Presidential Campaign Presidential Campaign
System in 1948 System in 2016
[Thanks to Ms. Dorothy Obrupta, my high school physics teacher at Metuchen High School in New Jersey, for beginning the process of getting me to see how physics can be applied to politics.]
There is a lot in the above title, but I want to take some time to discuss what we now know about the presidential selection process. Today, I will highlight the first of the three three major things we need to grapple with in order to make sense out of 2016. Today I take a stab at examining how physics can help us understand why this has been such a weird presidential election cycle.
Science: this one is easy for a guy who is trained to inhabit the borderlines of science (using the scientific method but not having the benefit of controlling environments or subjects). The most obvious application is the "S" factor: Entropy.
Okay, what do you need to know about entropy? For this discussion, not much: Wikipedia has a good non-technical discussion here that summarizes the important details that may relate. There are three things I focus on related to entropy:
First, the current presidential election system has been moving a a direction for forty years that is now irreversible. The process is one-way and any kind of cobbling like those mentioned here will do nothing to change the reality that the system is finally nearing its state of full decay, Democrats and Republicans alike need to come to grips with the reality that the current state of the system will guarantee dysfunction. To put it simply: the system is useless for achieving its fundamental purpose: allowing political parties to choose the best candidate in a process that maximizes their chances of winning the general election.
Second (in part because the theory is in the second law of thermodynamics), just as spilled milk or unwise choices of words posted in a discussion list (something we have been dealing with at our institution lately) cannot be recalled, the decay in our system is something that cannot be undone by anyone or anything. In other words, it must happen I believe this is referred to as a spontaneous process. One look at the nominating process will uncover certain realities that are the political equivalent of hot air moving toward areas with cold air. In political terms heat is power or influence and the process of transfer is now sufficiently far along to have reached the point of inevitability.
Third, as power (the "heat" of politics) has made its long shift away from political parties and towards a plethora of alternate locations: egotistical candidates; campaign professionals; moneyed interests; mass media; wealthy individuals (thanks, Supreme Court!); and ourselves (long explanation on this one to come sometime in the future), we have witnessed an increase in political entropy in the system that results in good candidates being bloodied even in victory (think Clinton this year and Romney in 2012); and let's not even discuss the Republican system in 2016...
Sure, we dodged bullets before (e.g., Giuliani and Cain in 2012), but that was because the decay on the system may have been significant, but the system still seemed to work. Along the way we have provided patches that kept the system working: McGovern-Fraser, FECA, superdelegates, etc. But it really does appear that at this point, the system can no longer function in its current state. Recent polls suggest (and we need to both attend to and suspect the usefulness of polls these days) that upwards of 2/3 of all adults are unhappy with both party candidates. So much for one of the fundamental function of political parties: controlling access to the ballot to ensure candidates are electable and represent the party well in order to give voters clear choices.
To return to using this physics metaphor: the collapse of the presidential nominating system has been coming for some time, but 2016 is likely the point where the amount of political energy in this system that CANNOT be used to make the system work correctly has reached the tipping point and is in a state of collapse.
So, got the oddest of the three down...next time, psychology. The third one is possibly the most controversial argument, as I will try to explain why it is our fault and not the faulty of politicians, campaign professionals, large donors, and the media.
System in 1948 System in 2016
[Thanks to Ms. Dorothy Obrupta, my high school physics teacher at Metuchen High School in New Jersey, for beginning the process of getting me to see how physics can be applied to politics.]
There is a lot in the above title, but I want to take some time to discuss what we now know about the presidential selection process. Today, I will highlight the first of the three three major things we need to grapple with in order to make sense out of 2016. Today I take a stab at examining how physics can help us understand why this has been such a weird presidential election cycle.
Science: this one is easy for a guy who is trained to inhabit the borderlines of science (using the scientific method but not having the benefit of controlling environments or subjects). The most obvious application is the "S" factor: Entropy.
Okay, what do you need to know about entropy? For this discussion, not much: Wikipedia has a good non-technical discussion here that summarizes the important details that may relate. There are three things I focus on related to entropy:
First, the current presidential election system has been moving a a direction for forty years that is now irreversible. The process is one-way and any kind of cobbling like those mentioned here will do nothing to change the reality that the system is finally nearing its state of full decay, Democrats and Republicans alike need to come to grips with the reality that the current state of the system will guarantee dysfunction. To put it simply: the system is useless for achieving its fundamental purpose: allowing political parties to choose the best candidate in a process that maximizes their chances of winning the general election.
Second (in part because the theory is in the second law of thermodynamics), just as spilled milk or unwise choices of words posted in a discussion list (something we have been dealing with at our institution lately) cannot be recalled, the decay in our system is something that cannot be undone by anyone or anything. In other words, it must happen I believe this is referred to as a spontaneous process. One look at the nominating process will uncover certain realities that are the political equivalent of hot air moving toward areas with cold air. In political terms heat is power or influence and the process of transfer is now sufficiently far along to have reached the point of inevitability.
Third, as power (the "heat" of politics) has made its long shift away from political parties and towards a plethora of alternate locations: egotistical candidates; campaign professionals; moneyed interests; mass media; wealthy individuals (thanks, Supreme Court!); and ourselves (long explanation on this one to come sometime in the future), we have witnessed an increase in political entropy in the system that results in good candidates being bloodied even in victory (think Clinton this year and Romney in 2012); and let's not even discuss the Republican system in 2016...
Sure, we dodged bullets before (e.g., Giuliani and Cain in 2012), but that was because the decay on the system may have been significant, but the system still seemed to work. Along the way we have provided patches that kept the system working: McGovern-Fraser, FECA, superdelegates, etc. But it really does appear that at this point, the system can no longer function in its current state. Recent polls suggest (and we need to both attend to and suspect the usefulness of polls these days) that upwards of 2/3 of all adults are unhappy with both party candidates. So much for one of the fundamental function of political parties: controlling access to the ballot to ensure candidates are electable and represent the party well in order to give voters clear choices.
To return to using this physics metaphor: the collapse of the presidential nominating system has been coming for some time, but 2016 is likely the point where the amount of political energy in this system that CANNOT be used to make the system work correctly has reached the tipping point and is in a state of collapse.
So, got the oddest of the three down...next time, psychology. The third one is possibly the most controversial argument, as I will try to explain why it is our fault and not the faulty of politicians, campaign professionals, large donors, and the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment