Feeds:
Posts
Comments
NH House in 2 Dimensions

Ideal Points of NH State Legislators in 2 Dimensions (Click to Expand)

The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance does a Liberty Rating each year in which they analyze liberty-related roll-call votes of state representatives and senators and grade them. (The NHLA is a great government accountability organization, by the way, and well worth supporting; a lifetime membership is only $100.)

I used their roll-call votes for the 2014 N.H. House of Representatives but analyzed them differently (I also corrected three errors in their spreadsheet). The vast majority of roll-call votes are on economic issues, where conservative Republicans and libertarians line up. So the Liberty Rating might overstate how libertarian conservative House members really are, if those social issues that are voted on are disproportionately important. The Liberty Rating tries to assess how important each vote is, but the way they do it is arbitrary and subject to dispute (for instance, they rate a bill restricting the sharing of public school student information as highest-priority, on a level with legalizing marijuana and three times as important as a bill enacting occupational licensure of medical technicians). Furthermore, some of their bills are disputably freedom-related: they rated as negative a bill creating a new crime of “domestic violence.” Now, that bill might or might not have been a good idea, but it doesn’t seem like a liberty-related issue, unless you’re an anarchist who wants to legalize everything, including violence.

I used Item Response Theory in a Bayesian framework to estimate the ideal points of legislators in two dimensions. Let me unpack that statement for the layman. I let the data speak for itself. If legislators who generally voted libertarian voted in favor of a bill, the data are telling me that that bill is liberty-enhancing. If legislators who generally vote libertarian split on a bill, then maybe it’s not a liberty issue. Some votes might be “harder” or “easier” than others, like questions on a test. Even a pretty libertarian legislator might vote the wrong way on a hard vote, like a bill legalizing physician-assisted suicide (“Death with Dignity”, HB 1325 in 2014), which failed 219-66.

Using the R package “pscl,” I first hypothesized that all 93 roll-call votes in 2014 reflected a single ideological dimension: each legislator’s degree of libertarian-ness. We could line up all legislators’ ideal points in ideological space along a single line, and that line would be the best way to predict how all the legislators vote on any given issue.

That hypothesis ended up being wrong. On 84 roll-call votes, I couldn’t reject that hypothesis, but on 9, I could. Those were votes on which those voters who tended to vote in a libertarian direction on the other 84 votes tended to vote in an anti-libertarian direction instead – and conversely, those voters who usually voted anti-libertarian actually tended to vote libertarian on those 9 votes.

What were those 9 votes?

  1. HB1237, prohibiting local sex-offender residency restrictions (passed 231-97)
  2. HB1325, Death with Dignity (failed 66-219)
  3. HB1501, mandating licensing of outpatient abortion facilities (killed 211-86) (the NHLA generally stays out of abortion bills, but they believed, and I agree, that business licensing is the wrong way for pro-lifers to restrict abortion)
  4. HB1577, allowing alkaline hydrosis for the disposal of human remains (passed 209-116)
  5. HB1624, modernizing the juvenile justice system (passed 256-40)
  6. HB1625, decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana (passed 215-92)
  7. HB249, mandating employer use of E-Verify (killed 266-68)
  8. HB492, legalizing marijuana (passed 170-162)
  9. SB296, discriminating in favor of veterans in public employment (killed 210-128)

What do all these issues have in common? They’re social issues on which libertarians make common cause with the left! And note that apart from Death with Dignity, libertarians won on every one of these bills. Part of that has to do with the fact that socially liberal Democrats were in the majority in 2014, and part of it has to do with the fact that libertarians are numerous enough in the House to swing some close votes, like the legalization of marijuana.

There were also a few votes without a clear libertarian position; in statistical jargon, they didn’t “load” onto the first ideological dimension at all:

  1. SB318, establishing the crime of domestic violence (passed 325-3)
  2. SB336, banning deer baiting on public land (killed 200-85)
  3. SB366, establishing two casinos in New Hampshire (killed 173-172)

Arguably these roll-calls shouldn’t have been included in the Liberty Rating.

So I divided the roll-call votes into two groups: Continue Reading »

Midweek Links

Here are a few interesting links to help get you over hump day.

Thomas Edsall (NY Times) on the impact of Obamacare on the Democratic Party. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) attributed the difficulties faced by Democrats to the strategic error of passing the Affordable Care Act immediately rather that addressing the economic struggles of the working and middle classes. Edsall has a lengthy essay that reviews both the reaction (best quote from Nancy Pelosi: “We come here to do a job, not keep a job.”) and the merits of Schumer’s argument. The conclusion:

the Democratic plan for victory by demographics could implode, which would make the case for a full scale re-evaluation of its strategies and policies glaringly obvious. Whatever you think of Senator Schumer, you begin to understand why he spoke out as forcefully as he did.

Continue Reading »

Once and Future King

Frank Buckley was kind enough to send me a copy of his new book, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America, and now seems like an appropriate time to post my review.

Buckley argues persuasively — and surprisingly — that the Founders intended to establish a semi-parliamentary form of government in Philadelphia in 1787. But the rise of democracy, especially the popular election of the president, empowered the executive and led by the 1830s to a new form of government: separation-of-powers presidentialism. Most political scientists still perceive the U.S. system as one of extreme checks and balances, but Buckley argues that we have now progressed to yet another constitutional order, marked by executive dominance, the “elective monarchy” that the Founders feared so much. The impetus for this change has been the rise of a vast regulatory apparatus: “Modernity, in the form of the regulatory state, is the enemy of the separation of powers and diffuse power, and insists on one-man rule” (p. 6).

When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, they first dealt with a “Virginia Plan” that had the president elected by Congress, the Senate chosen by the House from states’ nominees, and no executive veto. The plan was clearly parliamentary. The changes that occurred, to an electoral college process for the President, to an executive veto, and to state legislative selection of the Senate, were largely the product of compromises between states’-rights and nationalist factions at the Convention. The Framers did not anticipate direct popular election of the President, and in fact they thought that in most presidential election years, no candidate would win a majority, throwing the choice to states’ House of Representatives delegations. Some delegates claimed that a directly elected President would be a dangerous seed of demagogic monarchy.

F.H. Buckley

F.H. Buckley

In the 19th century, the progress of democracy caused the British and Canadian constitutions to cross paths with the American one. In the U.S., the electoral college became toothless, and Presidents were effectively directly elected by the people. In Britain and Canada, the monarch and the upper house lost legitimacy as nondemocratic bodies, and electoral reform in the U.K.’s House of Commons gave it democratic legitimacy and the upper hand in any battles among the branches. By the time Canada adopted its institutions under the British North America Act of 1867, they were consciously copying a fused legislative-executive, parliamentary system that had emerged in Great Britain, what Walter Bagehot referred to as “the efficient secret” of the British constitution. While the U.S. now featured strong separation of powers, Britain and Canada concentrated power in the Prime Minister.

Today, political scientists still teach that presidents are less powerful than prime ministers, because their legislative role is weak. The U.S. system has more veto players, and as a result policy change is slower.

Buckley acknowledges the logic of the traditional political science approach, but his story doesn’t end there. Continue Reading »

“Democrats must embrace government. It’s what we believe in; it’s what unites our party; and, most importantly, it’s the only thing that’s going to get the middle class going again.”

“Even this past election — a debacle for Democrats — was not a repudiation of government,” according to Senator Schumer (D-NY) in a speech to the National Press Club.   It was a repudiation of government incompetence.

“As 2014 began, the parties were in stalemate. But, when government failed to deliver on a string of non-economic issues — the roll out of Obamacare exchanges, the mishandling of the surge in border crossers, ineptitude at the VA , the initial handling of the Ebola threat, people lost faith in the government’s ability to work, and then blamed the incumbent governing party, the Democrats, creating a Republican wave.”

Two thoughts: (1) Given that both parties embrace government, this seems like a rather limited means of distinguishing the Democratic brand from the Republican brand. (2) But taking the Senator at his word–the Democratic Party is the party that “must embrace government” –and recalling that the Democratic Party was, in fact,  in control of government, one might have hoped that the speech would have juxtaposed the list of failures with a similar list of successes. Perhaps we will have to wait for 2016.

I have not found a full transcript of the speech. But there is a good deal of coverage  (NYT , Washington Post, Roll Call, and National Journal). Senator Schumer’s reflections on Obamacare are particularly interesting.

 

#25N
Catalan President Artur Mas gave a major speech tonight, which fortunately Liz Castro live-translated on Twitter. To review, here’s where we are now: Catalonia held an informal plebiscite on independence on November 9, which the Constitutional Court had suspended, and 81% of voters supported independence. The Spanish state has refused to negotiate any constitutional revision that would permit a binding referendum on independence, and the state prosecutor has filed criminal charges against Artur Mas and two other cabinet ministers for going ahead with an informal poll. And a new poll (not from CEO, the Catalan government pollster) shows significant majority support for independence among those with an opinion, including support for a unilateral declaration of independence if independentists win the next election.

Since Spain has closed off all legal means to secession, the Catalans are now looking at extralegal means. In tonight’s artur masaddress, President Mas endorsed “plebiscitary elections” to the Catalan Parliament (previously discussed here). A unified pro-independence list would run in early elections, and if and only if that list obtained a majority of votes and seats, the new Catalan Parliament would declare its intention to secede. Within 18 months, it would set up the institutions of a new state and set the framework for elections to a constituent assembly that would draft a new constitution and declare independence. Anyone who runs on the unified list in the next election would be ineligible to run for the constituent assembly in the subsequent election. Mas himself says he will step down from Parliament at the end of the 18-month term if the plebiscitary election yields a pro-independence majority.

The unified pro-independence list would include members of all pro-independence parties as well as pro-independence members of civil society. Interestingly, Mas’ own party, a federation of a pro-independence party and a much smaller pro-federalism party, looks set to break apart now. The Catalan Republican Left (ERC), the second-largest party in Parliament, wants early elections now and an immediate declaration of independence if secessionists win a majority in that election. They have not ruled out participating in a unified list, however. A small, hard-left, secessionist party, CUP, has ruled out participating in such a list.

There are likely to be several consequences of Mas’ announcement. First, Continue Reading »

I am pleased to be a part of a new initiative to teach moral philosophy, economics, and public policy to high schoolers and policymakers, Ethics and Economics Education of New England (E3NE). High schoolers get too little instruction in economics and usually none at all in moral philosophy, at the moment when they are first starting to try to make sense of the social and political world. We’re trying to solve that problem with Ethics & Economics Challenge, a program involving weekly discussions in schools, free books, and an end-of-year speech competition in which they can win college scholarships. We’re also bringing expert guidance on public policy to state legislators with Big Idea Conferences, focusing on issues where state policies differ widely from an expert consensus (e.g., occupational licensing, exclusionary zoning, public pension funding).

Along with myself, several people associated with Pileus are also involved in E3NE: TFAS President Roger Ream, former Pileus blogger Jim Otteson, and my sometime coauthor Will Ruger.

After Thanksgiving we will be having a fundraising campaign. We have four schools interested in starting E&E Challenge in the spring, but we need money for scholarships, books, and the costs of driving to the schools. Our Board member Matt Philips is generously funding my salary. Every little bit helps, so we appreciate your support. For now, please visit our website, and stay tuned!

President Obama is preparing to issue an executive order on immigration—the executive action that has been promised for some time. As one might guess, the NYT editorial board is pleased. Some supporters of liberalized immigration (including a path to citizenship) are concerned over the damage that Obama’s actions will do to the rule of law. As Damon Linker (The Week) explains:

The rule of law is far more about how things are done than about what is done. If Obama does what he appears poised to do, I won’t be the least bit troubled about the government breaking up fewer families and deporting fewer immigrants. But I will be deeply troubled about how the president went about achieving this goal — by violating the letter and the spirit of federal law.

Yes, yes, yes… presidents have taken extralegal action in the past—George W. Bush’s post-9/11 war on terror is a convenient case in point. But as Linker notes: “No matter how you feel about Bush’s actions, up until now, executive transgressions of the law have been made in the name of protecting the common good from a grave threat in a time of emergency.” Where is the emergency today?

Have we really gotten to the point where the executive can ignore and even violate, on the absurdly open-ended basis of “discretion,” the express intent of a federal law he is constitutionally empowered to execute — not because of an emergency, not because of a national threat, but merely because he wants to be a nice guy?

It appears that we have. Continue Reading »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,030 other followers

%d bloggers like this: