J-Moss’s post the other day, that compared the distribution of income inequality and poverty around the US to the electoral map got me thinking. Is it really the poor who vote for Republicans as the maps would suggest, perhaps foregoing the potential economic returns of voting for democrats and instead concentrating on cultural issues. I decided to look into the numbers to see what I could find. The following results are based on my own calculations with data taken from the US Census bureau and CNN exit polling from the 2004 election. All errors are entirely my own.

The evidence from the 2004 election would suggest not, displaying a solid correlation between voting and income, with the higher income brackets increasingly more likely to vote for Bush and the poor voting solidly Democrat. The chart shows the real numbers as they voted.

Voting by income in the 2004 election

Apart from the clear split in voting between those that earn less than 50,000 and those that earned more, you can immediately see that the greatest numbers of votes were cast by those living in the 30,000-75,000 dollar family income bracket.

One possible explanation for this could be a much lower rate of turnout amongst lower income voters, and data from the census bureau confirms this.

Voting by Income if All Income Levels Voted at the Same Rate

So what if lower income voters voted at the same rate as all other income levels. I decided to test this and see how the election result would change if everyone voted at the same rate keeping the same percentage difference between the votes of Bush and Kerry. I created this new chart that has all income groups voting at the national average of 61.4%

The interesting thing about this chart is that even if the poor voted at higher rates, and higher income groups at lower rates, Bush still would have won the popular vote, having won the crucial 50,000-75,000 dollar income bracket, and only slightly losing the 30,000-50,000. The poor being a relatively smaller group of eligible voters would not have brought enough votes to change the popular vote in favor of Kerry.

Now these are national results, and Jim’s question was as much about income distribution as much as it was about the voting habits of the poor. Should it not be the case that in areas where lower income groups make up a greater proportion of the population, their votes carry more weight? My answer would be probably not, because as Jim’s charts also show, in areas where there are greater numbers of lower income households, there is usually greater income inequality, which means that the middle class is smaller and income is distributed more towards the extremes. As higher income people have a greater propensity to vote republican, the greater numbers of the poor are to some extent offset.

So in order to win the election, Obama had to win the 30,000-75,000 dollar income bracket, and this certainly explains Obama and Biden’s relentless talk of rebuilding the middle class.

However, it does leave the question, with poorer voters having difficulty in influencing elections, and both parties courting the interests of the middle class, are the poor left unrepresented. And are the significantly lower rates of voting amongst the poor simply a factor of having little reason to vote? If so, how can the representation of lower income groups in America be increased? I leave these questions for you all to consider

George

I agree, the bailout is flawed, I agree, more needs to be done for homeowners, to curb executive pay, to protect the taxpayer and all of these things can be incorporated into the current bill to save the financial system, but the last thing that anyone in the world needs right now is partisan bullshit and any radical new ideas from either side, sub prime worries have been present for years and last year was the time to think about different ideas of how to sort this mess out. What the world needs a plan and it needs one quickly.

The consequences of the failure of the US financial system would tear down industry not only America, but also around the world. Let me tell you how this might play out, banks stop lending, companies cant refinance their loans, companies go bankrupt, people lose their jobs, and production of goods grinds to a halt, no investment in the States would mean a collapse in the price of the dollar, probably made worse by the rush to sell off any dollar denominated assets abroad, so you wont be able to buy the stuff you can no longer make at home. The result of which would be a global recession, millions if not tens of millions of jobs lost and the possibility of an economic disaster that may result shortages of basic goods, leading to winter of intolerable hardship. All this could happen, so please, spare me your hollow cries of injustice, those of you who claim to be from the left put aside your put aside your anger for a second and think about how massive economic failure jives with your pro poor politics.

The ideas that have been floating around the blogosphere, such as giving a ’shot of adreneline’ and buying back the mortgages are not just wrong, they are irresponsible. When it comes to economics I prefer Krugman to Sirota and Welsh.

Firstly buying back the morgages from homeowners

Look I agree, paying back mortgages is probably a little better than paying back bankers. But doing so would be equally as stupid, and really make no difference to the bankers.

Doing that would still be bailing out the bankers because here is how it should work,

bankers make shitty loans, people cant pay back the shitty loans, bankers dont get their money back and go bankrupt, sucks for everyone, thats why no one should do it.

If you pay back the mortgages you get, bankers making shitty loans, people cant pay back the loans, government pays them for them, bankers get the money back, their profit, their bonuses and continue to make shitty loans.

The 150 billion ’shot of adrenaline’

Firstly where does this number come from? sounds like it was pulled out of someone’s arse, maybe it isnt but if it is, and it isnt believed to be enough, it will make little difference. In truth I think no one knows how much money will be needed but the bail out plan needs to be credible to work, and that is probably why Paulson has asked for such an incredibly large sum of money. If it isnt credible and the markets dont know that there will be more coming if it isnt enough then uncertainty will continue and the volatility that has been damaging the economy will continue.

On the extreme right? Rubbish about letting the market taking care of it is what got us here in the first place, so please Republicans, spare me.

So America, please stop, stop your partisan bickering, stop your ideological grandstanding and actually try to save the world from global economic crisis, something that no doubt we would all be grateful for

In any society, democratic, totalitarian or anywhere in-between leaders must be selected, the major difference lies in how we select them. We like to think of ourselves as a democracy because of the process of how we select our leaders and our commitment to certain institutions and values that we consider democratic. Elections alone are not sufficient, after all many dictatorships from Mugabe’s Zimbabwe of today to the fascist and communist regimes of yesterday held elections in an attempt to legitimize their power.

For the sake of argument I will put forward three conditions that a leader should satisfy in a democratic regime

1.Has the leader been subjected to a rigorous selection process, that has been open and fair?

2.Has the person a commitment the common good, a belief in governing for the best interests of the people they seek to lead? In Lincoln’s words a government of the people by the people for the people?

3.Does the candidate believe in and have a demonstrated commitment to the core values of democracy and good government?

Now it would be difficult to imagine a leader that did not satisfy any one of these conditions being a leader of a democratic country. In a democracy, we must have a rigorous selection process. The main problem with monarchy, is that it does not satisfy this criteria, the selection process takes place in the seminal race up the birth canal.

I will not even go as far as to say this process has to constitute elections, even in the most advanced democracies we have to accept some posts being filled through nomination, no one is suggesting we elect the Secretary of State or Secretary of Defence, and if we were to elect all these posts, the process of elections themselves would become less rigorous.

It would also be difficult to imagine a democratic country choosing a leader that at least had not taken into account the interests of the country, as a whole. Nationalists and secessionists, the very people that Lincoln was fighting against do not believe in the democratic government of the country they live in, although they may believe in the democratic government of another country, yet to exist.

Finally it would be of course absurd to have a democratic leader that did not believe in democracy, although dictators such as Hitler may have been elected, their election represented a choice not of a democratic leader but rather a choice to end democracy.

The most disturbing thing about the selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for the Vice Presidency, is that she satisfies none of these criteria.
We know that she had met McCain only once before she was shortlisted for the nomination and then for 15 minutes afterwards. Nationally she was almost completely unknown and reporters traveling to Alaska in the wake of her nomination have found that McCain’s team had done little ground work in vetting her.

She has been quoted during her still new governorship of Alaska as saying that she hasn’t thought much about Iraq as she was too busy governing Alaska. If this alone is not enough to disqualify her, as I am sure there is no questioning the statement that the Iraq war is one of the most pressing issues facing the United States, her and her husband’s ties with a separatist party are enough to say without reservation that the interests of the United States are not her primary focus.

Finally, the evidence that she tried to remove state officials for personal and ideological reasons in both the troopergate scandal and her attempts to fire a librarian who refused to censor books, seems pretty damming. This behaviour can in no way be said to be in the sprit of the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights, two documents that are universally held to embody the values of American democracy. In other words, we cannot say that Sara Palin believes in democracy.
How a person like this could ever be selected to be the vice president. What does it tell us about ourselves and above all John McCain and his team that a person like this could even be seriously considered for the position, let alone selected, above a field of infinitely more qualified candidates?

At this point I am reminded of the argument of Slavoj Zizek in his latest book, in defence of lost causes. In it he discusses the recent public debate on the acceptability of torture. He argues that if anyone were to ever advocate rape, they would not even be answered, there would be no debate because the person would be thought of as ridiculous. This used to be the same with torture, although torture has always existed, in civilized countries it has not been debated so publicly because if someone advocated torture they were thought of as insane. Today we are debating torture, we no longer think those who advocate torture are insane, and this points to a degradation in our sense of civility.

