TED2009
Nate Silver: Does racism affect how you vote?
納特希爾弗：種族背景會影響選票嗎？
Filmed:
Readability: 4
498,847 views
納特希爾弗探討種族背景在政治上扮演的角色，這是頗富爭議性的話題。究竟歐巴馬的種族背景是否為選舉帶來負面影響？在這場精彩的演講，數據與迷思互相衝擊。最後，以好的城市規劃會帶來和諧的社會，為結論。
Nate Silver - Statistician
Math whiz and baseball fan Nate Silver was mainly known for predicting outcomes in fantasy ballgames -- until his technique hit a home run calling the outcome of the 2008 election primaries. Full bio
Math whiz and baseball fan Nate Silver was mainly known for predicting outcomes in fantasy ballgames -- until his technique hit a home run calling the outcome of the 2008 election primaries. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:15
I want to talk about the election.
0
0
3000
我要跟大家聊聊有關選舉
00:18
For the first time in the United States, a predominantly white group of voters
1
3000
3000
美國有史以來，大多數白人選民
00:21
voted for an African-American candidate for President.
2
6000
3000
首次投票給一位非洲裔候選人
00:24
And in fact Barack Obama did quite well.
3
9000
2000
事實上，歐巴馬取得不錯的成績
00:26
He won 375 electoral votes.
4
11000
2000
獲得了375張選舉人票
00:28
And he won about 70 million popular votes
5
13000
3000
與此同時，還獲得7,000萬張民眾選票
00:31
more than any other presidential candidate --
6
16000
2000
是歷屆總統選舉中，獲得票數最高
00:33
of any race, of any party -- in history.
7
18000
3000
比任何族裔和黨派的候選人都要出色
00:36
If you compare how Obama did against how John Kerry had done four years earlier --
8
21000
4000
比起歐巴馬與四年前凱利的選舉
00:40
Democrats really like seeing this transition here,
9
25000
3000
民主黨應該很欣然看到當中的改變
00:43
where almost every state becomes bluer, becomes more democratic --
10
28000
4000
幾乎每個州，對民主黨的支持度均上升
00:47
even states Obama lost, like out west,
11
32000
2000
就連歐巴馬輸掉的州份，比如美國西岸
00:49
those states became more blue.
12
34000
2000
也是如此
00:51
In the south, in the northeast, almost everywhere
13
36000
3000
相同情形也出現在南部和東北部
00:54
but with a couple of exceptions here and there.
14
39000
3000
當然，也有一些例外
00:57
One exception is in Massachusetts.
15
42000
2000
其中一個例外是麻薩諸塞州
00:59
That was John Kerry's home state.
16
44000
2000
那是凱利的家鄉
01:01
No big surprise, Obama couldn't do better than Kerry there.
17
46000
2000
理所當然，歐巴馬的成績不可能勝過凱利
01:03
Or in Arizona, which is John McCain's home,
18
48000
2000
還有亞利桑那州，那是對手麥肯的家鄉
01:05
Obama didn't have much improvement.
19
50000
2000
歐巴馬很難有所突破
01:07
But there is also this part of the country, kind of in the middle region here.
20
52000
2000
在中部地區也有類似情況，如
01:09
This kind of Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, West Virginia region.
21
54000
4000
阿肯色州、田納西州、俄克拉荷馬州、西佛吉尼亞州
01:13
Now if you look at '96, Bill Clinton --
22
58000
2000
比較1996年克林頓
01:15
the last Democrat to actually win -- how he did in '96,
23
60000
3000
上一位代表民主黨獲勝總統的票選
01:18
you see real big differences in this part of the country right here,
24
63000
3000
會發現驚人的改變
01:21
the kind of Appalachians, Ozarks, highlands region, as I call it:
25
66000
4000
地區如：阿巴拉契亞山區(Appalachinas)、歐扎克斯(Ozarks)、高原地區
01:25
20 or 30 point swings
26
70000
2000
有20至30點的調整
01:27
from how Bill Clinton did in '96 to how Obama did
27
72000
2000
這是從1996克林頓到歐巴馬
01:29
in 2008.
