THE WAR FOR GUN REFORM:why the nra is crazy like a fox

Earlier this year, the nation discovered even the horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school couldn't generate enough political will to pass gun reform through Congress. Gun control advocates couldn't understand how after a string of recent massacres, the pro-gun lobby wasn't even willing to compromise on background checks to prevent felons and the mentally deranged from illegally buying guns. Over 90% of Americans support this policy, including over 90% of gun owners [1]. In fact, the NRA itself used to officially support the idea in the 1990's [2]. So why did the NRA fight so hard to kill background checks? 

The answer is that if the NRA conceded on reasonable background checks, they know that gun control advocates would simply pocket this victory and use their political capital to push for more stringent measures that the NRA actually opposes like an assault weapons ban. By holding the line on universal background checks, the NRA forces its opponents to waste all of their political capital fighting for this modest provision so they will have fewer resources left over when the debate then turns to assault weapons.

In this post, we will model the battle over gun reform with a fun analogy to Risk the board game. The winner will be determined by which side allocates its limited political capital to ensure the best chance of winning their prefered outcome in the gun control debate.

VOTE LEMON (Part Two)It's Election Day in Normville

By Jon Riley
And now, the thrilling conclusion of this short story about Normville's three-way race for mayor...
<< Read Part One

“I’m Gretchen Michelson, and you’re watching the Normville News Network’s election day coverage of the most dramatic ratings booster of the year: the war for the heart and soul of Normville City Government. I report to you today from the Blast Zone Election Bunker, buried 2 miles underground and fully stocked with food and ammunition. Neither snow, nor rain, nor thermonuclear war will keep us from spouting our most up-to-date guesses about today’s election. We now turn to our exclusive Blast Zone Conflict-Now Roundtable, the loudest political team on television.”

VOTE LEMON (Part One)The War for the Heart of Normville

By Jon Riley
I don't usually write fiction, but this week I though I'd try something a little different. The following is a short story based on a satirical play I wrote in college about an small town election for mayor. Don't worry, I still snuck in some game theory.

Click "Like" to show that you stand opposed to the Pro-Pedophile Agenda

“I'm Gretchen Michelson, and this is the Normville News Network: the most explosive name in local news. I hope you’re ready for a cold, hard blast of truth, because you’re about to enter the Blast Zone.”

“KA-BOOM!” The screen bursts into a computer-animated mushroom cloud and the thundering Blast Zone theme music begins to play. Big block letters soar into view, spelling out “THE BLAST ZONE.”

Gretchen swivels in her chair to look directly into the camera. “Now for tonight’s top stories. The upcoming election for Mayor of Normville is only a few weeks away, and it’s shaping up to be a grudge match between current Mayor Heather Bland, fighting for her re-election, and the challenger Richard Grinch. Grinch was defeated by Bland the first time he ran for Mayor four years ago, and he’s determined not to lose to her again."

Duverger's LawTwo's a party, three's a crowd

By Jon Riley

"Do you want to stay embedded with one of the Twin Powers? Are you on board with voting for the lesser of two evils, as you see it, for ever and ever? These two choices will leave you essentially directionless, and neither speaks of your values. So leave the corporate run two party system and choose a party that has your values and direction." [1]

That's what is says in the Green Party's official mission statement. They implore citizens to imagine a world beyond the two-party system. You gotta love their passion. And the Green Party does pose an important question: why is it that Americans only have two choices at the ballot box?

The answer is that our system is structurally distinct from countries that have many political parties, like Germany or Denmark for example. The vast majority of elections in the United States, from dog catcher to Senator, use a plurality voting system (a.k.a. a "first-past-the-poll" system.)* This simply means the candidate with the most votes wins, even if multiple candidates were on the ballot, and as a result the person with the most votes out of the bunch doesn't have a full majority. [2] In this post, I'll explain Duverger's Law, the political science hypothesis that says in election systems like America's,  only two political parties can survive. In response to the Green Party's question, the reason I don't vote for a third party is because unless we had a Constitutional Amendment, third parties cannot be viable in the U.S. That's, like, not a thing. So contrary to the Green Party's premise, if you cast your ballot for a third party, then in reality you are just voting to elect the candidate that is, as you see it, the worst of two evils.