The punch heard around the world

Originally printed in the Batesville Daily Guard

Richard Spencer: White nationalist, coiner of "alt-right" 

If you didn’t catch it, there was a new president sworn in last week.

It was followed by protests, claims by the president it was the “biggest” attendance for an inauguration ever and the entry of “alternative facts” into our lexicon.

A much-memed but less discussed event happened on the streets of D.C. though, one that could have far-reaching repercussions — the punching of Richard Spencer.

It is an incident that not only highlights the two extremes of those who call themselves “right and left” but might have also been the snowball that kicks off an avalanche.

If you don’t know who Spencer is, then all you need to know is that he’s a white nationalist who coined the term “alt-right” and likes to lead people in Nazi salutes. He’s active on social media and like most people who enjoy tormenting others, he doesn’t ever shut up. He’s the president of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist “think tank.”

Spencer’s predecessor, Louis R. Andrews, said “There’s no such thing as post-racial. There’s conflict, conflict and continued conflict.”

Black Bloc tactics

Andrews also said he voted for Obama because he wanted to see the Republican Party destroyed, so it could be reborn as a “party representing the interest of white people.”

Spencer has continued the provocatory approach of Andrews. He has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” and has called for a sort of “white Zionism” to create a “white homeland.”

Anyway, while giving an interview after the inauguration on Friday, a person clad in black with their face hidden ran out of the street and punched him in the face, disappearing as quickly as he appeared.

A lot of people cheered because Spencer is who he is. It has even become a meme of sorts.

Taking joy in Spencer getting punched is a natural reaction. Spencer is, after all, the proponent of an ideology that reflects a dark past and ought to be shoved back into it where it belongs.

But those cheering may not be thinking of the repercussions of the action.

In a way, that punch is the best thing that could have happened to Spencer. Now he can say “we’re under attack!” That single punch may have opened the door for others to attack those who they disagree with on the street, no matter what their political leaning.

Of course, the person who attacked Spencer was an anarchist, a group that sees no legitimacy in a central government (or really any government at all), whether it be Democrat or Republican — and really, they consider both to be enemies considering their behavior during both parties’ conventions in the past.

Where ever there are large demonstrations, anarchists show up, using black bloc tactics to disguise their identities and engage in actions like property damage and now violence. They are extremists who don’t care whether or not they harm the cause the actual demonstrations are supporting. The anarchists only seem to care about fighting some ambiguous enemy via smashing windows and setting things on fire, often throwing rocks and firecrackers at law enforcement. The actions of the anarchists often distract from the message of the peaceful demonstrators, who are pretty much always the majority when it comes to protests.

No matter how much someone points out to the anarchists that they’re harming the cause they’re allegedly supporting, you’ll usually get similar responses such as rioting being a form of expression against exploitation by business or destroying the system. The general reaction when such is pointed out is usually dismissiveness or outright tirades against “useless” nonviolent protesters.

Now it seems that both sides have gotten what they wanted. Spencer’s white nationalists can now claim there’s a war against them and the anarchists can claim they took “direct action.”

I for one hope that the punch of Spencer isn’t a sign of some sort of escalation. But with the current state of American political dialogue, that’s very, very unclear. We aren’t living in some sort of dystopian society, yet. But it seems that we now have movements that want to force society to fit a certain vision. There’s no telling where a single punch could lead to.

Like Joseph on Facebook

Changes – Politics move like a see-saw

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

We are going to see a lot of changes in 2017 — changes that are going to make some people very happy, some very unhappy and others just frustrated with the process in general.

Over the last few decades, our government has become a see-saw of sorts as the two big parties, Democrats and Republicans, move away from the middle and embrace more narrow ideals of what is considered “liberal” and “conservative.” The election of 2016 drove that home with two huge personalities, President-elect Donald Trump and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, essentially becoming the human embodiments of the bases, or at least the most enthusiastic, of their respective parties.

