## UK Exports and Imports, from EU and non-EU regions

UK Exports and Imports, from EU and non-EU regions.

We give a view into the worldwide distribution of UK exports and imports. The EU countries are separated since they will need new negotiations, and may be most affected by BRexit.
We use data in billions of British Pounds, for 2014.

Imports were 199 (47%) from non-EU, and 222 (53%) from the EU for a total of 421.

Exports were 164 (53%) from non-EU, and 147 (47%) from the EU for a total of 310.5.

The order of regions of export and import were remarkably similar, and will be listed by their ordering of imports. The order of EU countries were also similar, except for the Irish Republic, and will also be listed by their ordering of imports to the EU.

It’s expected with the dropping British Pound, that it will be easier for the UK to export products, and more costly to import products.

Worldwide Regions for Imports and Exports in Billions of British Pounds:

World Region:   Imports Non-EU;…… Exports Non-EU
Total Non-EU ……………………199…………… 164

Asia and Oceania……………….. 80…………….. 50
North America…………………… 44…………….. 44
W. Europe non-EU…………….. 34…………….. 29
Middle East and N. Africa…… 15.3…………… 18.6
Sub Saharan Africa…………….. 10.5……………. 6.9
Eastern Europe……………………. 7.8……………. 6.4
Latin America………………………………………….. 5.1

EU Countries for Imports and Exports in Billions of British Pounds:

Country:           Imports from;           Exports to
Total EU……………………. 222………………… 147

Germany…………………….. 60…………………. 31.6
Netherlands………………… 32…………………. 22.3
France………………………… 25…………………. 19.7
Belgium………………………. 21.6………………. 12.6
Italy……………………………. 16.7………………… 8.8
Spain………………………….. 13.3………………… 8.8
Irish Republic……………… 11.8……………….. 17.8
Poland…………………………. 7.7…………………. 3.8
Sweden………………………… 7.6…………………. 5.5

We note that there is a net negative balance of payments with each non-EU region, except for North America, where imports and exports are about equal.  The net non-EU balance of payments is a negative 65 billion pounds.

We not that there is similarly a net negative balance of payments with the leading EU countries, except for the Irish Republic, where there is a net positive 6 billion Pound balance of payments.  The net EU balance of payments is a  negative 75 billion Pounds.

The total balance of payments is a negative 140 billion Pounds.

Of course, I have to add California’s trade relation to Britain.  In 2014, California exported $5 billion to Britain, which was our 10th largest export country. For imports to California, Britain ranked 17th with$3.8 billion.  Britain had the largest number of visitors to California, second to China, with 686,000, spending $905 million. Thanks to the LA Times for this data. Posted in BRexit, Economies | Leave a comment ## Comparison of World, EU, the U. K., and US GDPs Comparison of World, EU, the U. K., and US GDPs. We provide and compare the GDPs of leading world countries, and leading countries of the EU, with respect to that of the U. K.. We also compare the GDPs scaled by the value of goods in terms of dollars, or the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) values. Since the PPP is scaled to dollars, the US GDP and PPP are always the same. We use mostly International Monetary Fund (IMF) data for 2015. Starting at the top, the World’s GDP is$73.2 trillion (t). All numbers given are in trillion dollars. The top three entities are the US at $17.9, the EU at$17.0, and China at $11.0, but China has the largest PPP at$19.4. The next largest PPPs are India with $7.97 ($2.09 GDP), and Japan with $4.83 ($4.12 GDP). The next largest PPPs which are not in the EU, are Russia at $3.72 ($1.33 GDP), and Brazil at $3.19 ($1.78 GDP).  A bagel chart of the World’s GDP contributions is taken from Wikipedia.

Now we switch to the EU GDPs, which total $17.0. The largest is Germany at$3.36 ($3.84 PPP), then the UK at$2.85 ($2.68 PPP), France at$2.42 ($2.65 PPP), Italy at$1.82 ($2.17 PPP), and Spain at$1.20 ($1.62 PPP). The sum of the top 5 GDPs of the EU is$11.7 or 69% of the total. For the PPP, the top 5 EU total is $13.0. The percentage of EU GDP by the UK is 17%. A pie chart of the contributions to the EU GDP from the IMF is below. Since we are reporting from California, we show where this would fit if it were a country. California’s GDP and PPP are$2.42. In terms of GDP it would be tied for sixth with France. In terms of PPP it would be 11 th. Comparing its PPP to that of EU countries, it would be fourth. Of the US GDP of $17.9, California’s GDP is 13.5%, or about one seventh. Of US states, Texas is second with a GDP of$1.65, and New York is third with \$1.44.

