World Elections
I really enjoy following elections around the world partially because I'm fascinated by the eccentricities of different electoral systems and the political dynamics within different countries. The link above is to one of my favorite sites as the guy who runs it goes into great detail about recent elections, explaining how their system works, history of the political parties, and the issues at hand. He made his own list of elections that he's interested in at the end of last year and I figure I should make my own list of the elections I'm most interested in following this year in mostly chronological order. I say mostly because the dates for some elections haven't been set.
2/25 - Ireland - This one would be interesting to me even without the debt crisis hanging over everyone's heads. Ireland has one of the most fascinating and complex electoral methods in the world. A short explanation is that voters rank parties, and if their first ranked party fails to win a seat, their vote goes to their second choice, and so on. It appears that Fianna Fail (the dominant party since 1932) is going to get crushed this election due to their mismanagement, going from 41.5% of the vote in 2007 to hovering around 15% in current polls.
3/6 - Estonia - This is probably only interesting to me as I plan to do research there next fall. Most polls don't show much change. Estonia is politically interesting though as it's one of the few countries that's dominated by a classical liberal party.
4/17 - Finland - This is not likely to be an earth-shattering election, as the ruling coalition is unlikely to change. What is concerning is the rise of the nationalist True Finn party which has gone from having just 4% of the vote in 2007 to now polling at 16.6% and still rising.
5/5 - Various UK elections - Along with local elections, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales are holding elections for their respective legislative branches. Labour looks set to make massive gains in Scotland and Wales with both the Conservatives and Lib Dems looking to lose many seats and the respective nationalist parties doing about the same. With Northern Ireland it will be interesting to see if the nationalist continue to make their slow gains. Also, there will be nationwide referendum on adopting a new electoral method to replace the first-past-the-post system. It appears it may pass, but polls are close.
Jun - Thailand - Politics in Thailand have been rather tumultuous lately. It will be interesting to see if this election will bring about renewed stability or reawaken old grievances.
6/12 - Turkey - Turkish elections are interesting to me more in relation to their hopes of joining the EU. In 2010, the AK Party passed a constitutional referendum to help bring Turkey more inline with EU law. Since then, support for the AK Party has remained high and they are likely to maintain majority.
Sept - Egypt - Elections will probably end up being sooner, but for right now they are schedule to happen in September. There's really no telling what will happen.
Nov - Denmark - Denmark is required to hold an election before 11/12. Left-wing parties are currently leading in the polls, so there's likely going to be a change of government. The current government also has a long standing promise of holding a referendum on the four EU opt-outs Denmark currently has. It appears that the government may have dragged their feet on this too long as support for removing them, as the government would like to do, is dropping.
11/26 - New Zealand - Current polls show that the government won't change much after this election, what is a bit more interesting is that New Zealand is holding a voting method referendum that is a bit more complex than the UK. New Zealand currently uses a two-vote system, wherein voters vote for a local representative and for a party which will determine the distribution of seats. The vote is to whether or not to maintain the system, and if not, which of four systems would be preferred. The current system is favored to win.
Sometime - Tunisia - Elections weren't due to be held until 2014, but the removal of the president has changed quite a few things. According to the Tunisian Constitution, when the presidency is vacant, a new election needs to be held within 60 days, putting the election in mid-March. However, many are calling for an interim period to form a new constitution and government and hold the election at a later date.
Throughout the year - Germany - Several German states are holding local elections this year. As the current conservative government is unpopular, this elections could be a huge victory for the left, particularly the Greens which have been polling incredibly well since the 2009 elections.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Split Votes in Eurovision 2010 (or why I hate juries)
With Eurovision back on my radar as Germany is currently choosing which song Lena with sing this year, I decided to see if the the split votes for 2010 were available. Last year, the score a song received was a combination of both the televote and a jury vote. During the show, they only show the combined vote, but they release the televote and jury vote separately later. You can find the results on the Eurovision 2010 Wikipedia Article.