People who live and breathe politics, particularly those who think in terms of “right vs. left” don’t have a problem with this. For them, it’s more a battle of good vs. evil and shaping the government to fit a vision instead of filling the potholes and making sure the trains run on time. It’s sort of like the “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” cliché, except instead of throwing the baby out, the argument is to either give the kid a bath in a frozen lake or a boiling kettle.

That sounds a little extreme, but we seem to be in pretty extreme times, at least politically. It seems we are rapidly approaching a chaotic time when we are going to see things built up in one election thrown out in the next and then the things built during that government are thrown out with the next. That’s not what anyone would call stability. It’s just a mess.

There’s always the talk about the need of people to support a third party, but the minor parties of the U.S. tend to have even more extreme philosophies. Americans constantly poll that they do want a third party, but none that exist really seem to offer what they want.

What do they want?

Probably some sort of calming influence, a balance of sorts.

In most democracies, there are two major parties like ours, usually center-left and center-right and a lot of fringe parties. But there are also often third parties who may not be the same size as the big two, but not as small as the fringe, that take more moderate positions and make themselves necessary for the larger parties to form a governing coalition. In a way, acting as sort of a middle weight that slides slightly to balance the board and keep it from becoming a seesaw of back and forth policies — stability you could say.

Right now, it would seem an opportune time for such a thing. The 2016 election saw the lowest voter turnout since 1996. In 1996, only 53.5 percent of voter-age Americans turned out for the election. In 2016 that number was 55 percent, much lower than 64 percent of voter-age Americans who cast ballots in 2008. Those numbers say people are either indifferent or just turned off by the current offerings.

And really, who can blame them? With people on both sides of the political aisle more interested in making pronouncements or condemnations, those who want to be outside of partisan fights are either ignored or attacked. That does not get them interested in turning out for the polls.

Of course, a viable third-party probably won’t happen anytime soon. In the U.S., third parties have a habit of not going for modest goals — like running for local, state and congressional offices — but instead seem to center around capturing the presidency.

Sure, capturing the presidency is probably the ultimate goal of any political party, but sometimes four or five people in Congress can make as big of a difference when it comes to things that affect people’s lives as well as balancing partisan ideology.

It may only be a pipe dream, but I do hope to one day see a government where there are some adults in the room.

Follow Joseph on Facebook.

What did R.E. Lee ever do for Arkansas?

Why does Arkansas celebrate Robert E. Lee with a state holiday?

Why do they celebrate a guy who became the face of a group of rebel states that seceded because its wealthiest residents were afraid they'd have to set their slaves free?

Why do they celebrate him on the same day as a man who made a positive difference on the country as a whole?

That's the sort of things I wonder when we honor Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert E. Lee on the same day in Arkansas. Two contradicting characters: King lead the way forward for not only black equality, but that of other disenfranchised people too, becoming not only an American figure, but also a world one. Lee married into a rich slave owning family and fought for states who sought to keep the institution of black slavery and when the war was lost, he lent his voice to those who sought to keep blacks from voting.

It seems that it makes sense why one is honored nationally and the other is honored by only five states: Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. All of those, except Georgia, celebrate him on Martin Luther King Day. In Lee's own home state, Virginia, he is honored on the Friday before Martin Luther King Jr. Day with Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson, another Confederate general.

So why is he honored? He didn't really do anything for Arkansas, except have its able-bodied men shipped eastward to fight in Virginia. The Confederacy as a whole seemed to treat Arkansas as just a jumping point into Missouri, which it considered a prize. After it was obvious that they would never take Missouri, Arkansas was pretty much left abandoned, with invading Union forces taking most of the state with little effort. By the end of the war, Confederate Arkansas was pretty much reduced to the southwest corner of the state. By the time it was over, 10,000 Arkansans — Union, Confederate and civilian — had lost their lives.

Arkansan soldiers returned to a state that had been prosperous in the late 1850s reduced to a husk of its former self due to the war. Many of them lost everything and they went through many years of rebuilding what they had lost. In some scholars' opinions, Arkansas, like much of the south, never fully recovered from the Civil War.

