Low Voter Turnout Results in Platform Stagnation

We have discussed Johnson’s paper “Voting, Rational Abstention, and Rational Ignorance” in class which argues that it is rational for people to abstain from voting because an individual’s single vote has little probability of affecting the outcome of any election. Johnson also pointed out that a large portion of the American population do not vote. This New Yorker article describes non-voters as typically younger, less educated, and of lower income brackets which aligns with Johnson’s descriptions. The New Yorker article furthers that non-voters have “roughly the same view of the Democrats.”

If non-voters decided to vote, electoral races would be swept by the Democrats. The public’s assumption that America is more or less evenly split between Democrat and Republican values is an incorrect reflection of reality. Johnson clarifies this as a problem when he notes that non-voters’ preferences are not reflected in the outcome which “is difficult to interpret as consent of the governed.”

The incorrect belief that the public is evenly split between Democratic and Republican values is one of the most dangerous implications of rational abstention. If every American voted, more Democrats would be elected than Republicans due to the non-voters’ liberal preferences. That in turn would cause the Republican Party and its candidates to change their platform so that they could win elections because, as Downs pointed out, candidates change their platform to win elections. Altering party platforms is part of the natural evolution of politics. However, if the non-voter trend increases, we risk platform stagnation. As voter turnout decreases, our candidates and parties increasingly do not represent contemporary American values.

Shifting Voter Distribution Leads to Shifting Politicians

As the center of the voting population disappears and voters become more polarized, the probability distribution shape of voters has changed to reflect that. Assuming the Downs model of the Median Voter Theorem holds, even a strongly polarized bimodal distribution has a median voter. The Theorem focuses on one central idea: candidates formulate policies (and campaigns) in order to win elections rather than win elections so that they can formulate the policies. The candidates position themselves to appeal to a certain demographic of voters, with the median voter in mind, and plan a strategy in order to capture those voters to win the election.

Donald Trump is one such example. He trademarked "Make America Great Again" a mere 6 days after Obama won reelection in 2012 leading one to assume that Trump has been planning this campaign for at least the last four years. He has studied the changing electorate and positioned himself in a place he believes is optimal to win the median voter. His slogan, "Make America Great Again" was taken from Ronald Reagan's campaign and revived for this 2016 campaign. Reagan's presidency is considered the Republican heyday by many conservatives, which may be the reason Trump chose that particular phrase.

The problem Trump may face in the election, however, is that the Downs assumptions are not the way real life works, and voters can chose to abstain. Trump is likely to alienate voters and lose a good portion those that stay home or those that vote for a third party candidate.

Coase v. Pigou: A False Dichotomy?

The typical introduction to Coase seems to be framed as an alternative to a Pigouvian tax. This seems a bit unfounded to me.

The Coase theorem may work well as an alternative to legal/court action (in a small and local sense), but in the case of its opposition to a more generalized Pigouvian tax, its primacy is less clear. Take, for example, a standard Pigouvian tax: the carbon tax. A condition for an effective Coasian solution is property rights. But how do you assign property rights in the case of global atmospheric pollution? There is also a condition that costs are generally known* by the affected parties. But with the sweeping and invisible effects of global warming, how is the damaged party supposed to both be aware and able to determine the costs to themselves? Are they aware of the difference in their medical bills, food costs, insurance premiums?** In addition, there is difficulty in achieving the cooperation of affected parties. Though most global warming is a result of rich countries’ actions, the ramifications are most felt by people in poorer nations or poorer areas of polluting nations. Though these affected may be willing to pay in negotiations, they are far from able. Furthermore, the real victims are the one who will inherit a damaged earth; do we expect the unborn to mobilize in their opposition?

It seems unlikely that Coase himself would universally oppose a carbon tax (or he'd at least acknowledge the subtleties of each argument). We acknowledge that a Coasian solution works best when the parties involved are small, yet a Pigouvian tax is almost never implemented on just a handful of local actors. A Pigouvian tax is generally seen in a larger national context. It may even be that when Coase’s conditions are least likely, that a Pigouvian tax is a type of Coasian solution. In class we certainly acknowledged this, but I wanted to explicitly state it.

