Design a government

There are several steps to designing. your system of government and most countries use a unique form of government. Out of 136 democracies listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electoral_systems_by_country 106 countries use a completely unique system used by no other country.

So using only the features currently used by a government, and only considering democracies, here are the questions you need to ask:

Federal or Unitary

How much power are you going to give to regions versus held by the central government of the country? This usually correlates with population, you can be very democratic with either system.

Head of State and government

Who will your head of state be? President, constitutional monarch, or someone else?

Will your head of government be a prime minister or held by a president who is also head of state?

This leaves you with three options:

  • Parliamentary (prime minister selected by parliament)
  • President
  • Constitutional monarchy
  • Semi-presidential

Election system

How will the head of state be elected if they are not a constitutional monarch?

How will parliament be elected?

Popular options:

  • Ranked voting (instant runoff or single transferable vote)
  • Mixed-member proportional
  • Party-list
  • Two-round system
  • First-past-the-post
  • Appointed by state legislature
  • Appointed by monarch

Total possibilities

Using only these factors, how many possible unique government structures are there?

2 * 4 * 8 * 8 = 512 possible combinations of election and government systems.

Keys to Freedom

Elections

Elections are obviously essential to preserving freedom around the world. It offers the most direct check on power available to any individual, and a robust election system ensures the government serves its people instead of oligarchs.

It’s more than just having an election though. There need to be multiple parties competing. Political outsiders need to be able to win the election. We need a system where the candidate winning a majority of the votes is always elected. The best system for a single-winner election is instant runoff voting. You can choose between the Condorcet or mutual majority criterion, but you must use ranked voting for your head of government to protect against the spoiler effect.

Parliamentary systems have a weakness in how you can end up with a government without winning a majority of the votes inherent in the system. They are susceptible to unreasonable coalitions forming governments most people do not support. Presidential systems where the president is elected by instant runoff voting do not have this weakness of parliamentary systems. Examples of Parliamentary failures:

I believe the Irish election system without a Prime Minister is the most robust electoral system.

Courts

A robust court system is necessary to ensure that laws are applied equally. It is correct that those who write laws should not be the ones to interpret laws, and it is also important that the people who decide on guilt be not political appointees but the peers of the people on trial. The jury trial is a direct way to mitigate corruption.

Education

Education is paramount to the maintenance of a robust democratic society. People must understand history, how their government works, science, and many other fields. The more educated people are, the less likely people are to vote for populist candidates. https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results

It is just self-evident to me, but not enough by itself.

Travel

So with the three above systems in place, a just election system, a fair jury system, and a robust education system, this will eliminate most cases where extreme politicians will be elected. But sometimes they all fail. What then? What if people get so incensed, vote in a far-right politician, courts get packed with authoritarian demagogues, and society starts to crumble?

That’s where free travel comes in as the final defense against democratic backsliding. When society starts to fall apart people must be able to move away from their home country to seek employment and a life in another country, if only temporarily.

Free travel increases communication between countries fostering people-to-people relationships. It is one thing when we are attacked by Saudi Arabia, but it is a whole other thing when the President is attacking Canada. Most Americans will never know a Saudi nor travel there, but Canada and America are best friends. We visit each other all the time, marry each other, and have the most crossed border in the world. It’s not some far-away theocratic sponsor of terrorism, it is a thriving democracy which we have a deep friendship with. We love each other.

Increasing travel between democracies strengthens our bonds. It makes attacks against our allies less politically palatable.

Voters can be stupid. Courts can be corrupted.

Free travel forces governments in the free travel bloc to adopt best practices or suffer depopulation. It is the only check on the government that works in one direction. The bigger the bloc, the better the protection.

This is also why learning a foreign language is not just a good idea, but should be mandatory starting in grade school. It means that after joining the free movement area, people in your country will already speak a foreign language making it so that the free travel area will be more effective, allowing your citizens to then easily live and work in a country speaking their second language with no barriers. It further increases the effectiveness of free travel areas in enforcing best practices.

I do not believe that Fico, Orban, Starmer, Nehammer, or Johnson are less corrupt than Ivanishvili. But while Hungary, Austria, and Slovakia are part of the European Union and the United Kingdom used to be a member, Georgia is not and has never been a member of the European Union or the Schengen Area. The United Kingdom still has an open border with Ireland. British citizens still have the right to live in Ireland for as long as they want.

Georgia is not protected by free travel, so the Georgian government can do actions that are impossible to get away with in Hungary. This explains why we have seen more democratic backsliding in Georgia compared to countries that are members of open-border treaties with similar leaders. They are all parliamentary democracies, but only Georgia lacks the protection free travel areas provide. The consequence is stark.

