Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Blog Page 2183

Second Look 3rd Week: American Elections

0

Podcast recorded on Wednesday 29th October 2008.

Review: Endgame

0

If you are someone who enjoys comedy, this is not the play for you. Endgame is bleak. And I mean quasi-apocalyptic, legless humans living in bins sort of bleak. Originally written in French as Fin de Partie, the play’s name refers to the dying moments of a chess game when only a few lone pieces remain standing.

Centred on leaving and the characters’ painful inability to do so, silence litters the dialogue like rests falling on a musical score. Director Samantha Losey adeptly highlights this, emphasising the nothingness between lines: words, shouts, wails and sobs echo into silence. The effect is simultaneously profound, tender and disturbing.

The focus in Endgame inevitably falls on the four actors; aside from a smidgeon of overacting in parts, and the redundant use of silly accents (Sam Bright’s unfortunately camp choice of twang for the character of Clov was bizarrely reminiscent of Frank Spencer) the actors pull it off with style and heaps of dark humour.

Will Spray, in the role of blind wheelchair-bound Hamm, dominates the stage. With his bedraggled hair and weary, bloodshot eyes (maybe due more to his 21st Birthday the night before than to absolute synthesis with the character) he is genuinely terrifying in parts, whilst also ably managing moments of warmth and tenderness. Exchanges between Nell (Rowan Parkes) and Nagg (Benjamin Coopman) are a treat – paradoxically hopeless yet full of vitality, they ooze black, uncomfortable humour.

The stage design (a giant chess-board) will elaborate upon Beckett’s chess metaphor; characters figuratively become pieces, unable to move. Though inventive, my small concern is that some of the existential hopelessness of a life that is, after all, meaningless may be lost with the prevailing inter-scene suggestion of an omnipotent presence.

Yet in a play where the overriding sense is that of desire to leave, I found myself truly gripped, moved, and invariably wanting to stay.

Three stars

 

Review: Richard III

0

Richard III: one of Shakespeare’s least likeable villains in one of his longest history plays. But just as Milton secretly preferred Satan to God, so an audience secretly revels in watching a real bastard ruin the lives of those around him.

All credit to director Natalie Holden for weaving a darkly exciting ghost ride through the bloody Wars of the Roses. Some of the play’s more tedious elements have been sensibly streamlined, emphasising supernatural fatalism at the expense of political motifs. On a limited budget and making full use of the OFS’ winding balconies and stairways, this is an unexpected but satisfying interpretation.

Jack Chedburn gives a blistering performance of manic intensity, his Richard stripped of sympathy or austerity and whittled down to a core of deformed energy. He is Clockwork Orange-esque, a cunning delinquent writ large as a king, with touches of poetic psychosis and a deluded grandeur that grows ever darker and more directed after his coronation.

Rather than failing to match classic portrayals of the role like Olivier or McKellen, Chedburn’s anti-majesty is perfect for a student cast, yet still capable of subtlety and flashes of humour even as his machinations collapse around him.

The other outstanding performance is Flossie Draper as Queen Elizabeth, who is a powerful counterpoint to Richard’s excesses: one almost believes that the kingdom rests on her shoulders, not his. Their exchange of anger in Act IV is magnificent and a surprising highlight before the play’s climax at Bosworth Field.

The rest of the cast are solid enough, particularly Charlotte Bayley as Anne, who oozes crushed worthlessness in Richard’s devilish games. Ed Boulle’s Buckingham is a slick and attentive spin-doctor, and Max Hoehn a capable King Edward, although his illness was rather overwrought. I must admit, though, that I had little sympathy for the murdered Clarence’s daughter Margaret, played callously by Alice Hamilton.

But forget a few teething criticisms: there are two excellent performances leading a fresh reading of the play. This is an electric, vital Richard III hard-wired for modernity.

Four stars

Review: A Few Good Men

0

Barack Obama told Aaron Sorkin that his intention was ‘to steal a lot of your lines.’

Watching this compelling performance of Sorkin’s play, it is easy to see why. A Few Good Men forces us to question what we think we know about truth, justice and honour, and how far we should go to protect what is ‘good.’

The play opens after the death of PFC Willy Santiago at the US Marine base in Guantanamo Bay. Two young Marines, Downey and Dawson, are accused of killing him during an illegal disciplinary measure – ‘Code Red’.

Their case is noticed by Commander Joanne Galloway, an inexperienced and idealistic lawyer, who then persuades the assigned officials to allow her to work with them. The plot follows their attempt to piece together a defence and culminates in an explosive courtroom scene where the ‘honourable’ nature of the US Marine Corps is called into question.

The ‘quick-fire’ energy of the play was immediately palpable, and the cast work skillfully as an ensemble. Tor Lupton gave an exceptional performance as Galloway, delivering her pithy lines with aplomb, and speaking volumes with her emotive facial expressions.

She laudably managed the transition from an initially unlikeable character into an engaging and admirable one. Sam Caird’s Kaffee was strong, effectively conveying his naïve bewilderment at the ‘Marine Way’.

Archie Davies and Matt Orton are scene-stealing as Downey and Dawson; entirely in sync, their bond is clear. Davies portrays Downey superbly as a vulnerable and confused boy who looks to Dawson for guidance, while Orton’s Dawson effectively conveys his growing sense of desperation as the system he loves begins to fail him.

Vic Putz chillingly conveys Jessep’s supreme arrogance, although he is a little static and sometimes lacks variety of tone; his immortal line about truth feels like it should have more force.