Germany won both the televote and jury vote, so the final result didn't change, but what annoys me is the songs that failed to reach the finals due to the jury vote. If it weren't for the jury vote two of my favorite entries, Lithuania and Finland, would have made it to to the finals. Sweden also missed out. Instead, Bosnia, Ireland, and Israel made it in thanks to the jury vote.
On the other side of the coin, had the contest been decided only by the jury vote, Estonia, Macedonia, and Malta would have made it into the finals. Instead we got Belarus, Moldova, and Russia. While Estonia was initially one of my favorites, the live performance was lackluster and I wasn't surprised when it didn't make it to the finals. So on the balance, I'm siding with the televoters on these songs.
Below I have the songs ranked by the differential in position they received from the televote and the jury vote. I decided not to look at it by points as Germany dominated the televote and such a ranking would make it look like the juries hated Germany's song (when it in fact it won the jury, but just barely) and loved all the other songs.
Positive score means the song did better with the televote, negative score means the song did better with the jury vote.
First Semi-Final
Russia: 10
Finland: 9
Belarus: 4
Iceland: 4
Moldova: 3
Serbia: 3
Greece: 2
Slovakia: 2
Latvia: 0
Belgium: -2
Poland: -2
Albania: -3
Macedonia: -5
Malta: -5
Bosnia: -6
Estonia: -7
Portugal: -7
The first semi-final was pretty decisive. I can understand that Russia probably did well in the televote thanks to bloc voting, but I don't know why Finland did so well with the televote but terribly with the jury vote. The only thing the televoters and juries agreed on was that Latvia was terrible.
Second Semi-Final
Lithuania: 5
Romania: 5
Denmark: 3
Netherlands: 3
Ukraine: 3
Azerbaijan: 2
Sweden: 2
Slovenia: 1
Turkey: 0
Bulgaria: 0
Armenia: -1
Cyprus: -1
Switzerland: -1
Croatia: -2
Georgia: -4
Ireland: -7
Israel: -8
The second semi-final was much less decisive, with only Ireland and Israel seeing really different results.
Final
France: 14
Serbia: 11
Spain: 8
Armenia: 6
Turkey: 6
Moldova: 5
Azerbaijan: 4
Denmark: 4
Greece: 4
Iceland: 4
Russia: 4
Belarus: 2
Germany: 0
United Kingdom: 0
Bosnia: -2
Romania: -3
Norway: -4
Albania: -5
Cyprus: -5
Georgia: -5
Portugal: -7
Ukraine: -7
Ireland: -8
Belgium: -12
Israel: -14
Apparently the only thing the televoters and the juries could agree on was that Germany won and the UK lost. It is interesting to see how fortunes change from the semi-finals to the final. For one, Belgium did pretty well with the televote during the semi-final, but then lost support in the final. Support for Romania totally flipped. Generally, with more entries and stiffer competition, most entries decline in position when they go from the semi-finals to the final, but Romania actually gained position as the jury vote ranked it 8th in the semi-final, but gave it 3rd place in the final.
Surprisingly, France and Spain (and Germany in terms of sheer points) did much better with the televoters as the addition of the jury vote was devised to help out the big four. Nothing could have saved the UK.
Also, in the jury vote, Belgium came just 2 points behind Germany, despite being a really boring song, or maybe because it was really boring. Overall, I think 2010 would have been better without the juries.
Germany won both the televote and jury vote, so the final result didn't change, but what annoys me is the songs that failed to reach the finals due to the jury vote. If it weren't for the jury vote two of my favorite entries, Lithuania and Finland, would have made it to to the finals. Sweden also missed out. Instead, Bosnia, Ireland, and Israel made it in thanks to the jury vote.
On the other side of the coin, had the contest been decided only by the jury vote, Estonia, Macedonia, and Malta would have made it into the finals. Instead we got Belarus, Moldova, and Russia. While Estonia was initially one of my favorites, the live performance was lackluster and I wasn't surprised when it didn't make it to the finals. So on the balance, I'm siding with the televoters on these songs.
