to know.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your generation is lucky not to know.

Yeah... I just found pics. Pretty disturbing if you ask me.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Did a google search. Still trying to figure out what you are talking about...

Kids that suffered from developmental damage because their mother's used the Thalidomide painkiller drug. They were severely disfigured and usually didn't live long.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
I thought you were a Republican? Arnold is basically Bush Lite.

I think dcolton meant that he doesn't want a state that elects a celebrity over one that elects a political figure. At least that is what I was agreeing with.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Kids that suffered from developmental damage because their mother's used the Thalidomide painkiller drug. They were severely disfigured and usually didn't live long.

Severly doesn't begin to describe it...

[dcolton]

Originally posted by itai195:
I thought you were a Republican? Arnold is basically Bush Lite.

Republican...yes. Doesn't mean I vote for or support *every* republican just because we associate with the same party.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I think dcolton meant that he doesn't want a state that elects a celebrity over one that elects a political figure. At least that is what I was agreeing with.

80% true. The other 20% has to do with the fact that his choice of movies to create were the precursor to the ultra violent movies we are seeing today. Not to mention that Arnolds movies have a total of ZERO social value. A man with integrity, with the character to run one of the largest states in the union, would have defined his career by making movies with substance...not blood and violence,

[voodoo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Republican...yes. Doesn't mean I vote for or support *every* republican just because we associate with the same party.

So you voted for McClintock?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcolton:
80% true. The other 20% has to do with the fact that his choice of movies to create were the precursor to the ultra violent movies we are seeing today. Not to mention that Arnolds movies have a total of ZERO social value. A man with integrity, with the character to run one of the largest states in the union, would have defined his career by making movies with substance...not blood and violence,

True. I still dont like the idea of an actor running a state... now an actor running the country is a different thing

[BRussell]

Anyway, to get back on topic ,there's a really good series on geographic political polarization in the Austin Statesman. It's one of those registration deals, so I've pasted big sections below.

� Voters have grown more partisan.

Party loyalties rebounded in the 1980s and by the 1990s partisanship among American voters � their propensity to identify themselves in polls as either Republican or Democrat � had increased to levels not seen since at least the 1950s. Since 1980, party loyalty has increased to levels "unsurpassed over any comparable time span since the turn of the last century," writes Princeton University political scientist Larry Bartels.

� Voters have become less independent.

The percentage of true independent voters peaked in 1978 and has declined since. Meanwhile, the percentage of people who see important differences between the parties went from 46 percent in 1972 to 66 percent in 2000.

� The parties have become more ideological.

The percentage of conservatives who call themselves Democrats � and liberals who call themselves Republican � has been declining since 1972. The two parties once were a stew of conflicting ideologies � mixtures that included northern liberal Republicans and conservative rural Democrats. Now they are growing more ideologically pure.

� Congress compromises less often.

Despite the rancor caused by war and the civil rights movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were fewer strict party-line votes in those years than at any time since World War II. Since then, the number of times a majority of Republicans in Congress has voted opposite a majority of Democrats has steadily increased.

The percentage of these party-line votes in the 1990s was higher than for any 10-year period since 1950 and the parties "differ more on issues now than at any time since the early days of the New Deal," wrote Colby College political scientist Mark Brewer.

� Voters cast more straight party tickets.

In the 2000 and 2002 elections, ticket splitting � where voters cast ballots for both Republicans and Democrats � "declined to the lowest levels in over 30 years," according to University of Missouri-St. Louis political scientist David Kimball.

By the beginning of this century, compromise had disappeared from the House of Representatives. Voters were becoming staunch supporters of parties they increasingly saw as ideologically distinct. Democrats had more liberal voting records. Republicans were more conservative.

Thirty years after Broder predicted the end of party and partisanship, Roger Davidson in the Congressional Quarterly Almanac wrote that the country is "in the midst of the most partisan era since Reconstruction."

Beneath these national measures of increasing partisanship, however, there was another trend developing, as communities shifted and strengthened their political allegiances. At the local level, voters were grouping in like-minded communities. Counties were becoming either more Democratic or more Republican each election.

At the microlevel of society families gathered to make decisions about where and how to live. The discussions at these kitchen table summits weren't overtly political, but decisions about schools and neighbors and lifestyle all had political results. In deciding where and how to live, the country was segregating by political preference.

The trend toward more politically segregated communities began sometime in the 1970s. When Democrat Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Gerald Ford in 1976, 46 percent of all voters nationally lived in counties where the presidential election was decided by 10 percent or less.

In the1992 contest between Bill Clinton and President George H.W. Bush, 36 percent of American voters lived in competitive communities.