## Comparison of the U. K.’s, European Union’s, and US Populations

Comparison of UK, European Union, and US Populations

Many of us know the UK for their Royalty and history, their wonderful collection of artifacts in the British Museum, their accents, their actors, Downton Abbey, the Beatles, their habit of piling stones in circles, the Rolling Stones, etc. We have no notion of their population or economics. I am just going to provide some of these boring population numbers in comparison to the European Union (EU) and the US to get a feel for their size. The next article will report on the GDP comparisons.

I was surprised to learn that the UK population is 65 million, compared to the US population of 324 million, so they are 20% of the US population. I was also surprised to learn that they are essentially tied with the population of France at 64 million. We are also admirable of France with their great history, monuments, cuisine, museums, culture, nearly unpronounceable language, tourism, and long vacations.

In fact, all of the venerable historical and cultural countries of the EU have similarly smaller populations compared to the US. Here are the top six in population: Germany, 81 million; UK, 65 million; France, 64 million; Italy, 63 million; Spain, 46 million; and Poland, 39 million.

The total of the top 6 is 358 million. The total population of the 28 countries in the EU is 508 million, so the top 6 have 70% of the total. The total of the top 5 is comparable to the population of the US.  The U.K.  has 12.8% of the EU population, or about an eighth. The US has 64% of the population of the EU.

Comparing the UK to the US, and to California with its population of 37 million, and Texas with its population of 25 million, the U.K.  slightly beats the combined population of California and Texas with 62 million.

Even if Scotland soon departs from the UK  in order to remain in the EU, it only takes away 5.3 million from its’ population.

## Should We Also Elect the Vice Presidential Candidate in the Primaries?

Should We Also Elect the Vice Presidential Candidate in the Primaries?

The only jobs assigned to the Vice President are to become President if the President is disabled or deceased, and to preside over the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes.  Yet the Vice Presidential candidate is not chosen by primaries of 50 states plus territories, but is singly chosen by the party presidential candidate.  Even though the convention votes on his or her choice, they do not vote the VP candidate down and then consider others.

If the VP candidate is a governor or senator, they have only faced election by the voters of one state, and sometimes that is a very small state, and one with no competition from a candidate from the other party.  There is no official vetting committee or process to choosing the VP candidate.

The problem with electing the VP candidate in the primaries,  is that in a primary with, say, 18 presidential candidates, the best VP candidates will probably be among them.  The fierceness of the Republican primaries ruled out a lot of chances for a joint ticket.

That being said, the VP candidate does have to be elected on the same ticket that the President runs on to assume office.  Occasionally, the VP harms the image of the joint ticket, or simply does not help it.  Factors in choosing a VP candidate are the ability to bring in a large swing state, to appeal to voting sectors not secured by the presidential candidate, to be a comfortable running mate to the presidential candidate, and, hopefully, to bring an image of being a desirable replacement President, if needed.

In 2012, Representative Paul Ryan ran to secure Wisconsin, to add a Catholic to a ticket with the Mormon Romney, and to add a budget expert, which was not really needed, since presidential candidate Gov. Mitt Romney already had business and state budgetary expertise.  Rep. Ryan is now Speaker of the House and has presidential bearing.

In 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was apparently selected by Republican candidate Sen. John McCain on short notice with no outside vetting, to invigorate his campaign, and as a popular public speaker.  We applaud him for choosing a woman governor.  As people know, she did not turn out to be well grounded in political issues and in foreign policy.

In 2000, head of Halliburton, Dick Cheney, was selected to vet the VP candidates for Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush.  After a very careful and unbiased process, Cheney decided that he was the best VP candidate, and this was approved by the convention.  (Had Trump been a candidate for VP, he would have noted the constitutional provision that the presidential and VP candidates had to be from different states, and Halliburton was in Texas.  However, Cheney still had a small house in Wyoming, so nobody seriously brought this up.)

(People who think that this election is somehow uniquely weird, need only look back a few years.)

There has been concern that Republican candidate Donald Trump might select an inappropriate VP candidate.  He has tried to ameliorate that by seeking party recommendations for candidates, and hiring a previous Republican vetting expert to run the choice.  Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Rep. Paul Ryan say they are not interested, but New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie would be.

