Elections and Mathematics

If you’re interested in elections and mathematics, you need to read this book. If you wonder about the practical applications of math to “real life”, you need to read this book. If you’re a politician who ignores math in solving social problems, you need to read this book. If you’re just curious about some things, you should read this book.

“What is the book?”, you ask. The book is For all practical purposes : mathematical literacy in today’s world found in my local library.

There are several chapters related to voting and apportionment. (There are many chapters unrelated to voting, but all relating to mathematics and the “real world”, such as management, statistics, computers, size and shape, etc. The subtitle for the book is “Mathematical Literacy in Today’s World.)

This particular edition is an update of the 1987 edition. A new chapter on “Electing the President” has been added. Other chapters have been revised. There is a lot of online material available through the publisher, consisting of exercises, answers, and various Java applets, video clips, and probably more. There was a video series based on the original book which was shown on TV. My library does not have the videos, but clips are supposed to be available online. The ones about voting and apportionment are easy to follow, and show mathematical difficulties with various systems.

If you were going to develop a system of voting, what would you require? You might want fair and equitable. You might want one that isn’t easily manipulable mathematically. What properties would you want in a voting system? And what systems satisfy those properties?

All voting systems have difficulties, especially those in which there are more than two candidates, or in which more than one person/idea will be chosen in a given category.

Read about the Condorcet Winner Criterion, Plurality Voting, manipulability, Borda Count, the Hare System and Monotonicity, Approval Voting (voting for several in order to choose one), Arrow’s impossibility theorem (any voting system can give undesirable outcomes, even if you’re not Al Gore), May’s theorem, Pareto conditions, Sincere voting, Weighted Voting systems, Banzhaf Power Index, other indexes of a voter’s power, and so on.

Voting is more complicated than an “X” in a box or a purple finger.

What about choosing the number of representatives that a group (say a state) gets? Not so easy there, either. Fair division (say cutting a cake) and apportionment are difficult areas. Various apportionments systems have pros and cons. Some elections have been swayed because of this. Is it fair how many representatives a state gets? What do you do with a fractional representative? What does “fair” mean? Read how Hamilton, Jefferson, Webster, and others have approached apportionment. During the primary season, is it “fair” that the winner of a state gets all the delegates? Should they be divided according to how well a candidate does?

Caution: I was disappointed with the chapter on “Electing the President”. Not the math part, but the bias. If this weren’t a new chapter, I’d recommend the previous edition of the book. The chapter “Social Choice: The Impossible Dream” starts with a picture of Al Gore, not George W. Bush. Gore’s picture on the next page is bigger than Bush’s. Not a big deal, but a bias, I think. The 2000 election did have difficulties, but mostly not mathematical. The section “Is There a Better Way to Elect a President?” asks a legitimate question. No voting system is perfect, but maybe there is a method that would satisfy more people (but would still have to be “easy” to implement in a nation of 300 million people.) A comment in that section says that mathematics may show possible reforms “that may ameliorate some of the problems that plague our current system.” I thought “plague” is too strong. There are lots of things that could be done before changing the current system of voting.

In short, this is an informative book with sections on voting and apportionment. Something like this should be required reading in Civics classes, and should be known in a general way to more voters. Being an informed voter may mean more than knowing the candidates’ positions.

It’s not about race or sex (wink, wink)

One Democratic candidate for president sometimes seems to imply, “I’m your best choice for president. Don’t vote for me because I’m a woman, since Americans should be beyond that hurdle by now. But if you vote for me because I’m a woman, that’s fine because we need to show America that we’re ready for a woman president.”

Another Democratic candidate for president sometimes seems to imply, “I’m your best choice for president. Don’t vote for me because I’m black, since Americans should be beyond that hurdle by now. But if you vote for me because I’m black, that’s fine because we need to show America that we’re ready for a black president.”

Then, in debates and stump speeches, they attack each other. But it isn’t about race or sex, you see. We’re just that way.

