vicemag:
Is America Finally Ready to Abandon the Electoral College and Embrace the Popular Vote
US presidential elections are frequently the butt of jokes worldwide, and deservedly so. Between the eye-popping fundraising totals, the awkward pandering to billionaires, and the shameless jockeying for the support of key interest groups in weird places like Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s a lot to hate.
Much of this can be blamed on the electoral college. Instead of simply counting votes nationwide and giving the Oval Office to the guy or gal with the most ballots, America holds 50 statewide elections, then awards points called “electors” to the winner of each election. It’s a confusing system that makes winning 51 percent of the votes in California more than ten times as valuable as winning 100 percent of the votes in Nebraska, and gives special status to the few swing states that could go either way. Standard practice nowadays is for candidates to camp out in the dozen or so of these key states, which enjoy special status because their cities are surrounded by dense, conservative suburbs that balance out the votes of liberal urbanites. This means millions of voters are effectively stuck on the margins of political life, and thanks to our system we risk disaster every four years.
George W. Bush’s incredible non-victory in 2000—which came, of course, thanks to an assist from his dad’s pals on the Supreme Court—may be the the most recent example, but it doesn’t even scratch the surface of the twisted intrigue that the electoral college has encouraged over the years. After the 1876 election saw the electors go one way and the popular vote the other, the “compromise” that was reached set the stage for a flood of Jim Crow laws and racial terrorism into the American South, as a key concession from the Republicans was to remove occupying federal troops that had been in the former Confederate states since the Civil War.
Continue

vicemag:

Is America Finally Ready to Abandon the Electoral College and Embrace the Popular Vote

US presidential elections are frequently the butt of jokes worldwide, and deservedly so. Between the eye-popping fundraising totals, the awkward pandering to billionaires, and the shameless jockeying for the support of key interest groups in weird places like Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s a lot to hate.

Much of this can be blamed on the electoral college. Instead of simply counting votes nationwide and giving the Oval Office to the guy or gal with the most ballots, America holds 50 statewide elections, then awards points called “electors” to the winner of each election. It’s a confusing system that makes winning 51 percent of the votes in California more than ten times as valuable as winning 100 percent of the votes in Nebraska, and gives special status to the few swing states that could go either way. Standard practice nowadays is for candidates to camp out in the dozen or so of these key states, which enjoy special status because their cities are surrounded by dense, conservative suburbs that balance out the votes of liberal urbanites. This means millions of voters are effectively stuck on the margins of political life, and thanks to our system we risk disaster every four years.

George W. Bush’s incredible non-victory in 2000—which came, of course, thanks to an assist from his dad’s pals on the Supreme Court—may be the the most recent example, but it doesn’t even scratch the surface of the twisted intrigue that the electoral college has encouraged over the years. After the 1876 election saw the electors go one way and the popular vote the other, the “compromise” that was reached set the stage for a flood of Jim Crow laws and racial terrorism into the American South, as a key concession from the Republicans was to remove occupying federal troops that had been in the former Confederate states since the Civil War.

Continue

Before somebody can make a change to their health and their happiness, their brain has already constructed a picture of reality in which change is possible or not. Basically, this predicts whether or not they’ll be able to make that change.

Some people see a world in which they’re only their genes and their environment; so they can watch a ton of TED Talks, they can read a ton of books, but they won’t actually incorporate any of those new changes into their lives…

A lot of frustration comes from us being irrationally optimistic about either the goal that we’re creating or the speed and the time it will take to get there. I have a great little cartoon that someone sent me on Twitter: A rhinoceros is on a treadmill, and it’s sweating and running as fast as it possibly can, and it’s looking up at this poster of this beautiful unicorn. So it’s trying to run as fast as it can to be a unicorn, and inherently it’s creating greater levels of frustration, because it’s not a unicorn, it’s a rhinoceros, and it should be the best rhinoceros that it can be.

(via tedx)

Taking a step backward can be the best way to lead you forward

goodideaexchange:

I was taking my walk today. It was sunny , but we had a thunderstorm roll through last night. On my way to the park, I realized the sidewalk was caked in mud. I had already left footprints in the mud, but the footing was getting worse as I kept going. Not only was the way ahead muddy, but there was standing water on top of the squishy mud. I’m clumsy, so I get really anxious when the footing gets bad. So I had to make a decision - walk forward through the treacherous, mud-splattered sidewalk or go backward and find a drier path to my destination.

I backed up and found a safer way to go, adding minutes to my trek but also ensuring my neck remained unbroken and my new health insurance remained unused.

I thought about how my professional life in the past year has been just like my walk. I used to be a senior technical writer. Then I tried something different by becoming a proposal writer. I lost my job to the economic downturn and now I’m once again a senior technical writer.

Am I going backward? No, I’m just getting my footing in an industry I’ve been successful in and preparing myself for rewarding opportunities in the near future. If you look for jobs online, you’ll see a lot of opportunities for technical writers and not many for proposal writers. Career experts see a bright future for those in the technical field. I can use my technical expertise in a number of different industries and can consider opportunities throughout the world.

So why would I go back to something I left several years ago? What was the point of changing careers if I’m now going back?

I became a proposal writer because I felt I could use my technical and creative skills in one role. I did this, but not only did I find out I’m a very creative and persuasive writer, I also found I missed the simplicity and stability of being a technical writer. I also became a blogger in the past few years, which is far more rewarding to my creative ambition than being a proposal writer.

I wouldn’t be a blogger without the lessons I learned as a proposal writer, but I wouldn’t be a blogger if I were still a proposal writer. It took losing my creative role to make me find a new creative role I like much better.

We get so focused on progress and instant gratification that we sometimes ignore the long-term ramifications of our actions. Cutting corners might help you progress but may keep you from progressing in the future. You may make it forward another inch on your present path, but also consider the benefit of taking a few steps back to take many more steps forward in the future.

I began to realize how important it was to be an enthusiast in life. He taught me that if you are interested in something, no matter what it is, go at it at full speed ahead. Embrace it with both arms, hug it, love it and above all become passionate about it. Lukewarm is no good. Hot is no good either. White hot and passionate is the only thing to be.

Roald Dahl, My Uncle Oswald (via everydaymermaid)

(via goodideaexchange)

It’s okay to be a glow stick; sometimes we need to break before we shine.

Justin Khoe