Coloring through CSS

Someone mentioned some of the links were hard to see on my site because I was only changing the text color and not the link attributes. Now, this should be a lot easier to do because instead of coloring my text blocks manually, I will be coloring them with Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).

Using the palet of CSS, I came up with a number of potential color schemes.

For Coder posts, I’m using this theme.

For Musical posts, I’m using this theme.

For Gaming posts, I’m using this theme.

For Speech Making posts, I’m using this theme.

For Author posts, I’m using this theme.

For Vegetarianism and Diet posts, I’m using this theme.

For Thespian posts, I’m using this theme.

For Science posts, I’m using this theme.

For Polyglot posts, I’m using this theme.

For Electric Car posts, I’m using this theme.

For Foreign Travel posts, I’m using this theme.

For Doctor Who posts, I’m using this theme.

For Aspiration Aviation posts, I’m using this theme.

For Equal Rights Amendment posts, I’m using this theme.

For Cosplay posts, I’m using this theme.

For NPVIC posts, I’m using this theme.

But what am I using this theme for?

With this template, I can check all the themes before they’re deployed to see how they look, at least in terms of text and hyperlinks. I will add CSS for Spoilers and other special text like #CO2Fre and #CO2Fre1, but for now this is what I’m working with. And I’m available for hire.

The Copernicus Complex: Our Cosmic Significance in a Universe of Planets and Probabilities

Because of the issues with #CO2Fre’s tyre, it only just finished this book in time for our meeting today.

I started this book right after finishing 18 Miles: The Epic Dreams of Our Atmosphere and Its Weather. Overall, I found the book a bit repetitive but it does bring up some interesting topics. I think the conclusion of we being born of both order and chaos is a nice ides given other books I’ve read that go into great detail on how unusual it is for biologic life to arise and how even more astronomical the odds are that a bacterium would take up residence in an archaea to make eukaryotes.

The survey of extrasolar planetary configurations was fun, however. I love the description of unusual systems like tight packing of planets, binary star systems, and life evolving on a Gas Giant moon. Although there are multiple ways a binary star system could have planets. For instance, one could have one star is a large (but not huge) one like our sun, and the other is a red dwarf, a bit larger than Jupiter, with the planet orbiting only the major star. But what Caleb Scharf seems to present is something more akin to two stars of relatively close mass orbiting one another tightly and a planet much farther out which orbits them both. In the later case, the idea that suns eclipse each other in regular cycles making the nature of a solar-centric universe much more amenable to budding intelligent life was a great and interesting flight of fancy that will help inform my better authorship of Science Fiction.

My main nit goes back to the first issue, though, with the mention of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in the prologue. I thought the author did better introducing astronomical elements than he did biological elements and it was in the biological sections in which I was bogged down.

I am happy though to concede that with the modified Drake equation: N = R_* \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_i \cdot f_e \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L where,

  • R_*: the average rate of star formation in a galaxy
  • f_p: the fraction of those stars that have planets
  • n_e: the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
  • f_i: the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life (like bacteria or archaea) at some point
  • f_e: the fraction of planets with life (like bacteria or archaea) that develop complex life (like eucaryotes)
  • f_i: the fraction of planets with complex life (like eucaryotes) that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
  • f_c: the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
  • L: the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

We know R_* is about three percent more stars per year, and that f_p is often greater than one, perhaps an average of four in modern surveys. n_e is a little harder to determine as we generally define it as a goldilocks zone, but as the book points out, life with radically different chemistry could have a different universal solvent than water. Methane, CH₄, for instance. l_i is a harder one but it seems this may indeed be quite common in any planet large enough to have plate tectonics and a hot core. The harder question is if l_e is common or not. As we don’t exactly know how eucaryotes evolved or, more specifically, how such a symbiosis could evolve so stably without consuming it. Finally, f_i, f_c, and L are all based on how intelligent life evolves and sustain itself, which, again, we have only one data point and can’t draw any conclusions from that at all. The main point though is we are getting closer to answering the first five terms at least and all are looking, even f_e, a bit like we are not alone.