So the solution must be to expand free travel areas to include all democracies. Even within the United States, it is easy to see the impact of free travel. African Americans were able to move from the Old Confederacy to the North in the early 1900s to escape Jim Crow Laws in the Great Migration. We still see the consequences of southern policies in poverty maps, with the Deep South having the highest poverty rate in the country, outside of Puerto Rico.

We need to expand this right to a higher level. When demagogues like Nehammer, Trump, and Ivanishvili are threatened by having their most productive workers able to leave the country they are constrained. They have to think twice about whether their actions will cause emigration. But when good policies like free college are proposed those politicians have more leverage to enforce their policy. Enforce the superior policy, or people will move to countries with superior policies. This leads to a convergence towards best practices, but only in open-border systems.

The real trick in political science is not to constrain the government from doing anything but to devise clever mechanisms that consistently encourage best practices while discouraging foolish policies, like firing thousands of federal workers without cause.

This is why aspects of free travel were listed five times in my 10-point key to peace list. It truly is the most important policy for expanding freedom in the world.

2024 was lost on turnout

 

Year 2020 2024 Difference
Total 158429631 155238302
White % 67% 71%
White 106,147,852.77 110,219,194.42
Black % 13% 11%
Black 20,595,852.03 17,076,213.22
Hispanic % 13% 11%
Hispanic 20,595,852.03 17,076,213.22
White D % 41% 42%
White R % 58% 57%
Black D % 0.87 0.86
Black R % 0.12 0.13
Hispanic D % 0.65 0.51
Hispanic R % 0.33 0.46
White D 43,520,619.64 46,292,061.66 2,771,442.02
White R 61,565,754.61 62,824,940.82 1,259,186.21
Black D 17,918,391.27 14,685,543.37 -3,232,847.90
Black R 2,471,502.24 2,219,907.72 -251,594.53
Hispanic D 13,387,303.82 8,708,868.74 -4,678,435.08
Hispanic R 6,796,631.17 7,855,058.08 1,058,426.91

This data is calculated from the 2024 US presidential election and 2020 US presidential election pages on Wikipedia.

This is very interesting because there are so many narratives floating around trying to explain how Trump was able to win in 2024 despite his disastrous performance in 2020.

While Trump did improve his performance among Hispanic Republicans, overall there was a reduction in votes from both African Americans and Hispanic Americans, giving Trump the win.

Trump didn’t build a rainbow coalition. Democrats just failed to convince people of color to vote for their candidate. If you add in the 7 million missing votes from African American and Hispanic voters and assume these missing voters voted like they did in 2020, Harris would have won.

Is this simply because Harris is a woman? Well, based on the 2016 exit poll it sure doesn’t seem so, so I will not give the idea that Harris lost simply because she was a woman any more consideration.

Could it simply because Harris is a person of color? Based on 2012 voter demographics it sure doesn’t look like it. It is a silly argument on the surface. I will give it no more consideration.

The real question we need to ask is why did millions of African Americans and Hispanic Americans who voted in 2020 stay home in 2024? Let’s dive down to state level data.

Pennsylvania

Starting in Pennsylvania, America’s Keystone State, we see that Harris did win both Black and Latino voters in the state. Turnout in Pennsylvania barely changed, going from 76.5% turnout to 76.6% turnout. But we observe a sudden drop in support from Black men from 89% voting for Biden to 72% voting for Harris. Likewise, we see White Men increased support for Harris versus Biden, going form 37% for Harris to 39% for Harris. But turnout increased overall with white men, giving Trump a very narrow margin.

In short, turnout dropped among African Americans while increasing among White Americans. Harris did slightly better among White Americans than Biden did, but not enough to overcome the drop in turnout from African American men.

If she had performed as well as Biden did among African American men, she would have won Pennsylvania.
2024 results
2020 results

Michigan

Trump did well among voters under 30 in Michigan, whereas Biden won the demographic handily in 2020.
The Latino vote flipped for Trump, from 55% voted for Biden in 2020 to 58% for Trump in 2024. This led to more turnout overall in Michigan.
The White vote barely changed going from 55% for Trump in 2020 to 54% in favor of Trump in 2024, dropping from 81% of the vote to 78% of the vote. So white people in Michigan do not explain the difference.
Trump did slightly better among African Americans, moving from 7% of the vote to 11% of the vote in 2024.

In short, Latino turnout in Michigan increased, swinging the demographic and the state for Trump in 2024.

But here’s the interesting thing about this… it’s not just against Harris, but Latinos also voted against Elissa Slotkin in the Senate election, though not nearly at the same level.

