Nineteen Sixty-four is a research blog for the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University edited by Mark M. Gray. CARA is a non-profit research center that conducts social scientific studies about the Catholic Church. Founded in 1964, CARA has three major dimensions to its mission: to increase the Catholic Church's self understanding; to serve the applied research needs of Church decision-makers; and to advance scholarly research on religion, particularly Catholicism. Follow CARA on Twitter at: caracatholic.

12.08.2016

Getting Into the Electoral College


On December 19, electors will meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President as the Electoral College. This institution was inspired, in part, by the Catholic Church’s College of Cardinals. As most are now aware, the United States does not have a national popular vote for presidential elections. Instead, we’ve had multiple popular votes in the states, with Electoral College electors distributed by the size of the population in the state (which is reflected in its numbers of Congressional representatives. DC is treated as a state). The winning candidate must win a combination of states that gives them a majority of these Electoral College votes. In four elections, including 2016, the candidate winning more electors gained fewer total votes in the electorate than the candidate finishing second in the Electoral College. Is this because electors in the Electoral College are disproportionately allocated? This is part of it. Larger states tend to have a larger share of the voting eligible population (VEP) than their share of electors (see the states above the line in the figure below. Data are from Michael McDonald’s United States Elections Project). No matter how small the state, the fewest electors assigned is still three. This creates slight over-representation in small states.


The other more impactful distortion of the Electoral College is that in most states it is “winner take all.” The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, who use some smaller districts to divide up their electors. Hillary Clinton needed 26% more votes than Trump to win each of her electors. She had 269,414 votes per elector compared to Trump’s 199,976 votes per elector. Clinton also had more “wasted” votes than Trump. Because the winner in most states wins all the electors, there are many places where the votes for candidates did not result in any Electoral College gains. In all, 31.8 million people who voted for Clinton did not impact her standing in the Electoral College. This is a majority, 51%, of all her votes. By comparison, Trump’s wasted votes totaled only 20.7 million, 34% of the votes he won.

An alternative allocation method for electors could use proportional representation to assign electors and achieve Electoral College results that are more reflective of the national vote totals. Recall the smallest states have three votes. To proportionally assign electors we would likely only be able to look at the votes won by the top two candidates (i.e., using a 10% vote threshold for third party candidates). Doing so with the 2016 vote, if we use the two-candidate share of votes for both Clinton and Trump and then apply these to the number of electors in each state we can give each candidate electors in rough proportion to their share of votes won. First we allow this to occur fractionally. For example, in Alabama, Trump led Clinton in the two-candidate vote 65% (1,306,925 million votes) to 35% (718,084 votes). Alabama has nine electors. Thus, Trump would get 5.8 electors and Clinton would net 3.2. Because fractional electors are not possible we simply round to the nearest whole person. Trump six and Clinton three. This also means in California, Trump would win 19 of 55 electors. Keep doing this for each state and you get Trump winning 268 electors and Clinton winning 270—a near tie but enough for a Clinton win. But of course these are not the rules of the game that have been established and used in the United States.

As we noted in a previous post, winning the Catholic vote has long been a good indicator that a candidate will win the election. Then perhaps the Catholic population is closely aligned with the Electoral College? Not really. As you can see below, large Catholic populations are in California, Texas, and New York. As a share of all Catholics these populations are much larger than the share of electors each of these states has. On the other hand, Catholics in Florida potentially are more influential than their population size if they vote in one direction or another in large numbers.


Image courtesy of clemsonunivlibrary.

12.02.2016

Leaving Earth?


According to physicist Stephen Hawking (a notable member of the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences), we have to figure out how to leave this planet because in the next 1,000 or so years a mass extinction event (man-made or natural) will likely end human life.

What happens when you ask people about the end of the world? CARA recently asked a national random sample of adults, “Do you believe the Earth’s demise is ultimately something we can understand and predict scientifically or something in God’s hands and therefore unpredictable?” More than six in ten believe it is in God’s hands. However, when you break that down by religious affiliation there is a big divide in opinion between Christians and those of other religious affiliations or no affiliation at all.


