Simplicity Trumps Complex Analysis

Like many software practioners in the blogsphere, I'm equally extremely disappointed at the result of this election (Russell Beattie, Tim Bray, Sean McGrath, Don Park, Cameron Purdy). I could not comprehend why, despite all the blunders and missteps of the administration, the electorate would vote to continue on with this legacy. It is plain hard to accept that a majority of the voters can't seem to think logically.

Voters will always have a bias, however in the national scale the left and right tend to cancel each other out. It usually tends to be the centrist population that determines the vote.

If you looked at this map that shows how each county voted, it's easy to generalize that the urban counities voted against and the rural counties voted for the incumbent. California and New York did not vote unanimously per county against Bush as one would have thought. The same can be said about Texas. The cities voted for a change, the rural areas for the status quo. It is more about urban versus rural and not about north, south, or midwest.

The realities of an urban environment in particular with a persons relationships with their neighbors is much more complex considering the diversity. That is the kind of thinking that John Kerry was exhibiting, that is looking at all sides of the problem and coming up with a compromise solution was perfectly acceptable. In the rural areas relationships are more conventional and decisive action tends to be most effective.

However to dismiss the rural areas not being sophisticated in their analysis may be off the mark. What may be closer to the truth is that too much thinking can lead to "analysis paralysis". The unbiased block recognized this and feeling that the flaws of the inumbment were something that they could live with; decided that simple solutions and decisiveness trumped complex and compromised solutions.

Despite being found guilty of so many misdjudgments in Iraq, it was easier for the public conscience to also paint an optimistic picture and choose the leader who would not waver on that optimistic vision. Whether that be reality or not, Americans felt they owed at least that fiction for the troops who are fighting and sacrificing half a world away. Bad situations require optimistic fantasies to get us through them, depriving one of that fantasy only makes the situation more unbearable. The majority has chosen the people who created the mess to also clean it up. Only time can tell whether this will work or whether they will be held truly accountable.

Interestingly enough that is what separates American thinking from European thinking. It is that quick and dirty approach, whatever works best approach that brings products to market ahead of the Europeans who are always contemplating an elegant solution. I'm not pitting one kind of thinking over the other, I marvel at both American's pragmatism and European idealism. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.

This gives me a kind of closure, I have finally understood the vote. Even though I disagree with it, the vote was distinctly American.

P.S. Isn't is sad that terrorism usually occurs in urban areas? The same urban areas that lost the vote on how best to protect itself.