*Though with Coase individuals to not have to precisely calculate the costs (like they do with Pigou), they do need to be aware of the difference between a “bad” and “good” deal.

**There are also monetary benefits of climate change on the general public, such as cheaper energy. No matter who is doing the calculation, it’s a difficult process. However, the general point is that in this case the government may do a better job in measuring costs than the private individual. This is further complicated by the global nature of global warming.

Roommates, Chores, and Making the Pareto-Optimal Move

How do we deal with a roommate who won't do her chores? This can be a big issue. After all, a clean apartment is a public good that everyone* can enjoy. Although our dominant strategy would be to not clean to avoid the costs of spent time, everyone would be better off if we all did our weekly chores.

My apartment has been experiencing this issue recently, and I instantly recognized it as a classic prisoner's dilemma situation. My immediate thought was: "If we want A to do her chores, we should all stop doing ours until she does her fair share. Then, she'll know that if she does her chores, we'll do ours too!"

The Internet had some advice as well. This article suggested that we develop a mini market economy and use chores to gain "points". Certain chores would earn more points than others. This means that when one person is not able to do a certain chore that week, they can pay another person “points” to have them do the chores instead. Of course, as a result of market transactions, everyone is better off! However, we cannot keep any one person from experiencing the benefits from the clean apartment, and therefore we may still have free riders. This does not solve the problem.

In the end, my roommates came up with the best solution. When sharing my idea with them, they replied: "We'll keep doing our chores, because then we can actually tell A to do her chores as well." They were taking it upon themselves to be the external enforcers** that the apartment needed to ensure that we were making the pareto-optimal move to live in a clean apartment. What a great idea!

*that is, everyone living in the apartment
**they are technically not "external enforcers" as they are also living in the apartment, but they are trusted to do their part, and I am assuming away any corruption.

The Median Voter Theorem and Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a trade agreement among 12 countries on the Pacific Ocean aiming to promote trade by reducing or eliminating over 18,000 tariffs that act as a barrier to US trade with the other 11 nations. After years of negotiations, the TPP was agreed upon in February of this year, but has not yet been ratified by Congress. Hillary Clinton initially favored this agreement, stating in a 2010 speech that "we know that [the Trans-Pacific Partnership] will help create new jobs and opportunities here at home."

During her campaign in the Democratic primary for the upcoming election this year, though, Clinton faced Bernie Sanders, who openly objected to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In order to remain competitive with Sanders among democratic voters on such a key topic for this election, Clinton began to shift her views on the TPP to the left. She claimed that she was against the agreement in a primary debate last October, announcing that it "didn't meet my standards."

Downs' Median Voter Theorem helps to explain Hillary Clinton's behavior here. If the median voter is decisive, then candidates will shift their views to be right at the median to ultimately win that determining vote. Clinton's initial view on the TPP was too far to the right for the audience from which she was campaigning to win votes, so she altered her position to better reflect the median voter's views, between Bernie Sanders and herself, regarding the issue of this trade agreement. This example supports Downs' claim that "parties formulate policies in order to win elections, rather than win elections in order to formulate policies."

Does the Libertarian Party differ from other third parties?

In Downs chapter on "The Statics and Dynamic of Party Ideologies," he says that third parties in two-party systems exist for two reasons. The first, which seems more intuitive, is to come to power and at least threaten the main two parties grip on voters. The other is to influence policy. As Downs points out, clearly both these end goals require a voter contingent, but this does not mean electing officials must be the primary goal. The two examples today that clearly seem to be the latter type are the Green Party and, though not a fully separate party, Tea Party Republicans. Both of these examples reside at the edges of the liberal, conservative continuum and seem to be in place to prevent Democrats and Republicans from edging towards the median voter. While the Tea Party Republicans have gotten some officials elected, the rhetoric seems to focus on non-establishment, renewed conservative values that would limit its platform's appeal but not limit its influence on the larger Republican party.

