If the outcome and results of the 2016- Presidential-Elections is being explained as the USA is divided, then it is not only the USA which is devided but it rather the whole world, it is we. If so, it is not the division in itself but rather the uncertainties and risks of such division which can raise, and did raise, dissatisfaction, despair, unknowns and yet hopes to come. In scientific experiments, in business and in any undertaking there is an important fact about the outcome of any experiment or in trials, they can lead to negative results. Such negative results, as outcome, are equally important and interesting and can not to be rejected. In practical terms they mean “negative is positive”. We always learn something new from the unknowns that we either fear, may be forced to face, or are going to live with. Fears that we can not afford to have in our daily life and to hand them over to coming generations. It also gives us an indication that we have huge and urgent problems that are hidden somewhere, known or even unknown to all of us. Indeed problems that can not and should not be ignored and have to be solved or at least debated and mitigated “problems indeed are solutions that are not yet found”.
It is the outcome of the voting in terms of statistical uncertainties which is of major interest as well, not only the absolute result per se. Any measurement or assessment is associated with several uncertainties, including biases, which are equality important as the result in itself can give many indications of the nature of the uncertainties involved, i.e, in the way how the measurements or assessments are being performed, how the experiment “the system” is being constructed and if the components of the systems are being clear, homogenous and understood. In this case the nature of the uncertainties are totally unknown and can not be assessed. This said, yet there are many consequences for the outcome, and the associated uncertainties due to various factors and parameters, of the 2016-Presidential-Elections. As it looks today there can be major impacts on strategic policies and agreements that are being formulated by, e.g. the UN and the world community in particular the Paris Agreement and UN-SDGs. Also, other regional sub-agreements exist in risk zones which can cause polarization, pile-up and excalation. Who would be in charge of dealing with such consequences and impacts? If the first phase of the Paris Agreement and the ratification of UN-SDGs required huge efforts, still the promotion and implementation will cost enormous INVESTMENTS. Such investments have to done in a way or another and there are always solutions and different approaches for placing such investments. The whole process can not be expected to be completed overnight. This is an example on the essence of the dissatisfaction, dispair, unknowns and hopes as developed in the whole process of all the strategic issues that caused the negative outcome/results and the associated uncertainties; who will pay what, how and why?
As explained by Paul Ekman in his Blog (www.paulekman.com) the election was very close. Hillary Clinton had slightly more of the popular vote, but Donald Trump had the edge in the electoral vote, thereby winning the election for the Presidency. As he says “both candidates’ supporters have something to celebrate”. When the voting is so close, i.e. within statistical uncertainties, then we have indications on how the country is divided. The task of any President, in this case Donald Trump, is to unify by his words and deeds, not to act in a way as Paul Ekman says “will enthuse his supporters and cause despair among those who voted against him”. More about Dr. Paul Ekman and outcome of the voting, visit (http://www.paulekman.com/blog/despair-exaltation-country-divided/). We need to analyse and understand the results and the associated uncertainties in terms of micro psychological expressions among huge heterogeneous populations as is the case in the USA, it is this natural heterogeneity that cause serious uncertainties and unknowns. Dr. Paul Ekman is a well-known psychologist and co-discoverer of micro expressions. He is one of the 100 most influential people in the world according to the TIME magazine in 2009. He has worked with many government agencies, domestic and abroad. Dr. Ekman has compiled over 40 years of his research to create comprehensive training tools to read the hidden emotions of those around you.
There are lessons to be learned from the 2016-presidential-elections and voting in the USA. Many came out and expressed that the results were unexpected and were very surprising. If so, there must be serious shortages in the way how we explain and reflect on the realities and on the ongoing changes and shifts in our societies. Is it the failure of the social-media? Is it shortage, lack of engagement and one-sided flow of information or is it the fear for facing the very reality of the different world we are living in. Indeed, following the evolution of polls there were clear indications that Trump had reasonable possibilities and probabilities to win, so the results in itself was quite expected and not at all surprising. In any case within the existing statistical uncertainties in the outcome/results of the election/voting, there is clear dissatisfaction, disagreement among the USA population which can not and should not be ignored. Propably there are new trends or corrections that are not yet completely formulated and need to be fully debated and discussed. Half of the population can not be totally wrong, also half of the population can not be totally correct in such major, clear and significant disagreement. There are alarming signals of political instabilities and imbalances that developed and piled-up in combination with the 2016-election process where many people on all levels, both vertically and horizontally in the socio-economic system of the USA, were actively engaged. The outcome and results reflect further needs for minimizing the gaps in existing division and disagreement, so as to find solutions and new approaches to deal with them on several levels. These needs and solutions can not and will not be resolved overnight as they did not develop and evolve overnight either.
To understand the world around us we need sometimes to be reminded with basic knowledge and how instabilities and imbalances develop. Our modern societies are not any longer running on primitive grounds with simple and linear rules. Yet, when the majority go voting it is the simple and linear rules that dominate. Not all of us have the same reality, interests, level of comprehension of the daily life and everything around us. Also, with all the existing mobility and mix of cultures because of globalization and immigration trends. The increasing and fast flow of all types of contradictory interests and diverse information, through the Internet and the ever expanding landscape of social-media, add more and more uncertainties in the political reality. The reality, as we have it today, keeps piling-up in more and more complexity. Our decisions, at least for some of us and during at least some periods, are yet likely to be biased in a way or another. At the same time our interests and living conditions dictate upon us new pressures and additional uncertainties. In this context, we can only understand things as we perceive and experience them in reference to our hopes and fears. The overall environments, circles of relations and interactions have also much impacts on our judgement in political election and voting on candidates who will take vital decisions on our behalf, even to run our families, societies and businesses, also influence the fate of the whole planet. This said, it is very interesting that the voting came out almost 50-50, so we have all the reasons to seek all ways and solutions to achieve agreements otherwise the consequences will be disastrous. we can not run away from what we achieved and we can not go on with such enormous desagreement. Someone has to do the job and it is not and will not be easy.
We would all agree that no system (including political ones) whatsoever can stay stable, or reach stability, unless there is some sort of equilibrium between the overall individuals, partners or components making up these systems. This is true in physics whenever there is a set of forces acting on a body, particle or on each other. Once the number of forces increase the complexity of the system become more and more apparent and delicate to any small changes of one and each of the forces. Also, in chemistry where reactants in a chemical reaction are brought together to give products. For equilibrium between reactants and products, forward and reverse reactions must be of equal rates. The same here with increasing number of reactants, it becomes more and more difficult to have control on the forward and reverse directions without using sensitive and comprehensive precise monitoring and control systems. The same is true in natural eco-systems which are often incredibly sensitive to change. For a healthy ecosystem for example to be in equilibrium, i.e. relatively stable state that keeps population sizes within a sustainable range. Consider the case of bears (who only eat fish) and salmon (who are only hunted by bears). If the bear population grows particularly large one year, the total population will require more fish to feed it. This will make the salmon population shrink. Over time, if there are fewer salmon, there will not be enough food for all of the bears to eat. Some bears will starve and fewer cubs will be able to prosper, leading to a smaller overall population the next year. As more time passes and the bear population gets smaller, the salmon population will start to increase again due to having fewer natural predators. In a perfectly stable ecosystem, this cycle can continue indefinitely. Of course, natural ecosystems are far more complex than this simple example, but the relationship between species applies to complex ecosystems as well. When eco-systems grow in complexity the system becomes much more sensitive not only for the internal dynamics between species and the associated competition within the food-web but also the external drivers.
The political landscape is not an exception what regards equilibrium, stability as reflected in uncertainties and biases that cause division. In any political system with complex social mosaic, cultural evolution and religious diversity the situation becomes very critical even if the system is democratic, opened, dynamic and yet dependent on external forces. In such systems there are always shifts, or even twists, in the political balance which is not strange but rather natural as dissatisfaction among individuals and/or groups is a natural outcome of changes in internal policies and structures as well as the associated external interactions. Large-scale and long-term equilibrium under such conditions is rather impossible even with most sofisticated corrections and mitigation measures.
Even if the have an answer (https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump) on which one is the winner of the 2016-Presidential-Election of the USA, we are still faced by different sets of fears, dissatisfaction, despair, unknowns and hopes (https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/will-trump-destroy-america?client=safari). This can very well happen if the results were on the opposite direction, i.e. the silent half that voted for the coming President Trump. All what we have to do is not to run away from the existing reality. Citizens and their representatives need to continue with their responsibilities, engagement and contributions in the ongoing process of shaping and reshaping their own future (https://www.google.se/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2016/11/9/13575042/donald-trump-minorities-afraid-president?client=safari). We can not seek new future elsewhere and the only place to have space for anyone of us is still Planet Earth. We can not run way from finding out how to get back and be in agreement.