Only 6% of Evangelical Christians believe the Earth’s demise is something we can understand and predict scientifically. By comparison 34% of Catholics agree with this statement. At the other end of the spectrum, 82% of those without a religious affiliation (i.e., Nones) agree with the statement.

Barring divine intervention, it turns out there really are some things that are rather predictable about the possible “end of the world” in the long-term. The easiest is related to that brightest thing up in the sky we call the sun. Like any other star it has a lifespan and when it dies it will expand and take the Earth with it. The bad news is that, much earlier, in about 1 billion years it will be much hotter than it is now (regardless of any human activity) and Earth will no longer be a hospitable place for humans. With that in mind we asked Americans, “Scientists believe that in 4.5 billion years the Sun’s lifecycle will come to an end. Much earlier, in about 1 billion years, the sun will have become hotter and increased Earth’s temperature beyond a level where life, as we know it, is possible. Therefore, the long-term survival of humans may depend on space exploration and colonization. Do you believe that the destiny of human life is somewhere other than Earth or here on Earth?”

Hearing this reality, opinion is divided with 28% of adults saying human destiny is here on Earth and 27% saying this is to be found elsewhere in space. Most, 45% say they don’t know. Once again the opinion of Christians differ from others. Forty-one percent of Evangelicals believe the destiny of human life is on Earth compared to only 15% of those without a religious affiliation. Twenty-eight percent of Catholics say the destiny of human life is on Earth and 24% say it lies somewhere other than Earth (48% say they don’t know).


If Earth is doomed and human life can find a way to outlast it, then space is the place for the future. Seven in ten adults believe human exploration of space will be important (“very” or “somewhat”) in the future. Only one in ten say it is “not at all important.” Yet again, there are religious divides. Seventeen percent of Evangelicals believe space exploration to be “very” important compared to 41% of those without a religious affiliation. Thirty-six percent of Catholics believe it will be “very” important.


One might wonder why it matters if your religious affiliation is related to your views about the distant future, the ultimate demise of Earth, and space exploration. James Poulos, writing in Foreign Policy has argued, that Elon Musk, who has pledged to get humans to Mars soon, isn’t religious enough to colonize the red planet.

As you may have heard, Elon Musk (among others such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Nye), believe that reality, as we know it, may be a computer simulation. As Musk notes, “There’s a one in billions chance we’re in base reality.” What is interesting is that many of these individuals are atheists or agnostics. They believe there is no God but also think it is possible or likely that everything we know is a simulation built by a creator? Am I the only one who finds this amusing? While some Christians may be the least inclined now to explore space, they could be the most able because they are also unlikely to believe reality is a complex video game and that reaching Mars would be an achievement rather than a pre-programmed outcome. Poulos writes, “Musk, and his Silicon Valley backers, are right that humanity’s destiny might be to extend life to other planets. But Musk’s seeming belief that we’re already stuck in a simulated world leaves only dubious reasons to endorse his understanding of what destiny means — and who ought to fulfill it.”

In the bleakness of space or the harsh environment of another planet, believing in a creator and an afterlife just might be what space explorers would need to be successful. On the other hand, as we have explored before, practicing religion in space will not be easy. “Do not go gentle into that good night...”


About the CARA Catholic Poll (CCP)
CARA partnered with GfK Custom Research (formerly Knowledge Networks) to conduct the survey. Interviews were conducted with 1,927 respondents between May 16 and May 26, 2016. The primary sample includes 1,010 self-identified Catholics (margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points). Additionally, 917 non-Catholics were interviewed. Of the non-Catholics, 311 are Evangelical Christians (margin of error of ±5.6 percentage points). Another 357 have some other Christian affiliation (margin of error of ±5.2 percentage points). A total of 76 had some other non-Christian affiliation (margin of error of ±11.2 percentage points) and 167 had no religious affiliation (margin of error of ±7.6 percentage points). Six respondents declined to state a religious affiliation. Statistical weights, created by GfK, are used to approximate the results for the U.S. adult population.