One of the most interesting aspects, however, were the Zodiacal Light display. I never knew that was possible and now I definitely have it added to my Bucket List. It was fascinating to learn about all the planetary and extrasolar debris that just sits along the ecliptic plane. And I enjoyed the author’s discussions of the origin of our solar system and how it compares to the many other stellar systems possible.

Talking about how Copernicus made our universe more knowable by virtue of it being ordinary and nothing special was a great way of presenting the conundrum between Anthropocentrism and ubiquity implied by Copernicus. I think that is the most important conclusion: that we are both special and ubiquitous. That our journey to intelligent life was unique, but that there are many ways of for the universe to know itself, and we are only one of those ways.

The Copernicus Complex: Our Cosmic Significance in a Universe of Planets and Probabilities
The Copernicus Complex: Our Cosmic Significance in a Universe of Planets and Probabilities

Overall, the text could have been tighter and less repetitive but the overall conclusion seems sound. We are, indeed Unique and Ubiquitous. Now, on to, The Thing with Feathers: The Surprising Lives of Birds and What They Reveal About Being Human

See you later, my friendly fellow sapiosexuals!

Another Missed Munchie Squad

I got in to cosplay a number of years ago. I was aware of it for quite a while but I really started to take an interest on a trip up to Connecticut to visit me mum. Back then I was in #CO2Fre3 or #CO2Fre2 and in those Nissan LEAFs, I had to stop a number of times to get enough electricity to get to my destination.

So, I stopped a Hotel in Baltimore to use the CHAdeMO charger and get some fuel when I passed some cosplayers going to a convention. I asked to get a picture and kept it as part of my trip log memories on Swarm, as I used to do back then.

Of course I was intrigued so when I heard about this new group, D.C. Cosplay Photo Shoot, forming on Facebook, I joined right away, getting in on the ground floor. I remember that phone call very well as I was driving #CO2Fre home from work. Sarah Brice, an amazing cosplayer in her own right, was there with the other founders. That’s when we planned out what the group would be and how it would be organized. In those early years I was more of a lurker rather than a participant.

I started going to a local Doctor Who convention, ReGeneration Who, now defunct. Seeing all those Whovian cosplays, I decided it was time for me to start building my own cosplays. That’s where I met one of my very best friends in the entire world, Ilona Hull Berberich, who is a dead-ringer for Susan [Foreman].

I was finally ready to attend my first D.C. Cosplay Photo Shoot event. I invided Ilona so I would have someone I met there and we made a great team, having a number of photos taken of us.

From that point I attended a number of D.C. Cosplay Photo Shoot events, building my cosplay database up from a since Doctor Who companion to various other media franchises, getting some great photos and making some great friends.

One of the best parts of all from those events was the Munchie Squad. After an afternoon of posing and snapping picture, we’d all gather and have a friendly meal together. I so enjoyed chatting with my very dear friends Rachael S. Norberg, an amazing cosplayer, and Kevin K. Nguyen, an outstanding photographer, and so many others! It was the perfect capstone to a great event.

But then I got burned.

Back in 2018, Regeneration Who was in its fourth year and they had an amazing lineup. The actress who played Tegan Jovanka, an Australian air hostess, Janet Fielding, was going to be there. Janet, in fact, is one of only a half-dozen my official Twitter aggregators. She’s wonderful! Mark Strickson, who played Vislor Turlough, was also coming. As was Matthew Waterhouse, who lived at the time in Connecticut, where I was born. And also Sarah Sutton, who is the sweetest, and Peter Davison, who was a wonderful Fifth Doctor, and the amazing Nicola Bryant.

I was going to do a Tegan crossplay for the convention. Ilona was coming and would be in a Turlough crossplay. We were both very excited.

I had commissioned a Tegan crossplay months before the convention. I obtained all the COTS elements of the cosplay: blouse, pantyhose, pumps, wig, and purse. I just asked the commissioner for a skirt, a belt, a jacket, and the pill-box hat. I hoped it wouldn’t be too hard. I would have done it myself but I didn’t feel up to the measuring and sewing, especially by hand.

Days before the convention my commissioner said she couldn’t do it. She really, valiantly tried, but it was just beyond her. I hold no ill will and have not asked for my money back but the whole event soured me to cosplay. I prepared and prepped for this perhaps once in a lifetime photoshoot and to come up short. It still hurts, to this day.

