American Intelligence Test: How Sick Is America’s Health-Care System?

Preface: The Affordable Care Act – ACA, aka: Obamacare has existed for the last 6 years, and by some counts there have been approximately 60+ attempts to repeal the legislation. This would appear to represent a significant investment in time and effort in addressing the profound ideological issues and problems that the ACA presents to those who oppose(d) it.

Beginning in 2017, those previous efforts will come to fruition with the expected … uh, now this is where it gets interesting since the clarity of direction to repeal has become just a touch ill-defined. But with the years of work that has gone into its repeal, or replacement, or redesign, or yet-to-be determined reconstruction there should be a high-level of information and understanding about the issues and problems with Obamacare and of necessity with America’s health-care system.

So, this AIT will obviously be easy to answer. What’s unclear is whether with 6 years of practice the test can be passed or not. If nothing else, you may wonder what our politicians have been doing for the last 6 years, the last decade, and the last quarter of a century in grappling with the nation’s health-care policy and system.

Question A:    What are essential elements to setting America’s health-care public policy and solving the health-care system issue? Select each principle or facet of health-care that needs to be part of any solution to the nation’s health-care issues.

(1). Single-payer system

(2). Competitive marketplace

(3). Universal coverage

(4). Voucher - based support

(5). Individual Mandate – based support

(6). Limited to a Basic-type of medical coverage only

(7). Limited to “Catastrophic” medical coverage only

(8). Block-grants to States to be managed by States

(9). Service/Treatment/Procedure – based pricing

(10). Outcome / Results – based pricing

(11). Prescription Drugs included

(12). Includes Medicare / Medicaid

(13). Safety-net for the poor

(14). None of the above

Answer - A:  2 and 3

Rationale - A:        These two elements are the only requirements in the above list necessary to achieving a rational, effective and sustainable health-care policy; but they are not the only requirements that are necessary. What is important about these two items is that they represent conditions that must be understood within the context of designing a health-care system as they are seminal concepts that when ignored, misunderstood or misapplied sow the seeds of ruin in any health-care system that is created. This explains why Congress has never been able to adequately deal with the issue. Congress is not up to the cognitive requirements needed to solve the health-care issue; beginning with understanding it.

The other choices are elements from which politicians pick their preferred subset to proclaim as a matter faith that their approach will solve the health-care system’s problems. But in lacking an understanding of the problem, our politicians will continue their propensity to fail at their jobs. This is not to say that some/any of these elements can’t be used to create a well-designed, efficient, lower-cost, and sustainable health-care, but simply including them is also no guarantee that they will produce desirable effects. A phenomenon that is beyond the ken of politicians.

Question B:   Who should pay for what the nation’s health-care system provides?

(1). Federal government

(2). State governments

(3). Federal and State governments

(4). Individuals and families

(5). Employers

(6). All the above

Answer - B:  4

Rationale - B:      This may come as a surprise to many people but there is only one group that can pay for a health-care system. This is because only people (individuals and families) can pay for anything. The only source of revenues is via taxation for federal, state, or any governmental entity.

Employers can be taxed as proxies for individuals and families but this only provides an indirect source since the companies that employ people passes their costs along in their products which ultimately end up at their customers who are people. Nothing wrong with taxing companies, but that doesn’t mean that you should think it isn’t being paid for by the people.     

Question C:   How should income-level get accounted for under a US health-care public policy?

(1). No accommodation. One price for everyone, either pay or no health-care

(2). A tiered price structure, something similar to proposed Tax-brackets, that sets a premium rate based on income-level

(3). A single tax-rate based on total earned income (no deductions or exemptions) that will support a ‘basic’ policy

(4). Government funding for poverty-level individuals/families

(5). Government funding for poverty-level children only

(6). The commercial marketplace will offer policies designed to provide plans that are priced to low-income individuals/families

(7). None of the above

Answer - C:  7

Rationale - C:      You cannot choose a pricing structure on to a health-care system without understanding and agreeing to what the health-care policy and the system are going to be. While Congress may not understand this, the reality of economics imposes an unavoidable balance sheet to the health-care system, just like it does for every other area of social existence.

That there must be some accommodation to income-level(s) in the health-care policy is essential. How that accommodation will be made and what it will means the cause and effect consequences are will depend upon the definition of the policy and its requirements.

If you’re a proponent from one of the other options, well then you’ve assumed a lot about the health-care policy that is most likely what you want it to be, not what it is going to be, nor what it ought to be if the nation wants a rational, effective, and sustainable system.

Question D:   Which would define one or more “direct measures of success” for the nation’s health-care?

(1). Lower federal expenditures for health-care programs

(2). Lower rates of increase to federal expenditures for health-care programs

(3). Fewer people dying under the health-care programs per dollar spent

(4). Less expenditures on last-year of life costs

(5). Lower cost-per-capita for health-care programs

(6). More individuals covered without increase costs to programs

(7). Lower premium prices for average individual

(8). Lower rate of increases to premium prices for average individual

(9). Increased ‘life expectancy’

(10). Decrease in ‘mortality’ rates for top-ten fatal medical conditions

(11). None of the above

Answer - D:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Rationale - D:      Any of these, and thus all of them, would be a direct measure of success. There could be any number of additional direct measures of success for the current ACA, for its repeal-replacement, for a ‘fixed’-ACA, or for whatever Congress ultimately delivers.

Of course the possibility that there could be and should be well-defined direct measures of success for the nation’s health-care policy and system; there is little to no chance that Congress would understand this, and thus will not provide any.

Question E:    Should an individual’s health-care services’ cost or their health-care insurance cost differ for (answer Yes or No for each item):

(1). Age

(2). Gender

(3). Smoking vs. Non-smoking

(4). Number of years of active insurance coverage

(5). Obesity

(6). History of Drug-abuse

(7). Employment / Unemployment

(8). Occupation / Life-style choices

(9). Preexisting conditions

(10). Wealth

(11). Citizenship

Answer - E:  Yes, for every item.

Rationale - E:      The cost of health-care depends upon many factors and thus to provide it requires that a competent understanding of the influence that those factors contribute need to be incorporated into the planning, implementation and operation of the nation’s health-care policy and system.

Some of these factors are already part of health-care programs and there are others. Some new factors would provide useful tools and methods to assist in countering cost drivers. Others are a recognition that the health-care system is a societal construct and ought to hold the society accountable for its public policy and the cause and effect consequences of that policy.

Question F:    A leading element in some of the proposed ACA-replacement health-care policies is the use of vouchers in place of the ‘individual mandate’ for insurance coverage. Is a voucher-based approach better than the mandate approach?

(1). Yes  /  No

Answer - F:  No

Rationale - F:      A voucher system is an implementation choice that in and of itself doesn’t guarantee anything. Fundamentally, a voucher system is little different from an individual mandate system. It fundamentally comes down to a different form of taxation and where the funding is derived.

Question G:   Do emergency health-care conditions have a different public policy basis than general medical needs? What about catastrophic illnesses? What about pre-existing conditions?

(1). Emergency conditions:   Yes  /  No

(2). Catastrophic illnesses:    Yes  /  No

(3). Pre-existing conditions:   Yes  /  No

Answer - G:  1. Yes,  2. Yes,  3.  Yes

Rationale - G:     1. Since emergency rooms are treated differently under current law, they will require well-defined requirements and cost-support structure. If the care requirements are changed then the method of funding needs to be correspondingly addressed. If the requirement to provide emergency services is maintained, then the healthcare policy ought to address how it’s costs are to be accounted for in the funding.

2. Coverage or non-coverage of catastrophic illnesses needs to be spelled-out under the health-care policy and any costs accounted for in the pricing structure and revenue sourcing that will be tied to that policy.

3. There are numerous facets to pre-existing conditions that need to be accounted for under a policy. Whether public policy provides for pre-existing conditions or not, there are consequences to the health-care system; thus like anything else that is part of the problem, Congress can’t ignore it and the public can’t ignore it without there being consequences (acknowledged or not).

Question H:   Which of the following factors contribute to a high-cost, inefficient, and irrational health-care policy and system?

(1). Mandated emergency room treatment

(2). Medicare / Medicaid exclusion from prescription drug price negotiating.

(3). State-bounded insurance products

(4). HMOs, PPOs, POSs, EPOs, …

(5). Procedure-based pricing

Answer - H:  All the above.

Rationale - H:      These are health-care policy requirements or approaches that are not designed to accomplish socially beneficial health-care systems. They reflect decisions that have been made in the past to provide the health-care policy and system that we have today. If that system is flawed, broken and unsustainable then these items have a priori contributory.

Question I:      Indicate which of the following entities are/have been a contributing factor in increasing the cost of health-care? Select all that apply.

(1). Executive branch

(2). Congress

(3). Department of Health

(4). Insurance Companies

(5). Democrats

(6). Republicans

(7). Medical (health-care) Corporations:  hospitals, treatment facilities, pharmaceutical companies, assisted living facilities, …

(8). Medical products and device manufacturers

(9). Financial industry

(10). Physicians

(11). Special-interest lobbying groups

(12). The public

(13). All the above

Answer - I:  12

Rationale - I:        We did not arrive at this juncture with a broken health-care system without either the active or passive participation in creating the policies, programs and processes that have wrought the mess that we have today. It would be pointless to attempt to assess which entities (CONGRESS) have played the biggest role in causing the health-care crisis.

Question J:    Who does pay for health-care costs in America? Select those that apply.

(1). Individuals / families who buy insurance

(2). Companies / corporations that provide employee health-care as a benefit

(3). Federal government

(4). State governments

(5). Health-care Insurance companies

(6). Tax-payers

(7). Companies / corporations that provide executives or owners with health-care benefits

(8). Medicare / Medicaid participants

(9). Employees

Answer - J:  1

Rationale - J:       The answer to Question B and its rationale are unchanged. The public pays for the health-care it provides or doesn’t provide. The nature of the costs that are being paid are thus not necessarily what you would think of as health-care costs.

So how confident are you in Congress’ ability to ‘fix’ health-care? Well, don’t worry; it’s not like it’s going to cost you anything.

American Intelligence Test: Is There a Russian Bear Under the Table?

The ‘buzz’ persists around the question of did the Russian’s interfere with the 2016 Election. As with all national issues, there are various groups strategically placed around the political board attempting to win the ‘game’ or at least strengthen their position and options. But even though there are a lot of statements, assertions, and answers being presented by each entrenched pack of partisans; is the ‘discussion’ based on sound and reasoned judgement?

The answer to this question should be obvious. But before you agree or disagree with it, the smart thing to do is see if the members of those different groups competing for the public’s opinion can pass a basic intelligence test on this disputed topic. As you are either a member of one (or more) of those groups or are amongst the non-aligned crowd, you represent a surrogate for the aggregate intelligence of the group. Don’t be nervous, you are most likely of normal intelligence both in the context of your self-selected group(s) and the public as a whole.

If you take the test and disagree with the provided correct answers then you can take comfort in the expectation that most others in your group(s) would probably agree with you. Of course, the test of intelligence is not whether other’s agree with you or not. Rather the correct answers are determined by whether they demonstrate an informed and accurate understanding and knowledge of facts and conditions, if your answers lead to actions and decisions that respond effectively and efficiently to reality, if they conform to the laws of physics, and if your answers are superior to answers provided by others. With that, here is the American Intelligence Test on:

ISSUE: Determining If There Was Russian Interference in the 2016 Election

Question 1. Would it be unusual for Russia to interfere with a US Presidential election?   Yes  /  No

Question 2. Do other nations interfere with our Presidential elections?   Yes  /  No

Question 3. Which, if any, of the following activities by a foreign nation would constitute an unacceptable type of interference in US elections?

A.      Statements of concern about one candidate, but not the other

B.      Statements of support about one candidate, but not the other

C.      Contributions (which are illegal for foreign entities) made indirectly via some ‘backdoor’ means to one or even both candidates

D.      Disclosure of information obtained by ‘hacking’/cyber-intrusions (acts that are illegal for US citizens)

E.       Dissemination of ‘false’ information created by a foreign state about a candidate

F.       Intrusion into the voting process/systems to alter the data, and thus the results, of an election

G.      All the above are unacceptable interference

H.      None of the above would be an act of unacceptable interference

Question 4. Who would you rely on to determine if some nation had engaged in ‘hacking/cyber-espionage or data-corruption/manipulation to impact US elections?  Select the following items that you would depend upon.

