Another arrow points the way in our lives these days, thanks to federal guidelines.

The arrows stick out from the posts that also carry school crossing signs. Those five-sided signs, sort of an arrow shape anyway, are now accompanied by diagonal, downward-pointing arrows, pointing to the very crosswalk implied by the signs above them.

The arrow is a visual cue, a lapel-grabbing “Hey, you.” It takes the abstraction of the crossing sign and makes it literal. “Not only is there a school crossing nearby, it’s right here,” the arrow seems to say.

These diagonal arrows can be found elsewhere, too, sometimes below stop signs. “Don’t just stop, stop here.” Why? The signs don’t say, but public works employees, if you ask them, point out that sometimes where you stop matters, to see clearly or to trip the mechanism in the pavement on a signal light.

In newspapers, when we want to get your attention we use a big headline. On television, they might use dramatic music or increased volume. Both lack the arrow’s not-so-subtle charm.

We might complain, in big type, about how the feds added the extra burden of the arrow without funding to match, an unfunded arrow mandate across the land.

We might praise the fact that school crossings in Maine match those in Maryland and Montana, an important consistency for a nation on wheels.

Instead, let’s celebrate the simplicity of the arrow, a symbol in a world of symbols that still works. “Hey, you. Look here.”

We couldn’t have said it better.


Flexibility
Sometimes just pointing is not enough, however. Take voting, for instance

In any field of candidates greater than two, all sophistication is lost. In a four-candidate field like the one in the last governor’s election, there might be one candidate a voter wants to win, two who wouldn’t be too bad and one who would be a disaster.

But how does a voter express that level of refined choice in the voting booth? It can’t be done. All the voter can do is mark a line by the name of one candidate and hope for the best.

In elections with two candidates, our system of voting works well. But add another candidate or two and the will of the people is hardly served when the winner emerges with far less than 50 percent of the vote.

An article in the Nov. 2 edition of Science News sheds light on the mathematics of election selection. Voting theory didn’t exist when we our country chose its methods of election. There are better ways to express the will of the majority, with instant runoff elections or votes that carry different levels of weight for different candidates.

“All methods that allow voters to express their views fully rather than to single out one candidate convey a much more nuanced message to the political machine,” said one expert.

We’d vote for that.
bstackhouse@sunjournal.com

Copy the Story Link