28
74000
2000
2008年
01:31
Yes Bill Clinton was from Arkansas, but these are very, very profound differences.
29
76000
5000
雖然阿肯色州是克林頓的家鄉，但當中的差距未免也太大！
01:36
So, when we think about parts of the country like Arkansas, you know.
30
81000
2000
讓我們探討一下地區，如阿肯色州
01:38
There is a book written called, "What's the Matter with Kansas?"
31
83000
3000
有本書叫《 堪薩斯州到底怎麼了？》
01:41
But really the question here -- Obama did relatively well in Kansas.
32
86000
3000
但問題是，歐巴馬在堪薩斯州的成績不算差
01:44
He lost badly but every Democrat does.
33
89000
2000
他雖然輸了這個州，但每位民主黨候選人都這樣
01:46
He lost no worse than most people do.
34
91000
2000
他沒有不如他人
01:48
But yeah, what's the matter with Arkansas?
35
93000
4000
所以囉，阿肯色州到底怎麼了？
01:52
(Laughter)
36
97000
1000
（笑聲）
01:53
And when we think of Arkansas we tend to have pretty negative connotations.
37
98000
3000
想到阿肯色州，難免有些負面的想法
01:56
We think of a bunch of rednecks, quote, unquote, with guns.
38
101000
3000
一群拿著槍的鄉下人
01:59
And we think people like this probably don't want to vote
39
104000
3000
想也知道這些人不會支持
02:02
for people who look like this and are named Barack Obama.
40
107000
3000
歐巴馬這類型，甚至聽到這名字就不想理了
02:05
We think it's a matter of race. And is this fair?
41
110000
3000
歸根究底，就是種族問題在作怪
02:08
Are we kind of stigmatizing people from Arkansas, and this part of the country?
42
113000
3000
如此形容阿肯色州人，是否太武斷了？
02:11
And the answer is: it is at least partially fair.
43
116000
3000
其實不然，起碼有一部份說得對
02:14
We know that race was a factor, and the reason why we know that
44
119000
2000
種族問題的確有影響，如此說
02:16
is because we asked those people.
45
121000
2000
是因為有經過查證
02:18
Actually we didn't ask them, but when they conducted
46
123000
2000
雖然沒有直接詢問原因
02:20
exit polls in every state,
47
125000
2000
但曾在投票站
02:22
in 37 states, out of the 50,
48
127000
2000
50個州中，就訪問了30個州
02:24
they asked a question, that was pretty direct, about race.
49
129000
3000
有關種族的問題
02:27
They asked this question.
50
132000
2000
內容是
02:29
In deciding your vote for President today, was the race
51
134000
2000
在今天的總統選舉中，候選人的種族背景
02:31
of the candidate a factor?
52
136000
2000
是否考量因素之一？
02:33
We're looking for people that said, "Yes, race was a factor;
53
138000
3000
我們特別針對承認候選人種族背景
02:36
moreover it was an important factor, in my decision,"
54
141000
2000
或多或少影響到投票決定的選民
02:38
and people who voted for John McCain
55
143000
3000
尤其支持麥肯
02:41
as a result of that factor,
56
146000
2000
其真正原因
02:43
maybe in combination with other factors, and maybe alone.
57
148000
2000
或許只有一個原因，有或許更多
02:45
We're looking for this behavior among white voters
58
150000
3000
特別著重白人選民
02:48
or, really, non-black voters.
59
153000
3000
喔，正確說是非黑人選民做研究
02:51
So you see big differences in different parts
60
156000
2000
大家可以看到，差距其實很大
02:53
of the country on this question.
61
158000
2000
尤其訪問者來自不同地區
02:55
In Louisiana, about one in five white voters
62
160000
3000
路易斯安那州，每五個白人選民，就有一位
02:58
said, "Yes, one of the big reasons why I voted against Barack Obama
63
163000
3000
承認不選歐巴馬
03:01
is because he was an African-American."
64
166000
2000
因為他是非裔美國人
03:03
If those people had voted for Obama,
65
168000
2000
假如這群選民原意支持歐巴馬
03:05
even half of them, Obama would have won Louisiana safely.
