I had a rant about the Apple "page turn patent" but it wasn't nearly as good as this one from Ron Charles, book critic for the Washington Post...
Our patent system is broken.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
The Third Party: Why America is politically bilateral and what you can do about it
Labels:
American Democracy,
Politics,
Rants
Every fourth October, my Facebook and Twitter feed are overtaken by people wondering why we don't have a third party in the United States.
The simple answer is that it only occurs to most of us to wonder this once every four years.
The more complex answer is that the United States electorate polarized itself because multi-party voting created chaos too many times and was abandoned over time. Let me repeat that: We had several political parties and we voluntarily abandoned it because it created problems.
Why?
Math.
For presidential elections, the United States operates on a principal of indirect election. Our individual votes are tallied at the state level and then votes are apportioned to the candidates by electors nominated by the state on a basis determined by that state. Every state handles these things differently, but the first candidate to hit 270 electoral votes takes the prize.
As you might remember, this is how Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but failed to win the presidency -- George W, Bush won in states that had more electoral votes. The people said one thing, the election went another way.
The electoral college is the reason that a multi-party scenario is a recipe for constitutional chaos, and until the electoral college goes away, this is unlikely to change.
Why?
Math (again).
More specifically, because there's a constitutional mandate in place on how to decide a tie (or no clear victor). In a race divided three ways, the odds of any one candidate having 270 electoral votes are pretty remote, which throws the presidential election into the House of Representatives and the vice presidential election into the Senate*.
Who do you think the House will vote for?
Taking into account the way that electoral votes are apportioned among the states, this can lead to some genuine problems. For one thing, the House of Representatives is not actually proportionally representative and unless the third party has a sizeable presence in the House, there is no clear path to victory for one party in a three-way race. Which makes the idea of fixing the duality of American politics a bit of a hail Mary at the moment.
What can you do about it?
The first step is to think about it more than once every fourth October. A recent poll by Gallup shows that there's hardly a groundswell of support for a third national political party.
The second is to think nationally and act locally. The idea of instituting a third party from the presidency down is mostly foolhardy. The game has to change from the ground up because it's the only way that the math works out. In other words, before a third party president has a chance in a three-way race is if they have voices of their own in the legislature when their inclusion in the Electoral College voting throws the results into the House of Representatives.
The ground game is about getting third party senators and representatives elected before anything can happen at the executive level. Without that, a third party presidential vote won't accomplish anything.
I won't say it's wasted but it is certainly ineffectual.
Why not just eliminate the Electoral College?
The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that it's not all bad. It mitigates somewhat the ability of the more populated states to impose their will on the rest of the country and vice-versa. Electoral math has played a significant role in balking the rise of a number of candidates like Strom Thurmond, who ran on a segregationist ticket in 1948. Without the Electoral College, regional candidates swing an outsized bat.
Many attempts have been made to modify the American electoral system with mixed results. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them before taking a whack at it yourself. (It's worth noting that in 1970, even the aforementioned Strom Thurmond voted against a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College, citing its history as a balancing force in divisive national elections.)
American elections are broken in many ways. From the billions in unregulated money being thrown around to the fact that there's no contingency in place for a natural disaster or terrorist attack that interrupts election day. Imagine if Superstorm Sandy struck a week later than it did. What do you think turnout would be like in the northeast then?
Here's a great video from YouTube's Explainer-Of-All-Things CGP Grey that lays things out the whole twisted scenario quite well.
* Deciding the two separately is a hold-over from the time before the 12th Amendment modified US election law to guarantee the president and vice president would be from the same political party. Prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment, the highest vote-getter in the electoral college became president and the second-highest, vice president, regardless of party. Needless to say, this scenario can be awkward to say the least.
**updated 7/12/2016 to include more annotations and correct typos
The simple answer is that it only occurs to most of us to wonder this once every four years.
The more complex answer is that the United States electorate polarized itself because multi-party voting created chaos too many times and was abandoned over time. Let me repeat that: We had several political parties and we voluntarily abandoned it because it created problems.
Why?
Math.
For presidential elections, the United States operates on a principal of indirect election. Our individual votes are tallied at the state level and then votes are apportioned to the candidates by electors nominated by the state on a basis determined by that state. Every state handles these things differently, but the first candidate to hit 270 electoral votes takes the prize.