Tegan and Turlough meet the 1980s Doctor Who cast
My dead friend Ilona and I are cosplaying Vislor Turlough and Tegan Jovanka as the now-defunct Regeneration Who convention’s 4th and last year. Pictured with us are, in order, top to bottom, left to right, Mark Strickson, Peter Davison, Matthew Waterhouse, Janet Fielding, Sarah Sutton, and Nicola Bryant. © 2018, Bryan Humphrey

All that said, Bryan Humphrey took a wonderful photo!

Today there was a D.C. Cosplay Photo Shoots event in Leesburg, VA. I haven’t been to a photoshoot in years because I have no new cosplays to share but I really wanted to go to the Munchie Squad! I miss all my cosplay and photographer friends, like Rachael, and I go to Leesburg at least once every fortnight, so it would have been no big deal.

But I forgot.

I really miss cosplay. What will you see me as next?

Custom Track Mode

When I got home from work yesterday, I was notified of software version for #CO2Fre from Tesla. Turns out, I was one of the first as TeslaFi, which informed me last night that TOS 2020.8.1 was detected in the wild in Florida. turns out, as I was getting a ribbon at yesterday’s event, #CO2Fre was just waiting for me to push the button to install 2020.8.1 on herself.

When the update came down, I was shocked, and melancholy. On the one hand, I always wanted to try Track Mode. Now, Track Mode is even customizable. You can configure different settings for how your Tesla performs based on the track you’ve taken her to. Awesome!

Track Mode Settings
It’s hard to see but the Handling Balance is a slider between front and rear wheel drive power, and the Stability Assist is a more or less graph. © 2020, Jeffrey C. Jacobs

The problem derives from the simple fact that I can’t afford to go to a Track to test it. That’s to say, I probably could afford to go if I really wanted, but I’m just too lazy to find a good track that would be fun for me to ride in my Tesla. Also, I’d probably not want my Insurance to find out. But I so want to do it! I didn’t may $10,000 to maintain Performance Tyres on #CO2Fre for nothing, did I? Did I?!?!

What’s more, ever since my USB Stick stopped working in #CO2Fre, I’ve been worried about buying a replacement that won’t fail so quickly. Getting videos of my Track sessions would be icing on the cake, if only I could find the right drive.

DashCam for Laps
“When Save Dashcam for Laps is enabled, Track Mode stores a video of your driving session when using the Lap Timer in addition to the car’s telemetry data. Save Dashcam for Laps requires a supported USB drive plugged into your car. Please refer to the Owner’s Manual for USB Flash Drive requirements.” © 2020, Jeffrey C. Jacobs

All in all, I’m excited to try the new features out even if sad that I probably will have to wait and probably be forced to replace my Performance Tyres before I get the opportunity. Alas, and alack.

But a person can dream…

Persuasive Influencer: Level 1: Evaluation

Today I evaluated an absolutely wonderful fellow Toastmaster. Rick Halstead is no novice to Toastmasters, but today was his Ice Breaker. That’s because anyone in ToastMasters these days is now using the Pathways system to progress through their journey and Rick, though an old hand and excellent Toastmaster, had yet to start his Pathways journey. I was very honored to be his evaluator when he took this first step in a new direction.

I took an Uber to the meeting as I had leftover credits from Tesla and #CO2Fre needed an update, but I’ll write more about that tomorrow. It was close, but I arrived just on time. I was able to convey Rick’s wishes to make sure he didn’t embellish too much and advised him afterwards how you could use a little more embellishment to his advantage, including a summersault. But overall, Rick was very hard to evaluate as there was so little fault with his to all intents and purposes perfect speech. Spend most of my time in fact rattling off all the things he did right like dynamics and gestures and our shared love for New Zealand.

My friends Laura and Leigh-Ann were both stiff competition as wonderful evaluators today and I felt sure one of them would get the ribbon for best evaluation. But to my surprise…

Best Evaluator, March 2020
For the 5 March Meeting of Loudoun Toastmasters, I delivered an award-winning evaluation for my friend Rick Halstead. © 2020, Jeffrey C. Jacobs

…it was in fact me! Wow! Thank you Loudoun Toastmasters!

Talk to you again in a fortnight my fellow orators!

