Critical Section

Archive: February 1, 2016

<<< January 31, 2016

Home

February 2, 2016 >>>


Curiosity

Monday,  02/01/16  09:54 PM

Hey, it's February!  Let's celebrate ... with a curious blog post :)

Curiosity selfie - an amazing compositeHere we have a wonderful "selfie" taken by the Curiosity Rover.  (Please click to enbiggen.)  This is a cool picture of a rover on Mars, and then you realize ... who took the picture!  The secret is that this image is a composite of 57 images snapped with the MAHLI camera, which is on the end of the rover's arm.  By combining the pictures in just the right way, it looks like the camera was completely separate from the rover.  Most curious...

Back here on Earth, it looks like Ted Cruz defeated Donald Trump in the Iowa caucuses, with Marco Rubio a strong third, and on the other side of the aisle Bernie Sanders tied Hillary Clinton.  All good news from my perspective, but there's a long way to go.

Alphabet - now the world's most valuable companyAlso, Alphabet passes Apple as the world's most valuable company.  Basically the two leaders in cellphone technology.  Remember when oil companies were the most valuable?  And who will be next?  (SpaceX, after they colonize Mars?)

Meanwhile, the National Debt hits $19T.  Yeah, that's about 38 times more than Alphabet and Apple are worth.  Not good.  And not clear if any of the current Presidential candidates can or will do anything to reverse the trend.

Oh, and Venezuela is on the brink of a complete economic collapse.  That's not surprising, but the article reads like one from the Onion: "Hugo Chávez's socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything from two-cent gasoline to free housing. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's a good idea in general - but only as long as you actually, well, have the money to spend."  I love the weird economic editorializing right in the middle of a "news" article.  More proof, if any were needed, that since the smartest people didn't become journalists, journalists are not the smartest people.

coffee!Here's some important work: Ars Technica considers the science behind a good cup of coffee.  And also the health benefits: "Caffeine enhances perception, reduces fatigue, increases abilities to stay awake, and may help improve long-term memory. In addition to the pick-me-up, caffeine is linked to boosting metabolic rate and energy expenditure, and it may reduce the risk of developing metabolic syndromes."  Mmmm...  most curious!

 

 

electoral fail

Monday,  02/01/16  10:29 PM

You might not know, but the US is about to elect a new President this year.  And you might think that US citizens elect their President.  But you would be wrong.  And therein lies a huge electoral fail.

Instead, US citizens vote for candidates, but their votes determine which electors chose the President.  Each candidate submits a slate of electors, who are chosen at state party conventions or by each party's central committee.  The actual people chosen to be electors don't really matter, because they don't have a choice; they are chosen to be an elector, they vote for their candidate.  So far, so complicated, and so far, no big problem.

The problem comes from the fact that in all but two states, *all* the electors are chosen from the slate given by the candidate who receives the most votes in that state.  (Can you name the exceptions?*)  This winner-take-all aspect means that if the citizens of a given state split their votes 51%/49% between two candidates, 100% of the electoral votes from that state go to the winning candidate.  In practice, this means the vast majority of states and the vast majority of votes do not matter.

* In Nebraska and Maine the electors are chosen by the popular vote in each congressional district.

For example, as the most populous state California has the most electoral votes, 55.  It is virtually certain that the candidate for president nominated by the Democratic party will win the popular vote in California.  So California and Californian voters don't matter.  The second most populous state, Texas, has 38 votes.  It is virtually certain that the Republican Presidential candidate will win in Texas.  So Texas and Texans don't matter.

The map below illustrates the overall situation.  Of the fifty states, which collectively have 538 votes, all but 10 are likely to vote for a particular party's candidate.  Forty states which collectively have 418 votes do not matter, including the states containing the ten largest cities in the US.

The 10 states which do matter include Florida (29 votes), Ohio (18), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13).  You can expect to see those states get a lot of attention from candidates this year.  In fact, the only reason for a candidate to campaign outside of these states is to raise money.  Get that?  We Californians contribute money to candidates so they can campaign in ten other states where the votes count!

This is the most bizarre and dysfunctional system imaginable.  A huge electoral fail.

So what can be done?  The most logical thing would be to simply add up the popular vote, and declare the candidate with the most votes the next President.  Suddenly California and Texas and New York and Illinois would matter.  But this isn't going to happen easily.  Any change to the electoral laws will be made in the US Senate, where each state has two equal votes.  Smaller states are not going to support a change which strongly lessens their influence.

The next most logical thing would be to have each state behave like Maine and Nebraska, and split their votes in proportion to the popular votes in their state.  (Doing this by congressional districts probably makes sense.)  This would vastly increase the influence of the largest states, and make the whole process more democratic.  And it could be done state-by-state at the state level, without a federal change.

So why hasn't this happened?  Well, consider the situation in California.  Democrats control the state.  Would they vote to give Republicans more than 0% say in the next election?  They would not.  Would the Republicans who run Texas vote to give Democrats in Texas more than 0%?  They would not.  So we have a bad deadlock.  The small states won't vote for an overall popular vote, and the big states won't agree to split the vote within their state.  The present situation is suboptimal but locked in by self-interest.

I think the only way this will change is when a President is elected who did not win the popular vote.  The popular outcry against the system which allows that to happen might be strong enough to cause the Senate to change the system.  This almost happened when George Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000, because he did not win the popular vote (it was very close).  If it happens again, I would expect the winds of change to blow. 

In the meantime, we Californians get to watch Floridians and Iowans elect our next President.  Pass the popcorn.

PS... as a separate observation, note the large advantage a Democratic candidate has among the "locked in" states (56 votes!).  The other day I posted a map showing party affiliation by congressional district.  If you compare the two maps, the districts of states which are "in the bag" for one party but which have the opposite party affiliation are the ones which will drive change.  I would expect Republicans to be more interested, both because the present system is not in their favor and because they generally support local solutions over national ones.

 
 

Return to the archive.

Home
Archive
flight
About Me
W=UH
Email
RSS   OPML

Greatest Hits
Correlation vs. Causality
The Tyranny of Email
Unnatural Selection
Lying
Aperio's Mission = Automating Pathology
On Blame
Try, or Try Not
Books and Wine
Emergent Properties
God and Beauty
Moving Mount Fuji The Nest Rock 'n Roll
IQ and Populations
Are You a Bright?
Adding Value
Confidence
The Joy of Craftsmanship
The Emperor's New Code
Toy Story
The Return of the King
Religion vs IQ
In the Wet
the big day
solving bongard problems
visiting Titan
unintelligent design
the nuclear option
estimating in meatspace
second gear
On the Persistence of Bad Design...
Texas chili cookoff
almost famous design and stochastic debugging
may I take your order?
universal healthcare
entertainment
triple double
New Yorker covers
Death Rider! (da da dum)
how did I get here (Mt.Whitney)?
the Law of Significance
Holiday Inn
Daniel Jacoby's photographs
the first bird
Gödel Escher Bach: Birthday Cantatatata
Father's Day (in pictures)
your cat for my car
Jobsnotes of note
world population map
no joy in Baker
vote smart
exact nonsense
introducing eyesFinder
resolved
to space
notebooks
where are the desktop apps?