Thread: Most corrupt state in U.S.

North Dakota tops analysis of corruption

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

Don Morrison, executive director of the non-partisan North Dakota Center for the Public Good, said it may be that North Dakotans are better at rooting out corruption when it occurs.

Tattle tales.

We keep it quiet here in Jersey.

That statement really surprises me, but after reading the article, they don't seem to give any concrete examples other than the state does not list campaign expenses. For that reason THERE MAY BE a lot of corruption.

Wow... that's a total joke.

North Dakota?

That's simply writing an article with a catchy headline, but then chose the most unpopulated state (actually, Vermont is least populated... ND is #49) to not offend anyone.

I can GUARANTEE that there is more corruption in New York, and I doubt that's the most corrupted state either.

"C" wrote:

Wow... that's a total joke.

North Dakota?

That's simply writing an article with a catchy headline, but then chose the most unpopulated state (actually, Vermont is least populated... ND is #49) to not offend anyone.

I can GUARANTEE that there is more corruption in New York, and I doubt that's the most corrupted state either.

New York has also had the most proactive stance against corruption, especially inside the police department, and you also have to remember that it's the whole state, not just New York city.

Between Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, New Brunswick, Trenton, Camden, and AC I might stick with New Jersey... but in terms of sheer volume it's still tough to argue against NY.

The state of Chicago...er I mean Illinois!!!

"C" wrote:

Wow... that's a total joke.

North Dakota?

That's simply writing an article with a catchy headline, but then chose the most unpopulated state (actually, Vermont is least populated... ND is #49) to not offend anyone.

I can GUARANTEE that there is more corruption in New York, and I doubt that's the most corrupted state either.

It says above the map that it is based on convictions per 100,000 people. So New York might have 50 times as much curruption but 100 times as many people.
It is misleading but it is based in fact.
Also it is based on convictions so some states might be so corrupt that no one gets convicted and others might be so good at fighting corruption that everyone who is corrupt is now in prison.

"jmcdon00" wrote:

"C" wrote:

Wow... that's a total joke.

North Dakota?

That's simply writing an article with a catchy headline, but then chose the most unpopulated state (actually, Vermont is least populated... ND is #49) to not offend anyone.

I can GUARANTEE that there is more corruption in New York, and I doubt that's the most corrupted state either.

It says above the map that it is based on convictions per 100,000 people. So New York might have 50 times as much curruption but 100 times as many people.
It is misleading but it is based in fact.
Also it is based on convictions so some states might be so corrupt that no one gets convicted and others might be so good at fighting corruption that everyone who is corrupt is now in prison.

Yeah... I just can't agree with this article's flawed logic.

Of course the states with larger populations will have a greater disparity in number of people involved with politics and not involved... it's common sense.

To say that a state with 50-some convictions is more corrupt than a state with 703?

It's that sort of idiotic logic that got our country into the current state it's in.

I think Kentucky the worst but the people are just too dumb to realize what corruption is.

USA Today... the newspaper that's so slanted, the words fall right off the page.