By 2000, only 25 percent lived in these politically mixed counties � and just eight states had an electorate as politically integrated as the national average 24 years earlier.

All eight of these states are battlegrounds in the 2004 campaign.

As communities become increasingly partisan, the parties are less interested in persuading undecided voters. The parties are most concerned with turning out their local super-majorities of Republicans and Democrats. And the best way to do that is to spur on a politics of partisanship, ideology and division.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Krusty:
"Federal dollars spent" <> "Entitlement dollars spent".

Good point.

[itai195]

Originally posted by djohnson:
True. I still dont like the idea of an actor running a state... now an actor running the country is a different thing

Reagan?

OT: Though I disagree with criticism of his movies. If not for Terminator, how would we know to fear the evil cyborg overlords?

[djohnson]

Originally posted by itai195:
Reagan?

Yeah... I guess it was a bad joke

[dcolton]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Yeah... I guess it was a bad joke

I can assure you...Arnold is NO Reagan!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by djohnson:
What is wrong with religion being part of government?

I don't want my government leaders allowing their personal and collective religious beliefs to influence policy making. I don't care WHAT religion we may be talking about, religion shouldn't be a basis for a politician's decision. How can government decisions and practices be seen as representing the collective needs of the country if the governmental/political leaders are forming their decisions using a belief that all their citizens may not adhere to.

Now, if you want this to be the case--politicians and government leaders using religious as a basis for making decisions about civil society--that is fine. I would fully support you in your efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment abridging the Freedom of Religion clause. As long as you come out and stand up as being clearly in favor of the government using religion as a policy-making tool.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
I don't want my government leaders allowing their personal and collective religious beliefs to influence policy making. I don't care WHAT religion we may be talking about, religion shouldn't be a basis for a politician's decision. How can government decisions and practices be seen as representing the collective needs of the country if the governmental/political leaders are forming their decisions using a belief that all their citizens may not adhere to.

Now, if you want this to be the case--politicians and government leaders using religious as a basis for making decisions about civil society--that is fine. I would fully support you in your efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment abridging the Freedom of Religion clause. As long as you come out and stand up as being clearly in favor of the government using religion as a policy-making tool.

How is someone supposed to forget something like their beliefs when making decisions? You think Bush just goes, umm yeah that sounds good, on a big issue? Nope! He prays about it. You know how I know? There are multiple documented stories on this.

Now I ask again, how can you drop your beliefs to make a decision? If you think A is wrong, guess what, you probably will not suddenly decide B is wrong. Human nature is to go off of what you believe. The citizens tend to know what most of the beliefs of their chosen political representatives are. Thus they must be agreeing with their beliefs if they voted them in. Now those that did not vote them in, well better luck next time.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I can assure you...Arnold is NO Reagan!

True! Whether you take that as good or bad is up to the one reading this.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
I don't want my government leaders allowing their personal and collective religious beliefs to influence policy making. I don't care WHAT religion we may be talking about, religion shouldn't be a basis for a politician's decision. How can government decisions and practices be seen as representing the collective needs of the country if the governmental/political leaders are forming their decisions using a belief that all their citizens may not adhere to.

Now, if you want this to be the case--politicians and government leaders using religious as a basis for making decisions about civil society--that is fine. I would fully support you in your efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment abridging the Freedom of Religion clause. As long as you come out and stand up as being clearly in favor of the government using religion as a policy-making tool.

Originally posted by djohnson:
How is someone supposed to forget something like their beliefs when making decisions? You think Bush just goes, umm yeah that sounds good, on a big issue? Nope! He prays about it. You know how I know? There are multiple documented stories on this.

Now I ask again, how can you drop your beliefs to make a decision? If you think A is wrong, guess what, you probably will not suddenly decide B is wrong. Human nature is to go off of what you believe. The citizens tend to know what most of the beliefs of their chosen political representatives are. Thus they must be agreeing with their beliefs if they voted them in. Now those that did not vote them in, well better luck next time.

No offense, but you didn't really address my answer nor did you even attempt to frame your statements as a reply to the original question about the validity of religious beliefs being part of the government decision-making process.

I am not out to prevent a candidate from holding office based on their particular religious belief. But, when they take office and let those religious beliefs unduly influence their governmental/political decisions, then I have a problem. I think that starts to border on infringing upon First Amendment rights issues.

Again, I am not asking someone to drop their religious beliefs. All I am asking is that you, and everyone else who wants/expects their governmental/political leaders to use their personal religious beliefs in influencing policy decisions, to work toward the goal of making significant religious influence in the political process constitutionally possible. I am fully supporting you in your effort.

