Government

State Representation

by

Notice, Wonder, Connect
Slow Reveal

This bar graph focuses on state legislators. It shows the ratios of population to state representative and to state senator.  How do the ratios in Alaska compare to those in other states or the national average?  What factors might influence how these ratios vary from state to state?

As seen in this graph, the proportion of population to legislators tends to increase as the population size of the state increases (California has the largest population and the largest proportion) but this is not always the case. Alaska’s population is the third smallest (after Wyoming and Vermont), but its proportion of population to senators is the 7th smallest and its proportion of population to representatives is 10th smallest.  

The United States has a federalist government. This means the powers are shared between a federal government and a state government. While we often spend time talking about the federal government, the state government plays an equal (and in many ways, greater) role in your day-to-day life. Like the federal government, most states have a legislature with two chambers (called a bicameral legislature). The one exception is Nebraska which only has state senators and no state representatives (called a unicameral legislature).

Both the federal government and state governments have to find a balance when deciding the size of their legislative bodies. A larger body means more representation and potentially more different voices heard but also could mean too many people talking, more money spent on salaries, and more elected officials to keep track of. Each state decides how it wants to handle this issue, but, generally, as the population of a state increases, so does the number of representatives it has. That rise is usually not linear. As the population increases, the number of representatives normally increases at a slower and slower rate until it stops altogether. This means more people being represented by a single legislator. We can look at the proportion of the number of people per representative to see how large an average district is within a state.

The writers of the U.S. The Constitution believed a ratio of 30,000 people per 1 representative was the proper balance for federal representation. Now, that ratio is over 25 times larger.  The United States was much more rural at its founding and so 30,000 people covered a much larger geographic area than now. Also, communication technology was much less advanced, so larger areas had less frequent communication than they do now. Taking those factors into consideration, what do you think of the current ratio for federal representation?  Is 30,000:1 still the proper balance for federal representation?  What about for state legislatures?

What other solutions do you think would help balance representation and the size of the legislature?

Data Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Population_represented_by_state_legislators

Reproduce the graph yourself or pick different states using the spreadsheet below.

State-RepresentationDownload

Additional Resources

Inflation and Education Funding

by

Slow Reveal

Notice/Wonder/Connect

The top graph shows a comparison between Alaska’s K-12 yearly public school funding and the significantly decreased value of that funding due to inflation over the last eleven years, from 2012 to 2023. How should the State of Alaska decide how much money to distribute to the schools for education?

Background on Education Funding:

Determining the Base Student Allocation:

The yearly funding is based on the BSA (Base Student Allocation; a dollar amount per student), which is established in a law, voted upon by the Alaska State Legislature.  That BSA amount is then multiplied by the AADM (Adjusted Average Daily Membership) to determine the amount for each school district; those numbers are all added together to determine Basic Need to determine the total education funding provided.  The AADM is determined by the actual number of students (Average Daily Membership, or ADM) adjusted by several factors such as size of schools, cost of living in different districts, and additional costs for special education. The actual sources for the Basic Need funding is a combination of required local funding from municipal school districts, deductible federal impact aid (federal funds to, among other things, offset lands that are exempt from local property taxes), and State funds.  There are also some additional state and federal funds, described below.  

Other Education Funding in Alaska

Every year there is also a formula for funding transportation for each district.  Slide 16 shows the match between funding allocated and actual transportation costs since 2013.  In general, the allocated funds are less than the actual costs (fuel and staffing, primarily) which has meant that districts have had to use some of their BSA funds to pay for transportation.

Some years – as seen on the original graph (slide 8) there is additional one-time funding provided by the state that it is outside of and in addition to the BSA formula funding. That funding when reported as a lump sum sounds large, but when divided out per student (as in slide 11) shows up as a useful but not very significant increase for each school district. 

There are additional funds coming into school districts directly via Title I (federal) funding, local municipal funding, and district or school generated grants and fundraising.

Inflation and the BSA

The BSA has not been increased since 2016 (i.e., FY2017), so education funding has not kept up with inflation. The question being hotly debated now in the legislature is how much to increase the BSA for Fiscal Year 2023-24 (known as FY24; synonymous with school year 2023-24). Districts across the state are reporting struggles as their costs – such as fuel, classroom materials, and insurance, – rise, but their funds remain constant.  Some districts have closed schools and “many have cut staffing and services, increasing the number of students in each classroom.” (Alaska Beacon) In rural schools, funding deficits have a particularly large impact; schools cannot pay for needed repairs and, for instance, have to manage without water or close!

A wide range of remedies – and corresponding legislative bills – are currently being suggested. They vary widely in their approaches, including how much to increase the BSA, how to pay for it, how to plan for future inflation, and whether or how to include “accountability.”   Last year, a $30 increase to the BSA was voted in to begin in FY 24. Additional suggestions and/or bills for FY24 range from $0 (from the governor) to $860 to $1000 to $1250.  Refer to the resources list for more details.

