Five Thirty Eight

Continuing this political thread, I am have recently discovered the website Five Thirty Eight. Its name derives from the amount of electors in the electoral college, and its purpose is to accurately predict the election.

"How is this site different from other compilations of polls like Real Clear Politics," you ask? The website addresses this:
There are several principal ways that the FiveThityEight methodology differs from other poll compilations: Firstly, we assign each poll a weighting based on that pollster's historical track record, the poll's sample size, and the recentness of the poll. More reliable polls are weighted more heavily in our averages. Secondly, we include a regression estimate based on the demographics in each state among our 'polls', which helps to account for outlier polls and to keep the polling in its proper context. Thirdly, we use an inferential process to compute a rolling trendline that allows us to adjust results in states that have not been polled recently and make them ‘current’. Fourthly, we simulate the election 10,000 times for each site update in order to provide a probabilistic assessment of electoral outcomes based on a historical analysis of polling data since 1952. The simulation further accounts for the fact that similar states are likely to move together, e.g. future polling movement in states like Michigan and Ohio, or North and South Carolina, is likely to be in the same direction.

Basically, this is the most sophisticated election projection that I've seen. Right now Obama has a 95.7% chance to win the election, and the most likely scenario has him with 52% of the popular vote and 344.1 electoral votes (with 270 needed to win the presidency). The website also predicts that Democrats will come away with 57 seats in the Senate, though there is a 33% chance that they will reach the filibuster-proof 60.

I am interested to find out how accurate these projections are come Tuesday.

Every Vote Counts! (Unless You Do the Math)

Prompted by Mike's most recent post, I thought I would take a moment to reflect on voting: why it's important and why we do it. There have been two major advancements for suffrage in this country. In 1870, in the wake of the Civil War, we passed the Fifteenth Amendment (of the 37 states that ratified it, Arkansas was the 10th!), which stated that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Hooray for equality! However, after the initial wave of Reconstruction shifted power towards African Americans, states began pass voter qualification laws, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, which greatly restricted African Americans' right to vote. Sadly, it wasn't until the 24th Amendment in 1964 (Shamefully, Arkansas was among the last five states to retain a poll tax) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that these Constitutional rights were upheld.

But let's not forget misogyny. Women's right to vote was restricted until the ripe time of 1920, with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment (this time, Arkansas was the 12th!), which stated that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

These two steps were instrumental to our nation fulfilling its promise that all men are created equal. The right to vote is essential for there to exist equality among all sectors of society (though, as is obvious, it does not guarantee it). Those who cannot vote are powerless.

However, I am still left with the fact that my vote, in any statewide or national election, does not matter. In local elections, it is conceivable that one vote would make a difference (In fact, the 1977 mayorial election in Ann Arbor, Michigan was decided by only one vote), but in any larger election the odds are astronomically against it. For example, the 2000 election was decided by Florida, where 537 votes out of 6 million made the difference, so even in a historically close election, one vote does not matter. Moreover, I would wager that the margin of error for counting votes would be greater than one, which would render one vote mathmatically insignificant. In response to this, many people argue that if lots of people believed this, then it would make a difference. But that is a different issue. Groups of people voting make a difference, but whether I, as a solitary voter, stay home or go to the voting booth next Tuesday ultimately does not matter.

And yet I vote.

Why? you may ask. No doubt, some of you are angered by my seemingly apathetic view of things. I assure you, I am not apathetic, but rather reason has led me to these conclusions. Rationally, I can find no argument for voting. I can find an argument against what I am doing now, because it might influence others not to vote, but I hope that that won't be the case. I vote for the simple reason that it makes me feel good. I like participating in the process, and by doing so I force myself to become more involved and to pay closer attention to the state of our nation, thereby becoming a better citizen. This, to me, is important, and so since I value voting, it in fact is reasonable for me to vote.

I hope that as you are reflecting on which presidential candidate will better lead our nation, you will consider what I've said and come to value voting as well. Whatever your reasons, and whomever you vote for, get out there and vote on Tuesday the 4th.

Go America!

Worth Your Time

Dueling church signs.

I spied this on one of my friend's blog, and it is hilarious! (I'd have to say the Catholics schooled the Presbyterians.)

Thanks Vanessa!