Double Factorial

Most mathematically-inclined folks know what a factorial is. The simplest, recursive definition is given by:

f(0) = 1
f(n) = n * f(n-1) = n!

Figure 1: Definition of Factorial

For all n in the set of Natural Numbers, ℕ.

In the set of real numbers, ℝ, this can be extended to the Gamma function, Γ, which has the form:

\Gamma(x) = \int_0^\infty t^{x-1} \mathrm{e}^{-t} \mathrm{d}t
\forall n \in \mathbb{N}: \Gamma(n) = (n-1)!

Figure 2: Definition of Gamma

Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 are typically well known definitions. But what’s less known is the double, triple, and even quadruple factorial:

n!! = n (n-2)!!
n!!! = n (n-3)!!!
n!!!! = n (n-4)!!!!
\vdots

Figure 3: Higher Level Factorial Functions

The question is, how do you extend this from Natural Numbers to the general case with Real Numbers, like with the Gamma function from Figure 2?

Fortunately, Python’s math library has math.gamma(n) to compute the Gamma function on a given number. Thus, rather than the recursive definition in Figure 1, we can directly define factorial in terms of Gamma:

def factorial(x):
    return math.gamma(x+1)

Figure 4: Definition of factorial(x)

The question is, can the Double and Higher Factorials be defined in terms of gamma?

The Pochhammer Function

The Pochhammer function is defined in therms of Gamma. Specifically:

(x)_n = \frac{\Gamma (x+n)}{\Gamma (x)} = x(x+1) \cdots (x+n-1)

Figure 5: The Pochhammer Function

The corresponding Python looks like this:

def Pochhammer(n, k):
    return math.gamma(k+m)/math.gamma(n)

Figure 6: Definition of Pochhammer

The Pochhammer brings us closer to our ideal continuous multi-factorial method. For instance, we could assume a version of Factorial over the Rational Numbers, ℚ:

def Rational_Multifactorial(n, numerator, denominator):
    return pow(numerator/denominator, n*denominator/numerator) * Pochhammer(1, n*denominator/numerator)

Figure 7: Definition of Rational_Multifactorial

Unfortunately, that doesn’t give us a Real solution, ℝ. Instead, if we’re to ask WolframAlpha to work it out for us, we end up with something completely different:

x!! = 2^{\frac{x}{2}} (c_2(-1)^x+c_1) \Gamma (1+\frac{x}{2})
where,
c_1 = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
c_2 = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}

Figure 8: WolframAlpha definition of Double Factorial over the Real

The way that was calculated was the simple recursion in Figure 3 was entered and WolframAlpha was told to find an arithmetic solution. The answer was expressed in terms of the constants c1 and c2, which I then solved for knowing a few fixed values for the multiplication.

The result in Python, becomes:

def double_factorial(x):
    c1 = 0.5 + 1/math.sqrt(2*math.pi)
    c2 = 0.5 - 1/math.sqrt(2*math.pi)

    return pow(2, x/2) * (c2*pow(-1, x)+c1)*math.gamma(x/2+1)

Figure 9: Definition of double_factorial

What’s more, the rational solution used Pochhammer, but the real solution used only Gamma. I was able to use WolframAlpha to compute analytic functions for Triple and Quadruple factorials, with their three and four constants, respectively, but there didn’t seem to be any pattern to the calculations and the solutions move on to using Sine and Cosine. And none of them used Pochhammer. Yet the Rational solution in Figure 7 should work for all levels of Factorial.

I’ve writing up all my functions in Factorial.py, which you can find on my Subversion repository and I’m currently available for hire.

Tesla 3.0 Hardware

I’m off Uber for a few more months—until the next catastrophic tyre failure—and finally able to enjoy the so-called Full Self-Driving hardwire. For the most part, the driving experience is unchanged. I did have to reconnect bluetooth and was told my phone wasn’t smart enough to send Texts—even though an earlier Tesla software edition could!—and update my autopilot settings. Fortunately, it seemed my HomeLink was still intact—though I’ll have to verify this when next I use it—as well as my Address Book and comfort settings.

Full Self-Driving Computer
Finally got #CO2Fre back with the full Self-Driving Computer. © 2020, Jeffrey C. Jacobs.

I didn’t have long to wait for the computer to be back up and running and was able to use Navigate on Autopilot almost immediately and right away there were traffic cones—and fire hydrants—coming up as orange cones on my screen. Stop lights hung from the screen as well, with any stoplight which was red, correctly marked.

…don’t get my started on my plan for the Affordable Self-Driving Electric Car NOW!page I’m planning to start in about 8 years…

Affordable Electric Plane NOW?, 14 October, 2011.

Overall, it’s not much of a change but I am quite satisfied. I still think we are close to a mostly autonomous vehicle in the year 2020, and have been saying as such for the past 9 years, as you can see from the pull-quote above.

It’s just nice to have #CO2Fre back.

The Hidden Costs of Owning a Tesla Performance

Well, I have the Autopilot Hardware Version 3 installed, that’s the good news.

I took my car in for a slow leak in my driver’s rear tyre last Thursday, also asking them to check the squeaky breaks and to rotate the tyres as I’ve not done that in a while. As mentioned before, I got a call to install the 3.0 version of the Hardware during the same visit. The whole thing would have cost $409.50, mainly because of the $234.00 brake inspection. They expected to be finished by Friday just before our Northern Virginia Tesla Owners meetup at Fuddruckers on Saturday.

Then I got text just before the car was supposed to be done telling me that the tyres were fine, but I needed new rims. New rims!?! I had no choice but to authorize it.

Today, my car should have been totally fixed and But they haven’t even got the rims in stock yet and it might not be before Thursday!

I look forward to when the car will finally be fixed and I won’t have need to order any more Ubers after my final drop-off at Tyco.The Uber may be covered by the Tesla Voucher, but I still have to pay the tips, and those range from $3–$11 per trip! At least, though, I don’t have to drive and every driver I’ve been with deserved his tip.

The thing is, though, those Aluminium rims are expensive. The tyres themselves aren’t cheap either, and in 41,877 miles of driving #CO2Fre, I’ve had to replace no less than 5 tyres and 7 rims for a total of $7,701.70 over the last 18 months!

Date of ServiceNumber of TyresNumber of RimsTotal Cost
2019-03-0401$807.90
2019-04-0822$2,336.60
2019-05-1011$1,168.30
2019-11-0411$1,178.90
2020-01-0310$426.00
2020-01-30(Patch Only)0$78.00
2020-03-0202$1,706.00
2020-03-3120$842.00
Total77$8,543.70

I have no original tyres and am almost on a complete set of second rims! Because I495, the Capital Beltway, is so prone to potholes, there’s, like 4,000 of them! And that doesn’t even include the fact that I have no original glass, be it windscreen, roof, or back. I’ve had to replace my roof twice, in fact, and the latest panel doesn’t even have the cool, reddish sheen.

But my point is this: the Performance Tyres are too expensive, especially for everyday driving. I can’t afford keep dropping nearly $8,000 every 18 months. I’ll have depleted my saving account before I can even pay off #CO2Fre.

It’s come to the point where I am seriously debating cutting my losses and getting some cheep, wide-profile tyres and just give up on my beloved Performance Tyres. If I do go to cheap tyres, I’d still like my Performance Tyres for the track, when, someday, I’m able to bring #CO2Fre to the track, but otherwise just use regular tyres. The thing is, I’d have no place to store the Performance Tyres when I’m not using them, never mind have nowhere to store them.

If I give up my Performance Tyres, I’m probably giving them up for good. $4,000 or more, down the drain, a sunk cost. I just don’t know. It’s a little over $425 per month in addition to the loan payments to maintain the Performance Tyres, and that’s more than I earn in the same period. I just can’t afford to keep them. But I don’t want to lose them either.

On the other hand, since the major expense is the rims, could I just get steal instead of aluminium so they don’t bend so easily? I don’t mind the slightly reduced range if I can save $5,125 a year in tyre and rim replacements!

What do I do?

Update 2020-04-01: As of 1 April 2020, the total cost has risen to $8,543.70 thanks to a follow-up to the 2 March service when #CO2Fre started to have a squeaking sound in its steering and breaking under humid conditions. The table above has been updated accordingly.

The Timeless Children

WARNING: SPOILERS!