My question then became, which type is the Libertarian Party? With no elected officials in the House or Senate and Presidential candidate Gary Johnson receiving only 1% of the vote in 2012 despite the party being formed in 1971, intuition would say the party exists to influence policy. Furthermore, both Johnson and the Green Party's Stein are likely receiving some substantial boost this election season due to the unfavorability of Trump and Clinton. Still, this answer does not seem satisfactory since its fiscally conservative, socially liberal policies take elements from both main parties (though it does emphasize reducing the government's role consistently). The fact that Johnson draws voters away from both parties backed up by FiveThirtyEight's article back in July, which found that Clinton did only slightly worse in polls with third party candidates. Additionally, Gary Johnson has been polling between 8% and 13% this election in general electorate polls with more substantial numbers in particular subsets (as high as 31% with independents, 36% with those in the military, 26% of voters age 18-29). Overall, the purpose of the Libertarian Party remains unclear and may only become apparent in future elections.

President Obama and Expected Benefit

In one of his most passionate speeches in recent memory, President Obama urged black voters to show up in support for Hillary Clinton this November at a Black Caucus Foundation gala on September 17.  In response to Mrs. Clinton's weak energy among young black voters relative to energy for Mr.  Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections, the President argued that the 2016 vote will determine far more than merely the next head of state:  "My name may not be on the ballot, but progress is on the ballot.  Tolerance is on the ballot.  Democracy is on the ballot.  Justice is on the ballot."

Vis-a-vis the Johnson reading, Mr. Obama's speech bears two points of interest.  First of all, the speech ups the 2016 ante.  That is, he is attempting to convince black voters that the benefits of their voting for Mrs. Clinton may be higher than they previously thought:  the President is implying that fundamental progressive values are at stake.  Thus, the rational potential voter must not only consider the benefits of Mrs. Clinton's policies, but also the benefits of "progress," "tolerance," "democracy," and "justice," which carry, of course, quite some value.   Ironically, though, given that Mr. Obama is encouraging a higher voter turnout among black voters, the expected probability of a single voter swinging the election decreases even while the benefit of voting for Mrs. Clinton increases, and perhaps the outcome of the individual voter's equation changes very little.

However, Mr. Obama's encouragement to vote may not be naive after all.   A two-term, energetic President with ever increasing favorability numbers, President Obama's actions may very well swing the election if his encouragement convinces enough people in the black community to vote.  His words as a popular figure carry far more influence than his individual vote ever could, and one could perhaps argue that he would do better to spend November 8th making stump speeches at voting locations in Florida or Ohio rather than taking the time to cast a vote.

The Grand Nicaragua Canal: Fact or Myth?

Chinese businessman Wang Jing’s canal scheme is just one more added to the pile. After the Panama Canal expansion project was completed this year, the grand Nicaragua Canal was put on hold, and perhaps for the best. After several studies were performed to analyze the socio-economic and environmental impacts of the project, experts started questioning whether it was a good idea or not to build the canal. China’s record on environmental matters is very poor, so there is a reason to concern about the possible negative environmental impacts. In addition, the area targeted for the project is home to a large population of indigenous farmers that don’t have formal titles to the lands they have inhabited and cultivated from generation to generation. Thus, there is also a big concern regarding the people that would have to be evicted from these lands.