## Maximized Disenfranchisement in Most of the Republican Primaries

Maximized Disenfranchisement in Most of the Republican Primaries

In order to speed to the early selection of the Republican nominee, 80% of the Republican delegates are in primaries where winner-take-all, or winner-take-most. In winner-take-all, just a plurality takes all the delegates. In winner-take-most, a majority over 50% takes the at-large delegates, and in a district, takes the district. In these cases, voters who voted for anyone but the winner are completely disenfranchised.

An unforeseen consequence of this, is that near the end of the primary season, where almost all primaries in front of the candidates are the winner-take-all, with a few winner-take-most, since the secondary candidates cannot gain anything, their funding and supporters vanish. Thus they drop out, and the leading Trump card takes all by forfeiture.

The other unplanned consequence, is that any attempt to stop the early favorite celebrity candidate is now doomed to defeat. As Trump says, “live with it”.

Even in the proportional primaries, with only 3 delegates to a district, the split has to start at 2-1. So even with an almost two way tie, instead of splitting the delegates 50-50, they already start with and enormous split of 67% to 33%, a 33% split. Again, speed, at the cost of carrying and second place candidate. Of course the presence of three candidates, where the third could only carry his home state, did not help the second place candidate to compete.

In the winner-take-most with the leader under 50%, the split was 2-1 with the second place candidate, with no take for the third candidate.

Also unforeseen, was that Trump took the five week selection lead over Clinton, and blew it away with controversy and little clarity of presidential plans.

After the problems Gov. Romney had in 2012, the Republicans designed this new accelerated system, with accompanying disenfranchisement. It was a case of planning of preparing to fight the last war better, not realizing that the next war would be unlike the last one and mainly unpredictable. The best system is to bring back proportional voting to treat all candidates and voters equally.

The other annoying thing from the view of the voters in the rest of the country, is to get rid of the four February advantaged states with few delegates that get six months of solid campaigning to their special interests. Start out on Super Tuesday in March with primaries from many states in all parts of the country to spread around the campaigning and issues. So let it be written, so let it be done.

## Displacement in the Democratic District Delegate Splits

Displacement in the Democratic District Delegate Splits

In a delegate distribution based on congressional districts, where there often is just a two way split, there has to be some misrepresentations when a few delegates are split to match a continuous distribution of the vote percentage for the district. When the Republicans only have a fixed 3 delegates for each district, the degree of misrepresentation is greater than in Democratic districts with an average of 6 delegates per district.

Democrats use other integers than 6 if a district has more or less Democrats than average, with 5 and 7 being the most common. I think of the odd number districts as being like a balance scale, where the slightest asymmetric weighting will immediately cause it to fall in the direction of the heavier pan. The odd delegate number 5 districts immediately split 3-2 and the 7 delegate districts immediately split 4-3. So even in close races, leads can easily be built up. For even delegate number districts, the balance is stuck, 3-3, until the lead of one candidate exceeds 16.6% more votes than the other, to get a 4-2 split. In a few articles, I worked out how this shifted the representation in detail.  So even number delegate districts suppress differences, and odd number delegate districts enhance differences.

The good news for Democratic voters is that at the statewide level, the statewide voting averages are very close to the distribution of pledged delegates rewarded. With the larger states, with many at-large and PLEOs proportionately split, the vote and delegate difference is within 1%, with the biggest split being 1.7%. I have checked this with the seven largest states, which have 1,788 pledged delegates, or 44.1% of all pledged delegates.

If this were more widely known, it might cause fewer voters to show up in the even number of delegate districts, and more in the odd number districts. In close states, candidates should put more of their time, volunteers, and ads in the odd delegate districts, as perhaps they already do. In a survey of California’’s 53 districts (yes, it’s true), while the maps showed Sanders leading in some, they were all even number districts, that ended up 3-3, and he didn’t win any odd number districts.

By putting more delegates in districts with more Democrats, the party is proportionately weighting more influence and representation to them in the convention in candidate choice, rule setting, and platform decisions. This also increases the likelihood of electing a Democratic President and Democrats to all other positions.

## Disenfranchisement in Democratic Superdelegates and Caucuses

Disenfranchisement in Democratic Superdelegates and Caucuses

During my innumerable campaign articles, I came across several ways in which citizens or voters of a state get disenfranchised. I need to summarize these, at least for a lecture that I am going to give on the workings of the primaries and caucuses. The one thing I see to stress at this time, is that disenfranchisement leads to dis- or misrepresentation.

In principal, the Democratic use of proportional primaries should be and probably is a more representative system than the Republican winner-take-all basis. But it still has its faults.