Lee on the other hand returned to a largely comfortable life in Virginia, eventually becoming the president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, from 1865 to 1870. During that time Lee, along with other prominent Southerners, signed an Aug. 26, 1868, letter to Gen. William Rosecrans that opposed allowing blacks the right to vote following the Civil War.

On the other hand, almost 100 years later, King led a 1965 march from Selma, Alabama, to the Capitol in Montgomery to advocate for equal voting rights.

Now, I've heard the argument “well, if they (by “they” it's meant black people) get Martin Luther King Jr. Day then we (“we” being white people) should get Robert E. Lee Day.” That argument misses the point of honoring King. Throughout most of the country, as well as the world, King is not regarded as someone who only did things for black people. He's regarded as someone who transformed the status quo, not only helping black people on the way toward equality, but also helping change how whites see themselves in relation to minorities in the US.

Lee did none of that. Lee is seen by many as a southern icon, but in reality, the South was, and still is, more than the Confederacy. Many southerners, including Arkansans, fought and died to preserve the Union. Reducing the South to the Confederacy does it a great disservice, as it narrows what a Southerner is down to a government that existed only four years and ties that identity eternally to slavery.

Some will argue that those who don't think there should be a Robert E. Lee Day in Arkansas, especially on the same day as Martin Luther King Jr. Day, are somehow trying to destroy their heritage. I don't see that as the case as the descendant of a Confederate soldier myself, and believe that there's a difference between remembering our ancestors and honoring a government that most of us would consider reprehensible today. We can remember acts of bravery from soldiers on both sides without having to elevate the government they fought for or try to justify the atrocities they committed. Not honoring the Confederacy will not take away from any of that.

So maybe, today will be the last time we will celebrate the two days together. But, I kind of doubt it.  

Follow Joseph on Facebook 

Social media swarms don’t reflect reality

Originally printed in the Batesville Daily Guard

As we leave 2016, we leave behind a year that was ruled by Facebook and Twitter. The two social media sites had always been influential, but this year they became the heart of the nexus which includes public opinion, propaganda and information. They were places that regular people could actually say something to their leaders and just maybe get a response, whether they be national, state or local.

One consequence of this was that the whole world also had access to those officials. Sometimes it’s a good thing, sometimes it’s bad, but state boundaries are no longer a deterrent when it comes into offering opinions to state officials.

But as far as the bad, one group that has found a way to influence policy via social media are fringe groups and conspiracy theorists, who rely on insinuation and distortions instead of research and fact.

We had a case of that in Arkansas over the last week.

Rep. Karilyn Brown (R-Sherwood) filed a bill to remove religious and philosophical exemptions for vaccines when it comes to children who attend public schools in Arkansas. It did not remove the medical exemption.

Since even the Amish allow for vaccines, the religious exemption doesn’t make for much purpose. Aside from the Dutch Reform Church, there are pretty much no branches of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism that bar their members from taking vaccines, not even the Amish. And last I checked, I don’t think there is a single congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church in Arkansas at all, much less many Dutch.

On the other hand, the philosophical exemption pretty much allow a person to not vaccinate a child for any reason they want. Whether it be the debunked “vaccines cause autism” claims, “making my kids take vaccines is communism” claim or the “natural diseases are better than modern medicine” ideas or “vaccines are mind control” conspiracy theory … they’re all equally valid in the philosophical exemptions.

They are also all equally dangerous. It bears to repeat that small pox, a disease that killed millions, has been eradicated due to vaccines. Polio, which left many people disabled, has been eliminated from most of the world, with cases in the single digits worldwide — all in third world countries. Measles, mumps and chicken pox all of which have been linked to blindness, deafness and sterility have become very rare in the U.S., at least until the last couple of years when those diseases have started making a comeback.

Those comebacks renewed calls to tighten up or eliminate exemptions for people who lacked a medical reason.

Makes sense right? People want to protect their kids.