According to Coase, the assignments of property rights have no effect in the way economic resources are allocated, in a world with low transaction costs. If transaction costs were low, Wang Jing and the indigenous farmers’ Cacique would bargain to get to a Pareto Optimal allocation. One possible scenario is that all farmers had legal titles to their lands and Wang Jing pays an amount relative to the market value of the acres of land the farmers would give up for the canal construction. If Wang Jing got the rights for the lands instead, according to Coase’s Theorem, the same allocation result will be achieved. However, in reality, the Cacique is not the sole representative of the whole indigenous population that inhabits that area, so the negotiation will not be exclusively between Wang Jing and the Cacique. Due to the large number of parties in the transaction, transaction costs are indeed very high and bargaining is not possible. The lack of ownership (excludability) over the lands gives government authorities the default right to allocate them however they prefer. In a country with weak institutions that doesn’t usually lead to a Pareto optimal allocation that maximizes social benefit. This is a perfect example that shows how incomplete property rights can create conflict, like Coase suggests.

Celebrities say my vote matters, are wrong about everything

In what is essentially an in-kind donation to the Trump campaign, a group of Hollywood celebrities made one of those obnoxious videos where each person is featured individually in front of a blank white background, and they each repeat the same phrase ad nauseam, before finally moving on to another phrase they each repeat ad nauseam, and then to another, before finally forming one complete and coherent thought. The ad doesn't tell you for whom you should vote, just that you should vote (although it's pretty obvious who their preference is). The ad comes from Avengers' director Joss Whedon's new Super Pac, "Save the Day."

A few things stick out.

First, it's clear the celebrities did not take Public Choice. One tearful celebrity I don't recognize implores me to vote because "we can't say one vote doesn't matter." Don Cheadle points at me, and tells me "your vote matters." The tearful, unrecognized then says: "your vote matters." (I warned you they repeat things) Scarlett Johansson tells me my vote "affects everything." This is doubtful. Living in Virginia, I suppose it's possible my vote matters slightly more than a voter in Oregon, but I still wouldn't say a 1 in 10 million chance of casting the deciding vote means my vote matters, or "affects everything." Plus, Virginia is quickly losing its swing state status, so my vote likely matters even less than normal.

Second, the celebrities don't ask me to educate myself -- they just want me to vote. You'd think in the 3 minutes they spend repeating each other they could spare a sentence to ask my to learn about the issues. Is Hillary Clinton's stance on immigration good for the country? How about Trump's plan to increase tariffs? Does Jill Stein's suggestion that Wi-Fi is giving our kid's cancer have merit, and what are the implications if true? These policy proposals actually do matter, and while they probably are unable to "affect everything", their implementation will certainly affect more things than my vote will. A drive to increase voter education, rather than one that simply tries to increase turnout, would be much more beneficial to society. But perhaps Whedon is aware of at least one lesson from Public Choice: remaining ignorant of these issues is rational for most voters, so asking them to educate themselves would likely be fruitless. A Super Pac simply aiming to increase voter turnout will enjoy a much greater return on investment.

The Veterans Health Administration: Are the Benefits Greater than the Costs?

The Veterans Health Administration, an integrated healthcare system for veterans, is provided publicly through the US Department of Veterans Affairs. The effectiveness and efficiency of the public provision of this system have been scrutinized because veterans are often not getting the benefits promised to them in a timely manner, but also defended as many believe that the benefits of the VHA, which include arguably higher quality of healthcare for veterans than common hospitals, outweigh the costs, which have included high wait times and recent scandals. In 2014, numerous veterans died after being left off the long wait list for medical appointments.

In The Role of Government in a Free Society, Milton Friedman addresses the reasons for which government is necessary when the actions of one party affect another without being able to charge or recompense them, or when it is more efficient to have a single producer. By looking at this issue from Friedman's perspective, we may come to the conclusion that the public provision of veteran healthcare isn't justified using either of these rationales. Private provision of veteran healthcare (or, simply allowing veterans to pursue other healthcare options instead of offering their benefits only in the VHA system) does not result in any neighborhood effects where third parties are not able to be charged or compensated for any external effects. In addition, Friedman suggests that the reason the government has prohibited privatization of postal services is that no one else would be able to compete successfully with the current public monopoly of the post office, but he claims that there is no way to know whether this is the case without allowing free entry to test it; similarly, Friedman would say there is no way to completely rule out the possibility of a successful private provision of veteran healthcare until we try it. Open entry encourages innovation, so it may be beneficial to analyze whether the benefits of public provision of veteran healthcare through the VHA outweigh the costs.

