If you assume the total amount of corruption correlates to the number of convictions for it, this graph has some meaning. However, that's a pretty foolish assumption.

Good to know that Oregon is pretty clean, relatively speaking.

Snarfangel: Good to know that Oregon is pretty clean, relatively speaking.


I'm sure the meth arrests per 100,000 would tell a different story ...

kmmontandon: Snarfangel: Good to know that Oregon is pretty clean, relatively speaking.


I'm sure the meth arrests per 100,000 would tell a different story ...

Every state in the Union claims to be the meth capital of the world.

The meth capital of the world is actually Caracas. Little known fact... every state is really just the meth capital of the US

I don't know about Oregon, but I can attest that Iowa is actually as squeaky-clean as they say. Except in football: Iowa State's a bunch of cheating low-lifes.

LordPistachio If you assume the total amount of corruption correlates to the number of convictions for it, this graph has some meaning. However, that's a pretty foolish assumption.

So, apart from asking (and expecting honest answers from) every citizen/politician if they've ever been corrupt, how do you propose to study the relationship?

It's decent methodology, and you've exposed the major flaw. Any semi-competent researcher (or any researcher with integrity) would have written that into the published study, if there indeed is one. I'd be more interested to see charges vs. convictions by state (alongside this graph), who plead out and to what lesser charge, the politics of prosecuting attorneys vs their defendants (and the associated success/failure rates), and other data that triangulates this point. And hey, if the results don't match expectations, we can all feel better about ourselves!

// or manipulate the results. Yeah, that'd work better
// MD resident
// bottom 1/3rd corrupt

California is pretty good considering there are 45 million+ people in the state

d'art: I don't know about Oregon, but I can attest that Iowa is actually as squeaky-clean as they say. Except in football: Iowa State's a bunch of cheating low-lifes.

Yes, damn them and their 2-9 (10?) record this year.

Britney Spear's Speculum: California is pretty good considering there are 45 million+ people in the state

California and Texas both are pretty good, considering the population.

Louisiana doesn't surprise me one bit.

LordPistachio: If you assume the total amount of corruption correlates to the number of convictions for it, this graph has some meaning. However, that's a pretty foolish assumption.

Yeah, pretty much. In Louisiana there are certainly more convictions total, but how many low-level government cronies equal one governor?

Part of the reason why the Western states are reasonably free of corruption results from the influence of the Progressive movement during the early part of the 20th Century. For all the idiocy that can result from mechanisms such as virtually unrestricted use of ballot initiatives and referenda, fast and easy recall provisions, and similar "good government" institutions, they have made corruption much easier to deal with. If Blago was governor of a Western state, he'd be recalled faster than you can say "Gray Davis."

So what about states that have teams in multiple conferences? Like Wisconsin with UW and Marquette?

/DNRTFA

Shvetz: LordPistachio: If you assume the total amount of corruption correlates to the number of convictions for it, this graph has some meaning. However, that's a pretty foolish assumption.

Yeah, pretty much. In Louisiana there are certainly more convictions total, but how many low-level government cronies equal one governor?

Oops, misread your comment. I do agree with what you're saying though. Either way, I'm sure Louisiana has a ton of corruption that goes unconvicted. Jefferson only got caught because he had $90,000 stuffed in his freezer, and he's only been indicted, not definitively convicted.

In all fairness, Florida is only that high because the two states directly under it, NJ and NY, gave Florida a lot of residents.

Why is this douche defending bad politics? If Chicago has corrupt politicians (regardless of affiliation), they should be repudiated and brought on charges, not compared to other, more corrupt states.

BMulligan: Part of the reason why the Western states are reasonably free of corruption results from the influence of the Progressive movement during the early part of the 20th Century. For all the idiocy that can result from mechanisms such as virtually unrestricted use of ballot initiatives and referenda, fast and easy recall provisions, and similar "good government" institutions, they have made corruption much easier to deal with. If Blago was governor of a Western state, he'd be recalled faster than you can say "Gray Davis."

It has nothing to do w/ their lack of population?

I would've expected my state (MA) to be higher. I think that's because they just get away with their corruption...

dogdaze: It has nothing to do w/ their lack of population?

Two trivia questions for you:

(1) What is the most populous state in the nation?

(2) What state did Gray Davis formerly govern?