As you might remember, this is how Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but failed to win the presidency -- George W, Bush won in states that had more electoral votes. The people said one thing, the election went another way.
The electoral college is the reason that a multi-party scenario is a recipe for constitutional chaos, and until the electoral college goes away, this is unlikely to change.
Why?
Math (again).
More specifically, because there's a constitutional mandate in place on how to decide a tie (or no clear victor). In a race divided three ways, the odds of any one candidate having 270 electoral votes are pretty remote, which throws the presidential election into the House of Representatives and the vice presidential election into the Senate*.
Who do you think the House will vote for?
Taking into account the way that electoral votes are apportioned among the states, this can lead to some genuine problems. For one thing, the House of Representatives is not actually proportionally representative and unless the third party has a sizeable presence in the House, there is no clear path to victory for one party in a three-way race. Which makes the idea of fixing the duality of American politics a bit of a hail Mary at the moment.
What can you do about it?
The first step is to think about it more than once every fourth October. A recent poll by Gallup shows that there's hardly a groundswell of support for a third national political party.
The second is to think nationally and act locally. The idea of instituting a third party from the presidency down is mostly foolhardy. The game has to change from the ground up because it's the only way that the math works out. In other words, before a third party president has a chance in a three-way race is if they have voices of their own in the legislature when their inclusion in the Electoral College voting throws the results into the House of Representatives.
The ground game is about getting third party senators and representatives elected before anything can happen at the executive level. Without that, a third party presidential vote won't accomplish anything.
I won't say it's wasted but it is certainly ineffectual.
Why not just eliminate the Electoral College?
The problem with eliminating the Electoral College is that it's not all bad. It mitigates somewhat the ability of the more populated states to impose their will on the rest of the country and vice-versa. Electoral math has played a significant role in balking the rise of a number of candidates like Strom Thurmond, who ran on a segregationist ticket in 1948. Without the Electoral College, regional candidates swing an outsized bat.
Many attempts have been made to modify the American electoral system with mixed results. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them before taking a whack at it yourself. (It's worth noting that in 1970, even the aforementioned Strom Thurmond voted against a constitutional amendment eliminating the Electoral College, citing its history as a balancing force in divisive national elections.)
American elections are broken in many ways. From the billions in unregulated money being thrown around to the fact that there's no contingency in place for a natural disaster or terrorist attack that interrupts election day. Imagine if Superstorm Sandy struck a week later than it did. What do you think turnout would be like in the northeast then?
Here's a great video from YouTube's Explainer-Of-All-Things CGP Grey that lays things out the whole twisted scenario quite well.
* Deciding the two separately is a hold-over from the time before the 12th Amendment modified US election law to guarantee the president and vice president would be from the same political party. Prior to the passage of the 12th Amendment, the highest vote-getter in the electoral college became president and the second-highest, vice president, regardless of party. Needless to say, this scenario can be awkward to say the least.
**updated 7/12/2016 to include more annotations and correct typos
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Make stuff up and write it down :: NaNoWriMo Pep Talk
Labels:
NaNoWriMo,
Rules,
Writing Tips
 |
| For unofficial use only. |
An Open Memo from the Department of Literary Security
To: All Departments & Interested Parties
RE: National Novel Writing Month
Once again, I have not been asked to write a pep talk for National Novel Writing Month. I'm sure the post office lost my invitation or accidentally re-routed it to the prime minister of Burundi.
Sorry about that, your excellency; I'll get that change of address form sent in at once.
Some of my advisers have told me that since writing something that no one asked you to write is the whole point of National Novel Writing Month, it is possible that the lack of invitation is the invitation.
Regards, etc.
Scott W. Perkins
Secretary of Literary Security
(Presidential appointment and congressional confirmation pending)
------
* About 25,000 words
** A little over 50,000 words (your official NaNoWriMo goal).
*** A bit over 400,000 words. Aspiring George RR Martins might want to edit that down or cut it into a trilogy until they too have the kind of following he has in order to convince a publisher to print it.
So as the unappointed cruise director of NaNoWriMo, I (un)officially welcome you to November 1st: Congratulations on your decision to write a novel!
May God have mercy on your soul.
Across the world, ink and electrons are flowing as millions of writers begin their month of literary excess. If you are on-track, as of this writing you should still be in the "first crush" stage of your relationship with that novel. The first blush of love is upon you and you are swept up in the throes of love.