66
170000
4000
即使只有一半，也必成歐巴馬的囊中物
03:09
Same is true with, I think, all of these states you see on the top of the list.
67
174000
2000
同樣道理，可以用於以上州份
03:11
Meanwhile, California, New York, we can say, "Oh we're enlightened"
68
176000
4000
再看看加州、紐約，所謂見過世面的州份
03:15
but you know, certainly a much lower incidence of this
69
180000
2000
相對受種族影響較少
03:17
admitted, I suppose,
70
182000
2000
起碼我如此認為
03:19
manifestation of racially-based voting.
71
184000
3000
這是顯而易見
03:22
Here is the same data on a map.
72
187000
2000
地圖顯示同樣的數據
03:24
You kind of see the relationship between
73
189000
2000
更容易看出當中的關係
03:26
the redder states of where more people responded and said,
74
191000
2000
紅色州份就有很多人承認
03:28
"Yes, Barack Obama's race was a problem for me."
75
193000
3000
介意歐巴馬的種族背景
03:31
You see, comparing the map to '96, you see an overlap here.
76
196000
3000
再對照1996年，看到當中的重疊嗎？
03:34
This really seems to explain
77
199000
2000
這就解釋了
03:36
why Barack Obama did worse
78
201000
2000
為甚麼歐巴馬未能獲得某些選民支持
03:38
in this one part of the country.
79
203000
2000
尤其是這些區域
03:40
So we have to ask why.
80
205000
2000
為甚麼有這樣的現象？
03:42
Is racism predictable in some way?
81
207000
2000
種族歧視有跡可尋嗎？
03:44
Is there something driving this?
82
209000
2000
又是甚麼因素致使種族歧視？
03:46
Is it just about some weird stuff that goes on in Arkansas
83
211000
2000
難道這些怪現象只發生在阿肯色州和肯德基州？
03:48
that we don't understand, and Kentucky?
84
213000
2000
讓人難以理解
03:50
Or are there more systematic factors at work?
85
215000
2000
還是有更多其他原因？
03:52
And so we can look at a bunch of different variables.
86
217000
2000
就讓我們深入地了解一下
03:54
These are things that economists and political scientists look at all the time --
87
219000
3000
經濟學家和政治學家早已對此展開調查
03:57
things like income, and religion, education.
88
222000
3000
收入多寡、宗教信仰、教育程度等等
04:00
Which of these seem to drive
89
225000
2000
究竟那項導致
04:02
this manifestation of racism
90
227000
2000
種族歧視
04:04
in this big national experiment we had on November 4th?
91
229000
3000
試圖在11月4日選舉中找出答案
04:07
And there are a couple of these that have
92
232000
2000
當中有幾個因素
04:09
strong predictive relationships,
93
234000
2000
扮演著舉足輕重的影響地位
04:11
one of which is education,
94
236000
3000
其中一個便是教育程度
04:14
where you see the states with the fewest years of schooling
95
239000
2000
大家可以看到教育程度較低的州份
04:16
per adult are in red,
96
241000
2000
以紅色顯示
04:18
and you see this part of the country, the kind of Appalachians region,
97
243000
3000
可以看到阿巴拉契亞山區
04:21
is less educated. It's just a fact.
98
246000
2000
教育程度較低
04:23
And you see the relationship there
99
248000
2000
教育程度直接影響選民
04:25
with the racially-based voting patterns.
100
250000
3000
是否以種族背景為選舉的考慮因素
04:28
The other variable that's important is
101
253000
2000
另一個影響選民的重要因素
04:30
the type of neighborhood that you live in.
102
255000
3000
就是左鄰右舍
04:33
States that are more rural --
103
258000
2000
比較鄉下的州份
04:35
even to some extent of the states like New Hampshire and Maine --
104
260000
2000
如罕布什爾州和緬因
04:37
they exhibit a little bit of
105
262000
2000
也有如此現象
04:39
this racially-based voting against Barack Obama.
