« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Voter turnout and the American dominance of the Nobel Prize
There are some oddities about present day America which have baffled me for sometime now.
Primaries
When I first started to tune into the US primaries, I was amazed by how much the higher the voter turnout is on Democratic side. Simple straightforward reasoning would indicate that the next president MUST be a Democrat, since it was always at least 20 percent higher, often more than 50 percent higher and at times the even the Democratic loser had more turnout than the two leading Repubs combined.
Yet, when Gallup polls they don't find that either Obama or Clinton trounces McCain, McCain's even beating Clinton?
And then I hear that Democrats ALWAYS have had a higher turnout.
What's going on? Do Democrat primary voters all have a lot to do around the house come November?
Do Repubs just don't bother with the primaries? Do Democrat voters think they have to vote just once, in the primaries? Are they really that dumb?
This is my American mystery # 1
The Americans and the Nobel Prize
European higher education officials have been complaining that over the course of the last 50 years, the American portion of Nobel laureates has been increasing, up to the point, that there are no European Nobel prize laureates anymore, at all.
They are all American.
This baffles me because I hear American politicians constantly complaining about the deplorable state of high school education in the States. How can a country that as a whole, is so "dumbed down" that Intelligent Design is credible to a lot of people, still produce so much scientists that they completely dominate the most important science prizes? Boggles the mind!
This is my American mystery #2
CEO
Comments (5)
I have no idea on the primary turnout question, but a good working hypothissis about the Nobel question. We have a divided educational system like our healthcare syystem. At the to for the elite you have the best in the world overlying a a baseline that is substandard. Europe has a higher baseline but we do more high end research.
It could also be the predudices of the committee.
February 21, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is obviously a biased answer, but I think Democrats are simply more engaged. Center-leaning Republicans often don't feel strongly about the issues. Many Republicans I know couldn't even tell you why they are Republicans. They just are. And while they don't care enough to vote in the primary, they are more likely to be affected by the traditional "Democrats will raise your taxes" or "Democrats are weak on national security" claims. As absurd as these labels are, they stick to some people and that shows in November.
The quality of public education differs quite a bit regionally. I think it would be difficult to find better public education than that in Minnesota/Wisconsin/Iowa, for example, or Washington/Oregon, or regions on the east coast, etc. Urban areas often have terrible public schools due to the same issues that cause the high rates of violence and poverty. (Without trying to start anything, I would point to the South as an area with generally inferior schools; this is largely where your Intelligent Design people are). Lack of funding, low teacher pay, and just a general legislative neglect is problematic in most places. As Larry pointed out, the result is a fairly divided system.
More directly to your question regarding the Nobel Prize, the answer is fairly easy. Regardless of the many flaws of the public education system, the network of research universities in this country is unmatched. The research funding for these institutions is often similarly unmatched. (Personally, I had a politics professor in the UK who often talked about his envy of the post-secondary education in the US and his wish that Britain would duplicate it) There was a recent NYT article about a new trend of foreign states paying US universities to open campuses abroad. Anyway, researchers at these universities are the ones winning all the Nobel Prizes. It is largely unrelated to the early education system, although fixing its problems would certainly add to the number of people attending universities.
February 21, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to second icia's take on #1. My father, who started in last summer with the chain letters in praise of John McCain recently admonished me for contributing to political campaigns.
"All politicians are crooks, to one degree or another. You are a fool to give them your money," he said.
"Even St. John of the 100 years?" I replied.
His response? "Even McCain is probably, to some degree, a crook. I am convinced he is a sincere patriot, but he is still a politician. I have paid his salary for years with my taxes, and I will be darned if his campaign gets a dime from me."
I am believe that a large number of people who vote a straight Republican ticket are, like my father, actually convinced that they are hard-nosed, realistic independents. You would never see them overtly support their candidate of choice with money or with the implicit declaration of loyalty that comes with voting in a primary. But when someone asks their opinion, or when the election rolls around their true colors come out.
February 22, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Balrog,
Indeed, I remember some politician saying that Texan Independents are actually quite conservative.
Thanks for your comments all of you.
February 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, I am John Wieder from US Congressional District TX-22. This should be the year that
we all vote for third party Challengers. It is
the only real way to affect change in government.
May GOD bless all of us, U.S. Too!!! John Wieder
US Congressional District Texas #22.
October 5, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment