South Dakota Politics: Blanchard’s Automotive Infraction Embarrassment Function

I have so far remained aloof from Ticketgate, for a number of reasons. One is that this is the kind of politics that I am least interested in engaging in, as opposed to cheerfully observing. I take no position on the seriousness of the original story. The story has metastasized, however, and I do have an opinion about that. As my friend Cory Heidelberger points out, by the time this campaign is over the driving record of every person in South Dakota may be on public display. For those wanting to sort this out, I thought I would offer some help.

Some political scientists like to try to quantify political forces. I am not usually one of them, but in the spirit of that kind of thing, I offer Blanchard's Automotive Infraction Embarrassment Function. The purpose of the function is to determine quantitatively how embarrassing a driving infraction story ought to be for a candidate for office. Here it is:

(t + (t*(s+f+c)) + (d/r))*j

Isn't that wonderful!

Here t equals the number of tickets issued to a candidate or someone for whom the candidate is in some sense responsible. Children do not count. Chiefs of staff do.

Next we add the number of tickets multiplied by factors that make the story as a whole more embarrassing. The s indicates the severity of the ticket (speeding is worse than double parking, ten miles over is not as bad as twenty miles over, etc). The f indicates failure to pay. The c is citations in addition to the original ticket. Realistically these three factors ought not to add to more than 1, which would double the original ticket count.

The factor d stands for a DUI, and its value is not easy to calculate. How many speeding tickets is as embarrassing as one DUI? However, as political embarrassment is always relative to context, I propose that one d should equal twice the number non-felony infractions earned by anyone involved in the race.

However, d is divided by r, which indicates relatedness to the candidate. If the candidate herself or himself should be cited with a DUI, r equals 1. If it is a senior member of the candidates staff, say a Chief of Staff, let r equal 2. If it is some more minor member of the staff, assign a value of 3.

Now you have a number by which to rank the various scofflaws that people our political campaigns. Of course, that is not yet what is really important. To fully determine the impact, you need to factor in stored up anger and resentment against and impatience with a public figure, whether fair or not. I am not sure how to measure that, but the basic unit we'll call one Janklow.

I'll let my colleagues in the local blogosphere go to work on that. But first here is a hint: if you find yourself thinking that the numbers favor your candidate, you have missed the joke.