As Senator Sanders and his supporters have pointed out, the inclusion of somewhat unelected superdelegates in deciding the presidential candidate disenfranchises the voters in the primaries and caucuses. I say somewhat unelected, since some of the superdelegates are elected Democrats in state or local governments. The PLEOs are the main elected state officials and congressmen, and are committed proportionally to the statewide vote. Other superdelegates are leading statewide party officials who may be elected by the party. The number of pledged delegates is 4,051, and the number of superdelegates is 714, giving the total of 4,765 delegates. So superdelegates are 15.0% of the total, or 17.6% over the number of pledged delegates. One thing that irked the Sander’s campaign was that the superdelegates committed early for Clinton, and could have easily discouraged Sander’s voters, volunteers, and contributors.

Another clear violation of enfranchisement and representation is the use of highly partisan and small turnout caucuses or conventions, which only represent a small fraction of the eventual presidential vote of a state. I count 18 caucuses out of 50 states, 5 territories, and D.C. The ratio is 18/56 = 32%, or a very large 1/3 of participating governments. Sanders benefitted overwhelmingly in these entities with what must have been excellent organization and using the enthusiasm of youth. By my amateur count, Sanders won 13 of the caucuses, and Clinton won 5. Sanders won 352 pledged delegates, and Clinton won 213 in the caucuses. The total number of pledged caucus delegates is 565, or 79% of the number of superdelegates.

It might be said that the caucus delegates are even less representative of the citizens of a state than the states’ superdelegates are. These highly partisan delegates not only fully participate in the choice of the party candidate, but of the votes on party convention and delegate appropriation rules, but also on the party platform. They also deny the convention any knowledge of what a states’ citizens want, but also do not allow the party to include the citizen’ desires in the platform or in the presidential campaign.

Three large states are the egregious violators of citizens’ fair representation: Washington with 111 pledged delegates, Minnesota with 77, and Colorado with 66. These pledged delegates make up a full 45% of all caucus pledged delegates. They should be pressured, by their own citizens at least, to have representative primaries. To further pressure them, we note that Washington has a population of 7.1 million, Minnesota has 5.5 million, and Colorado has 5.3 million. This is a lot of people to disenfranchise.

## Sanders’ Superdelegate Dreams

Sanders’ Superdelegate Dreams

Now that Secretary Clinton has beaten Sanders in the pledged delegate race, he has to get a large number of Superdelegates to win the nomination. Right now, Clinton has 2,203 pledged delegates, a lead of 375 over Sanders’ 1,828 pledged delegates.

There are 4,051 total pledged delegates and 714 Superdelegates, for a total of 4,765 delegates to the Democratic convention. Only 20 pledged delegates are left to be chosen, from the D.C. Primary on June 14. Clinton will probably dominate these. To win the nomination, half of the total 4,765 delegates, or 2,383, are needed.

Sanders then needs almost 2,383 – 1,828 = 555 Superdelegates to win, out of a total of 714 Superdelegates, or 77.7% of them.

Clinton has 574 Superdelegates, or 80.4%, and Sanders has 48, or 6.7%. Out of the total of 714 Superdelegates, there are only 92 left uncommitted, or 12.9%. Superdelegates are unpledged and can change their mind until they vote. But they are the Democratic office holders and the state party leaders, and are very much in the public eye, and committed to the Democratic cause.

If Sanders keeps his 48, or 6.7%, and adds the 92, or 12.9%, of the uncommitted, he starts with 140, or 19.6%. To get to the required 555, or 77.7%, he must get 415, or 58.1% of all Superdelegates left. They must all come from Clinton’s 574, or her 80.4%. The desired 415 out of 574 is 72.3%, which is how many of Clinton’s delegates must switch. People say it is hard to get any Superdelegates to switch.

So far, Trump has not attacked Sanders, in order to encourage a split among Democrats. That is why Sanders has done better in the polls against Trump than Clinton has. It is still seven weeks until the July 25-28 Democratic convention starts in Philadelphia. Either Trump’s vicious attacks against Clinton will take a toll, or they will only let Trump self-destruct. Even if the attacks lower Clinton’s numbers against Trump, selecting Sanders as the candidate will only set him up for Trump the Merciless to destroy him as well.

## Hillary Clinton Becomes First Woman Presidential Candidate

Hillary Clinton First Woman Presidential Candidate of a Major Party

There are many laudatory titles that could have been chosen here. Here’s another. Former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has convincingly achieved the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. She did this both with superdelegates, and also considering pledged delegates alone. She also did this with a policy based campaign, and without personal attacks against her primary opponent Senator Sanders, thus preserving party unity.