Peggy Noonan has an interesting column (as usual) that discusses this discord. In her opinion, this presidential contest will change the Democratic party forever, whichever way it turns out. Some in the Democratic party are catching on that some of the top spokespeople don’t speak for everyone in the party. There will be a long-lasting division as some realize that things have changed. Not surprisingly, B*ll Cl*nt*n is involved.

Ms. Noonan also comments on the Republican party. Not all is well there, either. The Republican party is still trying to handle its new face after 8 years of George W. Bush. There are differences there, too. McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Guliani, et at, will push and pull their party in new directions, no matter who is the final nominee.

It will seem like a long slog as the election season gears up (as if that seems possible). But there will be changes in both parties. We’ll have to wait to see what those are.

Raucous Caucus!

OK, so not so raucous at our precinct for the Iowa caucus. But the attendance was about twice what I remember from 8 years ago.

The tally of the votes went quickly. In our precinct, Mike received 46 votes, Fred 25, Mitt 24, Ron 9, John 7, and Rudy 3. That’s a total of 114 ballots.

There was the selection of delegates to the county convention, and selection of party committee members.

Then the discussion and voting on party planks for the platform. These will be delivered to the county convention, and will be combined with others from other precincts, or shredded and never make it any farther. It was informative to hear some ideas about what should be included and why. My daughter and I left after about 2 hours as things were winding down.

Statewide, it looks like Mike took about 34% of the ballots. Mitt, who outspent Mike twenty-fold, was second.  Some guy in the other party beat whats-her-name in that contest.

It was an interesting time, and I’m glad I went.

It’s a long way to the White House for someone, though.

The population of Iowa will be somewhat less by this time tomorrow night as journalists, campaigners, and others move on to other sites.

At least the phone calls will stop.

Traction

Traction is what I’ve been needing with my blog postings.

Traction is what many mid-westerners needed last week.

Traction is what some presidential candidates are gaining or losing.

I’ve been negligent in my blog postings. I hope you’ve kept checking to see whether I’ve had anything new. I hope this satisfies you for awhile.

Last week we had lots of ice, sleet, snow, and more ice. Lost of folks in the Mid-West were without power, and many, many more without needed traction while driving. That, and the heavy fog late in the week, has certainly slowed things down here. Warm weather yesterday turned our driveway’s snow into ice, so getting up and down is a problem. Last night’s major storm didn’t help any.

Our friend Mike Huckabee has certainly gained traction in his bid to win the Iowa caucus. He’s now getting more publicity than maybe he had hoped for. Folks have taken notice, and he’s been challenged in many areas. He is articulate and has been able to give some nice answers. When Doonesbury, the Wall Street Journal, World magazine, and others have had items on Mike, you know he’s gotten some publicity.

Hillary, Rudy, and Mitt have lost traction. Tom has dropped out altogether. Fred may never get any traction. Ron seems to be sliding sideways.

Eleven days until the Iowa caucuses. Are you ready?

So, who’s this Mike Huckabee guy, anyway?

If you’ve been following the talk about the presidential candidates, you might be wondering about this Mike Huckabee guy who is the lead Republican candidate in various polls, especially in Iowa.

If you listen to national news on the radio, or read the newspapers, you might be wondering who he is. About all you hear is that:

1. He’s a candidate for president
2. He’s a former governor of Arkansas
3. He’s a baptist
4. He lost a lot of weight a few years ago

Compared with Mitt, Rudy, Ron, Fred, John, etc., I hear very little in the national media about Mike’s positions on the issues. I read more about fringe (some might say “whacko”) candidate Dennis (D, Ohio 10th district) than I do about Mike.

How much do you hear about Mike?

In a month, things should be clearer regarding the viability of the candidates.

I Like Mike!

Mike Huckabee, that is, a presidential candidate who is rapidly gaining ground in Iowa leading up to the Iowa caucuses in January.

He is conservative and would make a much better president than many others who are running, man or woman. He has conservative views that haven’t been acquired just recently. He has been a governor, so he has experience running a government, unlike some other contenders. He is also a man of integrity, which puts him ahead of several others, in my opinion.

Please consider supporting Mike Huckabee.

Go, Mike!