John D Johnson

Month: March, 2016

Forgottonia: Smaller, Older, Poorer

Unless you live there, you’ve probably never heard of Forgottonia. Beginning in the late 1960s, people in the 16-county region that makes up Illinois’ westernmost bulge along the Mississippi River began promoting a thoroughly tongue-in-cheek secessionist movement. Their grievance? Being forgotten by infrastructure improvement projects and business development.

Forgottonia mapLocal Western Illinois University student Neil Gamm became the governor of the new state (republic?) whose capital was the unincorporated town of Fandon. Given that the official Forgottonia flag was the white banner of surrender, Gamm described the movement’s strategy this way, “The idea is that we would secede from the Union, immediately declare war, surrender, then apply for foreign aid.”[1]

Despite this bit of local color, Forgottonia is a good stand-in for the fate of much of rural America. The secessionist movement did bring a bit of much-needed attention to the region (Amtrak reinstated passenger rail service, for instance), but for the most part Western Illinois has continued to suffer from protracted interrelated crises of demographics and economics. Farmers made up 4.6% of the labor force in 1970, but by 2010 this had fallen over half.[2] The rust belt manufacturing collapse simultaneously wreaked havoc on the region.

None of this is news to the people who live in places like Forgottonia. They recognize this reality every time they drive past another decrepit closed school or rotting farmstead. Its social consequences are clear in the empty pseudoephedrine packages that litter the ditches near amateur meth kitchens.

Here are three graphs illustrating the decline of Forgottonia. All data is from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All dollars are inflation-adjusted to current (2016) values per the BLS official calculator.

The U.S. population grew 36.6% from 1980 to 2010. In Forgottonia, it shrank 12.1% in the same period.

Population, Labor Force, and Unemployment Rate in Forgottonia

Population Labor Force Unemployment

The yellow line shows the steady decline in the region’s population. The thicker red line shows the unemployment rate (corresponding to the right-hand axis). Unemployment topped 12% in the early 1980s—precipitating a population slide that ebbed in the 90s, but has continued more recently. We shall have to wait and see if the Great Recession-era unemployment spike, coupled with Illinois’ ongoing budget woes, contributes to another steep population slide.

Another reason for Forgottonia’s declining population is its aging population. I’ve constructed population pyramids for each census year since 1970. These are shown in the gif below. Each bar represents the percentage of the population in each age group by gender. Grey bars represent females; blue bars represent males. The steady flattening of the “pyramid” illustrates the growing age of Western Illinois.

Forgottonia Population Pyramids

PP GIF

Finally, the last graph shows Forgottonia’s median household income as compared to the U.S. median household income for the years 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999, and 2009. Unsurprisingly, Forgottonia is poorer—as much as $10,000 annually from time to time. The 1980s, once again, were particularly harsh. Perhaps most significantly, household income in 2009 is actually less than it was in 1979.

Median Household Income: 1969, 1979, 1989, 1999, 2009

Household Income

The American Dream is not working for most people in Forgottonia, and this disillusionment is reflected in the region’s politics. In the March 2016 presidential primaries avowedly anti-establishment candidates took the majority of counties. Sanders won 9 of the Democratic contests, while Trump won all but one on the GOP side.

[1] http://www.disappearingman.com/illinois/remembering-our-51st-state-forgottonia/

[2] https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farmers_land.htm; http://www.fb.org/newsroom/fastfacts/

Advertisements

How Voting Systems Penalize or Encourage ‘Third Parties’

In the United Kingdom’s elections last year, the Conservative Party received 36.8% of the vote, while Labour (the next largest party) won 30.4%. However, the Conservatives got over half the seats in the House of Commons and thus the right to install their own chief executive and cabinet. Essentially, achieving less than 37% of the popular vote won them 100% of the power. Two of the more prominent minor parties—the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the Liberal Democrats—collectively won over a fifth of the vote. Yet combined they received less than 2% of the seats in Parliament. Conversely, the Scottish National Party (SNP) turned their 4.8% of the national vote into 8.6% of the total number of seats.

Sweden held their own national parliamentary elections in 2014. The results could hardly be more different. Compare the two tables below. In each the yellow bars represent that party’s share of the popular vote, while the corresponding blue bars depict the resulting share of seats.

United Kingdom 2015 Elections[i]

Uk 2015 chart

Sweden 2014 Elections

Sweden 2014 Chart

There are two main differences between these two graphs. First, the difference between votes received and seats received for each party is much greater in the UK. Second, some parties in the UK receive more than their fair share of votes at the expense of other parties which receive less. Conversely, nearly all parties receiving seats in Sweden actually receive a slightly higher share of seats than their portion of the popular vote would suggest. The reasons for this are actually quite simple. It all comes down to the two countries’ different methods of counting votes.

The United Kingdom uses the same system as the United States. It’s called “First-Past-the-Post” (a horseracing reference). Candidates all run in districts. Whichever candidate gets the most votes in each district wins.

Sweden uses a form of proportional representation. Of the 349 seats in the Riksdag, 310 are awarded in constituency-based races—meaning that they represent specific districts of the country. However, they are not “single-member districts” as in the US and UK. Rather, each constituency has a number of associated seats ranging from 2-39, depending on its population. After these constituency-based seats have been apportioned, the remaining 39 seats are used to adjust for any deviations that may have arisen between a party’s share of the vote and its share of the seats. To enter the Riksdag, a party must have received at least 4% of the national vote or 12% in a single constituency. All those votes which went to parties failing to meet the threshold are shown in the “Other” column. This explains why most of the parties received slightly more than their expected share of seats in the parliament.

I completed the same analysis for Canada’s 2015 elections, Germany in 2013, the U.S. in 2014, Israel in 2015, and Brazil’s 2014 elections to the Chamber of Deputies (lower house). In each case I calculated a measure of the total discrepancy between the achieved and actual representation of each party. I found the difference between each seat-winning party’s portion of seats and portion of the popular vote and then added these absolute values together. The results are below.

Size of Discrepancy between Share of Vote and Share of Seats

Discrepancy table

Blue indicates FPTP voting; orange states vote proportionally; Germany uses a mixed system. As always, by clicking on the chart you can use the tooltip to see detailed results.

The graphs to the U.S. House and Senate, Israel’s Knesset, Canada’s House of Commons, and Germany’s Bundestag are below.

United States 2014

House

US House 2014 Chart

Senate

US Senate 2014 Chart

Germany 2013

Germany 2013 Chart.PNG

Canada 2015

Canada 2015 chart.PNG

Israel 2015

Israel 2015 Chart

 

[i] For simplicity’s sake, I’ve eliminated the following minor parties: Plaid Cymru, Democratic Unionist, Sein Fein, and the Social Democratic Labour Party. The first is Welsh and the latter three operate only in Northern Ireland. Also, I have not included the single successful independent candidate or the race of the Speaker. Traditionally, the Speaker of the House of Commons runs on an independent ticket, regardless of his previous party affiliation. If you click on the graph, you’ll be treated to a full version in all its absurd complexity.