Yasuni, A Natural Treasure On Top of a Pool of Money

Ecuador’s economy is highly reliant on oil obtained from Amazonian lands. One of the national reserves is the Yasuní, considered one of the most bio diverse places on earth. In 2007 an issue arose when one of the biggest oil reserves the country has ever had, was found underneath the Yasuni. Thus two options were presented, destroy a biologically diverse area, or extract around 800 million barrels of oil equating a value of $3.6 billion. The President Rafael Correa reached out for international support, by proposing organizations and countries to cooperate and pay Ecuador for not extracting this natural resource. Since Ecuador is a third world country, in need of financial support for government expenses, it cannot afford loosing this much money. After six years of negotiations, no consensus was reached, and Ecuador started the oil drill.

This situation can be related to Coase’s theory of social cost. Just as the rancher’s cattle inflicted damage over the farmers crops, the oil procedure from the state will damage the biodiversity from the environment. Besides the destruction happening, the issue is the lack of clear property rights for biodiversity, since it is a purely public good. Nevertheless, this does not mean that by drilling the oil people will not be affected, because many value natural resources and the air will be contaminated. Anyone who has some value over these, will incur a damage. Thus, if the oil is drilled a negative externality will be imposed on all the people that are connected towards this good. So what is the efficient solution? According to Coase, assuming no transaction costs, this can be found through bargaining. Bargaining was the President's intention, asking countries to compensate for the damage incur, in exchange of not using this resource. Some were interested, but the transaction costs were too high, the biggest one being the free rider problem, which lead to a failed bargain. If someone agreed to help, other affected countries would still be benefited despite their contribution, because this is a purely public good with no excludability nor rivalry. Thus, at the end, no solution was obtained, without reaching efficiency, which shows a big problem with public goods of how efficiency is not always possible.

The True Value of a Vote

Although Johnson highlights the economic rationale that the costs of voting in a presidential election will outweigh the expected benefits, I still firmly believe that it is ones duty as a citizen to vote in an election. One's vote is not significant in how it influences the result of the election, but in what it expresses. We are privileged to live in a democracy where the government if "of the people, for the people, and by the people."

The duty to vote however, does not mean that people should be feel pressured by society to vote for one of the two major parties. What makes a vote valuable is not the probability of changing the election, but what is says about our democracy -- that we are allowed to express our opinions. People often cite that if they don't vote for a major party candidate, they are effectively "throwing their vote away." However, this line of reasoning suggests there is no reason to vote in the first place. The expected value of your vote making an impact is almost the same no matter who you vote for -- about 0. This election year marks a particularly bad set of candidate options. Over the past year alone, Trump and Clinton have continually out done each other in giving the public reasons why they are unfit for the Presidency. Peggy Noonan from the Wall Street Journal writes that people don't want to express their voting preferences publicly because they will have to defend what their candidate has done. If this is the case for your candidate, I suggest you vote for someone else. In an election where there are historically low approval ratings, people should vote for a candidate they want to win and not default to one of the two major parties that offer a false sense of vote value. What makes a vote truly valuable is what it represents and not its impact on determining the result of the election.

Referenda in light of voter ignorance

As mentioned in class, the purpose of many organizations like "Rock the Vote" is to increase the percentage of voters in each election. Other nations around the world attempt to increase voting through mandatory laws or various penalties. This fails to address the concern of voter ignorance, which can be problematic if this prevents citizens from voting in the best interest of themselves or the society. This phenomenon has been brought up recently regarding Brexit, the decision for the United Kingdom to leave the EU. According to the Washington Post and Google Trends, after the referendum top Google searches in the UK included "What does it mean to leave the EU?" and "What is the EU?". This seems to support the idea that some level of voter ignorance existed when voters entered the polls. If citizens are indeed unable to support the side that would benefit them or society the most, one must consider whether our current paradigm is the best.

