Nice work, Bill. Very informative, and a breath of fresh air.

Nonetheless, you see the non-scientific, strictly-”I thought-it-so-it-is-possible” mental gyrations by people reading your piece, with phrases such as “nuclear grade stupidity” and “…could still happen”, “no telling what”, as if the electorate rolls from side-to-side like marbles in a box. No, the statistically-challenged won’t allow themselves to consider scientific analysis of any phenomenon, because it reveals their ignorance of how the world works.

We could do ourselves a great favor as a nation, if we did not endorse people as candidates for office unless they could pass a simple calculus test, and a simple statistics test. A simple one. In the California primary, there were thirty-four individuals (34) that paid $3400 to run for the United States Senate (Barbara Boxer retiring). One was running with a first name, as she put on her application: “President”. That is how her first name appeared on the ballot.

Pay a fee, and run for office? You are wasting everyone’s time. A lot of it.

A simple math test would keep the 19th-century-glad-hander-style celebrity candidates relegated to where they belong: not governing in a hugely-complex social system with complex technical matters to decide.