106
264000
3000
因為歐巴馬的種族背景，不願支持
04:42
So it's the combination of these two things: it's education
107
267000
2000
因此，兩個因素影響了結果。那就是教育程度
04:44
and the type of neighbors that you have,
108
269000
2000
還有左鄰右舍
04:46
which we'll talk about more in a moment.
109
271000
2000
稍後我會再詳細分析
04:48
And the thing about states like Arkansas and Tennessee
110
273000
2000
阿肯色州和田納西州就是鮮明的例子
04:50
is that they're both very rural,
111
275000
2000
都是鄉下地方
04:52
and they are educationally impoverished.
112
277000
4000
居民所受的教育也較貧乏
04:56
So yes, racism is predictable.
113
281000
2000
所以說種族歧視是有跡可尋
04:58
These things, among maybe other variables,
114
283000
2000
透過以上這些，再加其他因素
05:00
but these things seem to predict it.
115
285000
2000
幫助我們了解
05:02
We're going to drill down a little bit more now,
116
287000
2000
現在，讓我們再深入看看
05:04
into something called the General Social Survey.
117
289000
2000
社會概況調查
05:06
This is conducted by the University of Chicago
118
291000
2000
由芝加哥大學發起
05:08
every other year.
119
293000
2000
每隔一年舉辦一次
05:10
And they ask a series of really interesting questions.
120
295000
2000
當中包括一系列有趣問題
05:12
In 2000 they had particularly interesting questions
121
297000
2000
2000年的調查
05:14
about racial attitudes.
122
299000
2000
特別針對種族觀念
05:16
One simple question they asked is,
123
301000
2000
其中一個簡單的問題
05:18
"Does anyone of the opposite race live in your neighborhood?"
124
303000
4000
「在所居住的社區，有沒有其他種族」？
05:22
We can see in different types of communities that the results are quite different.
125
307000
3000
不同社區所得到的答案也迥然不同
05:25
In cites, about 80 percent of people
126
310000
3000
在市區，80％受訪者
05:28
have someone whom they consider a neighbor of another race,
127
313000
3000
表示有其他種族的鄰居
05:31
but in rural communities, only about 30 percent.
128
316000
3000
在鄉村地區，只有約30％
05:34
Probably because if you live on a farm, you might not have a lot of neighbors, period.
129
319000
3000
或許是因為鄉村，農場遼闊，沒有太多鄰居
05:37
But nevertheless, you're not having a lot of interaction with people
130
322000
3000
因此沒機會與背景不同的人來往
05:40
who are unlike you.
131
325000
2000
尤其那種跟自己完全不同
05:42
So what we're going to do now is take the white people in the survey
132
327000
3000
現在，我們要一份調查
05:45
and split them between those who have black neighbors --
133
330000
3000
將白人分成兩組，一組是有黑人鄰居
05:48
or, really, some neighbor of another race --
134
333000
2000
喔，正確說法是與其他種族為鄰
05:50
and people who have only white neighbors.
135
335000
3000
另一組則只有白人鄰居
05:53
And we see in some variables
136
338000
2000
仔細分析數據
05:55
in terms of political attitudes, not a lot of difference.
137
340000
2000
所持政治立場，兩組分別並不大
05:57
This was eight years ago, some people were more Republican back then.
138
342000
3000
雖說這是八年前的數據，較多人支持共和黨
06:00
But you see Democrats versus Republican,
139
345000
2000
比較民主黨和共和黨
06:02
not a big difference based on who your neighbors are.
140
347000
3000
與誰為鄰，並沒有直接影響政治立場
06:05
And even some questions about race -- for example
141
350000
2000
在針對族裔的調查，例如
06:07
affirmative action, which is kind of a political question,
142
352000
2000
一些如權益平等促進法的問題
06:09
a policy question about race, if you will --
143
354000
2000
此類有關政治的問題
06:11
not much difference here.
144
356000
2000
答案也沒有太大分別
06:13
Affirmative action is not very popular frankly, with white voters, period.
145
358000
3000
坦白說，權益平等促進法在白人選民中，並不受歡迎
06:16
But people with black neighbors and people with mono-racial neighborhoods
146
361000
3000
有黑人的社區，或單一種族的社區
06:19
feel no differently about it really.