Data Considerations and Visualization Choices

Visualization Source: https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=33&docid=225

The creator of the “pencil graph” is the Alaska Council of School Administrators (ACSA), using data from Alaska Legislative Finance.  ACSA represents school administrators and is working, among other efforts, to convince legislators to increase the BSA. ACSA made choices, in creating its graph, to emphasize the declining value of the BSA due to inflation over time, i.e., to make the inflation line look steep and dramatic.  By contrast, the graph above, created by the Alaska Legislative Finance itself, made choices that show the decline, but do not make it seem as severe. 

Pencil Graph by ACSA (slide 4)Graph by AK Leg Finance (slide 10)
ScaleEvery line = $500Every space = $1000
Y axis start point$3000$0
X axis start pointFY12FY14
X axis end pointFY23FY24 (proposed by Governor)
Inflation reference yearFY12 FY22
Difference in BSA value (adjusted for inflation)$1154 in FY12 dollars $1043 in FY22 dollars

Making Comparisons about Education Costs 

Comparing the cost of education within Alaska and between Alaska and other states is not simple and is, sometimes, political. Alaska generally ranks among the top ten in total dollars spent per student (around $17,000), however when the cost of living is factored in, Alaska ranks much lower.   The Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage determines cost of living differentials among Alaska school districts; they also compare Alaska to the rest of the US.  For that report, see here. Specifically, costs that are much higher in Alaska than other states and also much higher in Alaskan villages than in hubs are: health care for staff, energy, and the preponderance of small schools (which can’t benefit from efficiencies of scale and have more frequent and costly staff turnover. In addition, small schools in villages are disproportionately affected by climate change and climate or other hazard events.)  ISER concluded that “… that by 2019, even though Alaska pays more than any other state on a per-student basis, the cost of living here is so high that once that factor is included, public schools here received less money than the national average.”  (Alaska Beacon) 

Written by Brenda Taylor, with frequent references to publications from Alaska Council of School Superintendents, Alaska Legislative Finance, and the Alaska Beacon.

Additional Resources:

Data Source: Legislative Finance

Visualization Source: https://alaskaacsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-JPS-Layout-final.pdf

Ranked Choice Voting

by

Slow Reveal
Notice, Wonder, Connect

This graphic shows how the ranked choice voting tabulation process worked in the November 2022 Alaska race for US House of Representatives. In the House election, Mary Peltola (Democrat) started off with the most votes, but she had fewer votes than the two Republicans (Nick Begich and Sarah Palin) put together. However, enough of Nick Begich’s voters wanted Mary Peltola over Sarah Palin, that when he was eliminated, Peltola won. Meanwhile, the Senate saw a different situation. Lisa Murkowski and Kelly Tshibaka are both Republicans and far and away had more votes than the Democrat (or the third Republican). Neither had over 50% though. After two rounds of elimination, Lisa Murkowski won. In both of these races, the candidate who had the most votes in the first round ended up winning. The difference is that in the House race, the Republican candidates combined had more votes, but enough wanted the Democrat over the other Republican, that it changed the outcome. Meanwhile in the Senate, the Democrat had many fewer votes but when she was eliminated her votes decided which of the Republican candidates would win. In both these scenarios, ranked choice voting provided more opportunity for voters to express their preference for candidates.

Beginning in the summer of 2022, Alaska switched to a ranked choice voting system. In ranked choice voting, voters rank candidates. There are multiple types of ranked choice voting, but Alaska uses instant-runoff voting. In round one of the counting, each candidate starts with however many voters ranked them #1. If no candidate has received more than 50% of the vote, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and all their votes are distributed to each voter’s second pick. This process is repeated until one candidate has over 50% of the vote. In some cases, there is no elimination process because one candidate wins in the first round. In November, 2022, for instance, Dunleavy received over 50% of the round one votes in the Alaska governor’s race so he immediately won. However, the statewide races for U.S. Senate and House both required two rounds of elimination to reach a candidate. 

There are many decisions made when designing a voting system. For example, Alaska starts with a primary. In that primary, voters only select one candidate. The top four candidates advance to the general election where instant-runoff voting occurs. All of these decisions impact the outcome of the election. Instant-runoff voting encourages a candidate to have broad appeal even if their supporters are not very enthusiastic about them. A candidate needs to get at least 50% of people to have voted for them, but they could have been a voter’s second or third choice. Meanwhile in a first-past-the-post system like most of the United States uses, a candidate needs to have the most supporters who feel strongly enough about them to pick them over everyone else even if that is still a minority of the voters in the area. Alaska tries to balance these tradeoffs by having the four general election candidates be picked by first-past-the-post and the winner be selected by ranked choice.

