Monthly Archives: May 2004

IshCon Spring 2004 Talks

May 29, 2004
By

At IshCon Spring 2004, Mark S. Meritt led a discussion on the most misunderstood and unaccepted ideas in the work of Daniel Quinn, and he gave a speech elaborating on Quinn’s recommendation that people pursue what they are best at as the most effective way for them to contribute to a larger shift to a systems paradigm. IshCon is a gathering of people inspired by Daniel Quinn who come together to explore and elaborate on Quinn’s ideas. IshCon Spring 2004 took place in Richmond, Indiana, from Friday May 28, 2004, to Monday May 31, 2004.

Because both presentations were relatively informal, no notes or transcripts are available at present. However, many of the ideas in the talk about people pursuing what they are best at later found their way into Mark’s essay Forcing the Balance and the work of Emergent Associates, LLC.

Potluck website launches

May 27, 2004
By

Hello! I wanted to let you know about my new home base on the web. Evolving from both Mosaic: A Magazine of Arts, Sciences & Everything in Between (an online magazine I’d founded, formerly Sostenuto: The Systems-Thinking Magazine of Arts & Sciences) and my family’s personal site, here’s Potluck (http://www.potluck.com).

Potluck will serve as a permanent base for me, some of the Mosaic crowd and some others to publish and promote various projects and the ideas behind them — systems-based ideas that help produce fundamentally positive change for people, communities, business and the world. It will provide a similar variety of material to Mosaic, but in a more free-form fashion and with more breadth and depth. It will no longer be constrained by the need for “issues,” or even the need for us to consider whether or not the site is a success. Over time, the site’s content and identity will expand as collaborations and other associations develop. At the same time, the site also has personal areas where we can just do, well, whatever we want.

I encourage you to

…learn about the site at http://www.potluck.com/about/,

…visit the newly updated page for our daughter, Sophia Quinn Meritt: http://www.potluck.com/tag/sophies-world/,

…read the site’s inaugural essay, “The Truth (Damned Truth) of Election Statistics” (http://www.potluck.com/2004/05/the-truth-damned-truth-of-election-statistics/), hopefully a provocative piece for this U.S. Presidential election year,

…and generally explore — and bookmark! — the site.

I hope you’ll partake from the Potluck!

Mark S. Meritt

The Truth (Damned Truth) of Election Statistics

May 27, 2004
By

The year 2004. A multiple of four. That means at least three things. A leap year, the Summer Olympics, and the U.S. Presidential election.

As for leap year, though it certainly applies this year, it actually doesn’t happen every multiple of four — and it isn’t really that big a deal anyway, is it?

Once upon a time, we could have just said that the Olympics take place every four years. Now they hold the Winter Olympics two years after the Summer ones, because they like to spread out the advertising revenue. So instead of something very special every four years, we get something a bit less special every other year.

That leaves the Presidential election. Surely this grand institution isn’t compromised in importance? Surely it’s as meaningful and fateful as everyone think it is?

Benjamin Disraeli said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” If statistics isn’t a lie or a damned lie, then maybe there’s some hope for them to occasionally tell some truth. To find out the truth about Presidential elections, let’s look at some numbers. The source is the InfoPlease section on U.S. Elections.

Popularity Contest

Here’s a graph that shows how the popular vote has been distributed in Presidential elections since 1872, the first year in which the popular vote was systematically recorded. The blue line shows what percentage went to the Democrats, the red line shows the Republicans, and the green line shows the combined popular vote for significant third-party candidates.

Popular Vote %s

Even if we didn’t know what we were looking at here, it’d be very easy to see that this graph describes a stable system — two figures cycling around each other, trading places, and staying within a very particular range of values, right around the middle of the graph. So it’s a basic feature of the U.S. Presidency that the Democratic and Republican parties simply trade off every few years. Further, the winner always wins by a fairly close margin, with no more than about 60% of the vote and often much less. Indeed, a near tie occurs probably more often than people may realize (2000, 1976, 1960 and several other years). Other political parties get much less of the popular vote, but occasionally they are able to gain a significant portion, indicating strong forces in the country that wish to play something other than the typical two-party game.

If Democrats and Republicans each got 50% of the vote every time, we would conclude that half the country was always committed to each major party. If the votes swung wildly across the whole graph, with wins ranging randomly from nearly all votes to only a bit more than half, then we would conclude that there was no party loyalty. With the figures kept tightly between 40% and 60%, then, the conclusion is that about 40% of voters always vote Democrat, and 40% always vote Republican, with the remaining 20% representing uncommitted voters who generate the fluctuations between 40% and 60%.

The two major party blocks — the voters most committed to a major party platform — are equal in size. They therefore cancel each other out in the voting results — none of these voters make a difference in election outcomes. Only the remaining voters, uncommitted to either major party, decide the Presidency. This uncommitted group can end up all voting for one major party, all for the other or anywhere in between. At most, then, a candidate must convince just 20% of voters to choose him in order to win. However, he can — and often does — cinch the election by convincing only 10% of voters. Of course, due to the vagaries of the Electoral College, a President can even win with less than half of the popular vote — and thus less than half of this uncommitted group of voters.

Read on: Mountains Out of Molehills

Zoom

May 26, 2004
By

Zoom (Picture Puffin)
Istvan Banyai

Your Money or Your Life: Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence

May 26, 2004
By

Your Money or Your Life: Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence
Joe Dominguez & Vicki Robin

You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man: How Ponzi Schemes and Pyramid Frauds Work… and Why They’re More Common Than Ever

May 26, 2004
By

You Can’t Cheat an Honest Man: How Ponzi Schemes and Pyramid Frauds Work… and Why They’re More Common Than Ever
James Walsh

Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West

May 26, 2004
By

Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
Gregory Maguire

Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences

May 26, 2004
By

Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences (Vintage)
Edward Tenner

When a Butterfly Sneezes: A Guide for Helping Kids Explore Interconnections in Our World Through Favorite Stories

May 26, 2004
By

When a Butterfly Sneezes: A Guide for Helping Kids Explore Interconnections in Our World Through Favorite Stories (Systems Thinking for Kids, Big and Small, Vol 1)
Linda Booth Sweeney

What Else Could It Be?

May 26, 2004
By

What Else Could It Be?
Mario Gomboli

Support Potluck


Fatal error: Call to undefined function st_related_posts() in /home/mscottm/public_html/wp-content/plugins/exec-php/includes/runtime.php(42) : eval()'d code on line 8