Elections & earthquakes

There is a man who has correctly predicted the outcome of the last 8 presidential elections. He said Obama would win a second term a year before Mitt Romney was chosen to be his opponent! This man is Allan Lichtman, a professor at American University. Now you are probably thinking he's using some complicated method based on political strategies. That is not the case. Lichtman based his predictive method on geophysics! Listen to the NPR article HERE.

Who win the next presidential election? Ask Allan Lichtman!

More specifically Lichtman thinks of election as geophysicists think of earthquakes. Lichtman says:

"Everything we know about elections, we've already stolen from geophysics.Tremors of political change, seismic movements of the voters, volcanic elections, political earthquakes. It's all geophysics anyway."

The basics of Lichtman's method is decide if the election will be stable or if there will be upheaval. This is a principle of earthquakes. For elections, Lichtman defines stability as the incumbent party stays in the White House. Upheaval is when the incumbent loses.

After reviewing past elections, Lichtman defined 13 key questions (which he wrote about in his book The Keys to the White House). If the six or more questions went against the incumbent party then he predicted upheaval. Obama only had three strikes with the economy, low approval ratings, and the poor  results for his party in the midterm elections.

Now you might wonder why we can't predict earthquakes with as much accuracy as Lichtman with elections. Well, it is a simple fact that earthquakes are much more complex than political elections. We can characterize the forces and geologic structure but the exact time it will occur is impossible. The USGS (US Geological Survey) is in charge of monitoring seismic activity over the whole nation. The best warning system we have right now is the Earthquake Early Warning system. It works by detecting the first rumbles of the earthquake and sending a message to the city before the destructive energy arrives. The waves travel at 2 miles per second so if the earthquake is 20 miles away it gives a 10 second warning. Not much but maybe enough for people to run to a safe location.

Example of the Early Earthquake Warning system.

It is interesting that principles of geophysics which characterize movements of the earth can be used to so accurately predict election outcomes. I guess it shows that laws of nature rule even at the human level!

When things go wrong . . . Part 3

This is the final post in the "When things go wrong series . . ." Click to see Part 1 and Part 2. 

Italian Scientists Found Guilty

WHAT: On April 6^th, 2009, there was a 6.3 magnitude earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy. The region has a long history of earthquakes and the citizens of L’Aquila usually sleep outside during times when there are small tremors. However, for this earthquake people stayed inside and 309 people died. The community had heard reports from the nation’s scientists that it was unlikely a large earthquake would occur. Six Italian scientists and one ex-governmental official were put on trial and recently found guilty of manslaughter. All of them were from the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks.

Read the BBC’s coverage of the story HERE. 

WHERE: L’Aquila, Italy, a town located in a fault rich area of Italy.

The location of the 6.3 earthquake that hit Italy in 2009.

Damage of homes in L'Aquila, Italy.

HOW: There were tremors occurring in L’Aquila and the citizens were becoming concerned that a large earthquake could be coming. The National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks calmed the citizens down by stating that it was unlikely that a large earthquake could strike. Because of the advice of the Commission many residents stayed in the area and in their homes.

WHY: This is an important case because it is putting the communication of science on trial. There is no way to accurately predict a major earthquake but the geophysicists failed to communicate that effectively to the people of L’Aquila. The people believed that there was no risk because the scientists said an earthquake was unlikely. The scientists knew that there was still a chance that a large earthquake could occur but wanted to calm the citizens.

WHO: This story is very sad and unfortunate. I think many people, especially the survivors in L’Aquila, are trying to find the people they should blame. Who should be held responsible for the deaths? The court has ruled that the scientists did hold some of that responsibility (although the decision is being appealed). For me, it seems clear that the seven people from the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks failed at their job. The main failure is the lack of risk communication. None of the citizens of L’Aquila should ever have heard a message of stay inside. This story shows how critical it is that scientists be able to communicate with the public without just dumbing down the science.

Do you think the scientists are guilty? Who is to blame? What should the Italian government do to avoid another tragedy like the L’Aquila earthquake?

This concludes the "When things go wrong . . ." series. Let me know if you would be interested in hearing about a particular subject in geophysics. Thanks for reading!