While no developed country necessarily discourages the public from voting, the extent to which referenda are proposed to the public varies widely between developed nations. This may be a proxy for level of trust a nation has in its voting populace since instead of having elected officials pass legislation, a referendum directly asks the citizens whether a law should be enacted. The U.S. constitution does not include referenda, but state and local governments often use them to decide on contentious issues. Even at these levels of government, it is likely many voters will remain rationally ignorant and still vote. This fact may have contributed to Belgium's former foreign minister saying: "I'm glad that we have no referendums. How for God's sake are you going to explain a complicated thing like the Euro in a yes-and-no question to voters?" While the costs of becoming informed enough to vote in your best interest have decreased due to online information and political parties endorsing stances on issues, it is still unclear to what extent to rely on the populace to make important decisions.

If voters participate in the referenda process because they overvalue the probability of their vote changing the outcome, it may make sense to reduce the number of issues citizens have the chance to vote on. However, if the act of voting and or being able to express one's opinion is a large benefit to a group of citizens such restrictions may reduce the overall utility of the populace even if we assume elected officials will make better decisions given that they are better informed. 

The Rationality of (Writing about) Voting

In a recent New York Times op-ed, "Vote as if it Matters", the author, Paul Krugman argues that the high number of young voters who want to vote for a third party candidate (such as Gary Johnson) in the upcoming election poses a threat to the outcome of this year's presidential race.  The author continues his point by stating that if one wishes to vote for Gary Johnson, then that means he or she must be indifferent about whether Trump or Clinton wins the election. 

In contrast, the economist Johnson (not the presidential candidate) would argue that each individual's choice to not vote for Trump or Clinton does not mean that they are indifferent about that outcome, but that their expected benefit of voting for either candidate is not enough for them to cover the costs of voting.  In fact, someone could have a strong preference for one candidate, but if she is rational, then she will realize that her vote has little chance of making a difference.  
Since the voters for Gary Johnson must realize that they have nearly a zero-percent chance of casting a winning vote, then they must be doing so for a different reason: likely they want to vote as a form of expressive behavior.  
Overall, Krugman's argument does not hold up against economic logic.  He writes that "your vote matters, and you should act accordingly." For each individual, his vote does not actually matter (barring a miraculous circumstance). However, Krugman has an incentive to encourage others to vote, since his article is aimed towards partisan readers, and he believes that his article could encourage readers to vote for his preferred candidate   By writing an article, Krugman incurs no costs that are not covered by the benefits of publishing an article, so it is rational for Krugman to encourage others to vote, as a larger group of people could have a slightly higher chance of actually affecting the election results. 

Bridges - deteriorating public goods

As mentioned in class, bridges (like highways, dams, levees, etc.) serve as a great example of a public good. Bridges do not classify as a perfect public good, because, while nonexcludable, they contain a certain degree of rivalry: too many cars can decrease the consumption of other drivers (similar to people on sidewalks). The free rider problem and the inability to exclude people from consumption produces an opportunity for government provision of bridges and other goods, something Friedman describes in Capitalism and Freedom. Friedman mentions that since high access roads have many entry and exit points, it is exceptionally difficult to charge drivers for the specific roads that they traveled on. High access bridges face this problem to a lesser extent - it is possible to place tolls on states' most highly trafficked bridges. Some states have already implemented tolls, such as the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel Toll. Since they are public goods, bridges are in part funded by the federal government, in addition to state-raised funds.

Recently, however, state governments need to look into options to "close the gate" and charge drivers for their consumption on bridges, since federal funding for bridges is declining. The Highway Trust Fund is the federal government's main way of funding bridge repairs, yet was projected to go broke in 2015. The trust fund is comprised of revenue from a federal gas tax, so as that decreases, states clearly need to look for alternative sources of funding for bridge maintenance and repair.