All is right with the world.
Next week, you will discover that much like any relationship, this new love will require work in order to succeed. As you discover that you have more words behind you than ahead of you, the daily rituals will make things easier and the work will shift to keeping yourself from getting into a rut, taking the flow of words for granted. Never assume that the next page will come on its own; strive for it.
Whatever their length, all stories have a natural beginning, middle, and end. The length of your tale may surprise you and the ending may come earlier than you expected. This is the nature of the beast. This is why you must enjoy every step of the journey. Whether you end up with a story the length of Old Man & the Sea*, Great Gatsby**, or Storm of Swords *** is a matter of recognizing the natural conclusion of your tale and taking your hands off the keyboard.
Whether you end up with a pile of short stories, two middle-length novels, or an epic that makes your hard drive groan from its bulk, you have accomplished something. You can look back with pride on the journey you've undertaken.
Celebrate that.
There is no "Right Way" to write a story of any length, but there four things you are about to learn:
1. This is about making stuff up and writing it down.
Try all you like to make it more complicated, it really just boils down to this. Just tell us a story.
2. A period of steady progress, even in small increments, will get you where you are going.
Even if you write only one page each day for a year, by December you've written a 365 page novel.
3. Writing doesn't make you a novelist, finishing does.
An unfinished novel is worth its weight in paper.
4. If you're not finished on November 30th, hit the "Extend Deadline" button.
The deadline is imaginary, keep writing until you are done. 50,000 words isn't novel length anyway.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Across the world, ink and electrons are flowing as millions of writers begin their month of literary excess. If you are on-track, as of this writing you should still be in the "first crush" stage of your relationship with that novel. The first blush of love is upon you and you are swept up in the throes of love.
All is right with the world.
Next week, you will discover that much like any relationship, this new love will require work in order to succeed. As you discover that you have more words behind you than ahead of you, the daily rituals will make things easier and the work will shift to keeping yourself from getting into a rut, taking the flow of words for granted. Never assume that the next page will come on its own; strive for it.
Whatever their length, all stories have a natural beginning, middle, and end. The length of your tale may surprise you and the ending may come earlier than you expected. This is the nature of the beast. This is why you must enjoy every step of the journey. Whether you end up with a story the length of Old Man & the Sea*, Great Gatsby**, or Storm of Swords *** is a matter of recognizing the natural conclusion of your tale and taking your hands off the keyboard.
Whether you end up with a pile of short stories, two middle-length novels, or an epic that makes your hard drive groan from its bulk, you have accomplished something. You can look back with pride on the journey you've undertaken.
Celebrate that.
There is no "Right Way" to write a story of any length, but there four things you are about to learn:
1. This is about making stuff up and writing it down.
Try all you like to make it more complicated, it really just boils down to this. Just tell us a story.
2. A period of steady progress, even in small increments, will get you where you are going.
Even if you write only one page each day for a year, by December you've written a 365 page novel.
3. Writing doesn't make you a novelist, finishing does.
An unfinished novel is worth its weight in paper.
4. If you're not finished on November 30th, hit the "Extend Deadline" button.
The deadline is imaginary, keep writing until you are done. 50,000 words isn't novel length anyway.
If you are reading this in December, I am sorry you missed it. It was/will be great. There's something to be said for writing while the whole world feels like it's cheering you on, pulling for you to succeed.
There aren't many times when a writer can say that.
I recommend that everyone try it at the earliest opportunity, but you should remember that there's nothing keeping you from writing your novel in... wait for it... March. Or taking more than a month to do so.
I know. Astonishing, isn't it?
Good luck and literary wishes from all of us here are the Department of Literary Security.
There aren't many times when a writer can say that.
I recommend that everyone try it at the earliest opportunity, but you should remember that there's nothing keeping you from writing your novel in... wait for it... March. Or taking more than a month to do so.
I know. Astonishing, isn't it?
Good luck and literary wishes from all of us here are the Department of Literary Security.
Regards, etc.
Scott W. Perkins
Secretary of Literary Security
(Presidential appointment and congressional confirmation pending)
------
* About 25,000 words
** A little over 50,000 words (your official NaNoWriMo goal).
*** A bit over 400,000 words. Aspiring George RR Martins might want to edit that down or cut it into a trilogy until they too have the kind of following he has in order to convince a publisher to print it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)