Update on “Guzbucked in 161”
With another generous donation from author Eric Vance Walton we’ve been able to increase the HIVE up for grabs to 125 for the “Guzbucked in 161” writing contest. Check out Eric at @ericvancewalton as he is set to launch his latest book titled “Mindful Moments”.
Welcome back students…
Welcome back students to our continuing education class on mathpolitics. Today we’ll explore the most powerful number in the mathpolitics system; number nine (9).
True mathpolitics only deal in single digit positive numbers. Conversely the negative expressed numbers can go well in the minus millions; like -330,000,000 for instance.
For those of you who weren’t at class yesterday where we went over the very basic mathpolitics equation of 1 + 1 = Zero (0) you can catch that lesson right here
You might want to go check that out and then return back to this Dash.
Okay; foreign students. Did you apply the basic mathpolitics equation where you live? Did you also come up with Zero (0) for your answer?
Alright; moving on…
Alright; moving onto today’s lesson. Nine (9) without question is the most powerful number in mathpolitics.
Most people realize it is the largest of the single digit numbers which isn’t a very big claim in math. However in mathpolitics nine is huge, nine carries more weight than a freight train or cargo ship when it needs too. It actually rules supreme in mathpolitics.
In politics sometimes the regular basic math just doesn’t add up. Politicians like to use regular basic math in most instances so as not to confuse us ignorant people who consent to be governed by those politicians. Politicians are a whole lot smarter than us in their minds and they just might be.
Take the recent 2020 elections in the United States for example. Most people know the legal voting is age is 18 (1 + 8 = 9) which is coincidence of course; of course it is. We also know that each person is entitled to one vote in each election, right? One = 1, right?
In basic math it is indeed that way; but it also can be expressed as 1.00.
There is no…
There is no need for the number one being expressed in elections when counting votes as 1.00 since we can’t split our votes for a candidate. Common sense would tell anyone that, right?
Sure it would but common sense has no place in politics. Let’s be honest here, how many of you knew before this recent election that votes are indeed counted using the valuation of 1.00? Surprised?
Sophisticated computers it…
Sophisticated computers it seems just can count one as one or 1; those computers need that .00 behind the 1 in order to make them work properly.
I’m quite sure that those computers could add up all the votes even if the number didn’t have the .00 behind the 1 but that would be just counting the votes, I broke it down more specifically saying “to make them work properly” and there is a big difference in counting votes and working properly.
I feel myself getting side tracked again, I promise I will get back to the number 9 very shortly but I want to finish the path I’m on right now.
Computers are tools…
Computers are tools, tools are used for work, and working properly in politics means winning. The political party controlling the computers naturally will want the computers working properly. Let’s hypothetically say we have an election that is anticipated to be very closely contested. A 2% percentage change could determine the outcome and in most cases it wouldn’t trigger an automatic recount of the votes.
Since computers work on code or algorithms the people in control of the computers and counting equipment could easily program candidate A to receive a value of 1.00 for each vote they receive and could put candidate B to receive a value of 0.98 per vote. If both candidates received the exact number of votes candidate A would have a margin of victory of 2%. In this example each candidate received 1,000 votes. Pretty slick huh,? Yes it is; but the problem is where the proof is?
Oooops, proof? Yes, unfortunately this election had paper ballots and when everything is said and done there is going to have to be enough paper ballots to support the computer tabulation.
The officials can’t…
The officials can’t take 2% of candidate B’s ballots and just give them to A since B is marked to receive the ballot / vote. Very quickly the officials are going to have to come up with 20 extra ballots for candidate A and dispose of 20 that candidate B had gotten in order to make the math work.
Getting rid of ballots isn’t a big problem, thank God for indoor plumbing and auto-flush toilets.
Producing the needed ballots is a little more difficult; someone will have to have printed ballots and mark them for candidate A and then somehow slip those ballots into the counting center where the votes are being tallied. Where there is a will there’s a way…even if it means shutting down the process of tabulation for several hours in the middle of the night in order to get caught up on flushing and filling ballots.
An election with…
An election with 1,000 votes per candidate would be a piece of cake to make the books balance.
What if though the numbers of votes for candidate B was nearly 2.5 million, that would mean having to come up with over 50,000 ballots even if the actual number of votes for each candidate were the same amount. It would get even worse if candidate B actually received more real ballot / votes cast in the election than candidate A. That could push the number of votes needed to be flipped to well over 100,000.
Assuming that the people controlling the computers could set the 2% factor into the computer there is another problem; the number of eligible voters. The numbers of votes counted can’t exceed the number of registered voters for a certain area. Seems like I’ve heard of that exact situation in a real life election just recently, have you?
Now back to…
Now back to the number 9. When things go haywire and things don’t add up, questions need to be answered. This is where the number 9 comes in, as in nine US Supreme Court justices. There is a real good chance that this latest election will make its way to the US Supreme Court for the court to rule on.
There is no question that the 9 of the Supreme Court strike fear in some folks. The night tRump mentioned the Supreme Court an ABC news commentator said, “a truly disturbing… and truly terrifying moment for democracy”. That was the response to the mention of hearing that the US Supreme court may have to make a ruling. Since when is the ruling of law disturbing and terrifying in the United States?
Now doubt about…
No doubt about it; the number 9 in mathpolitics is the “trump card” so to speak. In the arena of federal politics where so much is at stake for the country I couldn’t think of a better number than 9 to sort things out according to law.
Be with us for our next mathpolitics lesson where we’ll dive into division. Real life mathpolitics division; which is the most exciting kind of division.
Until next time,
Sult
Don't forget; if you want your very own ‘ Guzbuck Ya'll" t shirt or your own “Guzbuck..I’m good.” coffee mug then check out the guzbuck_shop here.
I'm happy to help out, Sult! I'm going to enjoy reading these entries. Hope you're having a good week my friend.
It will be interesting reading for sure, I just hope that the people of Venezuela aren't intimidated to the point of not expressing how life is there. We all know that "guzbucked" is German slang for "blessed", so I don't see what the problem would be.
Having a good week , hope yours is as well.
Thanks again for the support,
Sult
I'm looking forward to the contest, too!
I read yesterday's post and actually understood it perfectly but got somehow sidetracked and didn't get it answered. I'll touch on that today.
1+1=0 is a fairly well known mathpolitics equation, but at the risk of screwing up a future lesson I would suggest that the converse isn't necessarily true. 1-1=x x can either be 2 or a very large number but can not equal 0. How could you have an election if you subtracted one candidate and got zero? Doesn't even make any sense.
Nine is indeed a huge number particularly when it is expressed as 6+3. It looks to me right now like the 6 side isn't going to even get to that stage because to get there a lower court has to screw a ruling up to even let the magnificent Rudy take a whack at the chalk board with his math.
Oh, I just thought of another instance of 1+1=0. Martha McSally has been beaten twice. She ran for Jeff Flake's seat and lost to the woman she called a 'Prada Socialist'. This time as the incumbent serving out the remaining bit of John McCain's term she lost again to Mr. Gabby Giffords. So 1 race for a vacant seat, 1 race to defend a seat = 0 terms for McSally.
Mathpolitics is certainly amazing to say the least. Division will be the next lesson and after that , probably after Thanksgiving, we'll get into calculating volume; like how much water can be held in a 10 mile square swamp. You won't want to miss that lesson.
I am looking forward to reading the entries and I see we have one entry submitted right now. Hopefully there will be more to come. I like the way the equation worked out when it comes to Ms. Martha, definitely zero value there.
Thanks for the support and great comment,
Sult
Hello I am very happy that the prize of the contest has increased, and also very flattered that Mr. @ericvancewalton has read my entry to the contest, he will support me and reblogueara.
Thank you @ericvancewalton for following me and being a sponsor of this contest.
However I do not stop feeling sadness for the little competition and interest of the contest.
I don't know what could happen, maybe the Venezuelans are tired of so much politics or are afraid to express their thoughts and experience.
As a follower and lover of contests, I like healthy competition.
Thanks again, happy Thanksgiving.