147
364000
3000
則沒有太大的分別
06:22
But if you probe a bit deeper and get a bit more personal if you will,
148
367000
4000
不過，如果更深入，針對個人調查
06:26
"Do you favor a law banning interracial marriage?"
149
371000
2000
問題如「是否支持反異族通婚法？」
06:28
There is a big difference.
150
373000
2000
所得的答案則完全不同
06:30
People who don't have neighbors of a different race
151
375000
2000
來自單一種族社區的民眾
06:32
are about twice as likely
152
377000
2000
對這問題的支持率是另一組的兩倍
06:34
to oppose interracial marriage as people who do.
153
379000
3000
反對異族通婚
06:37
Just based on who lives in your immediate neighborhood around you.
154
382000
3000
這單單只是受鄰居影響
06:40
And likewise they asked, not in 2000, but in the same survey in 1996,
155
385000
4000
1996年，也做過相同調查
06:44
"Would you not vote for a qualified black president?"
156
389000
4000
問：「是否支持非裔美國人當選總統？」
06:48
You see people without neighbors who are African-American who
157
393000
2000
調查發現，那些未曾與非裔為鄰
06:50
were much more likely to say, "That would give me a problem."
158
395000
3000
多會表示不願意支持
06:53
So it's really not even about urban versus rural.
159
398000
2000
所以說，這根本不是攸關城市與鄉村
06:55
It's about who you live with.
160
400000
2000
與誰為鄰才是關鍵
06:57
Racism is predictable. And it's predicted by
161
402000
2000
種族歧視是有跡可尋
06:59
interaction or lack thereof with people unlike you, people of other races.
162
404000
4000
透過所接觸的人，甚至交友狀況而得知
07:03
So if you want to address it,
163
408000
2000
簡單來說
07:05
the goal is to facilitate interaction with people of other races.
164
410000
3000
我們的目標就是促進各種族互動
07:08
I have a couple of very obvious, I suppose,
165
413000
2000
我心中有一些想法
07:10
ideas for maybe how to do that.
166
415000
3000
希望能推動這個目標
07:13
I'm a big fan of cities.
167
418000
2000
我非常熱愛城市
07:15
Especially if we have cites that are diverse and sustainable,
168
420000
3000
尤其我們的城市如此多元化
07:18
and can support people of different ethnicities and different income groups.
169
423000
3000
融匯了各族裔群體，各社會階層
07:21
I think cities facilitate more of the kind of networking,
170
426000
3000
城市裡有很多機會擴展社交圈
07:24
the kind of casual interaction than you might have on a daily basis.
171
429000
3000
每天都可以接觸不同的人
07:27
But also not everyone wants to live in a city, certainly not a city like New York.
172
432000
3000
當然，不是每個人都喜歡住城市，尤其是紐約
07:30
So we can think more about things like street grids.
173
435000
3000
讓我們看看這類如棋盤式格局的街道
07:33
This is the neighborhood where I grew up in East Lansing, Michigan.
174
438000
2000
我在芝加哥的東蘭莘長大
07:35
It's a traditional Midwestern community, which means you have real grid.
175
440000
3000
一個典型中西部社區，街道都是整整齊齊
07:38
You have real neighborhoods and real trees, and real streets you can walk on.
176
443000
3000
可以看到實實在在的社區、樹木、街道
07:41
And you interact a lot with your neighbors --
177
446000
3000
在這裡，可以跟許多鄰居來往、互動
07:44
people you like, people you might not know.
178
449000
2000
儘管有些人我們未必喜歡，甚至不了解
07:46
And as a result it's a very tolerant community,
179
451000
3000
卻是一個可包容彼此的社區
07:49
which is different, I think, than something like this,
180
454000
2000
另外一種城市就不一樣
07:51
which is in Schaumburg, Illinois,
181
456000
2000
如伊利諾州的紹姆堡
07:53
where every little set of houses has their own cul-de-sac
182
458000
3000
每家都有私家路
07:56
and drive-through Starbucks and stuff like that.