The same argument can surely be applied to the nomination of Sarah Palin, the fact that the selection of her as the Republican’s Vice Presidential Nominee is not universally considered to be insane can only mean that America is experiencing a dangerous degradation of its democratic values. If we are to truly claim to believe in democracy surely our only choices are to entirely reject her nomination or to accept that the Republican party no longer stands for democratic government.

Now the obvious weak point in my argument is that by subjecting themselves to a general election the people of the United States would have chosen the McCain-Palin ticket in a legitimate election, that she would have satisfied the first criteria. However, even if we forget about the other two criteria that a democratic leader must satisfy, the electoral process makes no difference. The election is for the President, and it is the Presidents prerogative to pick his or her vice president. In this context the responsibility is on the Presidential nominee to chose that person in a responsible manner, but if her role was nothing more than to be ready to step in if anything ever happened to the president and to lead the country her selection is perhaps one of the most irresponsible decisions ever made. Her nomination itself was the affront to democracy, and by electing McCain-Palin the American people will simply be saying that they are OK with that.

But America must not be OK with that, in the eyes of the rest of the world, American democracy is in serious trouble, and the US can not hold itself up as an example to follow if it continues to be viewed like this. In November America faces a serious test, and for all of those who believe in democracy, and what that means beyond simple elections and ballots, we can only hope that McCain-Palin is categorically rejected by the public.

From the pages of an Italian national newspaper, Torino based La Stampa. You see folks, its not just Americans who are unfamiliar with maps

La Stampa confuses Washington State with Washington D.C.

The Biden Vs. Palin VP debate, that is, if Palin isnt dropped from the ticket before then, is indeed an exciting prospect. Biden was continually picked as the surprise best performer in the Democratic candidates debates, and his knowledge and years of experience make him an engaging speaker. Palin on the other hand had her training in local small town politics.

The prospect of Biden coming up against an inexperienced governor from a small state reminded me of the AARP presidential debate in Davenport, Iowa, earlier this year. Watch Biden tear Bill Richardson apart below. He manages to so successfully floor his opponents ‘experience’ claim that all Richardson can do is smile in appreciation of having been taught a lesson from this master.

I have shown no restraint in my previous posts on my Obama bashing. I will be truthful, I had lost hope in the future of America. For me Obama had gone from hope and change to I hope he will change, but the announcement of Joe Biden as the the democratic Vice Presidential candidate restored my faith in the potential of an Obama presidency and the future of America and the world.

There is no question for me that Joe Biden was by far the best pick for the VP candidate. Biden brings to the ticket qualities that will benefit an Obama presidency greatly and the combination of the two reassures me about Obamas judgement and future policies.

It is true that Biden voted for the war, but since he has become the most vocal, eloquent and powerful critic of the war. But the most important thing that Biden brings to the ticket is a sensible, responsible plan for the US’s removal from the war. In fact it is the only plan, although some have criticised it, I have yet to see anything better. Obama has the best anti war credentials, but even many who disagree with the war, including myself, are wary how the US would leave the country, and what it would leave behind. Biden gives reassurance to those people.

I have heard it said that choosing Biden was a mistake, it highlights Obama’s inexperience, but lets face it, Obama is inexperienced by any measure, and personally I think it shows great judgement on his part to pick someone like Biden, than picking another inexperienced candidate. In fact Biden’s knowledge in foreign affairs is so great that he would be an asset on absolutely any ticket.

Biden has a big mouth, but this will be a great asset in an Obama administration. Already at times in this campaign we have seen Obama floating in the ether. Speaking in front of rallys of thousands of adoring fans it is only human that Obama will occasionally lose a grip on himself. I have no doubt however that Biden will have no problem in occasionally bringing Obama back down to earth with a few timely remarks in the privacy of the oval office.

Finally, the most important quality for any vice presidential candidate, Biden is a great guy.

How Wall-Mart is seeking to destroy the free market and our democracy

A modern democracy, founded on a liberal, free market economy needs unions in order to function properly. It may seem philosophically strange for all of you that grew up in the neo con era where the legacy of giants, great thinkers such as Smith and Keynes have been bastardised by a right wing intent on destroying the very institutions that they claim to revere, but true it is, and its logic and foundation in economic theory can not be denied (for those that don’t wish to believe my arguments read the passage from Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations below).

Nothing more illustrates the point than the current news that Wall-Mart, in an act reminiscent of Putin’s Russia, is attempting to influence the elections by coercing its workers to vote Republican. The company is holding mandatory meetings with its staff warning them that a Democratic victory could lead to job losses and high union dues.