/Washington is the 14th most populous
//Oregon is 27th

Dr Dreidel: LordPistachio If you assume the total amount of corruption correlates to the number of convictions for it, this graph has some meaning. However, that's a pretty foolish assumption.

So, apart from asking (and expecting honest answers from) every citizen/politician if they've ever been corrupt, how do you propose to study the relationship?

It's decent methodology, and you've exposed the major flaw. Any semi-competent researcher (or any researcher with integrity) would have written that into the published study, if there indeed is one. I'd be more interested to see charges vs. convictions by state (alongside this graph), who plead out and to what lesser charge, the politics of prosecuting attorneys vs their defendants (and the associated success/failure rates), and other data that triangulates this point. And hey, if the results don't match expectations, we can all feel better about ourselves!

// or manipulate the results. Yeah, that'd work better
// MD resident
// bottom 1/3rd corrupt

I think this is a reasonable view. A second weakness is that it apparently treats every corruption conviction as a single, equally weighted data point; they could probably stand to do a study taking into account the relative magnitude of each incident, although that would complicate things exponentially -- there's sometimes more at stake than dollars, you have to figure out how to account for rings with multiple players, etc. etc.

Oh yeah, and I guess a third weakness is that only 35 states are listed.

/Pacific Northwesterner, therefore unimpeachable

BMulligan: dogdaze: It has nothing to do w/ their lack of population?

Two trivia questions for you:

(1) What is the most populous state in the nation?

(2) What state did Gray Davis formerly govern?

/Washington is the 14th most populous
//Oregon is 27th

A third question you could have asked: what does "per 100,000 residents" mean?

No wonder my Gamecocks have never won an SEC title. We're not corrupt enough.

Treygreen13: Britney Spear's Speculum: California is pretty good considering there are 45 million+ people in the state

California and Texas both are pretty good, considering the population.

Louisiana doesn't surprise me one bit.

California: 36,553,215
Texas: 23,904,380

wikipedia^


That number seems low. I remember reading it was above 45 million. Even the census confirms the number at 36 million.

Woohoo. Louisiana, finally made it to the top of a list.

/hey I live here, I got to be proud about something
//still have the country's biggest party

Dr Dreidel: LordPistachio If you assume the total amount of corruption correlates to the number of convictions for it, this graph has some meaning. However, that's a pretty foolish assumption.

So, apart from asking (and expecting honest answers from) every citizen/politician if they've ever been corrupt, how do you propose to study the relationship?

It's decent methodology, and you've exposed the major flaw. Any semi-competent researcher (or any researcher with integrity) would have written that into the published study, if there indeed is one. I'd be more interested to see charges vs. convictions by state (alongside this graph), who plead out and to what lesser charge, the politics of prosecuting attorneys vs their defendants (and the associated success/failure rates), and other data that triangulates this point. And hey, if the results don't match expectations, we can all feel better about ourselves!

// or manipulate the results. Yeah, that'd work better
// MD resident
// bottom 1/3rd corrupt

It'd be better to use the size of the government, not the population. If two states have 10 corrupt politicians out of 100, I'd say they are equally corrupt regardless of population.

I wonder how much the other 15 states paid to get omitted from the list.

Also, most convictions = least corruption, because if the people there were really corrupt they would simply buy the judge and jury.

d'art: I don't know about Oregon, but I can attest that Iowa is actually as squeaky-clean as they say.

Cunningham unavailable for comment for the next 7 years.

But yeah, overall Iowa is pretty clean.

Britney Spear's Speculum: California: 36,553,215
Texas: 23,904,380

wikipedia^


That number seems low. I remember reading it was above 45 million. Even the census confirms the number at 36 million.

They probably are not factoring in the illegals...

#4 Alabama. We are more corrupt than even Illinois, way to represent!

Super Chronic: A third question you could have asked: what does "per 100,000 residents" mean?

Sure, I could have asked that - if I had RTFA!

Iowa and Minn were 2 of the bottom 3 and the big10 gets lumped placed in the number 2 spot?

why no love for the big10?

monoski: Britney Spear's Speculum: California: 36,553,215
Texas: 23,904,380

wikipedia^


That number seems low. I remember reading it was above 45 million. Even the census confirms the number at 36 million.

They probably are not factoring in the illegals...