And I’m sure Brown took note of that when she wrote her bill.

Of course, she probably didn’t expect the swarm.

When I say swarm, I mean an anti-vaccination social media group caught wind of her bill and took to her social media, leaving shrill messages accusing her of being a shill for “big pharma” to wanting to give kids autism. Most of these messages don’t seem to be from people who are in her district, or even Arkansas. I saw posts from people in Virginia, Michigan, Kentucky and a person from Los Angeles who says he works at, and I quote, “Stop Mandatory Vaccination” — which I suspect is the source for many of Brown’s comments.

I’m not sure if Brown took this into account when she withdrew the bill on Tuesday. But the same people, not from Arkansas, gave her thanks for “representing her constituents.”

Brown’s case, which is not unique, shows the power of swarms on social media. The swarms can create the impression that the majority of people are in favor of fringe beliefs, anti-vaccination movements and chemtrail belief are two examples of this, simply by drawing people from all over the country to overwhelm an account with posts. Some of these go further, giving out phone numbers and emails, leading to an endless stream of harassment.

I hope Brown will reconsider her withdrawal of HB1043 sometime in the future. We do not need to let fact-based policies that would benefit our public health brought down by a minority who just happen to have loudest mouths (er, fingertips, I guess would be more accurate). If politicians start letting Facebook and Twitter determine their actions, then we are putting our fates in the hands of anyone who is capable of combining links with the right hashtags on the internet. This may eventually cause our policies to be driven by an alternate reality which thrives online.

Follow Joseph on Facebook.

Enjoy a night of fear with these flicks

Carnival of Souls (1962)

Originally printed in the Batesville Daily Guard

Halloween is upon us and what better time to catch up on your horror movie watching?

Sure, you can say “I’m already watching ‘The Walking Dead,’” but that’s just a soap opera with zombies. No, what you want on Halloween is something that will make you feel uneasy, frightened or at least a little nervous … not a TV show that frustrates, angers or even bores you.

So, today I’m passing on a couple of movie suggestions for those who have a few hours to curl up in front of the TV Halloween night while the kids are out or have been put to bed. Each movie represents what I would call a different sort of fear so that the viewer gets a nice rounded experience.

“Carnival of Souls” (1962)

Ghost stories were being passed from generation to generation by humans way before Halloween was ever conceived. “Carnival of Souls” is a ghost story, but it isn’t about a haunted house or vengeance from beyond the grave. Instead it’s a movie about a protagonist, a woman who is the only survivor of a car wreck at the beginning of the film, growing more detached from, and eventually rejected by, the world and people around her. Eventually, the only ones who seem to notice her are the ghosts she sees more and more frequently.

The film never goes for outright scares. Instead, the events in the film build upon each other. The increasing isolation of the movie’s lead character from the world around her and the final confrontation with the ghosts, who appropriately gather to dance the night away at a carnival, leave the viewer with a sense of hopelessness and futility instead of fear.

“Night of the Living Dead” (1968)

If it weren’t for this movie, you wouldn’t be watching “The Walking Dead,” reading “World War Z” or playing “Resident Evil.” We’re so accustomed to cannibal zombies in media now that they’re no longer scary, but back when George Romero made “Night of the Living Dead,” they were something new.

Sure, there had been zombies in movies before, “White Zombie” jumps immediately to mind, but until “Night of the Living Dead,” they had been mostly portrayed true to their roots in African culture — a dead person brought to life to serve a single master. “Night of the Living Dead introduced much of the world to swarms of flesh-eating zombies that overwhelmed their human prey by sheer numbers. It also introduced that other zombie movie trope: You often have more to fear from your fellow man than the zombies.

“Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974)

Along with “Night of the Living Dead” this is considered one of the movies that modernized horror. Before these two movies, horror movies largely followed a monster-of-the-week type pattern where the monster died in the end and the, usually male, hero got out alive, if not unscathed. “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” turned that formula totally on its head. Not only was our “monster” human, the “hero” (survivor is more appropriate) is a woman.

