A mismatch of data

Back in the days when I was young, foolish, and often inebriated, I attended a school in Chicago on a computerized telecom switching system. At the heart of this system was the central controller. Because the system had to be reliable, most everything had to be redundant. That is, the central controller was actually two controllers. Each controller capable of running things fine on its own but the other ran in step ready to take over in case of a failure.

One of the failures would be a mismatch of data. This mismatch would be reported, the suspect controller would drop out of service, diagnostics would be started, and the standby controller would take over.

A student asked a question of the instructor. A simple question...

If both controllers are the same and one reports a mismatch, how do we know which one is actually bad?

It stumped the instructor. He wasn't prepared for this question at all. To be honest, he wasn't prepared for most of the questions we asked. He just following the teaching plan and usually answered questions with "You'll learn about that in Columbus."

I am reminded of this incident on a regular basis. Especially during elections. But, of late, it seems that there is always an election campaign going on. People get elected to office and almost immediately begin campaigning for re-election. People who are voted out of office are seeking the next possible opportunity to get back in. We have reached a point where electioneering never ends.

Because we have two major parties that seem to alternate running things, I relate them to the central controllers. And the question the student asked in that class so many years ago reverberates through the echo chamber that is my mind... Which one is right? Which one is telling the truth?

Being cynical, I have come to the conclusion that both are often wrong. This also can be true of those controllers and I am sure that is one lesson I learned after that school. The difference between the situations is that the bad controller could eventually be identified and then repaired. We have less chance of that in politics.

Politicians, as anyone will tell you, lie. And are often corrupt. And, as we learn from Charlie Rangel's current situation, then judged by their peers in government. This would seem to me to be the equivalent of having criminals facing a jury of convicts... most of whom they have recently shared a cell with.

When the public (the ones that bother to vote, that is) mess up the system and vote in an amateur politician, all hell seems to break loose. But isn't that what was intended a couple hundred plus years ago? Everyday people would come to the seat of government, serve as best they can, and then return to their normal lives?

When did this change? Why did it change? And how can we fix it?