They probably can't.

I think this study has it backwards. I'd say corruption is pretty even spread out, and each conviction means there is one less corrupt official there.....making that place less corrupt.

Good for you, Louisiana.

One would think corruption begets corruption so a realistic scale per residents would be an exponential curvature as you get to states with a larger populace. Or a higher percentage of politicians like in DC.

/Im an english major, but it makes sense to me!

I think this shows who has the stupider politicians per capita than who is the most corrupt. Or mabye who has better law enforcement.

That's like saying that a speed trap is where the worst speeding takes place because that's where so many tickets are written.

This is one of those times when the media is just asinine in their stupidity.

Wooooo! Pac-10!

/Rooting for USC in the Rose Bowl.

Dr Dreidel: So, apart from asking (and expecting honest answers from) every citizen/politician if they've ever been corrupt, how do you propose to study the relationship?

Statistics has actually come up with an answer to this. I'll try to remember it best I can here, but essentially what they do is ask a control question that they know the answer to, and from that, you can determine the number of liars in what is your statistically significant and independent sample. Based on that liar ratio, they can apply that math to the drug use survey poll to get a much clearer idea of what percentage of the populace is using.


It's something along these lines, anyway. I'm sure I'm missing a few details, but that's the general idea. If any college farkers happen to have a Stats 101 book handy, that methodology is likely in there. It was certainly in mine :)

Fish in a Barrel: It'd be better to use the size of the government, not the population. If two states have 10 corrupt politicians out of 100, I'd say they are equally corrupt regardless of population.

But how would you judge the size of government? Number of elected officials? Number of elected and appointed officials? Total number of non-federal government workers?

This data was something someone put together when they were bored. While more in-depth numbers would be nice, it would take significantly more effort to accurately get those numbers.

Britney Spear's Speculum: That number seems low. I remember reading it was above 45 million. Even the census confirms the number at 36 million.

That's 36 million legal residents.

Snarfangel: Good to know that Oregon is pretty clean, relatively speaking.

Bullshiat. Oregon is Washington's Mexico.

p the boiler: Iowa and Minn were 2 of the bottom 3 and the big10 gets lumped placed in the number 2 spot?

why no love for the big10?

Even the name of the conference is corrupt.

Am I reading the graph wrong, or are there states missing?

I'm very curious to see how North Dakota ranks after the last article I saw posted about this on Fark claimed it to be America's most corrupt state. A stat that flew in the face of common sense.

I'd be curious to see how the legal/political systems are set up in each state (elected judges, unicameral legislature, term limits, etc ...) might influence its ranking.

gustakooka: I think this study has it backwards. I'd say corruption is pretty even spread out, and each conviction means there is one less corrupt official there.....making that place less corrupt.

Good for you, Louisiana.

Not sure if I was supposed to, but I LOL'd.

DipsomaniacDawg: Snarfangel: Good to know that Oregon is pretty clean, relatively speaking.

Bullshiat. Oregon is Washington's Mexico.

Said like someone who's never stepped foot in this state. I try to have a pretty open minded perspective on regions, and not get into the regional pride crap, but having been around a few places I'd say that Oregon is definitely one of the better States. That is to say, Washington is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

kasmel: Said like someone who's never stepped foot in this state. I try to have a pretty open minded perspective on regions, and not get into the regional pride crap, but having been around a few places I'd say that Oregon is definitely one of the better States. That is to say, Washington is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.


Even though the Sonics were stolen from us, we still have two more pro sports teams than Oregon.

As much as I like to make fun of our southern neighbors, they make some damn fine beer, Pinot Noir, and you have to love tax-free shopping.

The_Sponge: Even though the Sonics were stolen from us, we still have two one more pro sports team than Oregon.

As much as I like to make fun of our southern neighbors, they make some damn fine beer, Pinot Noir, and you have to love tax-free shopping.


Whoops....FTFM.

/Fark you, Clay Bennett and David Stern.

USCLaw2010: No wonder my Gamecocks have never won an SEC title. We're not corrupt enough.

Yeah, that must be it. Or maybe the ol' pole-smoker you have coaching the team.

Mr_Fabulous: Yeah, that must be it. Or maybe the ol' pole-smoker you have coaching the team.

That's a good point. What would Spurrier know about SEC titles?