It follows, and pretty much established, a formula we’ve grown used to. A bunch of teenagers or 20-somethings go out in the middle of nowhere and are killed one-by-one until the lone survivor fights off the killer/monster and makes it out alive and damaged. But unlike its lesser descendants, this movie goes for unsettling over disgusting. The Sawyer family, whose interior decorating was inspired by the home of Ed Gein — the real life inspiration for Norman Bates in “Psycho” and Buffalo Bill in “Silence of the Lambs” — and their twisted abode will cause several nights of restless sleep for the first-time viewer.

“The Thing” (1982)

John Carpenter is a director whose name is synonymous with Halloween. After all, he introduced the world to Michael Myers in, well, “Halloween.” Halloween was a very influential horror movie, but it was not Carpenter’s best. His best work would be just four years later when he delivered what I, and many others consider his masterpiece: “The Thing.”

“The Thing” is a violent film, no doubt about it. The violence isn’t from slashing, bludgeoning or drilling as we are prone to see in horror moves nowadays. Instead, the violence comes from the creature being revealed, transforming its human forms into something truly horrific. The scares don’t come from the boogeyman sneaking up behind you or coming out of the dark. Instead, he hides right in front of you, within the skin of your co-worker or friend, waiting to take you when it’s only the two of you in the room. Worse yet, he can be more than one person, or animal, too. All through the film, even in its last scene, you’re left to wonder “is it one of them?”

“Session 9” (2001)

By 2001, most mainstream horror movies were trending toward jump scares and way too much self-awareness thanks to movies like “Scream” and “I Know What You Did Last Summer.” “Session 9” is one of the few movies to buck that trend, largely hiring actors to play characters instead of pretty faces to play victims.

“Session 9” doesn’t start with a bang. It hardly has any bangs at all. Instead, you start out having a feeling something is very, very wrong on what should just be a regular job for a group of contractors removing asbestos from Danvers State Hospital, a real-life psychiatric hospital that once stood in Massachusetts. The movie builds on that feeling, every scene removing layers beginning with the normal and pealing away to the horrific.

The sense of unease is not lifted by the end of the movie, instead you’re left to wonder about who, or what, is to really blame for what unfolded. Danvers State Hospital is almost a character itself, with its decaying walls, massive empty rooms and small hallways. Danvers State Hospital was totally demolished in 2006.

Follow Joseph on Facebook.

A table just for two

Originally printed in the Batesville Daily Guard

If there’s something that has become pretty obvious this election it’s that many, many Americans are not happy with their choices.

First, you have the major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, running two of the most unpopular candidates in history. According to RealClearPolitics.com, which averages several different polls, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is averaging 52.4 percent as far as unfavorability and Republican nominee Donald Trump averages 60.8 unfavorable. 

That isn’t a good sign for the winner of this election, as the 2018 midterm elections will probably see their party lose seats in both the House and Senate.

Sure, there are options that aren’t Democrat or Republican, the most prominent being Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party. The thing with them is that winning the presidency just isn’t that realistic.

Of course, a lot of that can be blamed on our electoral system. Unlike most modern democracies, the U.S. uses the electoral college, which means we don’t directly vote for president, instead we vote for electors to cast a vote for us on behalf of the winner, who takes all the electoral points in a given state. The winner doesn’t need to have a majority of the popular vote, which is 50 percent-plus one, they just need an 269 electoral votes, which means they’ll get all of the state’s electors whether they win with 90 percent of the vote or with 43 percent of the vote.

But the lack of success of third parties can’t be blamed solely on the electoral college. Instead, they can also be partially blamed on the nature of the parties themselves.

You see, many of the third-parties are ideologically based, like the Libertarians and Greens. That means that they don’t have as much room to wiggle around and stay true to their base at the same time, unlike big-tent parties like the Republicans and Democrats, which are each made up of a variety of different stripes but remain flexible enough to target the all-important moderate voter in the general election.

