• Follow Me On Twitter Follow Me On Twitter
  • Find Me On Facebook Find Me On Facebook
  • Subscribe via eMail Subscribe via eMail
  • Subscribe Via RSS Subscribe Via RSS

Steffan Antonas

    • About
    • Contact
    • Work
    • Media
    • Legal
    • Photos
    • Services
  • Topics

    • Blogging and Writing (22)
    • Books (12)
    • Business & Entrepreneurship (39)
    • Community (15)
    • Cyberculture (28)
    • Data & Slide Sets (3)
    • Design & Innovation (25)
    • Economics (4)
    • Education (5)
    • Friends (3)
    • Fringe Thoughts (9)
    • Gear (1)
    • Geoweb (6)
    • Hacks (2)
    • Health & Fitness (1)
    • Humor (1)
    • Influential People (7)
    • Journal (14)
    • Movements and Activism (5)
    • personal (2)
    • Planet (4)
    • Politics (3)
    • Projects (4)
    • Psychology & Philosophy (17)
    • Rethinking Government (3)
    • Science (2)
    • SEO (1)
    • Social Media (60)
    • Technology (57)
    • The Future Of Work (6)
    • Top Posts (12)
    • Trendspotting (16)
    • Tutorials (2)
    • Uncategorized (5)
    • Videos (13)
    • Web Strategy (25)
    • WordPress (8)

Blog

  • Archive

Category Politics

Why The Public Sector Needs To Commit To Scientific Research

Speaking at the National Academy of Sciences 2 days ago, the President reinforced the need for a sustained national commitment to science. His firm stance that “science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health and our environment and our quality of life” is an important step in shifting the national consciousness to build a strong culture of innovation. I particularly appreciated this explanation of why the public sector needs to commit to research:

“Basic scientific research is scientific capital. The fact is, an investigation into a particular physical, chemical or biological process might not pay off for a year or a decade or at all. And when it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore its costs, but also by those who did not. And that’s why the private sector generally underinvests in basic science, and why the public sector must invest in this kindof research. Because while theĀ  risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society.”

Right on, Mr. President.

  • April 30, 2009
  • 0
  • 0

The Real Difference Between Liberals And Conservatives

According to Jonathan Haidt, there’s one key personality trait (more than any other) that predicts who becomes liberal and and who becomes conservative. In this lecture, Haidt draws on the latest from developmental and moral psychology and makes a very persuasive argument why “openness to experience” – that craving for novelty, diversity, variety, travel and new ideas – tells us a lot about our political affiliations. Whether you’re currently on the fence about where to cast your vote this year, or you’ve been certain from day one, I urge you to take the 20 minutes to watch this lecture, because it’s got some pretty sweet mind-grenade moments, and it may just change the way that you think about your own morality, and change the way you engage others with differing opinions. Here’s one of my favorite quotes:

“You can’t just go charging in saying “I’m wrong and you’re right”…because everybody thinks that they’re right. A lot of the problems that we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are, understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think that we’re right, and then step out…even if it’s just for a moment…and try to see it as a struggle that’s playing out in which everybody does think that they’re right and everybody has some reasons (even if you disagree with them) for doing what they’re doing…and if you can do that, that’s the essential move to cultivate moral humility, and get yourself out of this self-righteousness which is the normal human condition”

  • October 2, 2008
  • 0
  • 9

The Simple Math Behind The Power Of The Swing Vote

Original Image Can Be Found at \After the Democratic National Convention this week, and the official announcement of the Obama-Biden ticket, there’s been a lot of chatter about where Clinton supporters stand, regardless of the clear message of Clinton’s “No Way, No How, No McCain” speech at the DNC. The reason for the chatter? Analysts are trying to get a feel for what the true population of swing voters looks like. More than ever, parties are recognizing that their futures lie in winning at the center, rather than at the extremes, because the impact swing voters have on an election is so profound. The math behind the power of the swing vote is actually quite simple – In his book Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes, Mark Penn (worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller and chief adviser to Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign) offers an excellent, concise explanation for exactly why swing voting, as he puts it, is king -

We hear it every day: America is divided into two camps – red and blue – and the key to elections is just energizing the base. Books have been written about it, careers have been made on it, and movements have been founded on it. But it is simply not true …

Just look at the math regarding generating turnout for the base versus courting the swing voters. Voting is based on history – the most likely voters are those who voted last time. Based on that, the case for winning with just the base is daunting. Suppose you have ten voters who voted last time, splitting their preferences 50/50. Now if one swing voter changes his or her mind, the vote becomes 60/40. If one new voter gets added to the pool, thanks to your efforts to turn out the base, the vote is still 55 to 45 against you (you have 6 out of 11). If a second voter who didn’t vote last time is chauffeured to the polls, you are not back to 50/50, as you have 6 out of 12. In other words, it takes two new voters to overcome one voter who has changed his mind, and three new voters to overcome his defection. In almost all cases, therefore, it is more strategic to get one voter on the edge to switch opinions than it is to bring two or three new voters to the polls. It’s theoretically possible for additional base turnout to be a factor, but in 95 perfect of the elections, it is the swing voter who is decisive.

I thought this was worth sharing.

(I’ve included some additional thoughts for discussion in the comments).

  • August 31, 2008
  • 0
  • 4

Copyright © 2012 Steffan Antonas. Powered by WordPress.

  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Facebook
  • My Flickr Photos
Back To Top