A.      Persons/entities that are experts in internet/cyber-security risks, threats, methodologies, and processes

B.      Politicians / elected officials

C.      Appointed government officials, including those heading departments, agencies, organizations that are engaged in internet/cyber-security surveillance

D.      News media entities reporting on events related to ‘intrusion’ events

E.       Individuals with educational background, work-experience, and recognized track-record in cyber-attack detection, interception, prevention, analysis, tracking, and research

F.       Leaders/representatives of foreign nation associated with the event(s)

G.      Spokespersons, surrogates or members of a candidate’s election team

H.      Reports from the following entities:  NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, various military intelligence groups, and other government security organizations

I.         Congressional Intelligence Oversight committee

J.        All the above

K.       None of the above

Question 5. Is there a difference between interfering in an election via pre-election false news, private/internal campaign information disclosures and ‘hacking’ activities; and during the election’s actual voting period by cyber-based acts to disrupt/delay the vote casting process, alter voters’ data, or manipulating the counting/tabulation or results process(es)?   Yes  /  No

Question 6. Which is more dangerous to the nation?

A.      The news media being incapable of framing the issue to and for the public, nor in exploring what the basis is for any group that supports opposing position

B.      A foreign nation covertly engaging in supporting one candidate by providing illegally obtaining information about that candidate’s opponent

C.      A nation’s leader that doesn’t bring this issue to the fore because it will become a political partisan issue

D.      A foreign nation covertly attempting to change the results of an election’s voting data

E.       A nation’s leader relying upon their own judgement absent relevant expertise

F.       The public/voters who judge this issue along partisan lines

That’s it. You’ve completed the test. You need not read any further, any value you may have derived will have occurred if you thought about what your answers are. If, however, you are curious about how your answers relate to the correct answers, those are given below.

Correct answers:

Q-1: No

Q-2: Yes

Q-3: C, D, E, F

Q-4: A, E, H

Q-5: Yes

Q-6: F

If you don’t agree, while it may not help, here is the reasoning I would expect you to refute with more than “No, that’s wrong” and have a superior rationale for why there is a ‘more’ intelligent answer.

Rationale for why these are the ‘intelligent’ answers.

Q-1: The issue isn’t that no interference is to be allowed. American elections are an international political process.  The political parties, inept as they are, acknowledge that Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policies are one of the primary areas that a President is responsible for and that the public should be considering in how to assess which candidate will handle this task most competently. Russia will always attempt to ‘influence’ our elections. They have their interests to consider and the US, and even its’ elections, involve their interests. So, the issue isn’t that they shouldn’t try to influence our elections but that they should behave in an intelligent manner. The hacking and cyber-attacks are high-risk and low-reward methods. There are smart people in Russia, but perhaps just like in America they are not represented effectively in their leadership.

Q-2: The logic of Q-1’s rationale applies to all nations, not just Russia. We should recognize that other nations will ‘interfere’ but that interference must be based on expressing what their interests are and why they support or don’t support US policies that affect them. They can, of course, refrain from engaging in expressing support for any candidate over another.

Q-3: Items A and B are excluded by the rationale provided in Q-1 & Q-2.
Items C and D are already illegal, and do not become tolerable even during US election campaigns.
Item E is stupid for the nation perpetrator, stupid for the candidate beneficiary, and stupid for the public to encourage politicians to lie, dissemble, distort, or misinform any more than they already do.
Item F is fundamentally an act of war, to overturn our democracy and derive the public of the one thing that protects our freedoms: voting.

Items G and H’s rationale should be self-explanatory, if not, reading further is ill-advised.

Q-4: I would hope that given the issue that everyone included A, E and H in their criteria. If not, I would suggest pondering if you would omit comparable criteria from what you would require about an issue on what medical treatment you would follow for a terminal illness that requires state-of-the-art diagnosis and treatment. A, E and H are the answers that relate knowledge, expertise, and they are the individuals that we employ to actually protect us from cyber-attacks.

All the other choices are useless. They either get any relevant and valid information from the A, E and H types or they are witless fools. If any of these other choices could demonstrate the basis for their analysis and detailed information supporting it, then it would assuredly come from someone who matched an A, E and H background.

Q-5: Yes. There is a big difference. Both are unacceptable, but attempting to influence the voters by manipulation them and through them their votes is very different from attempting to determine the election by choosing the candidate of their choice by changing the votes and/or the tabulation of results. The former can be combated, though only if the public actually cares that an outside entity is attempting to manipulate their votes. The latter is that entities’ attempt to enslave you. They are not the same.