Below I have the songs ranked by the differential in position they received from the televote and the jury vote. I decided not to look at it by points as Germany dominated the televote and such a ranking would make it look like the juries hated Germany's song (when it in fact it won the jury, but just barely) and loved all the other songs.
Positive score means the song did better with the televote, negative score means the song did better with the jury vote.
First Semi-Final
Russia: 10
Finland: 9
Belarus: 4
Iceland: 4
Moldova: 3
Serbia: 3
Greece: 2
Slovakia: 2
Latvia: 0
Belgium: -2
Poland: -2
Albania: -3
Macedonia: -5
Malta: -5
Bosnia: -6
Estonia: -7
Portugal: -7
The first semi-final was pretty decisive. I can understand that Russia probably did well in the televote thanks to bloc voting, but I don't know why Finland did so well with the televote but terribly with the jury vote. The only thing the televoters and juries agreed on was that Latvia was terrible.
Second Semi-Final
Lithuania: 5
Romania: 5
Denmark: 3
Netherlands: 3
Ukraine: 3
Azerbaijan: 2
Sweden: 2
Slovenia: 1
Turkey: 0
Bulgaria: 0
Armenia: -1
Cyprus: -1
Switzerland: -1
Croatia: -2
Georgia: -4
Ireland: -7
Israel: -8
The second semi-final was much less decisive, with only Ireland and Israel seeing really different results.
Final
France: 14
Serbia: 11
Spain: 8
Armenia: 6
Turkey: 6
Moldova: 5
Azerbaijan: 4
Denmark: 4
Greece: 4
Iceland: 4
Russia: 4
Belarus: 2
Germany: 0
United Kingdom: 0
Bosnia: -2
Romania: -3
Norway: -4
Albania: -5
Cyprus: -5
Georgia: -5
Portugal: -7
Ukraine: -7
Ireland: -8
Belgium: -12
Israel: -14
Apparently the only thing the televoters and the juries could agree on was that Germany won and the UK lost. It is interesting to see how fortunes change from the semi-finals to the final. For one, Belgium did pretty well with the televote during the semi-final, but then lost support in the final. Support for Romania totally flipped. Generally, with more entries and stiffer competition, most entries decline in position when they go from the semi-finals to the final, but Romania actually gained position as the jury vote ranked it 8th in the semi-final, but gave it 3rd place in the final.
Surprisingly, France and Spain (and Germany in terms of sheer points) did much better with the televoters as the addition of the jury vote was devised to help out the big four. Nothing could have saved the UK.
Also, in the jury vote, Belgium came just 2 points behind Germany, despite being a really boring song, or maybe because it was really boring. Overall, I think 2010 would have been better without the juries.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Population Concentration
I haven't been able to post anything on here for awhile. I've had several little projects I've been working on, but they require a greater time commitment than I have. Once the full Census data comes out in the next month or two, I'm interested in looking at demographic trends between urban-rural areas.
Basically, something I noticed in trends related to population decline is that often depopulation is localized, while other areas continue to see population growth. For example, although Germany's population is declining over all, almost all of this decline is taking place in eastern Germany, most of western Germany is still experiencing an increase in population.
Although it's not always the case, urban areas in the developed world are continuing to an increase in population, while rural areas are losing population. A notable exception is Detroit. When looking at this trend before, I noticed an interesting pattern in Kansas. Nearly every county that had a population above 50,000 in 2000 increased in population during the past decade, but nearly every county that had a population below 50,000 decreased in population. This meant that the population of Kansas, and many other states, was becoming more concentrated in a few urban areas. I plan to do a comparison of population concentration in each state in 2000 and 2010, but that data is not available yet. So today I did a quick test run on the US as a whole, to see how population concentration has changed with each Census.