Could it simply be the idea of being machismo driving Hispanic men away from female candidates? Most Hispanic Americans do not support this concept regardless of gender. So I do not believe it is machismo. Now these are nationwide polls, I do not know if there is a difference in Michigan specifically.

Something about Kamala Harris specifically did not appeal to Latino men in Michigan, and it was an issue that was localized, and limited to Latino men.

2020 polls
2024 polls

Wisconsin

Wisconsin tells a story similar to Pennsylvania, but slightly different.
White people saw a slight increase in support for Trump, from 52% in 2020 to 53% in 2024.
African Americans saw a large increase in support for Trump, from 8% in 2020 to 23% in 2024.
Hispanic Americans did not change, but increased their turnout which is better for Harris overall.

The large swing in African American votes for Trump and a small swing among white voters toward Trump swung Wisconsin to Trump in 2024.
This one is the closest in both elections and is more complicated. Here’s a table of results:

Year 2020 2024 Difference
Total 3298041 3422918
White % 86% 85%
White 2,836,315.26 2,909,480.30
Black % 6% 5%
Black 197,882.46 171,145.90
Hispanic % 4% 6%
Hispanic 131,921.64 205,375.08
White D % 41% 42%
White R % 52% 53%
Black D % 92% 77%
Black R % 8% 23%
Hispanic D % 60% 60%
Hispanic R % 37% 38%
White D 1,162,889.26 1,221,981.73 59,092.47
White R  1,474,883.94 1,542,024.56 67,140.62
Black D 182,051.86 131,782.34 (50,269.52)
Black R 15,830 39,363 23,532
Hispanic D 79,152 123,225 44,072
Hispanic R 48,811 78,042 29,231

The margin in 2020 was around 20,000 votes, and the margin in 2024 was around 29,000 votes.

Let’s run through these three major racial groups and explain the difference, in order of size.

White people increased turnout with an 8,000 vote swing to Republicans. Bringing the margin to D+12,000.

African Americans saw a reduction in turnout, 27,000 fewer votes cast overall with a 73,000 vote swing to the Republicans bringing the margin to R+61,000.

Hispanic Americans saw an increase in turnout with a 15,000 vote swing for the Republicans.

These numbers are approximate of course, but they express a point.

Wisconsin primarily flipped because of the drop in support from African American men.

Could this be due to a swing of support for Trump among African Americans or a consequence of Wisconsin closing polling places? ABC 7 Chicago

So it could be that African American men who work did not have time to make it to the polling place while African American women did? Did they not know that Wisconsin has no-excuse absentee voting?

Perhaps, but this doesn’t explain why the total number of votes went up in 2024 versus 2020. I am not convinced closing of polling places is enough to swing this election. It doesn’t explain the doubling of support for Trump among African American men.

More research is required. Why did 13% of African Americans, primarily men, switch to Trump in 2024?

2024 results
2020 results

Nevada

Nevada voted Republican for the first time since 2004, continuing a streak of voting for the winner of the popular vote since that year.

Like in Michigan, the Latino vote flipped to a small majority for Trump, giving him the win.

2024 results
2020 results

Results

Kamala Harris did better among white Americans than other demographics overall, and in none of the three key swing states was her defeat among that demographic enough to flip the state.

In these four swing states, Harris generally performed better among white people but worse among people of color, though the specific demographic she lost varied by state. Across the board, men of color voted for her at a lower level than we observed in 2020. Whether it was Hispanic or African American men who flipped from Biden to Trump depended on the state.

Neither is it exactly described by gender. Jackie Rosen won in Nevada as well as Elissa Slotkin in Michigan on the same day.

Finding out the real reason why African American and Hispanic men saw a significant decrease in votes for Harris, but not as much for the Senate, while women of color voted for Harris is an important issue. Democrats need to do research to figure out what exactly caused these voters, in particular, to not vote for Harris, and not settle for simple answers. We need actual surveys to figure out what caused so many millions of Democratic voters to stay home in 2024.

A post-NATO world

With Donald Trump as President effectively allying himself as president, it gives the world a very different global political structure for the next 4 years.

The first impact of this is US alliances, which expand across 5 continents and the US is the cornerstone of the global democratic world. As I described on Wednesday, there are a few potential candidates who would almost certainly be successful with allying themselves with the United States if they desired to form an alliance, but Israel already receives more military aid than any other country except Ukraine, and Mauritius is not a target for any invasion.

Without the United States as the cornerstone of the global bloc of democracies, there are a few obvious candidates to replace us. I’m comparing across population, GDP, GDP per capita, military expenditure, and surface area. I then calculate the percentile of each of these 5 metrics and take the simple average of them together.

