Demographics is Destiny: Score GOP 2.57 to Dems 1.71
Posted by: Chuck DeVore | 09/06/2007 4:42 PM
Demographics is Destiny – a View from the Legislature
We’re on a half-hour break from our non-stop voting right now and my thoughts drifted back to this August 20 OCBlog post “Religion, Demographics and Red & Blue America” http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/08/religion-demogr.html.
The piece was a rehash of well-known data showing that socially conservative people tend to have more children and that because children typically follow the beliefs of their parents this has important long term implications for politics.
The post elicited some vigorous comments from the blogosphere. Joining the fray, I wrote, in part, “All this makes one wonder at the linkage with liberal secularist support for restricting growth through various measures (typically the environment these days) vs. conservative support for economic growth…”
Ever since that post, I wondered what a demographic snapshot of the 120 members of the Legislature would reveal. My statistics studies tell me that 120 is a large enough sample size to draw some conclusions. Well, I’ve crunched the numbers and here they are:
The 25 Democratic members of the State Senate have 47 children, or an average of 1.88 each.
The 48 Democratic members of the State Assembly (including new Congresswoman Laura Richardson who just left for D.C.) have 78 children, or an average of 1.63 each.
The Legislative average for the Democrats is 1.71 children per lawmaker.
The 15 Republican members of the State Senate have 42 children, or an average of 2.8 each.
The 32 Republican members of the State Assembly have 79 children, or an average of 2.47 each.
The Legislative average for the Republicans is 2.57 children per lawmaker.
Replacement fertility rate is generally thought to be 2.33 births per woman. Fertility rates below 2.33 will cause a population to shrink, above 2.33, and population will tend to grow.
Now, a statistician may observe that at these rates, the Democratic Party will cease to exist in California by about 2153, give or a take a couple of years (Note: tongue-in-cheek alert).
I’m more interested in what these fertility rates mean for public policy – in other words, do lawmakers with more children think differently about the future of California than do lawmakers without children?
In any event, the fertility rates of California’s own legislators tend to confirm the thesis of the study cited in the “Religion, Demographics and Red & Blue America” post of three weeks ago.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Did you factor in age -- are the Democrats younger, and have more child-bearing years in front of them? What about gays - do you factor them out?
I don't think age has much to do with it -- the data speaks for itself. What may have been more interesting, and counterintuitive, was if the liberals of the Legislature had, on average, more children than the Republicans. But, they don't. In fact, the numbers are vastly different. They'd be even more tilted in the GOP's favor were it not for moderate Democrat Senator Negrete-McCloud's 10 children.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
God Chuck, I can't tell if this is a joke or not.
So, Chuck, if the CA Legislature is representative of the state as a whole, then...
Offspring of Democratic Senators outnumber those of Republicans 47 to 42.
Number of children of Democratic Assemblymembers is SLIGHTLY outnumbered by the children of Republicans 78D to 79R.
Overall, among legislators, children of Democrats totals 125, Republicans have 121.
I don't think Democrats are in trouble of disappearing from the state any time soon!
DanC, a "joke"? Not really. A fun little study to follow up to a posting from three weeks ago, yes. Based on factual data? Yes.
Publius, I don't think you are getting the implications of demographics and the effects of generations. There are 73 legislative Democrats and 47 Republicans. It takes one couple having two children to live to adulthood for basic replacement (which is why replacement rate is 2.33). If 73 pairings produce 125 children, you can begin to see the mathematical difficulties. (For a serious look at this problem writ large, see the populations of Europe where, in 50 to 80 years or so, Arabs and Turks are projected to be the majority in Germany, France, etc.) So, running the math, you can input the following formula, offspring times the fertility rate divided by 2.33. Running this calculation out, assuming a generation is 35 years, you'll see that the larger Democratic legislative population of 73 potential pairings would be reduced to 2 people in 455 years... While the 47 Republican potential pairings would yield 432 people over the same time. Obviously, these effects are usually slow to occur, and other things can act to change trends (such as immigration and changes in average family size) but, as they say, "demographics is destiny."
All in all though, I was just trying to test the hypothesis that linked a liberal world view with a smaller family size and a conservative world view with a larger family size in my own working world of the Legislature. I did, and the hypothesis tested out. I found it interesting, that’s all.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
So I guess that the bottom line is that our children and grandchildren will end up paying off the debts incurred by the Dems in the Legislature and our profligate Governor. Help me out here, is this a good thing?
I was thinking of this topic this past weekend, when I watched the movie "Idiocracy" on cable.
It starts with a report that at the beginning of the 21st century, evolution started favoring not the intelligent ones but the ones who pro created the most. Thus, an educated couple waiting to have kids just at the right time never did, while the trailer trash couples continued to multiply. Fast forward 500 years, and our universe is inhabited by moronic people who cannot even take care of trash.
Hanna, was that the start 21st century or the 16th?
But Hanna, from an evolutionary standpoint, how smart is it to breed yourself out of existance? Not to mention the very troubling implications for our retirement systems. Ask the Japanese about that one...
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
Oh, well since its not a joke, then let me suggest we'll still have a Democratic majority long after you and I are dead and buried. Based on your own hypothesis of course. (Extreme snark added ;) )
Here's a thought, all we have to do is legalize all abortions and gay marriages...and in two generations there will be no Democrats