Owen Rice has a series of cool charts that show optimal classification location of members of congress and “cutting lines” on various votes. The way it works is first you locate members, based on their votes, into a two-dimensional ideological space. Then on any given vote you can create a “cutting line” across the ideological space that does the best possible job of correcting sorting members into yeas and nays. That helps you get a sense of the underlying dynamic of the issue.

Here’s an example of a vote that broke down on pure party lines:

Kevin Drum wants to know why the optimal classification comes out this way:

Actually, though, I think I’m more interested in the placement of senators themselves. Democrats are almost all bunched into a single grouping, with only four outliers. Republicans, by contrast, are spread through considerably more space on both the economic and social dimensions. That doesn’t seem intuitively right to me, but it strikes me as more complimentary toward Republicans than Democrats. So tell me again why they want to defund pointy-headed political scientists?

It’s not intuitively right. What I think it is is an illustration of the importance of setting the agenda. The Democratic leadership has only brought to a vote bills that unite the overwhelming majority of Democrats. Consequently, a visualization based on votes of the 111th Senate shows the Democrats as enormously bunched-together. If you look at the House where Nancy Pelosi doesn’t need a unanimous caucus to pass bills, you see that Democrats and Republicans are about equally dispersed. If Republicans were to capture the House and pick up some Senate seats in 2010, then legislation would more often be focused on issues that split the party caucuses (education, immigration) and the visualizations would look different.

Atta Mohammad Noor, governor of Balkh province in Northern Afghanistan says:

“Karzai is a thief of people’s votes. Democracy has been buried in Afghanistan. He’s not a lawful president,” Mr. Atta said in an interview in his vast rococo-styled office, as turbaned supplicants lined up to petition for his help in resolving court cases and disputes with local authorities.

At the moment, the mainstays of the Karzai government in Afghanistan are the non-Pashto areas of Afghanistan where there’s a great deal of popular hostility to the Taliban. But its precisely for that reason that Karzai, a Pashto, was picked to lead Afghanistan. The view was that such a person would have the most legitimacy in the most contested areas. The risk with what’s now happened in the election is that Karzai will either start to lose his Tajik support and his government will become untenable, or else that to prevent that from happening the government will need to shift all the way in the direction of him basically being a frontman for a Fahim/Dostum Tajik/Uzbek warlord coalition that has no support in Pashto areas.

Politicians love commissions. They love them so much that journalists have come to love cynically deriding them. So now that talk of a “budget commission” to tackle the long-term deficit is in the air, people are being cynical about it. I actually think commissions are a pretty good idea since congress is so bad at designing policy. The real question is what would a serious budget commission look like?

I think Pete Davis and Bruce Bartlett have some pretty good posts on this matter. I would say the most important thing is for congress to not entirely abdicate its policymaking role. The key is to actually tell the commission, in a real way, what it wants studied. Reduce the deficit to such-and-such a percent of GDP relative to baseline and do it this percent with tax cuts and this percent with spending cuts. That’s a real mandate, and exactly the sort of decision elected officials should be making. Similarly, if congress wants the Pentagon to get special treatment, they should say so. With that done, having a commission try to work out the details within the framework of a congressional mandate makes sense.

Enjoying fast, fast broadband in Stockholm (my photo, available under cc license)

It’s pretty well-known at this point* that despite the fact that the Internet was largely invented in the United States and that most of the iconic Internet brands are US companies, that America is only a mediocre performer in terms of quality of broadband access and depth of broadband penetration. These points are, however, often made in a pretty superficial way. This recent major study from the Berkman Center (see more discussion) breaks the information down in a more sophisticated way. That shows that some things aren’t quite as they initially seem—Canada and Norway both look worse, for example—but that the US remains a middling performer.

Their main policy conclusion is that “open access” policies of the sort the United States had in the mid-1990s but then abandoned are common across all the high performing nations:

Our most surprising and significant finding is that “open access” policies—unbundling, bitstream access, collocation requirements, wholesaling, and/or functional separation—are almost universally understood as having played a core role in the first generation transition to broadband in most of the high performing countries; that they now play a core role in planning for the next generation transition; and that the positive impact of such policies is strongly supported by the evidence of the first generation broadband transition.

The importance of these policies in other countries is particularly surprising in the context of U.S. policy debates throughout most of this decade. While Congress adopted various open access provisions in the almost unanimously-approved Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC decided to abandon this mode of regulation for broadband in a series of decisions in 2001 and 2002. Open access has been largely treated as a closed issue in U.S. policy debates ever since. Yet the evidence suggests that transposing the experience of open access policy from the first generation transition to the next generation is playing a central role in current planning exercises throughout the highest performing countries. In Japan and South Korea, the two countries that are half a generation ahead of the next best performers, this has taken the form of opening up not only the fiber infrastructure (Japan) but also requiring mobile broadband access providers to open up their networks to competitors.

In leading countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, following the earlier example of the United Kingdom, regulators are addressing the complexities of applying open access policy to next-generation infrastructure by pushing their telecommunications incumbents to restructure their operations and functionally separate their units that sell access to network infrastructure from their units that sell connectivity directly to consumers. Moreover, countries that long resisted the implementation of open access policies, Switzerland and New Zealand, changed course and shifted to open access policies in 2006.

We should do this! The main common denominator, I think, is that the high-performing countries are generally places where electronics manufacturers have more political clout than telecom firms and thus are able to force implementation of these open access policies. The United States, meanwhile, is really shooting ourselves in the foot. The software/media nexus of industries is very important to our economy—these are the things we do well—and we’re letting ourselves be stifled by basically useless telecom firms.

Read more