sk-assembly

Is South Korea’s National Assembly More Liberal Than South Koreans?

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Korea, Policy & Politics

Members of South Korea’s legislative branch, known as the National Assembly, recently took a poll to determine where they land on the ideological spectrum. The group as a whole appears to be getting more liberal, according to an analysis of the results.

The poll, conducted by the Korea JoongAng Daily and the Korean Political Science Association, gave lawmakers a 15-question ideological test. The questions focused on the Korean alliance with the United States, relations with North Korea, corporate reform, welfare and gay marriage, among other topics.

Each lawmaker scored on a scale from 0 (liberal) to 10 (conservative). According to JoongAng Daily:

Scores below 4 are considered liberals. Scores between 4 and 6 are considered moderates while scores higher than 6 are seen as conservatives.

The outcome of the poll shows an average score for the lawmakers of 3.9, 0.7 points lower, or more left-leaning, than the last joint survey conducted in the early days of the 19th National Assembly four years ago….

The outcome showed that the 20th Assembly, though 83 lawmakers weren’t polled, has moved to the left on the ideological spectrum in what some see as a response to growing calls from the public to rein in widening economic inequality.

A sample of the South Korean public also took the poll. The respondents were moderate, scoring 5 on average — more conservative than the average score for lawmakers: 3.9. The public is more liberal than the Saenuri party and more conservative than the Minjoo, the ideologically differing parties that control the assembly.

I remixed the newspaper’s graphic a bit, choosing a dot chart over a line chart. The result:

Thoughts?

Photo credit: Wikimedia

Screenshot 2016-06-16 12.45.06

How Immigration is Animating the ‘Brexit’ Vote, in Four Charts

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Demographics, News, Policy & Politics

Immigration to the United Kingdom has risen sharply in recent years, and it’s fueling the debate about Britain’s looming “Brexit” vote on whether to leave the European Union.

Many supporters advocating a “leave” vote on June 23 believe it’s best the best way to control Britain’s borders, which under E.U. rules have been opened to workers from other member nations.

The Brussels-based union has in recent years expanded to Eastern European nations, and residents from the those countries have flooded the U.K., population 64 million, newly released data shows. That’s stoked fears that the its traditions and values are changing. Others say the influx of outside residents keeps Britain’s economy relatively strong.

The U.K.’s Office for National Statistics tracks the ebb and flow of people each year. I’ve charted the figures ahead of the vote.

tessellate-1980-2012

Let’s Tess(t)ellate: The Electoral College in Tile Grid Maps, 1980-2012

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Policy & Politics

I recently added some new charting tools here thanks to NPR’s excellent daily graphics rig, which we used recently to compare air quality in Seoul with other large cities.

There’s still plenty of tinkering to be done here with the rig, especially with deployment to WordPress. But as a first public test, I made several tile grid maps to show Electoral College results in presidential elections since 1980. The “maps” use a tessellated grid of hexagons, rather than actual geographic shapes, to show Republican red and Democratic blue.

Mapping Clinton, Trump Support

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Policy & Politics

I’ve been collecting county-level data on the presidential primary race since the contests began earlier this year. With Donald Trump now the Republicans’ presumptive nominee — and Hillary Clinton rapidly heading there — here are two maps showing their support so far nationwide (inspired by The New York Timeslovely maps):

primary_results_dems_clintonSM

primary_results_dems_trumpSM

Charting the Popularity of ‘Hillary’

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Demographics, News, Policy & Politics

Despite her big win in New York, trouble looms for Hillary Clinton in the general election, according to a new poll that shows her favorable/unfavorable ratings at dangerously low levels among key demographic groups.

Clinton has seen her fair share of bad polls over the years, yet she’s found ways to rebound. The same can’t really be said about her first name, however.

Perhaps one measure of her favorability — if so, a cruel one — is the frequency with which American parents have decided to call their daughters “Hillary”. The name peaked historically the year her husband, Bill Clinton, won the White House. It then plummeted dramatically, according to Social Security card application data released by the federal government.

This chart shows the proportion of parents who picked “Hillary” since 1947, the presidential candidate’s birth year:

hillary

“Hillary” was most popular in 1992, when about 2,500 girls received the name — roughly .13 percent of those listed in the data that year. Two years later, only about 400 girls received the name, or about .02 percent. (“Hillary”, by the way, made a small but brief comeback in 2008).

The figures in both years seem low, given the size of the country. But remember that Americans get creative with their kids’ names. There were about 1.84 million girls who received Social Security cards in 1992, and their parents picked at least 15,000 different name iterations, from Aaisha to Zykeia. Ashley was most popular with about 38,000 applications (or roughly 2 percent of the listed names).

Perhaps Hillary would be slightly more popular if parents conformed (or could spell). In 1992, for example, a few hundred poor souls got these iterations of Clinton’s name: Hilliary, Hillery, Hillari, Hillarie and Hillaree. Also: Hilary.

My name — Matthew — has taken a roller coaster ride, too. It peaked in 1983, with about 50,000 boys receiving it — roughly 2.8 percent of the 1.8 million boys who received Social Security cards with that birth year. What caused the name’s rise? Perhaps I’ll never know, though my mother picked it not from the New Testament but from a John Denver song.

Thanks, Mom. (At least you spelled it correctly).

matthew

Want to see your name? Tell me in the comments.

Charting Clinton’s Sizable Lead in Votes

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Policy & Politics

This post has been updated. See correction at the bottom of the page.

To some Bernie Sanders supporters, the Democratic presidential race must seem close. Their candidate, after all, has essentially split victories with Hillary Clinton in the more than 30 election primaries and caucuses since the process began in February — including several in a row recently.

Clinton, their thinking goes, may have a lead in pledged delegates for the nomination, but her sizable and (for now) critical lead among party leaders known as “superdelegates” could crumble if the Vermont senator continues winning.

Anything’s possible. But Clinton has already secured many, many more votes than the Vermont senator and, party rules and delegate grappling aside, is absolutely dominating the race in terms of raw support. This trend is likely to continue with large, Clinton-friendly states coming up, and it could undercut Sanders supporters’ “will of the voters” hypothesis going forward.

Clinton has won roughly 9.4 million votes, compared to Sanders’ 7 million, according to returns from U.S. states. Along the way she’s posted huge victories. Her margin in Florida alone (530,000 votes) is about the same as Sanders’ margin in his victories combined.

Here are a few quick sketches (see correction below) that help illustrate this fact. First, let’s look at their states on a scatter plot to explore not just the number of victories for each candidate but the size of their respective states — and the relative victory margins:

scatter

Here’s a similar view in the form of a bubble chart (or, Alastair Dant would say, “BALLS!”):

bubbles

And, finally, two maps. Again they show the large margins — and geographic differences — evident Clinton’s victories:

maps

UPDATE: A Twitter user suggested I look at the data with time in mind. Not sure it proves his point, but here’s another sketch:

time

The charts were made with Tableau Public, a useful tool for sketching with data. You can see interactive versions of the charts here: Scatter | Bubbles | Maps | Time.

(Correction: Some caucus states — Washington, Nevada, Maine and Wyoming — reported candidates’ proportional number of delegates selected to state conventions, not actual votes. The charts below now reflect margin estimates extrapolated from the total Democratic caucus participation by delegate share, like this. The charts were updated to reflect these estimates. The central idea of the post, and the overall popular vote margin difference between the candidates, remains virtually unchanged, however.)

Mapping GOP Campaign Cash by Density

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Policy & Politics

The GOP presidential candidates collectively have raised more than $300 million in this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission data. Here’s a quick look at where the several of those candidates — Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump — collected the money.

Each dot on the maps (see update below) below represents at least $5,000 raised by zip code. The dots in each place are assigned randomly within the zip code boundaries, creating a density map (think Verizon vs. AT&T) for campaign donations* through Feb. 29.

Here’s a (crowded) map with all the candidates. The dots were layered alphabetically, a method that unfortunately obscures some candidates at this scale, depending on the geography. Still regional differences are evident:

zips_gop_contribs_all

JEB BUSH

The former Florida governor raised large amounts of money, of course, from his home state, but also — as the perceived frontrunner for a time — from major population centers:

zips_gop_contribs_bush_red

BEN CARSON

Carson raised a ton of money for someone who received relatively little love once voters started casting their ballots. His map shows he raised more from small locations throughout the country, not just the major population centers:

zips_gop_contribs_carson_red

CHRIS CHRISTIE

The New Jersey governor, understandably, raised a large proportion of his money from his home region:

zips_gop_contribs_christie_red

TED CRUZ

The Texas senator raised money from all over the country, but he clearly has a financial base in Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and Houston — the major population centers in his home state.

zips_gop_contribs_cruz_red

JOHN KASICH

Like Christie, the Ohio governor tapped his donor base at home:

zips_gop_contribs_kasich_red

MARCO RUBIO

The Florida senator’s map looks much like that of his frenemy, Bush:

zips_gop_contribs_rubio_red

DONALD TRUMP

The billionaire business man, who has relied largely on personal funds for his campaign, has raised very little money in checks larger than $200, as reflected in his map:

zips_gop_contribs_trump_red

* To keep the analysis consistent for all campaigns, the maps were created with a data set that excluded individual donations of less than $200. The data include only donations to the candidates’ campaign committees, not other political committees supporting them.

UPDATE (9:20 p.m. EST): Based on David’s suggestion in the comments, I’ve changed the dot color in the individual maps so it’s consistent. You can see the originals here: Bush | Carson | Christie | Cruz | Kasich | Rubio | Trump.

Sanders Strongest in Educated Areas

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Policy & Politics

Last week we examined how the Democratic presidential campaigns have performed in the context of Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election.

That analysis grouped Obama’s vote share into categories, highlighting how the country’s reddest and bluest counties have voted for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders so far in the Democratic primaries. Clinton, the clear frontrunner, performed best in areas where Obama was strongest against Mitt Romney. But Sanders did slightly better when majority black counties weren’t factored.