Q-6: If F didn’t surprise you then you don’t need the rationale. If it did, then I doubt you will believe my rationale. The only things that protects a democracy is that the public chooses it leaders, even if they choose poorly or stupidly. They get the results of their choice; not of their desires, wishes, ideologies, hopes, or beliefs but of their choice. Those results come from how the laws of physics, of ‘cause and effect’, of economics, and of nature determine what will happen based on what actions and decisions that happen because of that choice. Good choices will lead to better outcomes and bad choices will not.

Tax Reform: There’s Change and There’s Reform, They’re Not the Same

Tax Reform has been a political topic, well, since the before we were the United States of America. It is therefore not surprising that it was an issue in the 2016 election. Perhaps not a highly debated topic, or even frequently discussed, and certainly not a topic explained or assessed during the campaigns; but as always “promises” were made. The “promises” were that taxes would be cut and the code simplified, that they would be made “fair”.

Now the election is over and with a Republican Congress and Administration delivering on the “promises” should be more feasible than for its been in a while. Of course, making the promises isn’t the same as fulfilling them. But to make matters far more difficult, keeping the promises means more than just having an answer. It requires that the answer that you have is an appropriate, effective and productive solution to the problem; and that requires that you understand the problem and not what you think the problem is. So, it is with Tax Reform and its implied problem with taxes.

Let’s start with the issue that our tax system is ‘unfair’. If the President and Congress are going to make them ‘fair’ or at least ‘more fair’ then understanding what makes them ‘unfair’ would be an essential requirement. How else would you be able to know that your solution fixes the problem if you can’t define the problem and can demonstrate how your “Reform” fixes it both in theory and ultimately in fact?

If the President and the Republican Congress have a plan then what are the answers to the following “Unfairness” questions? If the Democrats in Congress have a different plan (i.e., answer to Tax Reform) then what are their answers to the “Unfairness” questions?

The “Unfairness” questions:

Why is the current system ‘unfair’?

1. Is it ‘unfair’ to everyone, and ‘unfair’ in the same way to everyone; or does the ‘unfairness’ vary by different categories of people/entities?
   
• If the ‘unfairness’ isn’t the ame for everyone, who is it more ‘unfair’ for and why?
  
• Conversely, if not ‘unfair’ equally for everyone, who is it ‘more fair’ for and why?
  
2. What change under the proposed reform creates a more ‘fair’ tax system?
   
• Why is this more ‘fair’ than the current tax system?
  
• Does this new tax policy generate more, less or the same tax revenues than the current system, if the taxable incomes for everyone were to stay the same as it will be for 2016 taxable incomes?

The “Accepting Election Results” Question – A Sad Commentary

The media has been infatuated with Trump’s response to the question of “Would he accept the results of the election”? His answer at the time was that “I will tell you at the time”. Now since then the Clinton campaign, a variety of Republican Congress-members, and the media have been aghast at Trump for disgracing America’s democratic principle of a ‘peaceful transition of power’ from the incumbent President to the newly elected President. Almost immediately after the debate, the Trump campaign surrogates (including his daughter) have been explaining what he meant.

To be honest, it is hard to view anyone engaged in this farce as individuals the public should be listening to, let alone voting for them or their candidate; and the media has fumbled the issue from night one.

While the tumult that Trump’s answer has produced is unworthy of an American candidate to create and subsequently promote or allow the misguided notion that the nation’s citizens should not accept the results of the election. Additionally, the real issue with Trump’s answer is that it does not come close to what someone asking to be President should have stated. I don’t mean that he should just have said, “Yes” but rather that if he wanted to make a point then it was incumbent upon him to make a clear and informative answer that defines and clarifies why he isn’t saying yes.  An executive, a leader, and certainly a president must be able and competent at presenting information and positions that are highly likely to be understood and that inform those they direct and those they work for (the public). Trump’s answer failed at that, his campaign’s surrogates failed at that, the subsequent ‘clarifications’ and ‘explanations’ have been forced and inadequate.

Now don’t get all ‘I’m an anti-Trump type’; because Clinton and her campaign surrogates didn’t recognize the problem for what it was either. This is a different area of failure for an executive, leader, president to have. Clinton’s response was condemning the statement as “horrifying”; rather than recognizing it as a mistake on her opponent’s part and seizing the opportunity before the ‘statement’ gets mitigated. Now having missed the immediate opportunity there seems to be no comprehension on the part of the Clinton campaign to how to maximize the damage that Trump has provided to his own campaign. If a savvy executive thought Trump’s answer was ‘horrifying’ than they would have used the moment to show Trump’s statement as coming from a candidate who speaks carelessly which allows him to be played. Not the image a leader would want illustrated to the public. The public expects Clinton to object to Trump and his views, but the public is influenced when Clinton demonstrates that she can put him back on his heels.

