Diffusion of Innovations

Diffusion of Innovations

"Once the eighty-eight lists of dates of adoption were collected they were used to create an innovation score for each state. The first step was to count the total number of years, which elapsed between the first and last recorded legislative enactment of a program. Each state then received a number for each list, which corresponded to the percentage of time, which elapsed between the first adoption and its own acceptance of the program. For example, if the total time elapsing between the first and last adoption of a program was twenty years, and Massachusetts enacted the program ten years after the first adoption, then Massachusetts received a score of .500 on that particular issue. The first state to adopt the program received a score of .000 and the last state received a 1.000. In cases in which all the states have not yet adopted a program, the states without the program were placed last and given a score of 1.000.12 The in- novation score for each state is simply 1.000 minus the average of the sum of the state's scores on all issues. The larger the innovation score, therefore, the faster the state has been, on the average, in responding to new ideas or policies. The issues may be divided into groups according to subject matter areas or time periods, and separate scores can be created for these smaller groupings of issues by following the same procedure. The results of this scoring procedure, using all eighty-eight issues, are presented in Table 1."

This paragraph is from The American Political Science Review Journal titled “The diffusion of Innovations among the American States” and was written by Jack L Walker. Walker explains the different elements that make up the innovation scores and also different ways to come up with the innovation score. It is a scientific evidence based way some indications of the wealth of these states the more industrial states are more likely to adopt new programs quicker. There’s a list and every state has an innovation score based on all the issues and topics states go through. From these issues derived programs on how to deal or how to solve the problem. There are eighty-eight programs that the innovation scores are based on. The date the program was enacted by the government was calculated. Then the states were looked at individually according to the first adaptation of that one program, and the time is took each individual state to accept the program. The state was given a numerical value according to the time it took the state to do this. The first state to adopt the program will be scored as .000 and the last a score of 1.000. For the programs that aren’t adopted by every state such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, etc. the states that haven’t yet accepted the program gets a score of 1.000. After bringing all the scores of each individual program then everything is put together and 1.000 is subtracted from the average of the whole total. Basically the higher the score the quicker the state has been to adopt new programs. Walker also explains that the programs can be divided into separate groups according to subject, or time to come with an innovation score but the format stays the same. According to Table 1 New York has the highest innovation score which was .656 and Mississippi has the lowest score which was .298. So basically New York had been the quickest to adopt new programs when compared to the rest of the states in the USA. 

This paragraph is important because it explains an important part of the innovation scores. I believe the hardest part of the innovation score. It also gives an example. The rest of the article focuses more about the goal of this study. It demonstrated the surrounding states see change, and the majority of them follow the change. Change sometimes occurs to draw attention or people so profit will be gained by that state I think. Despite the efficient scientific way of calculating the innovation score it isn’t 100% accurate because a few important information has to be obtained, the original records and the cooperation of the government has to be maximized for the accuracy of the innovation score. I had no idea what an innovation score was and I had never herd it before my Politics 166 class lecture. I had to break this paragraph down to understand it completely; this was a very difficult document to read. The innovation score is important because it could be applied to budgeting and other forms of decision-making. This is because it starts off by looking at the speed that different states adopt new programs. The government can use this in their research when trying to pass a new program. But this paragraph of the article explains how the score is obtained which is very important. At the end of the day the states don’t have to accept the program, meaning they aren’t forced but there is a pattern on how states adopt these new programs. The innovation score is a part of a portrait, but the picture is much larger.    

Another stab at the Constitution

“The Constitution has failed to check this pathological process. The Eighth Amendment bans “cruel and unusual punishments”. And the requirement that a sentence be “unusual” has meant that the justices often do little more than count up states with similar sentences without looking at how states reached these outcome.”

In this quote by Racheal E Barkow from her “New York Times” article Revisiting the Constitution: Clarify What’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment, she believes prison uses punishment excessively. People are sentenced to prison and treated how ever the authority figures there, which are the correction officers the way they see fit. Also the judge that gave the sentence doesn’t see it through, therefore the authority figures take it into their own hands. Often the punishment crosses the line and become “ cruel and unusual”. This occurs despite what the Eighth Amendment bans. This is what I understood this quote meant.

I chose this quote because I disagree with Racheal E Barkow. I believe that different people have different views and beliefs therefore the Eighth Amendment shouldn’t be “clarified”. She didn’t specify in this article what exactly was going on that made prisons “cruel and unusual”, she didn’t support this article with any evidence, not even one example. In the judicial system when a crime is committed the judge and sometime the jury decide on the sentence if the person is proven guilty. They take all the evidence into consideration and the person is sentenced according to the crime they committed. I don’t believe someone that kills another person and gets sentenced 25 to life “cruel and unusual punishment”. Actually now the corrections department is trying to decrease jail time by offering rehab to people who are charged with drugs to prostitution, instead of jail time. If the Eighth Amendment is re-written it will leave too much room for speculation because everyone had they’re own perspective. They have their own beliefs and even though they try to not incorporate their beliefs in decision-making especially in politics it usual fails. Most of the time they do put their own beliefs onto others. Who is todays government to define “cruel and unusual punishment” when we have come so far from 1787, they didn’t have the weapons or resources we have now, they had less back then so I say leave it alone!