And this is exactly the point. Without unions, who is there to prevent this disgusting behaviour on the part of Wall-Mart. Without unions, there are no institutions to protect workers from political coercion and when large corporations work to manipulate elections in order to prevent the freedom of association, one of the founding principals of American democracy, is our democracy itself not at threat?

How we will provide energy in the future for our society currently remains one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. Solving it will require boldness, imagination and above all action. As the second paragraph of Obama’s energy policy states, ‘Our country can not afford politics as usual - not at a moment when the energy challenge we face is so great and the consequences of inaction are so dangerous’

Unfortunately for us though, Obama’s energy plan is politics as usual, because it seeks more to grab headlines and to capture the votes of the misconceived than it does to provide serious solutions to the energy crisis. Many of the policies he proposes are week or ineffective and find their basis more in the propaganda of the right than they do in the arguments climatologists and economists

Immediately Provide Emergency Energy Rebate

• Ill overlook the oversight of an indefinite article in the title, because this is actually one of the few policies I support, this tax on oil companies is already being tried in Italy, the so called ‘Robin Hood Tax’ and people will need help with their heating bills this winter.

Crack Down on Excessive Speculation

• Ever since biblical times people have been quick to blame the speculators for the high price of commodities. However a report by the International Energy Authority (IEA) this year concluded that speculation had had little effect on the current high oil prices. Supply and demand were the key factors

Release Oil From the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

• The Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains 707 million barrels of oil. Current US consumption of oil is 20 million barrels of oil per day, working on the assumption that the entire reserve would not be released and a significant reserve would be kept, this policy will have little effect on the price of oil

Implement Cap and Trade Programs

• Another good policy that is already being implemented by a number of states

Make the US a Leader on Climate Change

• See below

Invest in Our Secure Energy Future and Create 5 Million Jobs

• In principle all good stuff, but once again the measures are marginal. 1 billion a year for businesses, a small chip in a 14 trillion dollar economy. Consider how much the government subsidises weapons development.

Increase Fuel Economy Standards

• Obama wants to increase fuel economy standards by 4% per year. This in 10 years would ot even bring the US to today’s European fuel economy standards. Today the average US car gets 20.4 miles to the gallon, whereas European cars get 40. The technology is here, we shouldn’t have to wait another 20 years to get it.

1 Million Plug in Vehicles on the Road by 2015

• There are 280 million cars on the road today in the US. A Drop in the ocean.

The Use it or Lose it Approach

• Obama claims that oil companies have millions of acres that they are not drilling on. These lands probably contain marginal wells, which are called marginal for a reason. They are old oil fields that have been exhausted to the point that they are no longer profitable to pump oil from, they typically produce less than 10 barrels a day. Again a drop in the ocean

Promote the responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Gas

• Drilling in the Alaska, responsible?

10% Electricity to Come From Renewable Sources by 2012

• Again, this is far below European standards which have a target of 20% by 2010. How is this making the US a leader in climate change?

Develop Clean Coal Technology

• Why? people in West Virginia arn’t going to vote for you anyway.

There are more measures, many of which are again marginal or vague, but most importantly what about the things that arn’t mentioned. For example solar power. New film technologies are currently being developed that will drastically reduce the price of solar power. Even with current technology California is on the verge of Grid Parity, when Solar power production costs the same as conventional electricity. Wind is another increasingly popular source in Europe, and the EU has set itself the goal of providing 20% of its electricity from wind by 2020. Why did Obama only mention these important renewable and above all clean energy sources in passing? whereas there were specific policies for nuclear, coal and biofuels? Perhaps he was too busy speculating for oil in Alaska

Here at the Seminal we teamed up with Veracifier.com to produce this video of Afghan students from the University of Kabul speaking about their thoughts on the current situation in Afghanistan. Filmed during my visit to Bucharest for the Young Atlanticists Summit the students were part of a group that had won a scholarship to come to Bucharest and meet with other young people from NATO countries. Amongst the many interesting things that were said by the students was the stress they placed on the need to negotiate with the Taliban who they saw as fellow citizens.

An interview I made for the iCitizenForum, a website that I work for, with the Reverend Yearwood. I thought this may be of interest to the seminal community. Reverend Yearwood is President and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus, an organisation that campaigns on issues from the rights of Hurricane Katrina victims to the plight of Iraqi Refugees.

Rev. Yearwood - iCitizenForum from George Turner on Vimeo.