Well, that was a wild ride. To be honest, I think the tension was right, but the number of questions left unanswered still leave me uneasy. I think the start of the episode with the Doctor following the Master was a powerful opening and the Graham and Yaz interaction as well as Graham continuing to be the expert idea man was awesome. Hiding in the Cybermen armor was genius and had a wonderful payoff.

My only nit there was that the Cyberman ship seemed to enter the portal right after they were seen being examined by the half-Cyberman with no ship showing the four of them descending or appearing on the planet. This made it seem, cinematographically, that the four of them were still on the ship when it got to Gallifrey. While the payoff of surprise when they show up and rescue Ethan. Kind of like when Chewbacca from Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. Not so much Deus Ex Machina, but cinematic misdirection. Not that I per se approve, but like I said, the payoff was kind of cool.

Meanwhile, the end of the half-cyberman was kind of anti-climatic. Using the Tissue-Compression Eliminator to defeat him was very dissatisfactory and I feel the drama and difficulty could have been played out more.

The Matrix was a nice throwback but the whole Time Lord origin story was just weird. What’s more, having the Shobogans be native Gallifreyans and Time Lords be a hybrid with another, non-Gallifreyan race was a bit peculiar. Will this form a quest for the Doctor to look for the origin of that race in future episodes?

More confusing was the use of the idea of the Timeless Child name. Who was the Timeless Child. Was she Tecteun, or was she the orphan that Tecteun tested on and discovered Regeneration from? We are told the Doctor is the Timeless Child, but does that make the Doctor Tecteun or the unnamed orphan? And what happened to Tecteun? Overall, this aspect of the story could have been clearer and more direct in terms of the conclusions we’re expected to draw.

What’s more, we’re left with so many unanswered clues and questions. Why does the Master call himself O in Spyfall when clearly Omega was the Time Lord with the most O in his name? And why did the aliens in that episode look like the monsters from The Three Doctors and Arc of Infinity? And why did the aliens from that episode come from a place that looked kind of like The Matrix? Where was Rassilon when Gallifrey fell to the Master, and how did Captain Jack Harkness know about the lone Cyberman?

The resolution was rather predictable. Obviously someone besides the Doctor would pull the trigger on the Cyber-Time Lords destruction. It could have happened inside that TARDIS or outside, but overall the fact that the Doctor escapes is natural, and that the Master isn’t seen in the destruction in the final scene is also quite expected. He will be back. It’s still unclear if he still has the Cyberium though.

The Cyber-Time Lords were cool, though. Those costumes were awesome!

Overall, I enjoyed the episode, despite its unanswered questions and inconsistencies. It just seems weird to end with the Jadoon invading the TARDIS and putting the Doctor in prison. What’s up with that!?

Next time, Revolution of the Daleks. Thus begins the long wait.

Guess I’ll just watch Steven Universe Future

2020 Presidential Primary: VOTE!

It’s that time of year again. Time for the world’s second largest Democracy by population, and richest Democracy by overall GDP to vote to select who is the best to represent their party on the Presidential stage.

Voting through most of American history has been difficult. Our nation, like almost every Democracy, has political parties and every election it always comes down to just two choices: Conservatism or Progressivism. Progressives believe in progress, a government that is strong and protects its citizens from business. Conservatives believe in small government, state’s rights, and traditional values.

In 2020, Americans call Conservatives Republicans, and call Progressives Democrats. In 1888, Americans called Conservatives Democrats, and Progressives Republicans. In 1860, we called Progressive Abolitionists Republicans and Progressives who weren’t were Whigs, and Conservatives were Democrats. In 1796, Progressives were Federalists and Conservatives were Democratic-Republicans.

While all these elections were interesting, there’s one even more interesting. One more interesting than the 1888 election, where Grover Cleveland the Conservative won the Popular Vote but lost the Electoral College to Progressive Benjamin Harrison. One more interesting than the election of 1860, where Abolitionist Progressive Abraham Lincoln won the election with only 40% of the Popular Vote in a Three-Party Race. One even more interesting than the election of 1796, where the electoral college appointed the highest ballot winner to the Progressive John Adams, thus making him President, while the Conservative Thomas Jefferson had the second most votes, making him Vice President.

That last arrangement was so untenable that the Twelfth Amendment was passed. This amendment entrenching the party ticket system with our nation for the past 220 years. It give us the modern interpretation of Article II, Section 1, which in turn grants sole power to state legislatures to determine how that state’s electors are chosen.

But even that election isn’t the one I want to talk about.

The Election of 1824

The election of 1824 was a cantankerous one. That year, the Federalist Party had dissolved and the nation became a single party state where everyone claimed to be a member of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. Under that backdrop, in the first election for which we have popular voting data, there were a slate of four candidates: John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and William H. Cranford.

CandidateElectoral Votes
Andrew Jackson99
John Quincy Adams84
William H. Crawford41
Henry Clay37

With four candidates running, for what was so far the only time in history, no-one received a majority of electoral votes, 131. As such, under the Twelfth Amendment (as amended by the Twentieth Amendment), the election is decided by taking the top three or less candidates and having each state’s Representatives voting on which of the candidates they prefer, with the state going to whomever the most Representative for that state voted for. Each state gets one vote, and whoever gets a majority of states becomes President. If no candidate receives that state majority, then the vote is recast until a majority is decided.

In 1824, this is exactly what happened. Of the twenty-four states at the time, thirteen were needed to decide the election. Fortunately, since Henry Clay, having been eliminated as not being in the top three, backed John Quincy Adams, meaning that only a single ballot was required in the House of Representative to elect John Quincy Adams as President.

CandidateState Votes
John Quincy Adams13
Andrew Jackson7
William H. Crawford4

If this were to happen in 2020 thanks to a third party candidate making it impossible for either the President or the Democratic Challenger to receive at least 270 Electoral Votes, then I personally feel the nation would be aghast. Most Americans don’t know about the Electoral College Voting Majority requirement or the state-based Congressional voting system, and would indeed by shocked to know that’s just what their Constitution says.

There must be a better way.

Ranked Choice Voting

Like the election of 1824, the modern Primary system seeks to choose a winner by strict majority among a list of party-faithful Presidential Candidates. If no candidate receives a majority of votes on the first ballot, SuperDelegates in the Democratic Party (Republicans don’t have SuperDelegates) are used to put their fingers on the scale and the required majority changes to reflect this.

Wouldn’t it be easier if we could just pic the majority on the first ballot? If people in 1824 could just say without Clay and Crawford they wanted Jackson?

2020 Primary Election
The last day of Early Voting in Virginia, a Super Tuesday state. The TimeHorse votes. © 2020, Jeffrey C. Jacobs

All these problems could be solved with Ranked Choice Voting. With Ranked Choice Voting, or RCV. Under RCV, you can say you prefer Crawford, but if your second choice is Jackson, then Adams, and finally Clay. Or you could say, like me, your first choice is Elizabeth Warren, because, among other things she supports the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but my second, third, fourth, and fifth choices would be among the various other candidates.

What you do with that is a whole other question. Clearly, you could just ignore all but the first choice and see if anyone gets a majority. But that’s what we have now, and clearly a majority isn’t guaranteed.

Another possibility, very possible is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where, instantaneously, a mock election is conducted with all the first-place candidates, and if no-one receives a majority, the candidate receiving the least amount of votes is eliminated and anyone voting for him or her will instead vote for their next choice. This algorithm is continued until one candidate receives a pure majority.

The problem with IRV is that it doesn’t guarantee a Condorcet Winner. The reason is easy to see if you have a series of ballots where, in aggregate, a majority prefer A over B, a majority B over C, and a third, unique majority C over A. In the vaguest case, this could produce C as winner even though a majority prefer A over C.

Another alternative, one I prefer, is the Schulze method. It is Condorcet and will match IRV when IRV doesn’t contain, for instance cycles like above. However, Schulze is a rather complicated, geometric voting system. Were it up to tabulations by hand of hundreds of millions of RCV Ballots, this would be impossible. But with modern computers, it’s facile.

Whatever voting system we use, it’s better than the system we have now with throwing the election to the House of Representatives or using SuperDelegates to ensure majorities.

And whoever you vote for this coming Super Tuesday or beyond, vote wisely, be informed, and vote with a free hand because the decision is yours. Just make sure you go out and vote!