Additional Resources:

Visualization Type: Sankey Diagram

Data Source: Alaska Division of Elections

Visualization Source: Craig Fox using SankeyMatic

This graphic can be replicated with different data with some effort and minimal technical skill. Election data must be retrieved from Alaska’s Division of Elections and manually entered into SankeyMatic. The text entered to create these visualizations can be found below

RepresentativeDownload
SenatorDownload

Electricity Sources

by

Slow Reveal
Notice, Wonder, Connect

Students’ suggestions for catchy graph titles: “Powering Alaska,” “A Heated Topic”, “Electricity and Alaska.”

This graph shows Alaska’s electricity generation since 2001. It is based on data reported to the United States Energy Information Administration. It shows the relative percentages of each form of electricity generation.

Electricity can be generated using different methods. One way to generate electricity is by burning fossil fuels. Burning these fuels releases heat that can boil water to create steam. The steam turns turbines that can power an energy grid. A less efficient method of converting fossil fuel to electricity is necessary in smaller power plants and backup generators throughout Alaska; there, diesel engines or diesel-fired turbines are used. Petroleum (oil), natural gas, and coal fall into the category of fossil fuels. This type of energy production releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change.

There is also renewable energy, which uses the natural world around us to produce energy. Hydropower harnesses the kinetic energy from flowing water. In Southeast we have relatively low flow, but lots of “head pressure.”  In the lower 48, the large river system hydro plants rely more on flow. Wind turbines, powered by moving air, use the energy from wind in motion. Photovoltaic solar panels absorb solar energy from the Sun, converting it to electricity that we can use. Around 5-20% of the solar energy is converted to electricity. Geothermal energy uses the heat from the Earth’s core to create electricity, usually by powering a steam turbine.

This graph shows the different energy sources used to generate electricity in Alaska from 2001 to 2019. Note that this graph shows energy generation, the conversion of a fuel source (diesel, wind, etc) to electric energy. This is different from electricity consumption.  Because of Alaska’s geography, its electrical grids are disconnected from the rest of the United States and Canada.   This means that no electricity is imported to or exported from Alaska. Other states, by contrast, may generate as little as 2/5 of the electricity that they actually consume.  In Southeast Alaska, the only communities connected to one another are Prince of Wales Island, Ketchikan-Wrangell-Petersburg, and the Haines-Chilkat Valley. It is also important to note that this graph only shows which energy sources produce electricity. Alaska produces additional energy, mainly through oil, but the vast majority is not used for electricity generation in Alaska. The crude oil is shipped out of state to be refined and then shipped back to Alaska for various uses including space heating and transportation. 

Since 2001, Alaska’s electrical grid has mostly been powered by natural gas. In 2019, natural gas powered 50% of Alaska’s electricity. Large metro areas like Anchorage, the Matanuska Valley and the Kenai Peninsula use mostly natural gas. The second biggest contributor to Alaska’s electrical grid is hydropower, which powered 22% of Alaska’s electricity in 2019. Hydropower is most common in Southeast and Southcentral regions. Petroleum (14% in 2019) and coal (11% in 2019) come next. Smaller villages mostly use petroleum. Coal is used to generate electricity in Fairbanks. Wind power systems have been developed along the coast, along the road system and in remote areas.  

Alaska went from having 11 wind turbines to having 59 in 2012, when advancements in technology made the construction of wind turbines more cost effective. The rise in wind power was also due in part to federal tax incentives. The incentives did not have as big an impact in Alaska as in other states because most of the utilities in Alaska are nonprofits and do not pay income taxes.  There were two wind projects – one in Anchorage and one in Fairbanks – that were built by developers who did take advantage of the tax credits.  

Direct federal funds have had some impact on increasing the use of renewable resources in Alaska.  It was a federal grant that paid for a transmission line to connect Greens Creek Mine to Juneau’s electric system (dramatically reducing diesel usage by the mine.)  The state of Alaska set up a Renewable Energy Fund in 2008 which has since funded a number of electric generation projects. 

Looking ahead, the new federal infrastructure bill is written to make certain tax credits refundable for municipal utilities and coops, which will open other opportunities.  Furthermore, with oil prices high again, the state is again putting money into the REF Grant program.

In 2014, petroleum usage fell. Coal usage remained constant, but the decrease in petroleum meant that coal became a larger percent. However this was temporary. The reason that the coal and petroleum areas switched places on the graph is that the colored bands are ordered from highest percent to lowest percent, and during 2014, petroleum’s percent was briefly lower than coal’s percent.  Frankly, we’re still trying to figure out what caused that dip in petroleum. 

Do you think this graph is easy to understand? If so, what makes it easy? If not, what aspects of the graph do you think are confusing or unnecessary?

Additional Resources:

A special thanks to Alec Mesdag from AEL&P for his assistance in this explanation.

Visualization Type: Stacked Area Graph

Data Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Visualization Source: How Does Your State Make Electricity?, NYTimes

It can easily be replicated. Go to the NYTimes article and select the state you want to see.