The European Union acting as a bloc is obviously the only close comparison to the United States in the world. China is still significantly worse off in terms of GDP per capita, and the EU scores well across corruption, democracy, economics, and size. Acting as a bloc they can mostly replace the United States. The European Union however is not a country and this limits its ability to work as cohesively as a state does.

The next most powerful country is Canada. It scores over the 90th percentile across every metric I am controlling for except population, where it is in the 79th percentile. Canada is a powerful friend.

China ranks right behind Canada. However, they are an authoritarian regime with a GDP per capita of around 62%.

Australia is next, with an even larger disadvantage to Canada due to its even smaller population.

Next up is Brazil, which is above the 90th percentile in everything except GDP per capita. As Brazil keeps increasing their mean years of schooling and their economy grows their position in the world will only increase.

Russia ranks after Brazil, suffering from a low GDP per capita and is undemocratic.

Japan scores over the 90th percentile on GDP, population, and military expenditure. Their GDP per capita is under the 90th percentile however at the 88th percentile and their area is at 67th percentile.

France and Germany are tied as the highest-rated EU member states, both are under the 90th percentile for area and France is at the 89th percentile for population. Germany is the only country aside from the United States to score above the 90th percentile for population, GDP, GDP per capita, and military expenditure.

We now have Canada, France, and Germany representing NATO, Brazil representing the Rio Pact, and major allies Australia and Japan in the Pacific.

The reality is that most powerful countries in the world are democracies. Here are some stats of the democratic world today, based on countries with a democracy score of at least 5:

  • 60% of the world’s population are in democracies.
  • 93% of the world’s GDP is in countries with a democracy score over 5.
  • 86% of the world’s military expenditure is in democracies.
  • Democracies have a GDP per capita of around $15,700 versus around $5,600 in authoritarian regimes.

Let’s narrow the criteria to countries with a democracy score of at least 7. The most democratic countries in the world.

  • 40% of the world’s population
  • 83% of the world’s GDP
  • 80% of the world’s military expenditure
  • GDP per capita of $21,000

No matter how you look at it, if we unite all democracies, we are unbeatable.

If the United States abandons our role, here are how these numbers compare:

Value Democracy score < 5 Democracy score > 5 Democracy score > 7 Democracy score > 5, without the USA Democracy score > 7, without the USA
Population 40% 60% 40% 50% 29%
GDP 7% 93% 83% 50% 40%
Military expenditure 14% 86% 80% 35% 28%

The United States is the most important country in the world, there is no reasonable doubt about it. This is why the US president is in the most important position in the world.

That being said, it is also clear that in our present reality of absent leadership from the United States that the remaining democracies in the world have enough population, GDP, and military expenditure to still be a significant force for good.

The Free World can stand on its own without the United States, but we are all better off when the United States is at the table.

Russia’s allies

Russia acts and talks like they have many allies around the world, and China has increased its sales of aid to Russia. Military support has also come from Belarus, Iran, and North Korea. But ultimately Russia’s list of allies is a short list. The only countries who voted with Russia in the United Nations were Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea, and Syria. The oft-portrayed villains of China and Iran abstained from the vote. Putin is so weak he can’t even get double-digit countries to back him up in a low-stakes vote!

This is while Ukraine is backed by almost every democracy in the world and has allies on every continent who have provided aid.

Ukraine is by far the favored country to win the war. If the United States fails in our commitment, Ukraine could still win given the development of a domestic military industrial complex and a surge of military aid from other countries. The United States should still provide Ukraine with aid because its the right thing to do and save lives, but Trump cannot guarantee a victory to Russia, he can only slow down their inevitable defeat.

Russia is an extremely isolated state. They will lose the war. Ukraine will win.

Proposal

In order to hasten Ukraine’s total victory and protect every democracy in the world, my proposal is this:

  • The European Union and Rio Pact should reach out to each other to increase military cooperation.
  • The European Union extends its mutual protection pacts to America’s allies in the West Pacific.
  • The European Union further increases its aid to Ukraine.
  • Ukraine seeks military aid from Japan, Australia, and the Rio Pact member states.
  • Georgia seeks out unilateral defense pacts until their inevitable accession to NATO.

With these changes, Ukraine will have the equipment advantage that will allow them to defeat Russia and take back 100% of their territory.

Once we remove Trump from office the United States will resume our role as the leader of the free world in cooperation with our friends.

SAVE Act

Read the text here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/22/text/ih78

Every system that determines citizenship is based on a chain of trust. Once a citizen has proven they are a citizen once to get a document, that document should be proof of citizenship. However, the law is no longer written to recognize this.

