This page presents visualizations of IQ estimates provided by Van Sloan, election results from Dave Leip, and philanthropic performance from the Generosity Index. Kudos to Steve Sailer for debunking the hoax that's been floating around since 2002. It purports to show that IQ scores in states that voted for Bush are lower, on average.

I disagree with Van's way of presenting such data, because it credits a state's IQ to the winning candidate for that state regardless of the winning margin. This introduces what amounts to a huge rounding error for each state. My method is more granular, working with the actual margins. I disagree even more with Douglas Waage's approach, which I think amplifies Van's rounding error by weighting each state according to the number of residents, rather than the number of voters. It seems to me that we're trying to describe who voted one way or another, rather than describe what the states are like where such people voted.

The latest addition is the Generosity Index. It's the one variable that yields amazing results, which I'll note following the IQ charts.

The following table rounds more precise numbers used to generate the charts; don't be too annoyed if you see a handful of lines that don't make up 100%.

State Bush Kerry Other IQ Income (K$) Generosity
Alabama 62% 37% 1% 97 26 5
Alaska 62% 35% 3% 101 34 24
Arizona 55% 44% 1% 100 27 39
Arkansas 54% 45% 1% 98 24 2
California 44% 54% 1% 100 34 29
Colorado 53% 46% 1% 102 34 43
Connecticut 44% 54% 2% 102 43 44
Delaware 46% 53% 1% 99 33 33
District of Columbia 9% 89% 1% 95 33  
Florida 52% 47% 1% 98 48 18
Georgia 58% 41% 1% 97 30 19
Hawaii 45% 54% 1% 99 29 37
Idaho 68% 30% 1% 100 31 10
Illinois 45% 55% 1% 102 26 31
Indiana 60% 39% 1% 99 34 25
Iowa 50% 49% 1% 102 29 27
Kansas 62% 36% 1% 102 29 17
Kentucky 60% 40% 1% 97 30 20
Louisiana 57% 42% 1% 97 26 4
Maine 45% 53% 2% 100 26 32
Maryland 43% 56% 1% 101 29 30
Massachusetts 37% 62% 1% 103 37 49
Michigan 48% 51% 1% 101 40 42
Minnesota 48% 51% 1% 102 30 45
Mississippi 60% 39% 1% 94 34 1
Missouri 53% 46% 1% 101 23 22
Montana 59% 39% 2% 102 28 21
Nebraska 66% 32% 1% 102 26 14
Nevada 51% 48% 2% 100 31 40
New Hampshire 49% 50% 1% 104 31 50
New Jersey 46% 53% 1% 100 35 47
New Mexico 50% 49% 1% 96 40 23
New York 40% 58% 2% 101 26 26
North Carolina 56% 43% 0% 97 37 16
North Dakota 63% 35% 2% 102 28 15
Ohio 51% 49% 0% 101 29 28
Oklahoma 66% 34% 0% 102 30 3
Oregon 47% 51% 1% 103 27 36
Pennsylvania 49% 51% 1% 100 29 41
Rhode Island 39% 59% 2% 100 32 48
South Carolina 58% 41% 1% 94 32 9
South Dakota 60% 38% 2% 100 26 7
Tennessee 57% 43% 1% 97 29 6
Texas 61% 38% 1% 97 28 12
Utah 71% 26% 3% 101 28 8
Vermont 39% 59% 2% 102 25 35
Virginia 54% 45% 1% 100 31 38
Washington 46% 53% 2% 102 34 34
West Virginia 56% 43% 1% 100 24 13
Wisconsin 49% 50% 1% 103 31 46
Wyoming 69% 29% 2% 101 33 11

I'm not a statistician, but I thought that the simplest visualization would involve sorting on columns and doing trendlines on the IQ and Income sets. I welcome feedback from anyone who thinks I'm either stoned or at least somewhat bright for doing it this way.  |-)

The first chart sorts on Bush's percentages. States with the least support for Bush are to the left (ascending sort). I've elided the horizontal labels; the actual state names don't matter to me much for these charts.

The IQ trendline seems too flat to care about. The income is pretty flat too,

Unrelated thought: the space between Kerry's and Bush's lines is, I believe, an indicator of how secure their advantage is in the states. I see that Bush has a lot more space to the right of the swing area where the lines cross. Obviously population matters, but it's clear that Bush's lead is more secure in more states.

Next, a sort on Kerry's column, mutatis mutandis.

Again, the IQ trendline is agnostic about the candidate. Pretty much a mirror of the previous chart  (the only reason to do these sorts separately is the effect of 3rd party candidates).

The third party candidates yield percentages too low to make for helpful charts.

Final chart: sort on intelligence and show some trendlines for the candidates.

I don't know about you, but this leaves me amused by all the arguments about this issue. My conclusions? No candidate attracted voters from "smarter" states. The notion that an incredibly narrow point spread could possibly be the principal determinant of presidential choice seems, itself, stupid.

Oh, ok. One more. Sorted on income.

Now for the "Generosity Index." The site offers an Excel sheet with indices covering (a) all income brackets taken together, and (b) specific ranges of income.

State All 75-100 100-200 200+
Mississippi 1 1 2 4
Arkansas 2 2 8 14
Oklahoma 3 10 4 8
Louisiana 4 12 11 38
Alabama 5 8 6 9
Tennessee 6 4 19 7
South Dakota 7 3 16 23
Utah 8 7 1 5
South Carolina 9 9 5 1
Idaho 10 5 9 15
Wyoming 11 6 3 25
Texas 12 24 28 35
West Virginia 13 11 13 24
Nebraska 14 16 10 19
North Dakota 15 13 20 10
North Carolina 16 15 25 12
Kansas 17 17 17 11
Florida 18 20 33 36
Georgia 19 23 27 16
Kentucky 20 14 12 13
Montana 21 18 30 6
Missouri 22 21 18 37
New Mexico 23 26 24 18
Alaska 24 34 14 20
Indiana 25 19 7 22
New York 26 45 46 33
Iowa 27 22 15 3
Ohio 28 25 29 17
California 29 42 47 45
Maryland 30 32 37 31
Illinois 31 43 40 47
Maine 32 27 41 27
Delaware 33 39 36 40
Washington 34 37 31 39
Vermont 35 31 44 28
Oregon 36 30 35 2
Hawaii 37 41 23 21
Virginia 38 35 42 26
Arizona 39 28 32 41
Nevada 40 33 26 34
Pennsylvania 41 38 38 42
Michigan 42 36 21 30
Colorado 43 44 43 29
Connecticut 44 49 48 49
Minnesota 45 40 34 32
Wisconsin 46 29 22 46
New Jersey 47 48 49 50
Rhode Island 48 46 39 43
Massachusetts 49 50 50 48
New Hampshire 50 47 45 44

Here's a chart sorted by generosity rank with trendlines on the margins:

It's incontrovertible that the predominantly Republican states are more philanthropic. Fascinating stuff.

 

Obviously there are a slew of issues the cursory analyses on this page do not take into account. This isn't a scientific analysis!

Comments? Fire away.

Some discussion thus far:

Usenet:

(1)

Last edit: 02/05/2007 18:15:40
Revision history:

11/17/2004 - Added the generosity chart.
11/14/2004 - Added the generosity index.
11/12/2004 - Darren and Elko pointed out a couple gaffes. Results are not appreciably affected.