Deteriorating bridges and a lack of bridge funding may not seem like a pressing issue, especially since the most famous bridge collapse in the US occurred over nine years ago, in 2007. Yet research into bridge inspection data proves otherwise: 25% of the nation's bridges have exceeded their 50 year lifespan, and of the 600,000 bridges in the US, over 61,000 are rated structurally deficient. As previously mentioned, funding for bridge maintenance and repair is insufficient. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), $76 billion is needed currently to repair or replace deficient bridges. In comparison, Congress has allocated that amount over the past 30 years to states for bridge maintenance.

As bridges continue to deteriorate, perhaps consumers will reveal their preferences by moving to communities that best satisfy their preference patterns for public goods, or in this example, bridges. Tiebout writes in A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures that "moving or failing to move...reveals the consumer-voter's demand for public goods" (page 420). If consumers move from a state with a high number of structurally deficient bridges to a state with a low number of structurally deficient bridges, then they are expressing their preferences for communities with safe bridges, all else equal. It will be interesting to see if citizens will move from brown states (PA, IA) to light pink states (GA, TN), shown in the map by Business Insider below, as bridges, a public good, continue to worsen.

Tiebout and Charlottesville's Taboo Population Growth

   When we talked about Tiebout's "seventh assumption" in class, I was skeptical on how a community could actively limit growth, what I have found out however, is that my own city is try to do just that! To paraphrase Tiebout, communities above the optimal site try to raise average costs to keep population levels down to ensure that each citizen's needs are met and the resources are used at an efficient level. When Charlottesville came in at number 1 on theYahoo Real Estate and Sperling's  "Best Places" list in 2011, it helped spark a growth in population that was at the same time anticipated and unwelcome.

  In a 2013 forum held by Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle Population (ASAP), realtor Jim Duncan advised the attendees, "'we don't want to restrict growth, and I think saying 'no growth is absurd''... but 'saying 'unbridled growth' is equally absurd."' His opinions mirrored the conclusion that  ASAP reached which was that the combined Charlottesville-Albemarle "community should not grow from its current population of about 145,000 past the 165,000 mark." In order to quell this growth, the following solutions were proposed: evaluating development proposals and raising rent and property values. However, two years later, according to the 2015 census, the total population of Charlottesville is 152,300 which is around a 5% population increase, meaning the Charlottesville-Albemarle community is getting closer and closer to the proposed cap, and residents can already see the detrimental effects of this growth in terms of environmental and infrastructure problems. The Daily Progress made a good point in this 2015 article when the president of ASAP was quoted saying, "there is no indiction that the free market encourages neither treating everyone equally nor the conservation of scare resources... all of us can see the value of a free market up to a point. If we talk about how growth is good, it may make us feel good but it does nothing to assure the protection of the environment or sustainability."One area that is being seriously affected is schools, there are now 39 "portable buildings," essentially trailers at county schools which have been shown to be isolating and time-wasting. This will prompt a proposed budget increase that may manifest itself in taxes, prompting residents to think critically about the education their children are receiving and decide if living in this community is worth it. It remains to be seen how we will grow over the years and whether or not it is really possible to slow down or stop the population growth.

Pipeline Protester: 'Our Rights as Native People'

In North Dakota, the construction of an oil pipeline has ceased due to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's protests. The Native American protesters oppose the pipeline because it crosses sacred Sioux burial ground and additionally they fear that it could pollute local drinking water. Energy Transfer Partners, the company that owns the pipeline, was given full property rights to the land by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the Obama administration stepped in and halted construction of the pipeline so that the Corps can reevaluate their decision to approve the pipeline.

This is an example of poorly defined property rights resulting in conflict over negative production externalities. The pipeline is a negative externality to the Native Americans because they would be left without compensation for polluted drinking water and the destruction of their sacred burial grounds. Perhaps the two groups could have negotiated to find a Coasian solution if the pre-requisite of clearly defined property rights had been met. However, this incident demonstrates that it is difficult for the government to delineate property rights so finding a Coasian solution is not always possible.