To measure concentration I used a measure called the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI). The highest possible score on this index is 10,000. In this case, a score of 10,000 would imply that everyone in the US lived in one state. The lowest score is 0. This would imply an infinite number of states of equal population. A more realistic benchmark here is 200, this is the score I would receive if all 50 states had the same population.
Year - HHI
1790 905
1800 815
1810 735
1820 687
1830 665
1840 616
1850 563
1860 502
1870 480
1880 432
1890 394
1900 399
1910 393
1920 393
1930 404
1940 400
1950 402
1960 414
1970 421
1980 411
1990 435
2000 436
2010 440
Unsurprisingly, the earliest dates have the highest scores as there were fewer states. In 1790, around 20% of Americans lived in Virginia. As the nation expands, the score declines until it reaches its nadir in 1910-20. Since then there has been a gradual rise in the concentration of the US population, but it still remains low. This frankly isn't very surprising. Most states have large urban centers that help draw in population, and thus there's not a tread of people leaving one state in favor of another (except Michigan), so population concentration has remained fairly constant. Most of the change in population concentration is taking place within each state, as mentioned in the Kansas example.
Just to give an idea of how insignificant this increase in concentration is, since 1950, the 9 nine largest states have made up more than 50% of the US population. Despite the raising score, their share of the population is actually declining, albeit very slowing, from 52% in 1970 to 51% in 2010.
Basically, something I noticed in trends related to population decline is that often depopulation is localized, while other areas continue to see population growth. For example, although Germany's population is declining over all, almost all of this decline is taking place in eastern Germany, most of western Germany is still experiencing an increase in population.
Although it's not always the case, urban areas in the developed world are continuing to an increase in population, while rural areas are losing population. A notable exception is Detroit. When looking at this trend before, I noticed an interesting pattern in Kansas. Nearly every county that had a population above 50,000 in 2000 increased in population during the past decade, but nearly every county that had a population below 50,000 decreased in population. This meant that the population of Kansas, and many other states, was becoming more concentrated in a few urban areas. I plan to do a comparison of population concentration in each state in 2000 and 2010, but that data is not available yet. So today I did a quick test run on the US as a whole, to see how population concentration has changed with each Census.
To measure concentration I used a measure called the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index (HHI). The highest possible score on this index is 10,000. In this case, a score of 10,000 would imply that everyone in the US lived in one state. The lowest score is 0. This would imply an infinite number of states of equal population. A more realistic benchmark here is 200, this is the score I would receive if all 50 states had the same population.
Year - HHI
1790 905
1800 815
1810 735
1820 687
1830 665
1840 616
1850 563
1860 502
1870 480
1880 432
1890 394
1900 399
1910 393
1920 393
1930 404
1940 400
1950 402
1960 414
1970 421
1980 411
1990 435
2000 436
2010 440
Unsurprisingly, the earliest dates have the highest scores as there were fewer states. In 1790, around 20% of Americans lived in Virginia. As the nation expands, the score declines until it reaches its nadir in 1910-20. Since then there has been a gradual rise in the concentration of the US population, but it still remains low. This frankly isn't very surprising. Most states have large urban centers that help draw in population, and thus there's not a tread of people leaving one state in favor of another (except Michigan), so population concentration has remained fairly constant. Most of the change in population concentration is taking place within each state, as mentioned in the Kansas example.
Just to give an idea of how insignificant this increase in concentration is, since 1950, the 9 nine largest states have made up more than 50% of the US population. Despite the raising score, their share of the population is actually declining, albeit very slowing, from 52% in 1970 to 51% in 2010.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Jury Nullification
Missoulan
Jury nullification is a situation in which a jury purposely reaches a verdict that is contrary to law and evidence. This is generally done when a law or it's application is considered to be unjust, so the jury acquits a defendant that is clearly guilty, effectively rendering the law null and void. There is an estimate that 60% of trials dealing with alcohol control during prohibition ended with nullification.