As for the media, the best that can be said is that they recognized that there was another ‘sensational’ news story to hash over and over; but they didn’t demonstrate any ability to frame the discussion to its substance, or to fulfill their duty to ‘inform the public’. The news media persists in the importance of presenting the facts (the truth) but without including the context and clarity of the topic, the media neglects whether they provide the public with an ability to comprehend the truth. Trump’s statement represents a ‘fact’ of what he said (what his words were) but that alone doesn’t insure that anyone, even Mr. Trump, understands what he just said. If this were the only time that the media underperformed it would be a forgivable rare event; but it isn’t rare. It isn’t rare for issues with Trump. It isn’t rare for issues with Clinton. It isn’t rare in any context.

 Consider the statement Trump made. He wasn’t willing to say if he would accept the results of the election. Why is it Trump’s position on the results that matter? What about the view that the voters have about what they decided, is that irrelevant? Is there any constitutional, legal or any requirement for the losing candidate to concede?  It may be traditional, honorable and demonstrate a degree of maturity; but it is unnecessary.  The election process will record a winner whether the loser accepts the fact or not.

Dead Heat Election: Why So Close?

With the first 2016 Presidential debate tonight, the two virtually tied candidates will attempt to make a difference. Now the media and political wonks have been debating, pontificating, espousing, arguing, explaining, and blathering about why the two leading candidates are within the ‘margin of error’ of each other. But just because the ‘analysts’, ‘spokes-persons’, and ‘experts’ have their rationales and interpretations that doesn’t mean that any of them are correct or understand why the race is so close.

Is it possible that there are explanations that aren’t being presented by all those in the ‘know’?

Well, let’s see if there might be any rationales that are less dependent upon the those who are ‘there to help inform us’ about what’s happening.

An Informed Electorate:

The polls’ sampling of the public/voters measures their choice in a candidate that they are willing to indicate that they will vote for at the time of the polling. Now that tells us what their responses were, if they made a choice; but in itself doesn’t provide a why that choice. So a ‘dead-heat’ race is caused not by who they picked (except statistically) but by the ‘why’ they are divided equally.

Now if Jefferson’s “well-informed electorate” is as necessary to our democracy as he thought, and which I support, then might not the current poll results reflect upon the state of the electorate’s well-informed condition? What state of the ‘well-informed’ electorate would likely result in tied candidates? Logically any state that has the two candidates in equivalent “informed” states. Note: These need not be ‘well-informed’ states, just equivalent. A ‘tie’ may mean that voters are not informed at all about either candidate; that would most likely result in a tie. But ‘not informed at all’ can’t be precisely true because the public believes many things about each candidate; and thus they have an informed status other than ‘not informed’. Of course, the public is a statistical population and there will be some proportion of the public that may be close to a state of ‘not informed at all’. These voters would thus add some weight to an equal result when grouped with the rest of those polled.

For those voters that are ‘informed’, the salient question is how ‘well-informed’ are they? If they are informed primarily on who is the Democrat and who is the Republican, then all that is required for a tie is that half the peopled polled are Democrats and half are Republicans. So is that it? Is being ‘informed’ just having a team in the “big” game? Not sure that is what Jefferson meant.

What about the case where voters are a little more informed than just the candidate’s party? What if the public had a view of the ‘trustworthiness’ of each candidate? Well if the public perception was that both candidates were equally trustworthy then the voters would either be flipping the ‘trustworthy’ coin or they then go with another factor (like Party). Again we can easily see a tie resulting. Note: the equality of ‘trustworthiness’ doesn’t have to be favorable, it can be very unfavorable for each candidate as it is in the current circumstance.

So the problem with seeing a tie in the polls, is that it may indicate that the public is well-informed about each candidate, or that they are not well-informed about each candidate, or that the level and quality of well-informed on the two candidates is basically equal even if it turns out that the public is well-informed about one and not well-informed about the other.

