The Election, Hurricane Sandy, and Climate Change

There's a strong connection between this year's election, the deadly superstorm that ravaged our coast and the globally changing climate although it's not what the pundits would have you think.  The big takeaway of the last few weeks is not how a storm may or may not have influenced an election.  It's not that one storm is or can be an indicator of climate change.  It's not even about what either side of the political aisle says or does not say about climate change.  It's much bigger than that.  It's about the way we get our information.  It's what we choose to believe or not to believe. It's about methods that are tested and proven.  It's about science.

In the weeks prior to the election there was a bit of a 'to do' in the media over a gentleman named Nate Silver.  Mr. Silver has a now (in)famous blog, 538 Blog, in the New York Times, to which the paper purchased the rights in the wake of its surprisingly accurate predictions regarding the 2008 election.  It is not, however, simply the accuracy of those predictions that made the Times and others take heed.  There are folks all over the news making bold predictions, and if you pay attention to enough of them, one of them is bound to be right at least some of the time.  It is something of our nature to take notice when this happens. Nonetheless, what makes Mr. Silver somewhat exceptional is his thorough methodologies and his use of data--lots and lots of data.  It is also the conclusions that are reached through the use of that data and how they are presented that should be noted.

We live in what I would call a post-Information Age.  That is to say, we have entered a period in which we seek not just to have more information, but to have information about that information and its validity as well as to apply it in a way that makes accurate forecasts based on probabilities, statistics, and other fields of <gasp> mathematics.

After receiving criticism by Joe Scarborough of MSNBC, who was apparently annoyed at the level of confidence exuded in 538 Blog, Mr. Silver challenged him publicly to a bet of $1,000 which the loser would donate to charity.  To his credit, Mr. Scarborough did not bite.  The interesting thing is that while Mr. Silver displayed confidence (some interpreted it as arrogance), Mr. Scarborough projected certainty.  It was not certainty in the outcome of the election, rather it was in the belief that it was ultimately unpredictable--in his words: "a toss-up."  The wager was based on the odds that Mr. Silver's models had produced at the time, which I believe were around 78%.  Gambling is something that should be done only when: firstly, the gambler can afford to lose; and secondly, the odds are in his/her favor.  Both gentlemen's erudition in this regard is likely why one offered the wager and the other rejected it.  Of course, they both ended up donating to their charities of choice, demonstrating that it was really about the odds and not the money.  Mr. Silver was never certain that he was going to win.  He was, however, confident in the soundness of his methodologies and his odds, which he soon adjusted to 84% on the eve of election day.

As it turns out, 538 Blog (based on statistics produced as of Sunday evening) was correct in prognosticating every state won by the President but one (Florida--a virtual toss-up), and the outcome of every senatorial race except for two neck-and-neck races in Montana and North Dakota.  Being a savvy statistician, I believe even Mr. Silver himself would admit that there was some luck to that.  In fact, probability would have it that at least a few of those predictions would be wrong.  While the President ending up with 332 electoral votes was the result that came up most frequently in his models, it only did so 18% of the time. However, to say that he was just lucky, as many pundits worried about their job security are doing today, is widely missing the point.  He is using the best information available to him and using it to his advantage through the employment of modern computing and data collection.  Simply put, models perform consistently better than experts' predictions.

Jump back to the days just before Hurricane Sandy devastated the mid-Atlantic coast.  Meteorologists were confident in their models which showed the storm going up the coast and making a hard turn inland.  Years ago, having only historical norms to go on, this would have been deemed very unlikely.  Yet, we took these warnings seriously and governments were able to mitigate the resulting loss of life by ordering evacuations.  When it came down to it, we, by-and-large (and thankfully), chose to take these models seriously.  I shudder to think of what would have happened if we had failed to trust the science in this regard.