Here’s a look at the Democratic race (through the most-recent contests) in the context of voters’ educational attainment. Each candidate’s average vote share by county is grouped by the proportion of residents in those areas with at least a bachelor’s degree. Sanders doesn’t win among any group, but he generally performs best in places where voters have more education:

dems_edu

Comparing Clinton, Sanders Vote Share with Obama 2012

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Demographics, Policy & Politics

Among the fascinating aspects of American politics are the various factors — demographic, financial, historical, etc. — that shape the geography of campaigns.

This election cycle is no different, with presidential candidates in both parties winning a seemingly random mix of specific counties and overall states since the primary season began in Iowa on Feb. 1.

On the Democratic side, one question has nagged me this week: How have Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders performed in the context of President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign?

Inspired by a recent FiveThirtyEight story about the Republicans, I compared the Democratic candidates’ vote share in more than 2,050 counties thus far with how Obama did in those places four years ago.

Clinton has won about two thirds of the counties contested by the Democrats thus far that Obama carried in 2012. She has won about 5.8 million votes in those places, compared to roughly 4 million for Sanders.

But is Clinton’s support stronger in places where Obama was stronger? As a data exercise, I looked at Obama’s vote share by county and county equivalents and then grouped the locations based on his strength. (In some places contested by Clinton and Sanders, of course, Obama got clobbered by Romney. In others, he won by huge margins). I then calculated how Clinton and Sanders did respectively in each.

This first chart shows the results. It’s clear that Clinton does better in places that were the most Democratic in 2012. The more “blue” the county for Obama, the higher her vote share, on average:

clinton-sanders-obama-all

That’s interesting, but not unexpected, given that Clinton is the frontrunner and what we know about her dominance in places with high proportions of black voters.

See FiveThirtyEight’s take on Sanders’ five-state winning streak in caucuses this week:

Sanders’s strength in caucuses may also be, in part, coincidental. Every state that has held or will hold a Democratic caucus this year has a black population at or below 10 percent of the state’s total population, and black voters have been among Clinton’s strongest demographic groups. Without those black voters, Clinton just can’t match the enthusiasm of Sanders’s backers. (In Southern states, where Clinton romped, her voters were far more enthusiastic than Sanders’s supporters were.)

So I ran the numbers again, but this time removing the 93 counties where blacks are the majority, mostly in the Deep South. The picture is a bit different, showing how Sanders competes more strongly when the black vote is less of a factor:

clinton-sanders-obama-noblack

(View interactive versions of the charts — and the data tables — here).

Sanders, of course, doesn’t get the pick the voters’ demographics.

Tomorrow we’ll look at how Clinton and Sanders performed when counties are grouped by their residents’ educational attainment. Hint: Sanders does better in places where a higher proportion of people 25 or older have at least a bachelor’s degree.

The Nation’s Most Consistently Partisan Counties In Presidential Elections

By Matt Stiles | | Topics: Policy & Politics

When it comes to recent presidential elections, geography — at least in some stubborn places — is destiny.

Voters in more than 1,600 American counties — a little more than half of those* in the United States — have consistently selected the same political party in each presidential election since George H.W. Bush faced off against Michael Dukakis. Chances are many of them will do so again this election cycle, too.

This first map shows each of the counties. They represent a wide swath of American geography — large and small, densely and sparsely populated, rural and urban. The colors show the familiar red/blue categorization of Republicans and Democrats, with darker shades representing a higher respective vote share on average.

seven_counties

About 1,330 of the counties have voted each cycle for the Republican nominee. They are generally less populous, with some exceptions, and clustered across the country in large patches that are obviously familiar to the GOP:

seven_counties_rep

The Democrats have far fewer consistently partisan counties — around 315 — but theirs are somewhat more populous and urban, and they have higher concentrations of minority voters. Again, that’s comfortable turf for Democrats:

seven_counties_dem

Given the differences between the two parties’ counties, plotting them on a map isn’t necessarily the best way to view this data. That’s because the larger, less-populous red counties in the West tend to disproportionally shade the national picture. Conversely, the blue counties tend to be smaller and more densely populated and therefore don’t get fair shake visually.

Another way to look at the data is with a tree map. In the examples below, counties are proportionally drawn in squares and rectangles and clustered by state. Both are then sized based on their respective average vote totals over the seven elections. The colors and sizes at the county level reflect the political party its voters favor — and the average votes per cycle for that party. The result is a clearer picture of each party’s pool of support.

Here’s a version with both parties (see a larger, interactive version here). Notice that the blue area for Democrats is a bit more representative than on the geographic map:

treemap_both

Here’s the Democratic map, which includes many fewer (but more populous) counties and plenty of votes:

treemap_d

The Republicans have a few populous counties, too, but many of them are tiny, as represented on this map:

treemap_r

Again, check out the larger interactive version to filter the maps, see partisan vote averages by county, and even toggle between individual state maps.

Though counties are generally a useless level of geography for presidential elections, it’s still fun to look at which areas inside states are consistently shaping partisan destiny.

* Counties in Alaska and Hawaii not included because Alaska has wacky county problems across elections. Also because of laziness.