183
461000
2000
甚至大到可容納一家星巴客等等
07:58
I think that actually this type of urban design,
184
463000
3000
這類社區
08:01
which became more prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s --
185
466000
3000
在70、80年代特別流行
08:04
I think there is a relationship between that and the country becoming
186
469000
3000
我個人認為美國會變得
08:07
more conservative under Ronald Reagan.
187
472000
2000
如此保守，是在雷根總統任職的時候
08:09
But also here is another idea we have --
188
474000
3000
還有另一個想法
08:12
is an intercollegiate exchange program
189
477000
2000
就是交換生計畫
08:14
where you have students going from New York abroad.
190
479000
3000
例如將紐約學生送往海外
08:17
But frankly there are enough differences within the country now
191
482000
2000
老實說，就算在美國，各州縣差距也很大
08:19
where maybe you can take a bunch of kids from NYU,
192
484000
3000
或許可以將紐約大學生
08:22
have them go study for a semester at the University of Arkansas,
193
487000
2000
送到阿肯色大學
08:24
and vice versa. Do it at the high school level.
194
489000
3000
反之亦然。還可以將此延伸至高中
08:27
Literally there are people who might be in school in Arkansas or Tennessee
195
492000
3000
其實，生長在阿肯色州或田納西州的學生
08:30
and might never interact in a positive affirmative way
196
495000
3000
可能從未有機會與其他種族交流
08:33
with someone from another part of the country, or of another racial group.
197
498000
4000
尤其是來自另一個地區或種族
08:37
I think part of the education variable we talked about before
198
502000
3000
教育的其中一個目的
08:40
is the networking experience you get when you go to college
199
505000
2000
就是在大學時期建立人際網絡
08:42
where you do get a mix of people that you might not interact with otherwise.
200
507000
4000
與不同種族的同學交流互動
08:46
But the point is, this is all good news,
201
511000
2000
總結，這可是一個好消息
08:48
because when something is predictable,
202
513000
3000
事情有跡可循
08:51
it is what I call designable.
203
516000
2000
就代表有相關對策
08:53
You can start thinking about solutions to solving that problem,
204
518000
2000
大家可以開始想想有甚麼解決方法
08:55
even if the problem is pernicious and as intractable as racism.
205
520000
3000
儘管不容易解決，如種族歧視，非常棘手
08:58
If we understand the root causes of the behavior
206
523000
2000
但如果我們能夠揪出問題的根源
09:00
and where it manifests itself and where it doesn't,
207
525000
2000
將之抽絲剝繭
09:02
we can start to design solutions to it.
208
527000
3000
必能找出相對應辦法
09:05
So that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
209
530000
2000
以上是我想與大家分享的。謝謝！
09:07
(Applause)
210
532000
1000
(掌聲)
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Nate Silver - StatisticianMath whiz and baseball fan Nate Silver was mainly known for predicting outcomes in fantasy ballgames -- until his technique hit a home run calling the outcome of the 2008 election primaries.
Why you should listen
In the 2008 election season's closing weeks, throngs of wonks and laypeople alike were glued to FiveThirtyEight.com, a habitforming political blog. Red and blue bar charts crowded the scrollbars as the pulse of exit polls crept along the site's latest projections. It seemed almost miraculous: In a year of acute turns of favor, the site's owner and mouthpiece, Nate Silver (who blogged anonymously as "Poblano" until outing himself on May 30, 2008, as a baseball numberhead), managed to predict the winners of every U.S. Senate contest -- and the general Presidential election.
Besides being just-damn-fascinating, Silver's analysis is a decidedly contrarian gauntlet thrown before an unrepentant, spectacle-driven media. The up-and-coming pundit, who cut his teeth forecasting the performance of Major League Baseball players, has a fairly direct explanation of why most projections fail: "Polls are cherry-picked based on their brand name or shock value rather than their track record of accuracy."
Silver's considerable smarts are already helping local campaigns build constituencies and strategize. He is the author of The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail - but Some Don't.
Nate Silver | Speaker | TED.com