For starters, it is already a felony for people to register to vote. If you look at the registration form for basically every state, the voter registration form requires proof of citizenship already. This is usually provided by a driver’s license or a social security number. https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/VRF_English.pdf

A driver’s license usually includes a mark in the database on whether someone is a citizen. When applying for a driver’s license they determine if you are a citizen at that step. This allows the state government to know then if you are eligible to vote, and if you are you can then register right then and there because of the Motor Voter Act.

Non-citizens who get driver’s licenses cannot register to vote already.

So this brings up the question, if someone has already established they are a citizen once, and they keep that document, why require people to keep proving they are citizens with extra documentation again and again and again? They already have a document that proves they are a citizen! Let them use the proof of citizenship they have!

The Republican Party already made this more difficult with the Real ID Act. The main issue with the Real ID Act is it requires two proof of residency to get your document. Notice how this doesn’t do anything to enhance the citizenship status of someone’s document, that was never in question. It is designed to just make it more difficult to get the documents we need in order to get business done.

That is the entire point of the SAVE ACT. Non-citizen voting is a non-issue and already a felony. It doesn’t require more legislation, our laws on this are decent as is. The Real ID Act does nothing to fix this either, because it did not need to be fixed. The National Voter Registration Form is a simple document, with your name and address, and after the form it includes a list of the requirements to register to vote for every state. Every state requires some form of identification, usually a driver’s license or Social Security Number. Every state gives people the ability to prove their citizenship when they get their driver’s license, at which point you also are able to register to vote. Some states even let you pre-register if you get your driver’s license before your 18th birthday which is great because it reduces paperwork and ensures that 18 year olds have one less thing to worry about on top of finishing high school, applying to college, part-time jobs, and social life. There is no reason for 16 year olds getting their license to not be able to prove they are a citizen then and be able to vote automatically once they turn 18. It’s just common sense. It works fine and there is no reason to make it harder.

The Republican Party has been trying to make it harder to vote for over 20 years now. This needs to end. If someone is a citizen, they need to be able to vote. Registration makes sense since it is so easy, but once you are in the system as a citizen, you need to not have extra regulatory hurdles which serve no useful purpose.

The most absurd thing which somehow still counts is that in Texas you can vote with a handgun license, but not with a college ID. https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm

Compare this to Illinois where a student ID is acceptable, but they don’t count gun licenses. https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_ID_in_Illinois

While a passport or a driver’s license is always valid to prove who you are, the other requirements vary state by state. So its still easiest to just get a passport card for $30, and that lasts for a decade. There is no good reason not to have one. Or just do mail-in voting which every state allows, and signature verification works very well. Regardless, there are many other valid reasons to have multiple forms of valid ID and scan them into a secure digital location, in case one gets lost or stolen.

But ultimately the rules we have work fine, non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare, and are written by populist who don’t understand the issue.

The SAVE Act should not be passed. It doesn’t solve any problem and just adds an additional step for people who register via a voter registration form. It will essentially shut down voter registration at college campuses by forcing students to still have to go to an office to register to vote. This is an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle. The student submitted their proof of citizenship when they got their drivers license. There is no reason to add an additional hurdle, they have already proven their citizenship.

American Mutual Protection Pacts

The United States is the most defended country in the world, and not just because our military is the largest, but through our network of alliances we are protected by the militaries of all of our allies combined. We have mutual protection pacts with countries on every continent except Africa, and our alliances have overall only grown since the end of World War II.

This begs the question if we wanted to expand our alliances further, which countries are the top candidates?

I’m using GDP per capita, homicide rate, gay rights status, The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders, and Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International to determine which countries are the best candidates for future mutual protection pacts with the United States.

When we filter out all of the countries in the world that have data, the only countries that exceed the worst score in the Schengen Area for these six factors are Israel and Mauritius.

Israel already received a gigantic amount of support from the United States, so the only real advantage to a formal mutual protection pact is that the President could then send them aid without going through Congress every time. The caveat is mutual protection pacts naturally come with restrictions on how the weapons can be used, so the conduct in Gaza of blowing up schools and hospitals would certainly get aid to Israel stopped by the courts in accordance with any mutual protection pact we might sign with them. It would certainly require a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So I do not expect anything to change regarding their status.

Mauritius is isolated in the Indian Ocean with very little land and population. They are very unlikely to be invaded and already have excellent relations with the United States. It would likely go through Congress quickly if they choose to pursue a mutual protection pact with us.

That’s it, every other country that meets or exceeds these six factors compared to the Schengen Area already is a member of the Schengen Area, European Union, or has a mutual protection pact with us.

If we decide that null values for these six parameters are also qualifying, because those countries tend to be very small, we find that Andorra and Nauru become potential Schengen members. Andorra is of course an enclave of the Schengen Area and lacks flights outside of the region, so there is no way to get to Andorra without going through the Schengen Area. Nauru is like Mauritius but even smaller and even less significant on the global stage. They maintain close relations with Australia and are unlikely to ever be invaded.

The Schengen Area is however a very elite group of countries. If we expand our net of potential allies to instead be focused on NATO three more countries become likely candidates. Those three countries are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Fiji.

Fiji is similar to Mauritius but even less likely. Fiji has suffered 3 coups since independence. There have been multiple times in the last 30 years where their relations with Australia and New Zealand have become incredibly strained and Fijian ambassadors have been expelled from the country. This is certainly why Fiji does not have a mutual protection pact with any country today. Relations are better now and if Fiji can continue to have a democratic government, they will likely join a mutual protection pact. However, they have the same advantage as Mauritius of being fairly small and very isolated, so an invasion is unlikely.

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia were the sites of NATO interventions during the genocides of the 1990s. NATO is very unpopular in these countries as a result, but they are both candidates to join the European Union, and once they finish the accession they will be covered by the European Union mutual protection pact Article 42.7.

Finally, there is a litany of countries that do better than the worst performing metrics for the Rio Pact as well, leading to a fairly long list of countries that could potentially join the United States in a mutual protection pact.

So our map looks like the following:

Many countries could probably succeed in joining a mutual protection pact with the United States. Mexico, Ecuador, and Bolivia used to be members of the Rio Pact, so their rejoining would be quickly accepted by the rest of the hemisphere. Ukraine and Georgia are applicants to NATO. Mongolia would benefit since they are a small country bordering Russia.

I think expanding the countries we are allied with is good for American national security. It will show we cannot be bullied anymore. It will isolate tyrants and lift up democracies, leading to a more peaceful world.

Gas prices

Let’s think about the total impact on gas prices over the budget of the average household.

You have an average income of around $55,000, so let’s be pessimistic and say you make $50,000 per year because the math is easier.

You drive a car that gets around 30 miles per gallon, you live 10 miles away from where you work, and you drive into the office five days a week. You commute 200 miles per month to get to and from work and consume just under 7 gallons of gasoline for your commute. Your car has a 10-gallon tank and you fill your tank once per month.

At $2 per gallon which is where gas prices were in 2020, you are then spending around $14 per month on gasoline or as much as $28 per month on gasoline in 2024.

In a total year, gasoline will cost you around $350. It doesn’t even take 1% of your income.

For comparison nowadays, if you want to rent a one-bedroom apartment in most of the country you will be spending close to $1000 per month, or $12,000 per year. This is over 20% of your income. Most people spend closer to 30% of their income on housing.

The real reason behind inflation over the last few years is due primarily to housing prices.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1DKjO

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST

We have failed to build enough housing units to satisfy demand, which has led to inflation. You cannot fight supply-pull inflation by increasing interest rates. Increasing interest rates makes it more expensive to build housing units, reducing supply, and increasing the price. That is why the current policy of increasing interest rates to fight inflation is misguided.

A short history of Moldova

Maps are taken from https://www.oldmapsonline.org

The Principality of Moldavia was the westernmost part of the Mongol Empire from 1241 to 1346. Events before then are not important for understanding how Moldova became an independent republic from Romania. Before then the region was occupied by Turkic peoples.

After independence, the Principality of Moldavia was formed in 1346, ruling the land between the Danube Delta, the Carpathian mountains, and the Dniester River. In 1812 the Treaty of Bucharest was signed, granting what is now the Republic of Moldova to the Russian Empire. This was the first time Russia controlled any part of the historic Principality of Moldavia.

The Principality of Moldavia merged with Wallachia in 1859, renaming themselves as Romania in 1862.

Moldova was briefly reunited with the Kingdom of Romania after World War I, and during the Second World War, the Soviet Union retook Moldova in 1940.

In 1991 Moldova declared independence during the ongoing Transnistria War. Ukrainians formed a plurality of the population of Transnistria during the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union dissolved Transnistria had a Romanian/Moldovan plurality. The Transnistria war saw Moldova fighting against Russian-backed rebels, leading to a stalemate. After the war, Transnistria has remained a pluralistic society split evenly between Russians, Moldovans, and Ukrainians.

Transnistria today has major restrictions on freedom of the press, and violations of civil liberties are reported by groups like Freedom House. Polling data is sparse on all issues. The last presidential election has no polling data available on its Wikipedia page. The latest parliamentary election was uncontested in a majority of districts. Even Russian papers declared Transnistrian elections as undemocratic. It is ranked as not free by Freedom in the World.