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence, the other by giving to every citizen the same opinions, 5 he same passions, and 53 same interests. 


It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life because its imparts to fire its destructive agency.

These paragraphs come from the article “The Federalist No. 10” by James Madison. The first paragraph is talking about ways to remove faction which is defined as a small, organized, dissenting group within a larger one, especially in politics or a state of conflict within an organization; dissension. One of the ways that faction could be destroyed is by destroying freedom, because without freedom there would be no faction. The other way to destroy faction would be to make everyone the same, force them ALL to have the same interests and beliefs, similar to a dictatorship. But in this case the cure for the problem is worse than the actual disease. The writer makes an example of the importance of freedom to faction by comparing it to the bon between air and fire. The bond between the two is very important, without air there would be no fire and without freedom there will be no faction, hence they can’t exist. Faction plays a big role in politics. If air doesn’t exist there would be no fire, which may be a good this but there also wouldn’t be any life, which isn’t a good thing. Its just like if the government gets rid of freedom, yes it would be getting rid of politics and faction but it will make life not worth living.

These paragraphs are important to me because I believe freedom is very important. I grew up the only girl out of four boys, and my older brother was very overprotective. While my brothers where able to go outside and do whatever they wanted I was to stay home, when I went to school I had to go straight home, until I was 16 years old then I got a 9pm curfew. A few months after I turned 18years old I rebelled and I moved out of my house. So if freedom is taken from all of us, it will cause people to rebel. We need our freedom and like James Madison said air is essential to life, freedom is essential to life also. Yes this will also keep faction and politics alive too but it’s worth it. The government of the United States of America has created a system that allows people to choose their own parties and if that means debate then so be it. Rather than have no freedom, no faction and hence no politics. It’s worth keeping it all rather than loosing FREEDOM.

American Citizen

"Only the traveller who stops at the point is totally wrong; and the traveller only too often does stop at that point. He has found something to make him laugh, and he will not suffer it to make him think. And the remedy is not to unsay what he has said, not even, so to speak, to unlash what he has laughed, not to deny that there something unique and curious about the American inquisition into our abstract opinions, but rather to continue the train of thought, and follow the admirable advice of Mr. H.G. Wells, who said ' it is not much good thinking of a thing unless you think it out'. It is not to deny the American officialism is rather peculiar on this point, but to inquire what it really is which makes America peculiar, or which is peculiar to America. In short, it is to get some ultimate idea of what America_is_; and the answer to that question will reveal something much deeper and grander and more worthy of our intelligent interest. 

What G.K. Chesterton mean by this paragraph in his essay "_What is America?_" is that the person that is hit with this reality when they come to America and they shut it out, is wrong. But usually the person does continue to think and draws this conclusion about America. When they are brought to light, they can't un-think what they realized, they can't go back to the dark. The facts are too intriguing and sometimes shocking to an outsider. So when they are hit with this reality of what it means to be an American, they have really think it out to understand it, and know what it means. Ultimately it gives them this picture of what America is and it may seem belittling or offensive to them; The fact that America won't let just anyone come into this country or just anyone become a citizen. The person has to believe in the beliefs of America, believe and abide by the rules and by the constitution and only then can they live in America.

This paragraph was important to me because I am not a born U.S. citizen. I wasn't born in America and when i became a citizen it was a different process for me because i was very young and i didn't have to take any test i just became a citizen because my mother was already an American citizen. For me it wasn't a mind-blowing experience but for some people it is They are leaving a piece of themselves behind in their country and they come here and become citizens and don't really give much thought to the meaning behind it. Chesterton wasn't most people and when he realized they were basically saying forget what ever you know back home, you are coming here you have to abide by these rules to become and remain an American citizen. Are you ready for that? They test this by making you fill out these papers with these question and giving an exam about the history of America to make sure you know what it means to become an American.     

In the Essay "Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Roles of Gov't" by Frank Newport published by Gallup Inc he writes a passage that says " These attitudes, basically unchanged from a year ago, underscore the complex nature of American's views of government. Americans have strongly negative views of the way the nation is being governed and the Congress. They also, as will be reviewed here, have significant concerns about the power of the federal government, believe that government is doing too much that individuals and business can do, and prefer fewer services and lower taxes. Yet, in a broad sense, Americans are as likely to prefer a more active government as a more limited one.

According to the study they did they gathered this data about whether our government shouldn't be very involved in our everyday lives or whether is should control or be more involved a lot more than it is now. This paragraph is about The different views about the public (citizens) when it comes to the involvement of government. Basically a large amount of the public believes Congress is doing it all wrong. They are worried about the quantity of power the government has. The public wants less taxes so they are willing to stop receiving all the luxury's the government offers in order to have more money at the end of the day and do the job themselves. For the general public a more active government is one that isn't very involved.

I felt this paragraph was important because it is important to find out what the public thinks about government. We the public are suppose to choose our Congress and our president and the population has the right to choose who we think is better for the role of government. But everyone has different views and different agenda's and that influences all of their actions.
I found the last part of the paragraph very interesting because the government does take out a lot of taxes and we don't really know exactly where that money is going. Yes we are told its going to certain places but is that entirely true?