This is hard to do for parties based on ideological principles instead of vote-winning. Expanding the tent can mean bringing on new members but also alienating old members who demand a certain level of purity. It’s also a challenge to reach out to moderate voters who tend to be less-focused on ideology and more concerned with issues that require a certain flexibility that many parties can’t provide.

And of course, the presidential debates, or in reality joint press conferences, also shut out other voices. You can thank the Commission on Presidential Debates for that.

The most successful third-parties in the U.S. have had the “big tent” potential, like the Bull Moose Party of the 1910s and the Reform Party of the 1990s. But those parties, which had opportunity to grow, quickly fizzled out when the strong personalities, like Theodore Roosevelt and Ross Perot, that founded them were no longer the driving force.

Now it seems more people want to support a third party more than ever. Unfortunately, you also have a polarizing election where people are willing to go the “lesser of two evils” routes because they know who they don’t want in office. It’s an election where many people are voting against someone instead of for them.

The problem is then not people desiring a choice, but often a lack of what they see as viable choices. That’s not a good way to inspire faith in our democracy.

So what’s it take for a third party to get somewhere? Probably a big tent that won’t blow over after one election. But it’s also got to have resilience to fight the establishment, whether it be the two-party system, electoral college or lack of coverage from the national media.

Follow Joseph on Facebook

Who's afraid of the popular vote?

I know that this is something all of us that pay more than a small amount of attention to presidential politics has heard complaints about at one time or another: The Electoral College.

For those of you who didn't pay attention in civics class or live outside the U.S., the Electoral College is essentially this — A body of people representing the states of the U.S., who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president.

See, in the U.S. we don't directly elect the president or the vice president. Sure, we have nationwide elections for the office but we are actually choosing "electors,” who usually pledge to vote for a particular candidates. Each U.S. state is given one elector for each of its U.S. Senator and Representative, so of course, larger states have more.

I, like many others over the years, would like to see it replaced by a popular vote for president.

Of course, if that were to happen we'd still have to decide one thing: Do we want to determine the president by whoever gets the most votes, or plurality, or whoever gets the majority? That's a very important difference.

You see, aside from the infamous elections of 2000, 1888, 1876 and 1826 where the candidate with the most votes lost, we've also had several presidential elections where the candidate who got the most votes won the presidency with lessthan 50 percent of the popular vote.

If you count the elections where the candidate with the most votes lost, you have 18 elections, 12 elections if you don't count the popular vote losers winning, in U.S. history where the winner had less than 50 percent of the votes. This includes both of Bill Clinton's wins, 43.01 percent in 1992 and 49.23 percent in 1996, Richard Nixon with 43.42 percent in 1968 and John Kennedy with 49.72 in 1960.

Now some people will point at that list and say “see, it works out!” But of course, that's when their guy wins.

It's not to say it hasn't worked out in some instances either. After all, I'm not writing the about “quality” of leadership, though the electoral college has a very mixed record on that — remember the George W. Bush presidency after all.

This year, it's very likely that the winner will win the popular vote but won't hit 50 percent plus one. I'm sure some people will be pleased with that and many of them are the same people who cursed the electoral college in 2000 when Bush beat Al Gore.

The most common argument I hear for the electoral college is “well, if we didn't have it, they'd only go to the big population city/states.” That's nonsense though. Less than 10 percent of Americans live in the boundaries of the country's 10 largest cities and only 35 percent live in the 10 largest metro areas, which includes suburbs and exburbs. These cities and metros are also not concentrated in one region or state and not necessarily “liberal” or “conservative” in their voting patterns.

Of course, one can argue that the bigger states would dominate candidates' interest. After all, why bother campaigning for a few hundred thousand votes in Wyoming or Vermont when you can be campaigning for millions in California? The 10 most populous states — California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Georgia — have 50 percent of the U.S. population.

But so what?

Those states already have much more influence than smaller states. California has 53 members in the U.S. House of Representatives while Vermont and Wyoming have one each. Their electoral votes reflect this California has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming and Vermont each have three. So they're still minor states, nothing is going to balance it out.

What the electoral system has done is essentially carve the states into a lot of “this is our state, no need to put much effort in here” and a few “we have to fight for these states.” It has essentially turned the country into three voting blocs, Blue states that Republicans don't bother with, Red states that Democrats don't bother with and Battleground states where almost all their effort goes. If you're not in a battleground state, you're pretty much ignored and often your vote doesn't matter because the people of your state are going to vote overwhelmingly for one candidate over the other. If your vote is going to be tossed, why even bother voting?

If the Electoral College were done away with, then those Red voters in Blue states and Blue voters in Red states would see their votes actually matter in a presidential race. It wouldn't be “Candidate X won Arkansas, all the Arkansas votes for Candidate Y can be tossed.” Can anybody justify doing that to people who turn out in the rain, cold and wind to wait in lines going around the block to get to the voting booth?

Which leads us to “third party” supporters, as they are called.

Those are people who are told “you're throwing away your vote” when they vote their conscience. It's not very fair to them nor is it to their candidates who are labeled “spoilers” by some and “nobodies” by others. If a candidate is able to get on enough ballots to win, don't they deserve a level playing field too? Should their supporters' votes go in the trash as well?

That's why I believe we should not only ditch the electoral college, but also a runoff election if a candidate fails to garner 50 percent plus one of the popular vote.

There are two ways to handle this: A runoff election or instant runoff voting.

Instant runoff voting is the simplest to explain, but also the more complicated of the two. Essentially, when you vote, you get a list of all the candidates who each have a box by their name. Using these boxes, you choose your favorite candidate by giving them a “1” and then your preferred alternative a “2” and then other candidates a “3” or “4” and so on, depending how long the list of candidates you are willing to vote for is. Less complicated ballots have the candidates listed twice, with on list for your first preference and the other for your “alternate preference.”

You see, simple sounding but at the same time, pretty complicated to pull off — but you'd at least know the winner right away.

The other one, a second round of elections is also easy to explain and probably easier to put in place.

A second round of elections means that the two candidates with the most votes go head to head in a one-on-one election after the general election. This means that the other candidates who didn't get enough votes to be in the top two are out of the runoff round.

While they may be out as candidates, the losers are also given a great amount of power considering the people who voted for them may be the deciding factor in who ultimately wins. The top two would have to win over those voters and which means the top-two hopefuls may need to seek the endorsements of their former rivals to win.

How much longer would a second round draw out an election? There's nothing set in stone. France held its last run-off election two weeks after the regular election in 2002 while Peru had its second round presidential election 57 days after the general election in 2016. I would hope the U.S. would stay toward the shorter end, allowing enough time for one last debate between the candidates.

In the U.S., Donald Trump and Hillary would be vying for not only voters who probably didn't show up for the first round, but also people who voted for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party. According to FiveThirtyEight.com's polls-plus forecast, Clinton will have 48.6 percent of the popular vote, Trump 43.7, Johnson 6.2 and other candidates, including Stein will have 1.5 percent of the popular vote.

That means that Clinton only needs 1.4 percent plus one vote to win in a hypothetical runoff election. In order to win a runoff, Trump would have to not only win all of Johnson's supporters, but also 0.1 percent of those who voted other and a plus one, which would be very difficult to achieve, especially if many of Johnson's supporters decided to stay home.

Of course, people would still be unhappy with that result, or any, but that's just a regular part of democracy.

So someone may still ask “why go to a majority popular vote if the results are largely the same?”

Why? Because it not only opens the door a little bit more for those parties that aren't the Big D or Big R, but also gives them power even if they lose. It's closer to the American ideal that we have in the modern age, where everyone gets a fair shake and an equal voice. Instead of being told “you're throwing your vote away” and “don't hand the election to ______,” they're going to be told “we need your vote” and asked “what do we need to do

for your vote?”

That my friends, are what presidential elections are supposed to be about.