That is the status of Transnistria.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Transnistria

Honey or vinegar

There is an age-old question, will you catch more flies with honey or vinegar? We know of course that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and this expression has lasted for so many centuries because it is a useful metaphor for everything in life.

David Ricardo was one of my favorite economists and abolitionists. He wrote about the importance of free trade and about how reciprocity is a fool’s errand. He proved mathematically that even if a country has high tariffs on you it does not make sense to respond in kind, and you will end up hurting yourself more by implementing high tariffs on the other country. So the best thing to do if someone is hitting you is not to hit back. There are more intelligent ways of getting revenge.

One of the most common forms of tariffs is the travel visa. We should approach visas in the same way. If one country implements a visa on your citizens, do not respond in kind, just like with other tariffs this only hurts you. It makes sense to extend visa-free travel to other countries even if they will not respond to you with a visa-free policy.

The highest factor for a passport having travel freedom is having a high GDP per capita. So the best thing to do is improve your economy. The way to do this is to fight corruption and protect the rights of journalists. Countries with the highest GDP per capita growth adjusted for inflation from 2000-2023 are Guyana, China, Armenia, and Georgia. Armenia and Georgia cracked down on corruption significantly leading to democratization and growth. Guyana struck oil. China reformed its economic system allowing the liberalization of the economy while maintaining its authoritarian government.

Here are the results of these four countries:

Country Visa free for passport Visa free to enter Overall Score GDP per capita
14 Armenia 58.0 67.0 5.42 3614.688357
58 China 68.0 41.0 2.12 8123.180873
102 Georgia 103.0 105.0 5.20 3865.785693
119 Guyana 77.0 59.0 6.26 4529.139412

Simply becoming rich is not the only way to get expanded travel freedom as I explored yesterday. Georgia has achieved remarkable travel freedom by having an open visa policy. The other three countries have average travel freedom.

My argument is that visa policy and trade policy work the same way. If you are a country that hasn’t reached full democracy high-income status yet, there is no reason for you to use a reciprocal visa policy as a requirement for granting visa-free access to your country. You only end up shooting yourself in the foot and you don’t end up expanding travel freedom for your citizens.

Waiting for the other country to make a move ends up with a game of chicken. It’s ineffective.

The better way to expand travel freedom for your citizens is to allow people from safe countries to travel to your country without a visa, as Georgia did. Crackdown on corruption and improve your economy. Improve the education level of your citizens so you are competitive in the modern economy. Brazilians now have more travel freedom than Monacans as a result of expanding visa-free access without reciprocity and then most countries then respond in kind. The one mistake Brazil has made is to revoke visa-free access if the country does not reciprocate, but by being the first country to expand visa-free travel and then putting diplomatic pressure on the other country, and then applying diplomatic pressure through lobbying, Brazil has managed to successfully expand their travel freedom despite having a relatively low GDP per capita and mean years of schooling of only 8 years. With these issues, they are still a fully functional democracy. This strategy has worked for Brazil.

One strategy that countries should attempt is along with internal reforms which clearly work, to have a campaign to convince citizens of the host nation to pressure their government into expanding visa-free travel. This worked for Poland in joining NATO in the 1990s by convincing ethnic Poles in swing states to lobby politicians of both parties to support their accession to NATO. It should also work for travel freedom.

Brazil and Georgia have proven the adage that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

What next

The first obvious step in my opinion is to end electronic visas from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Seychelles, and the United States. The United Kingdom and the European Union need to scrap their plans to implement eVisas for countries that do not need them today. This will only erode travel freedom around the world.

This is so obvious to me after studying this for many years. These policies are government waste, provide no useful benefit, and create significant problems.

There are a bunch of countries in Oceania that allow fewer than 50 countries to travel there without a visa. They should expand visa-free access to the European Union.

Here’s what gets interesting…

If you become a little less accurate and say that an ETA is not a visa (Wikipedia however disagrees) and you believe that filling out a form and paying a couple bucks is not a visa (even though you are wrong) then there remain only two high-income democracies in the world which still exempt fewer than 50 countries from needing an expensive visa. Those two countries are Australia and the United States. With this incorrect definition, we have the following results:

No matter how you slice and dice the data, the United States and Australia are the most conservative high-income democracies in the world. Some obvious countries should be added to the visa-free lists for these Anglo countries. Assuming these countries will not get rid of their pork barrel (erm… ETA) I propose the following:

  • Bahamas, Barbados, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, and the Solomon Islands need visa-free access to Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.
  • Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, and the Vatican need visa-free access to the United States.
  • The Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau need visa-free access to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Making these changes would bring the visa policies of these four countries in line with each other. On top of this, it would mean that every developed democracy would allow over 50 nationalities to visit their country either visa-free or with an ETA.