11.09.2016

2016 Election Recap

Why were the polls so wrong?
Were they that wrong? The final RealClearPolitics polling average had Clinton at +3.2 (46.8% to 43.6%). I’ve also been watching the aggregation of all non-partisan telephone polls. This ended at Clinton +2.0 (45.8% to 43.8%). As of now, Clinton has won 47.7% of the national vote with 47.5% going to Donald Trump. So the result is likely something like Clinton +0.2. Even with aggregation, polls have margins of error and we once again had a contest where the margin of victory is smaller than the margins of error of the data examined. In that regard, the polls were not “off” or “wrong.” In fact they were similar in accuracy to previous elections. At the state level, there were some harder to predict states. My final election map prediction that I showed to my Georgetown classes on Monday were wrong on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

The Pennsylvania polling average had estimated a Clinton lead of +1.1. But the last survey in the state had Trump ahead by +1 percentage point. In the end Trump won the state by +1.1. Again, the polls were not really wrong or off here. I was. I chose history over the most recent data. In Michigan the polls had Clinton leading by a +3.4 average. But here again, the last poll had Trump ahead by +2. The polls were not off here either. I was. Where the polls were clearly “wrong” was Wisconsin. The state average was +6.5 for Clinton. Trump won the state by +1. At the same time this state has a Republican Governor and is home to the Republican Speaker of the House. A Trump win here was clearly possible, even with the polling trend, but it did not seem likely given the available data.

To me, what was a bit “off” was that many in the news media and pundit world wanted to ignore or minimize any polls (e.g., USC/LA Times) that indicated a possible Clinton loss. 538’s Nate Silver was criticized by the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grimm because Silver’s Clinton likely win percentage was not high enough (i.e., 98% like Huffington’s). Before the election, on Twitter, Silver noted, “People don't debate the premises of 538 model (e.g. state errors correlated, undecideds=uncertainty). They just don't like the conclusions” and that “Clinton's polling is MUCH weaker than Obama's in the swing states. People seem to miss this.”

I encourage everyone to take a look at the news they watch and read. Is it really the news or political entertainment? Cable television news is mostly the latter. Journalists and pundits may have wanted to say Clinton was going to win easily but that did not mean reality had to play along. When Silver pointed out data and analyses that provided some doubts about conventional wisdom this did not make him biased. He was being a realist. An objective analyst. We used to respect and desire that. Now we seem to more often want to watch and read news that tells us “our side is winning” and what we want to hear and believe. In the end reality interjects.


The Catholic Vote 2016
The Catholic vote, or the religion factor more generally, was largely ignored by the media and pundits this year. There was some attention to Evangelicals in the Republican primaries. Later Catholicism became a focus briefly when polls came out showing that Trump had a “Catholic problem” (1, 2, 3) Apparently, in the end, the problem was overstated. He won the Catholic vote 52% to Clinton’s 45% with 3% going to other candidates. Catholics made up 23% of the electorate. In recent elections, if candidates win the Catholic vote they typically win the election. Trump won Catholic majorities in Michigan (57%), Florida (54%), and Ohio (56%). Clinton won the Catholic vote in California (63%) and Nevada (55%). 


It appears only Catholics make swings nationally back and forth from Republican to Democrat. Other Christians vote consistently Republican. Those of non-Christian affiliations or no affiliation vote consistently Democrat. That leaves Catholics often as an important deciding factor. I think it will take some time and more research to understand why Catholics were more likely to vote for Trump than Clinton. It is also the case that more data will be released with the American National Election Study (ANES) which may alter our view of the Catholic vote (it has in the past).


Although my personal election predictions were off in three states and thus awful on the eventual Electoral College outcome, I did indeed think that there might be a “ghost” in the election polling machine back in August:


As I have explained above, if there was a ghost in that machine it probably only manifested itself in Wisconsin. It will take more time and research to understand how the polls were so off there. For now, I think it can take its place alongside Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 as a state to examine more closely. For political scientists the electoral map is getting very interesting. It is possible that 2016 is the beginning of a realignment. Democrats are showing new strength in the Sunbelt South. As demography changes this may turn some red states like Georgia, Texas, and Florida purple and eventually blue. At the same time Democrats may be losing ground in the Rust Belt North to Republicans where pink and red states could be more common.


Note: As always I was a non-participant in the election. I am not a partisan and not registered to vote. As a former reporter and now social scientist I really believe in trying to be objective.

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

© 2009-2015 CARA, Mark M. Gray. Background image courtesy of muohace_dc.