Let’s hope that the public will be well-informed about the candidates; but more importantly that what they are well-informed about is factual, substantive, and salient to why a voter should choose a candidate. A tied situation may not be a good indication of whether the public is meeting a necessary condition for sustaining a democracy.

Testing The Null Hypothesis:

On the statistical side of a ‘tied’ poll, the basic conclusion is that there is ‘no difference’ between the two conditions: Which candidate you will vote for.  So if the public view of the candidates is that they are essentially the same, then you expect a tie. The statistics indicate that there results, no matter how much of a slight difference one candidate has, it is within the ‘margin of error’ so no difference.  This explanation requires only that what the voters know about the candidates is insufficient to create a difference.

This view of the two candidates being the ‘same’ does not seem to have much merit since it is difficult to see the two candidates’ “performing” and conclude that they are viewed the ‘same’.

This does raise the question about why the public doesn’t see a difference between the two candidates in terms of their Party’s views and ideologies, or stances on substantive issues, or campaigns’ solutions. Getting a tie when these facets of the election are considered either means that the population is divided equally independent of these factors, or that these factors are not different (or not relevant) to the voters’ decisions.

The tied results are telling us something, but I don’t know if we know what until there is more data that shows clear differences. If it’s just that one issue wins one group and another issue wins another group, then neither candidate/party has found a new and specific issue that is effective in moving one group from side A to side B.

The public is divided fairly evenly in part because there isn’t any position that makes a compelling difference to the majority of the voters, which may well mean that in fact the public doesn’t see any difference between the candidates in any manner that truly should matter in their choice.

It’s Not the Election, It’s the Dream:

The ‘dead-heat’ may be an indication of no inspirational, aspirational, or unifying message/vision engendered by the two campaigns. I don’t doubt that there are lots of die-hard supporters for one candidate/party/ideology or the other; but the current environment is not demonstrating a superior vision to the public. It’s not even clear that either campaign is offering a compelling vision that “changes voters’ minds”. If the messages, policies, and vision of a candidate result in an even split in the polls is that indicating that they are essentially equivalent that neither has a better idea, answer, solution, or method for handling the nation’s problems and issues than the other?

The public may be telling us that the two Parties are collectively out-of-touch. They are both seen as inferior choices with no vision that deals with the public’s issues, needs and dreams. We may well have a tie because the public is the forgotten dimension of the election.

Them Versus Us, Versus We:

The Democrats and Republicans are not the only groups. We know this but it isn’t clear that it isn’t the Republicans or Democrats that decide elections. They are already assumed to be statistically baked-in as going with the Party’s candidate. They are a given and don’t make a difference unless they don’t show up. There are other groups that determine the outcome of our elections. The Independents, those unaligned to a political party, are the major constituency that decides our elections. There are some other political parties that make some contribution to elections, but how decisive they are subject to the degree to which their votes can be garnered by the Democrat or Republican sides.

The Independents are of course not anywhere near as uniform and consistent in which Party they will vote for. There is a Republican-leaning sub-group, a Democratic-leaning sub-group, a more truly independent non-leaning sub-group, and a set of sub-groups that have other orientations including those who are less politically inclined and reliable as voters. This election will be more influenced by how successfully Independents are swayed to pick the next President. With tied polling results the question of is there a difference between the two candidates is seemingly indicating that regardless of the differences that are ‘talked’ about for Trump and Clinton, they are not resulting in the public treating them as being someone who matters in making a ‘difference’ to what the voters want in their choice for President.

Maybe the biggest factor in this election is or will be those voters who want to ‘smash’ the current political environment. The choice may be how to get rid of those politicians that have failed the public. Half the voters think it’s go with a non-politician and half think it’s go with a politician who has a lot of experience. A tie may just be a measure of how angry voters are with the present situation and who they are choosing to blame.

Why Are We Tied?:

We are tied because there is nothing that either side is presenting that makes a meaningful difference to the public. Flip a coin and come down on one or the other. What coin you flipped may be biased by some factor or other, but at the end of the day half the coins will come up heads and half tails. Do this with a large population and sample and unless there is something that makes a difference you are going to get a tie. If you choose the politician/non-politician coin, you still get 50-50. If you flip the Republican/Democrat coin you still get 50-50. Toss a man/woman coin and you get another tie. Even when you use a Trustworth-Clinton / Trustworth-Trump coin (no matter how low the trustworth level is) and we do not get a leader, we get a ‘dead-heat’.