Also, how can CANZUK happen with misaligned visa policies? The United Kingdom’s visa policy is already mostly in line with the European Union, let alone the mismatches between Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The answer is simple. CANZUK is fetch. It is never going to happen.

Jokes aside, there are real benefits to aligning visa policies. It saves taxpayer money from visa processing. It allows more tourists to visit. Altogether, it is a benefit to the host country as well as the visitor’s country.

Source:

https://github.com/ChengCPU/visa-map?tab=readme-ov-file

World Bank DataBank

Economist Intelligence Unit

More on visa policies

As we see here, GDP per capita is a major factor in determining the travel freedom of citizens of a given country.

Citizens of countries that have a GDP per capita under $1000 generally have very limited options in terms of countries they can travel to visa-free. Citizens of wealthy countries with a GDP per capita over $20,000 can all travel to over 100 countries visa-free, or they live in Middle Eastern autocracies. GDP per capita is the strongest predictor of the power of a passport.

The strongest predictor of a country’s visa policy however is how many countries their citizens can travel to visa-free.

There are some outliers, namely former British colonies. Some small island countries have more restrictive visa policies than their travel freedom would predict, but otherwise, it makes sense.

If we limit ourselves to only the most democratic countries in the world, we find the following trend:

The dots on the bottom are all former British colonies. Timor Leste is the dot at 93,32, which has a much more restrictive visa policy than one would expect. Taiwan has a much more restrictive visa policy than one would expect. Otherwise, the rest of the countries have open visa policies as one would predict.

Limiting ourselves to only countries with a democracy score under 5, we find most have fairly limited travel freedom and fairly closed visa policies.

Every country where the passport has visa-free access to less than 50 countries has a democracy score under 5 except Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Bhutan, certainly due to their very limited visa policies. Bangladesh also has a lower corruption perceptions score than one finds among countries with more travel freedom.

As we can see in this data, wealthy countries have more powerful passports and can all travel to at least 50 countries without a visa. There are only four wealthy democracies with powerful passports who allow fewer than 50 countries to travel to their country without any form of visa. Those countries are the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Wealthy democracies that are not Anglo have liberal visa policies, including Ireland and the United Kingdom which are obviously Anglo.

Anglo is defined as at least 50% of the population speak English as their native language.

Among lower-income democracies (nominal GDP per capita under $10,000 and a democracy score over 5) they usually still have fairly powerful passports, especially if they have a fairly liberal visa policy with at least 50 nationalities not needing any form of visa.

For anocracies and autocracies which have a democracy score under 5, only 8 of these countries have a GDP per capita over $10,000. Those 8 countries have a more powerful passport, and they are mostly located in the Middle East, except for Venezuela.

For anocracies and authoritarian regimes with GDP per capita under $50,000, they can go either way. None of them are Anglo.

Recommendations

More visa-free travel is usually a good choice. Most countries are not serious terrorism threats, so requiring visas does not make sense. More liberal visa policies come with far more benefits than any existing downsides. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States should get with the program and extend visa-free travel to at least all member states in the EU, Schengen Area, and all countries that have mutual protection pacts with the United States. Abolish these corrupt eVisa programs. The European Union should backtrack on its planned eVisa for tourists from allied states. Include work visa reform with this motion in the United States. The benefits will far outweigh any costs.

Bangladesh, Bhutan, Liberia, and Sri Lanka are the four countries with weak passports that allow 50 or fewer nationalities to travel to their countries without a visa. Extend visa-free travel to European Union citizens and leave the category of shame. Then your passports will improve.

Some former British colonies have a restrictive visa policy and a low GDP per capita but are still democracies. These countries are Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, and Papua New Guinea. Throw off this weak tradition of your colonial heritage and allow more people to travel to your country visa-free. It will be a boon to your struggling tourist sectors. Other countries in this category which are not former British colonies are Cape Verde, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Timor Leste. The same applies to them.

To the remaining countries with restrictive visa policies, reform your governments and be more democratic overall. Then your lives will improve. most countries at the bottom of the stack, with low democracy, low GDP per capita, a weak passport, and a restrictive visa policy are located in Africa and Asia. These countries are stuck in the low-trust, high corruption, low income trap. A few countries have successfully transitioned from that state to a fully fledged democracy, mostly in Latin America and former Soviet colonies in Eastern Europe. It starts by removing the corrupt leaders who are stealing from the people.

It is very clear to me that this is one aspect that needs attention from political scientists and activists towards improving the world.