Get out there and change the Constitution, that's all I ask. Because what you are advocating now is perilously close to running afoul of the First Amendment. You see, what you advocate is a conflict: Government leaders sworn to uphold the Constitution actively subverting it by allowing religious beliefs to have an udue influence on the decision-making process. So, either stop advocating something that directly conflicts with the First Amendment OR work to change the Constitution so that what you advocate can be acceptable.

I will be happy with either option, as long as the rule of law founded in the Constitution is upheld.


<edited for typos.>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
I am not out to prevent a candidate from holding office based on their particular religious belief. But, when they take office and let those religious beliefs unduly influence their governmental/political decisions, then I have a problem. I think that starts to border on infringing upon First Amendment rights issues.

I don't believe that the First Amendment has ever been construed to prevent religious people holding office (which assuredly they can) from relying on their private religous views as they conduct the business of government. Individuals can rely on whatever beliefs and experience they like. And office holders can assuredly influence policy according to their views. Bearing in mind the first Amendment is designed primarily to prevent the state from interfering with religious freedom, it seems to me that any other rule would conflict with the First Amendment.

Obviously, the government is limited on how far it can go to legislate over religious matters. The government can't cross over into establishing religion. But to suggest that individuals in the government may not rely on religion is unconstitutional, and contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment, which is designed to promote neutrality, not individual secularism.

I can't help thinking that it isn't the influence of religion you decry, so much as the politics of those you associate with the religious. Suppose a unitarian universalist or Quaker were elected (other than Nixon, I mean), and he wanted to push the government in directions you like. I'm guessing say, in favor of affirmative action, liberal abortion rights, gay rights, a liberal foreign policy, higher foreign aid, against the death penalty, etc, etc. Would those be bad or improper policies because they are inspired by religion? If not, why not?

[vanillacoke]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
I don't want my government leaders allowing their personal and collective religious beliefs to influence policy making.

What's wrong with that?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't believe that the First Amendment has ever been construed to prevent religious people holding office (which assuredly they can) from relying on their private religous views as they conduct the business of government. Individuals can rely on whatever beliefs and experience they like. And office holders can assuredly influence policy according to their views. Bearing in mind the first Amendment is designed primarily to prevent the state from interfering with religious freedom, it seems to me that any other rule would conflict with the First Amendment.

Obviously, the government is limited on how far it can go to legislate over religious matters. The government can't cross over into establishing religion. But to suggest that individuals in the government may not rely on religion is unconstitutional, and contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment, which is designed to promote neutrality, not individual secularism.

I can't help thinking that it isn't the influence of religion you decry, so much as the politics of those you associate with the religious. Suppose a unitarian universalist or Quaker were elected (other than Nixon, I mean), and he wanted to push the government in directions you like. I'm guessing say, in favor of affirmative action, liberal abortion rights, gay rights, a liberal foreign policy, higher foreign aid, against the death penalty, etc, etc. Would those be bad or improper policies because they are inspired by religion? If not, why not?

I am against overt religious influence on policy, regardless of whether or not I agree with the policy. That's my very point. I don't want policy unduly influenced by religious beliefs so it gets to the point where a religion becomes indirectly "established".

Here's a question for you (the collective you, not just you personally Simey). Does the pledge of allegiance with the phrase "under God" in it have a meaning that is different/more/better than the original pledge. And if so, why?

Here is another one. What if the phrase "In God We Trust" wasn't on our paper money? Would that make a difference to you, and if so, why? Do you think the country would be different/better/worse because of it? And why? And if you didn't think it would have any difference, would you oppose removing it? If so, why?

[hyteckit]

I like a daily dose of God with my cereal. Makes it taste much better. Remember, God can turn water into wine.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Here's a question for you (the collective you, not just you personally Simey). Does the pledge of allegiance with the phrase "under God" in it have a meaning that is different/more/better than the original pledge. And if so, why?

I'm not particularly religious so I don't really care if I say "under God" or not. The words are more or less meaningless to me. However, they mean something to others, and it doesn't hurt me for them to be there. Therefore, I don't have a problem with them and see no reason to take them away from those who find meaning in them.

It's amazing to me how athiests condemn evangelicals for intolerance, yet show none themselves.

[itai195]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm not particularly religious so I don't really care if I say "under God" or not. The words are more or less meaningless to me. However, they mean something to others, and it doesn't hurt me for them to be there. Therefore, I don't have a problem with them and see no reason to take them away from those who find meaning in them.

It's amazing to me how athiests condemn evangelicals for intolerance, yet show none themselves.

I have a problem with the motives behind its addition... It's not a big deal to me, I can live with it there, but I'd rather it wasn't.