The case in the linked article is a situation wherein, if the case had gone to trial, jury nullification would have taken place. However, it ended up not going to trial because despite the other charges the defendant faced, only five people during jury selection were willing to convict a man of the charge of possessing 1/6 of an ounce of marijuana.
Jury nullification is a situation in which a jury purposely reaches a verdict that is contrary to law and evidence. This is generally done when a law or it's application is considered to be unjust, so the jury acquits a defendant that is clearly guilty, effectively rendering the law null and void. There is an estimate that 60% of trials dealing with alcohol control during prohibition ended with nullification.
The case in the linked article is a situation wherein, if the case had gone to trial, jury nullification would have taken place. However, it ended up not going to trial because despite the other charges the defendant faced, only five people during jury selection were willing to convict a man of the charge of possessing 1/6 of an ounce of marijuana.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Joining the Euro
Currently 11 of the 27 EU countries have not yet adopted the Euro. Estonia will be joining the Eurozone in January. Of the the remaining 10 countries two (UK and Denmark) have opt-outs that allow them to never join and one (Sweden) just found a loophole that allowed it to delay joining indefinitely. The remaining 7 countries presumably all want to adopt the Euro, however they're being held back by requirements set by the EU. Other than the necessity of being a member of the ERM II for at least two years (this is the loophole Sweden found, they never joined), the countries have to maintain low inflation, low interest rates, a low deficit, and a low debt. Estonia currently meets all those measures, which is why it's joining now.
I decided to take a look to see how far off target the other non-Eurozone EU countries currently are by coming up a formula to measure the difference between the ideal and the current situation using the numbers available on Wikipedia. Ever value at or below target, got a 0, while those above target got a score that was the current value divided by the ideal minus one. So a country with 3% inflation instead of the ideal 1% or lower would receive 2 points. In case you haven't figured it out, a higher score is bad.
Scores
Estonia 0.0
Bulgaria 0.9
Czechia 0.9
Denmark 1.1
Sweden 1.1
Latvia 3.0
UK 3.5
Lithuania 3.8
Poland 4.4
Hungary 4.9
Romania 6.2
Surprisingly, Bulgaria, which joined the EU relatively recently, got the second best score due to having surprising little debt. It got points for having a slightly higher than ideal inflation and interest rate.
Romania, which joined at the same time as Bulgaria, is fairing much more poorly. This is mostly due to the country having a high inflation rate, but the current deficit and high interest rates aren't helping.
This isn't to say that Bulgaria will be the next country to join the Eurozone, these conditions can change very rapidly. Lithuania came very close to adopting the Euro back in 2008, but is now falling behind in meeting the criteria.
Even though Czechia got a good score, the current government is opposed to adopting the Euro and will likely take advantage of the loophole Sweden uses.
As for Denmark, Sweden, and the UK, it seems unlikely that they will adopt the Euro anytime soon. Since 2010, support for the Euro has dropped a lot in these three countries, although, it was always low in the UK (33% at it's peak in 2003 and rarely above 25% since). Support for the Euro in Sweden had a plurality in polls for the first time back in 2009, but has dropped precipitously since. Most polls in Denmark since 2007 have shown the Euro as being supported by a majority or at least a plurality. However, nearly all these polls are by the same company. Every poll done by a different company shows those opposed to the Euro having a majority or plurality.
Just for fun, I decided to see if the US would meet the criteria. The US got a score of 1.8, all due to the current budget deficit. The US meets all the other requirements except the obvious one of being a member of the EU.
I decided to take a look to see how far off target the other non-Eurozone EU countries currently are by coming up a formula to measure the difference between the ideal and the current situation using the numbers available on Wikipedia. Ever value at or below target, got a 0, while those above target got a score that was the current value divided by the ideal minus one. So a country with 3% inflation instead of the ideal 1% or lower would receive 2 points. In case you haven't figured it out, a higher score is bad.
Scores
Estonia 0.0
Bulgaria 0.9
Czechia 0.9
Denmark 1.1
Sweden 1.1
Latvia 3.0
UK 3.5
Lithuania 3.8
Poland 4.4
Hungary 4.9
Romania 6.2
Surprisingly, Bulgaria, which joined the EU relatively recently, got the second best score due to having surprising little debt. It got points for having a slightly higher than ideal inflation and interest rate.
Romania, which joined at the same time as Bulgaria, is fairing much more poorly. This is mostly due to the country having a high inflation rate, but the current deficit and high interest rates aren't helping.
This isn't to say that Bulgaria will be the next country to join the Eurozone, these conditions can change very rapidly. Lithuania came very close to adopting the Euro back in 2008, but is now falling behind in meeting the criteria.
Even though Czechia got a good score, the current government is opposed to adopting the Euro and will likely take advantage of the loophole Sweden uses.
As for Denmark, Sweden, and the UK, it seems unlikely that they will adopt the Euro anytime soon. Since 2010, support for the Euro has dropped a lot in these three countries, although, it was always low in the UK (33% at it's peak in 2003 and rarely above 25% since). Support for the Euro in Sweden had a plurality in polls for the first time back in 2009, but has dropped precipitously since. Most polls in Denmark since 2007 have shown the Euro as being supported by a majority or at least a plurality. However, nearly all these polls are by the same company. Every poll done by a different company shows those opposed to the Euro having a majority or plurality.
Just for fun, I decided to see if the US would meet the criteria. The US got a score of 1.8, all due to the current budget deficit. The US meets all the other requirements except the obvious one of being a member of the EU.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Faulty Separation
Etymology Dictionary
Faulty separation is a concept I was introduced to a few years ago thanks to a Something Awful linguistics thread. In the context it was introduced, it was in reference to how certain words have changed due to how English uses two different indefinite articles depending what the first sound of the following word is.
The example used was the word "apron". This word used to be "napron", but over time there was a shift as "a napron" was misheard as "an apron".
I was curious as to how often this has happened in English. I found six cases, including "apron" through the Etymology Dictionary, although one word is no longer in use.
Apron from Napron
Auger from Nauger
Adder from Nedder
Umpire from Noumpere
Umble from Numble (umble is the edible part of animals that isn't meat)
Nickname from Ekename (went the opposite direction)
Other than the Etymology Dictionary, I can't find any other reference to faulty separation. I wonder if these are actually all the cases or if there are similar faulty separations caused by other word combinations.
Faulty separation is a concept I was introduced to a few years ago thanks to a Something Awful linguistics thread. In the context it was introduced, it was in reference to how certain words have changed due to how English uses two different indefinite articles depending what the first sound of the following word is.
The example used was the word "apron". This word used to be "napron", but over time there was a shift as "a napron" was misheard as "an apron".
I was curious as to how often this has happened in English. I found six cases, including "apron" through the Etymology Dictionary, although one word is no longer in use.
Apron from Napron
Auger from Nauger
Adder from Nedder
Umpire from Noumpere
Umble from Numble (umble is the edible part of animals that isn't meat)
Nickname from Ekename (went the opposite direction)
Other than the Etymology Dictionary, I can't find any other reference to faulty separation. I wonder if these are actually all the cases or if there are similar faulty separations caused by other word combinations.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Free Music
Grooveshark
Since I haven't posted anything in a while, I figured I would share this. Grooveshark is a music website that lets you create your own playlists from any music in it's collection, which is quite extensive. It's not perfect, for instance, many albums listed have tracks missing and sometimes the site can be slow, but I've found it very useful when I'm at work. Since it's all online, I can hop on any computer in the office and access my music while I work.
Since I haven't posted anything in a while, I figured I would share this. Grooveshark is a music website that lets you create your own playlists from any music in it's collection, which is quite extensive. It's not perfect, for instance, many albums listed have tracks missing and sometimes the site can be slow, but I've found it very useful when I'm at work. Since it's all online, I can hop on any computer in the office and access my music while I work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)