A Bleak Persistence , or Hope Amidst Futility

Don't worry, this isn't about my life. Although I am still somewhat saddened by the FHS fiasco, and worried about the state of our bank account, my spirits are on the rise. Today the wife and I went to Gulley Park to lie in the sun and read for awhile. This weekend, we'll be headed to Tulsa with Dad and Dorris to see Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion. Also, I have an interview this Thursday to begin subbing for Fayettevile public schools, which ought to pad our income some.

It turns out that life is still okay.

Unless you're Pulitzer-Prize-winning Cormac McCarthy, in which case it would appear that everything is not okay. I just finished reading The Road, which chronicles the life of a father and son who are trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic United States. The Event is never explained, but there was some sort of massive fire bombing, or perhaps a global nuclear war. Regardless, the present landscape is barren and lifeless. All animals are dead, ash rains down from the sky, and the sun is never fully seen. Most people have died, and the ones who remain must subsist off of the leftover canned food and scraps left in abandoned houses. Roaming the countryside are bands of men who will steal from you, kill you, and most likely eat you. The only way to survive is to keep moving and scavenging, like some dystopic echo of Kerouac's Beat classic.

Stylistically, McCarthy's writing is Hemingwayesque, sparse and economic. He doesn't use proper nouns, only pronouns (which at time is confusing), and often uses fragments. Also, between each paragraph is a larger than usual space, which seems like an insignificant detail, but it isn't. It creates a disjointed feeling, as if the story is told only in sporadic bursts of prose, which ultimately accents the bleakness or barrenness of the story.

Here is an example of his writing:
He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground foxes in their cover [A reference to him and his son]. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it.

This example is telling of his tone and of his writing style, but not of his subject. This was one of the very few times that the writing strayed from relating simply the sparse details of their daily existence.

Ultimately, I'm unsure of what to think about this book. Certainly it was memorable and interesting, but it's not clear that it was good. It was interesting much in the way that 28 Days Later is interesting. The post-apocalyptic world is intriguing, as is the murderous environment that they protagonists must survive in, and I found myself agreeing, "Yes, that would be what would happen." The story is gripping, and I turned pages quickly, wanting to know what would happen next. But was it Good? Will it last within the canon of remarkable Literature?

Here my issue lies with the plot. There was none. The novel and its characters meandered from day to day, without any real purpose except to live another day: they wake, they walk a few miles, then sleep; they starve for a while, then find food; they are in danger, then they escape. The story drones on much as the lives of the people within this blighted land. All there is is the road: no meaning, just movement. And perhaps in that sense the plot, or lack thereof, does tie in with the effect that the novel creates as a whole, and so is pardonable.

Despite the bleakness of the novel's outlook, though, there are faint hints of something that resembles hope. It is so overwhelmed by the dominant presence of gloom and doom that it is almost non-existant, but it is there. I just wanted to mention that to explain the second half of this entry's title.

In the end, I think that McCarthy does have the abilities of a great writer, but those abilities did not all coalesce in this novel into something great, or something lasting. The seeds are there, but they have not yet come to fruition.

Still, it was worth the read.

A Heartbreaking Conclusion to Such a Wonderous Beginning

I got the job at FHS. I received the call on Thursday while I was NYC for a wedding (one of Sara's close friends). I can't describe the wonder and excitement of those first few hours, but needless to say, I was ecstatic. It couldn't have come at a better time--spiritually, mentally, financially--and it felt like everything in my life was clicking into place.

Then I received the email. I should back up, though. Before I applied, I didn't think I would be eligible to teach for this school year, but I talked with one of the regional directors of the Non-Traditional Licensure Program and was assured that I would be eligible to re-enroll in the program (and so be provisionally certified) at that time. I stated specifically that I had withdrawn, rather than being placed on hold, and had not attended any training modules, but somehow that information didn't sink in. On Friday it was discovered that I had done exactly as I had stated, that I had withdrawn, and I was told that I couldn't accept the job. I don't know whether the regional director didn't understand the distinction between the two and so didn't convey that information to the head office, or if the error lies there (it seems there was misinformation in my file that stated I had attended the summer training), but either way I am out of a job in an embarrassing fashion.

It has not been a good week.

Job Interview

I have a job interview at a Fayetteville High School this coming Wednesday. I really want to get this job, for a lot of reasons. First, frankly we need the money. Second, it would allow me to get certified and would be good experience. Lastly, starting in the familiar setting of the school I graduated from would helpful as I get situated to high school (as opposed to college-level) teaching.

Last time I interviewed here the principal and the English chair told me that I interviewed well. Last time I didn't get the job, though.

Wish me luck.