Last year I made a post about majority-minority states. These are states where non-Hispanic Whites are not the majority. Currently only four states, CA, HI, NM, and TX, plus DC are considered majority-minority. However, the population of certain minority groups, mainly Hispanics and Asians, is growing rapidly. I made some predictions about when other states would become majority-minority states, which showed that by 2041, non-Hispanic Whites will be a minority in the US. These predictions used data from 2005-2008, so with the recent Census data, I updated the data with 2009-2010 figures.
What the 2010 Census revealed was that previous population estimates greatly underestimated the size of the Hispanic population. The predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward in all but 10 states. Only in three states, AZ, ME, and, MT, did the estimated minority population decline as a result of the new data. On average, the predicted date for when a state would become a majority-minority state moved forward ten years.
Next 10 majority-minority states:
Nevada - 2015
Maryland - 2017
Florida - 2020
Georgia - 2021
Arizona - 2024
New Jersey - 2024
Mississippi - 2029
Louisiana* - 2030
Delaware - 2033
New York - 2034
*The Louisiana estimate leaves out 2005 as there was massive, but temporary, decline in the Black population that skews the data.
The new data moves forward the date for when non-Hispanic Whites become an minority in the US from 2041 to 2034. Previous data showed only 12 majority-states by 2041, but new data shows 14 by just 2034 and 20 by 2041.
Only DC is showing a reversal as the non-Hispanic White population is increasing and could become the majority by 2026. Previous data showed Hawaii reversing, but the 2010 Census data disputes this, showing the non-Hispanic White population declining as a proportion.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
What a difference a day makes
BLS.gov
Just a couple of days after I made that map about unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their numbers for January. With new numbers, I decided to reassess my previous method of categorizing states by looking more at the number of people employed rather than the unemployment rate. The reason for this is a decline in the unemployment doesn't necessary mean that more people have jobs, people may given up looking for jobs for various unrelated reasons. So here's the new map:
The map still shows 26 states plus DC recovering. Some of the most important changes are that California, Florida, and Texas do not appear to be getting worse. I'm reluctant to say that they are fully recovering though until February numbers are available.
Kentucky is an oddity as it's employment numbers are improving, but the number of unemployed is growing at a faster rate.
Wyoming is the opposite situation, its employment numbers are declining, but the number of unemployed is declining at a faster rate.
Nevada is also problem in that it's unemployment rate greatly improved in January, but the number of people employed declined.
Employment numbers in Colorado are getting worse, but I couldn't really call it a double-dip recession because the employment numbers never really showed much improvement in the first place.
In any case, the Midwest and the Northwest are still doing incredibly well, but the recovery appears to be losing steam in the Rockies and the Southeast.
Just a couple of days after I made that map about unemployment, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released their numbers for January. With new numbers, I decided to reassess my previous method of categorizing states by looking more at the number of people employed rather than the unemployment rate. The reason for this is a decline in the unemployment doesn't necessary mean that more people have jobs, people may given up looking for jobs for various unrelated reasons. So here's the new map:
The map still shows 26 states plus DC recovering. Some of the most important changes are that California, Florida, and Texas do not appear to be getting worse. I'm reluctant to say that they are fully recovering though until February numbers are available.
Kentucky is an oddity as it's employment numbers are improving, but the number of unemployed is growing at a faster rate.
Wyoming is the opposite situation, its employment numbers are declining, but the number of unemployed is declining at a faster rate.
Nevada is also problem in that it's unemployment rate greatly improved in January, but the number of people employed declined.
Employment numbers in Colorado are getting worse, but I couldn't really call it a double-dip recession because the employment numbers never really showed much improvement in the first place.
In any case, the Midwest and the Northwest are still doing incredibly well, but the recovery appears to be losing steam in the Rockies and the Southeast.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Unemployment in the US
I've been wanting to put something up here for awhile, but finals take time as do some of the things I want to work on for this blog. However, last night I started working on something that didn't take too much time.
I was looking at unemployment figures and seeing how different states were doing. I wasn't planning to do anything with it until I looked at Georgia's numbers. Like most states, Georgia's unemployment peaked around the end of 2009 and recovered slightly, but then started back up again at the end of 2010. It left me wondering if this was the sign of a double-dip recession, that we would see another peak in unemployment in the near future. So I made the following map:
Bright green - States that have shown continuous recovery since their peak in unemployment.
Dark green - States where unemployment is down from its peak, but there was little change in the last 6 months of 2010.
Gold - Unemployment peaked and has remained near that level.
Red - Unemployment continuously getting worse.
Dark Red - States that initially recovered, but unemployment has since gotten worse again.
Only two states, Georgia and Delaware, seem to show signs of a double-dip recession. As it stands, 26 states plus DC have shown continuous improvement since 2009. The Midwest is doing especially well, with unemployment rates falling much more rapidly in places like Illinois and Michigan than the national average. Michigan's unemployment rate was at 14%, but has fallen to 11%, lower than Nevada, California, Florida, and Rhode Island.
What's interesting with the dark green states in the Southeast is that they all show a similar pattern. They all peaked at around 11% unemployment, which quickly fell to about 10% and has stayed there ever since.
People have said that Colorado did well during the recession as when the nation as a whole was at 10%, Colorado was at 9%. However, the number show that while the nation is doing better, Colorado is still stuck at 9%.
The most worrisome sign is that three of the largest economies, California, Texas, and Florida, were worse off at the end of 2010 than they were in 2009. I'm also curious about Idaho and Montana given that all the surrounding states are doing fairly well.
I was looking at unemployment figures and seeing how different states were doing. I wasn't planning to do anything with it until I looked at Georgia's numbers. Like most states, Georgia's unemployment peaked around the end of 2009 and recovered slightly, but then started back up again at the end of 2010. It left me wondering if this was the sign of a double-dip recession, that we would see another peak in unemployment in the near future. So I made the following map:
Bright green - States that have shown continuous recovery since their peak in unemployment.
Dark green - States where unemployment is down from its peak, but there was little change in the last 6 months of 2010.
Gold - Unemployment peaked and has remained near that level.
Red - Unemployment continuously getting worse.
Dark Red - States that initially recovered, but unemployment has since gotten worse again.
Only two states, Georgia and Delaware, seem to show signs of a double-dip recession. As it stands, 26 states plus DC have shown continuous improvement since 2009. The Midwest is doing especially well, with unemployment rates falling much more rapidly in places like Illinois and Michigan than the national average. Michigan's unemployment rate was at 14%, but has fallen to 11%, lower than Nevada, California, Florida, and Rhode Island.
What's interesting with the dark green states in the Southeast is that they all show a similar pattern. They all peaked at around 11% unemployment, which quickly fell to about 10% and has stayed there ever since.
People have said that Colorado did well during the recession as when the nation as a whole was at 10%, Colorado was at 9%. However, the number show that while the nation is doing better, Colorado is still stuck at 9%.
The most worrisome sign is that three of the largest economies, California, Texas, and Florida, were worse off at the end of 2010 than they were in 2009. I'm also curious about Idaho and Montana given that all the surrounding states are doing fairly well.
Monday, February 14, 2011
2011 Elections
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)