But that is exactly what has been happening when it comes to the matter of global climate change.  For years, scientists have formulated predictive models on the effect that a rise in greenhouse gases would have on our climate.  The models and methodologies varied as did some of the conclusions; however, they have in part led to an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global climate change is real, has anthropogenic influences and poses a serious threat to life on our planet.  It is true that there are some detractors, but they are few and far between, and they have the unfortunate advantage of a metaphorical megaphone bestowed upon them by powerful interests in the oil and gas industries as well as others who would benefit to pull the wool over our eyes.

The question going forward is this:  Are we going to let the guiding force that governs our positions and actions be one that is informed by science and reason or by 'gut feelings,' 'wishy' thinking and/or unverified claims? When the stakes are this high, I do not gamble, and neither should your government.

An Appeal to Non-voters This Election Day

You have the right to stay home today.  Here's why you shouldn't:

In the United States you have the right to abstain from voting on election day, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.  As democratic governments vary in their roles and structure, they also vary on issues of suffrage.  There are democratic societies that require their citizens to vote and enforce that requirement (e.g. Australia), as well as those that don't enforce the requirement (e.g. Mexico).  I understand the rationale for this; however, I think that, in our case, it would serve to cheapen the process.

While I don't believe that voting should be compulsory, I do believe it should be strongly encouraged.  Requiring people to vote in itself does nothing to ensure that they are better informed, and thus, it does nothing to improve the integrity of the system.

On the other hand, we all have ancestors that were denied the right to vote at some point or another.  Many of them were immigrants or minorities.  Most of them were women.  Their memory and legacy is what drives me.

Of course, there are many reasons that people in our society give for not voting.  Some cite their disillusionment with the two-party system or the electoral college as their raison d'etre for abstention. The argument is, in the case of the former, that there are no good choices and/or that money and interest groups taint elections. In the case of the latter, it is argued that because a certain state is virtually guaranteed to elect candidates from one party or the other--given its demographics and a winner-take-all system--their vote will not make a difference.  While both arguments in and of themselves are true, they largely miss the point.  We have the option of voting for third-party or write-in candidates, and while those candidates may or may not have a chance of winning, a certain percentage of votes can give them greater access in the future.  Furthermore, no election has been (or ever will be) decided by a single person.  The chance of anyone, anywhere casting the decisive vote is just short of impossible.  That's not why we vote.  Suffrage is a privilege and a right that is much bigger than any individual, and for many it is a solemn duty.


Coming from a community of immigrants, my grandfather understood that the right to vote was a privilege not afforded to all societies at all times in history.  He understood that those before him suffered oppression and that this glorious right is, in large part, why they took on hardships to come to this country.  For the final months of his life he was very sick and could barely walk.  Yet, when election day came and I finished casting my vote, I saw him enter the polling station with the help of my uncle and a walker.  That moment was transformative for me.  I felt an overwhelming pride and admiration for him.  If anyone had ever had an excuse to stay home on election day, it was he. But at that moment, when I looked him in the eye, I realized what it meant to him, and it has had a lasting impact on me.  I'd like to say that I voted in every election since then; however, that is sadly not the case.  I have cited the arguments--nay--excuses stated above for this failure.  I realize now that I was wrong.

To those who will not vote, it is your right to make that decision, and I will stand against any movement that would aim to deny you that choice.  However, you should be aware of one thing: Choosing not to vote is an act of protest that is doomed to go both unacknowledged and unrewarded.  There are better ways to change the system, and none of them involve non-participation.  It is fine to identify our processes as flawed.  They most certainly are.  Nevertheless, on this election day, I am asking you to go to the ballot box.  I am asking you to think of the woman, a certain Susan Brownell Anthony, who, in 1872, brazenly walked into her polling place, cast her ballot and was soon after arrested and fined for doing so.  I am asking you to think of an octogenarian lumbering forth with a mobility assistance device--one with a flag-emblazoned sticker that triumphantly reads "I voted!"  I am asking you to treat this act not as merely a right nor as an obligation, but as a duty; because changing a system requires doing more not less, and because it is part of the legacy--born out of great strife--that is our inheritance as citizens.