On Super Tuesday June 7, Clinton convincingly won both the largest state of California, by 56% to 43%, and the large state of New Jersey, overwhelmingly by 63% to 37%.

In California, Clinton won 269 pledged delegates, to Sanders’ 206, out of the total of 475 pledged delegates. Sanders had campaigned for two weeks to make California his last stand, and Clinton gained 63 delegates on him there.

In New Jersey, next to her home state of New York, Clinton won 79 pledged delegates to Sanders’ 47, gaining another 32 delegates over Sanders.

Clinton won New Mexico, 51.5% to 48.5%, receiving 18 delegates to Sanders 16, gaining a small edge of 2.

Clinton won South Dakota, 51.0% to 49.0%, and they each received 10 delegates.

As usual, I am amazed by such close races, and have no way to explain them.

Sanders won the Montana primary by 51.1% to 44.6%, and received 11 delegates to Clinton’s 10, a relative gain of 1.

As usual, Sanders won the North Dakota caucus, by 64% to 26%, winning 13 delegates to Clinton’s 5, for a relative gain of 8.

So Clinton’s relative gain of pledged delegates for the night is 63+32+2 = 97. Sanders’ relative gain was 9. This super Tuesday had to be a severe disappointment to Sanders, his campaign managers and workers, and to his supporters, since he fell further back by a net 88 delegates.

Clinton now has 2,203 pledged delegates to Sanders’ 1,828, a lead of 375 pledged delegates.

Although Sanders said to fight on to the only primary left, D.C. on Tuesday, June 14, there are only 20 pledged delegates available there. Clinton should have a big lead there.

Sanders and others have made the claim that since superdelegates are not democratically elected, they shouldn’t be counted. That argument doesn’t work anymore, if we look at only pledged delegates. There are 4,051 pledged delegates, of the 4,765 total. Half of the pledged delegates is 2,026. Clinton now has 2,203 pledged delegates, and is over the required number by 177, or by 8.7%.

Sanders’ only hope now is to get many more superdelegates than Clinton has, that is, to convince them to switch.

Sanders’ only argument now, that he does better against Trump than Clinton, is only due to the fact that part of Trump’s strategy has been not to attack Sanders, to force a split among Democrats. Should Sanders become the candidate, it is unknown how much support Sanders would lose to a merciless daily Trump attack.

## Trump: Where’s the Rest of Him?

Trump: Where’s the Rest of Him?

As predicted by the Republican Party, which set up the Winner-Take-All primaries to set up the early choice of their candidate, Trump swept the WTA primaries. The TV networks can only show Trump and the leading runner up, who usually had votes at most in the teens. As a math nerd that needs things to add up to 100%, I was struck by the winning but not A grade percentages that Trump was getting. His percentages ranged from 67% in South Dakota to 81% in New Jersey. That means that a third to a fifth of Republicans are not voting for Trump, but for defunct candidates who haven’t been campaigning for a month, have probably not visited their states, are not on TV, are not running TV ads, are not sending out mailers, and are not making robocalls. This is really an anyone-but-Trump movement that doesn’t even have any backers, organization, or an appointed candidate.

The obvious question is who are this significant fraction of Republican voters going to vote for in the general election? Or are they going to sit out the election? I think that these voters are not going to skip the general election, since they already showed up to vote, even if it was not for Trump. Almost all loyal Republicans are not going to vote for a Democrat. So what will they do? I don’t know. It is true that Trump has had a terrible week, and hopefully he will smooth out by the general election, for everybody’s sake.

Let’s look at the results in detail, ordered by most support of Trump.

New Jersey:…….Trump 80.4%, Kasich 11.3%, Cruz 9.2%;

California:……….Trump 75.3%, Kasich 13.4%, Cruz 6.2%;

Montana:…………Trump 73.7%, Kasich 6.9%, Cruz 9.4%;

New Mexico:…….Trump 70.7%, Kasich 7.6%, Cruz 13.3%;

South Dakota……Trump 67.1%, Kasich 15.9%, Cruz 17.0%.

Trump might have done best in New Jersey because it is neighboring to his home state of New York, and because of his building in Atlantic City.  Leaving New Jersey aside, his highest percentage is 75% in California, meaning at least a quarter of Republicans are still favoring someone else.  None of the others won any delegates.

(Seniors know that the famous line: “Where’s the rest of me?” Was spoken in a movie by Ronald Reagan.)