Tim Hoare’s direction is effective; his well-thought-out blocking carefully reflects the stifling atmosphere of the play.
This a superb production of an excellent play, performed by a fantastic cast. With some deeply affecting lines, A Few Good Men illuminates the grey area between good and bad. It is provocative, challenging and funny.

Theatre, at it’s most effective, can play a powerful role in sharpening public consciousness, if not actively evoking change. In the intensity of today’s international climate, this production poses pertinent, if uncomfortable questions for anyone who has ever wondered how far we are prepared to go for our beliefs, both as citizens and as individuals.

Five stars

 

All jazzed up and nowhere to go?

0

JazzSoc Jam

Thirst Lodge; Thursdays, 9pm; £1

Harry Thompson

Upstairs at Thirst lodge and a handful of drunken people are involved in a poor imitation of what I presume is Salsa, whereas downstairs the air is close, the fingers are clicking and JazzSoc’s thursday night jazz jam is in stylish swing.

The format is essentially this: turn up with an instrument and get on the stage. For all your humble writer’s alleged musical knowledge, his skills at playing it are limited to whistling and rocking a mean air drum, so I did not perform. But those who did bring their saxophones, basses – double and guitar – trombones and trumpets produced some brilliant impromptu performances.

All comers played from Real Books, using jazz standards as a jumping off point to endless riffing and improvising on both solo and group efforts. A highlight was one trumpeter hitting such audaciously high notes that I can only assume left his lips in a pulpy mess.

The Thirst Lodge’s basement venue isn’t particularly spacious, but there’s a well-stocked bar and still enough room for eager jazz punters to get in the standard jazz appreciation moves – the ubiquitous finger click, the involved foot-tap, the expressive nod accompanied by over-bite – and I can’t help but indulge in all of them.

Saxophonist Peter Daunton, who played a great set with fellow bandmates of local group The Oxford Tubes, says, ‘It’s a great opportunity to play in a friendly atmosphere and have the ability to freely experiment on stage’.

The night is undeniable fun for performers, aficionados and Jazz-virgins alike and, for the princely sum of £1, a cheap and thoroughly enjoyable way of spending an evening.

Jazz & Sausages

The Big Bang Restaurant, Jericho; Tuesdays, 8pm; main meal and jazz £15

Alex Watson

There are those who say that jazz is an outdated relic. They’re wrong. I would defend in particular the British ‘new school’ of Polar Bear, Soweto Kinch et al. as a community still able to innovate intelligently and productively, while keeping true to the jazz ‘message’ pioneered by Davis, Coltrane and Parker – that of improvisation and soul.

However, the Big Bang Sausage Restaurant (pictured above), huddled between glitzy cocktail bars and expensive restaurants along Marston Road in Jericho, is, predictably, not the place to find evidence of this.

In an atmospheric basement, the enthusiastic restaurant staff serve excellent portions of bangers and mash while a house band of Martin Pickett and Paul Jeffries on keyboard and bass, augmented by local talent, forge on through some easy-listening jazz, all for the fair price of £15.

It’s hard not to recommend this ‘jazz night’, since the food is so appetising, and the opportunity to listen to jazz and have a candle-lit dinner in such a cosy locale seems so enticing. Unfortunately, for the jazz enthusiast at least, the music is pretty standard fare.

Of course, this jazz night is designed to perform a function, and it certainly does so with aplomb. The music enhances the dining experience and is not so intrusive as to totally stop conversation. However, when I visited I left with the impression that the band had never even grazed the limits of their abilities and were very comfortable churning out sweet, unchallenging versions of jazz standards.

In short, this is a great concept, and many will be utterly satisfied with the experience. Just don’t expect the music to be as fresh and spicy as the sausages.

OU Big Band & The Oxford Gargoyles

Magdalen Auditorium; Saturday 7th week, 8pm; £5

James Archer

Most people’s contact with Oxford’s student jazz scene is the University’s three big bands. The Donut Kings can claim to be Oxford’s hardest working student ensemble, and few would dispute that they are the most fun, while the OU Jazz Orchestra will be showcasing an exciting range of repertoire at a Varsity contest in Hilary term.

Meanwhile, the Big Band has cemented its place as Oxford’s flagship jazz ensemble with an unprecedented series of foreign tours. The OUBB’s joint concert with the European a cappella champions, the Oxford Gargoyles, promises to be the jazz event of the term.

Both ensembles will bring down the house at Magdalen auditorium with a mix of classic and contemporary material and exciting original compositions.

Really, there’s never been a better time to look beyond that infamous turtleneck jumper and discover the talent of our best student musicians. ‘Nice!’, I’m sure you’ll agree.

 

 

Greenbox: A Climate of Change

0

If you don’t accept the reality of human-induced climate change you are at best ignorant or, at worst, highly dangerous.

Climate change sceptics, on a whole, now base their arguments on uncertainty as to the consequences of climate change rather than its existence. To be sure, our modelling of the future contains inaccuracies and uncertainties as one would expect with an issue of this complexity, but the fact of the matter is that climate change is real, climate change is happening and climate change (and everything that stems from it) will probably be the single most important issue in our lifetimes.

As students at Oxford we love to debate, we love conspiracy, we love to argue for arguments sake in an intellectual playground. However, as much as I view debating as an important and honourable pursuit, when it comes to climate change it is high time to take action.

I have to agree with (God forbid) Rupert Murdoch who wrote: ‘Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.’ Quite simply inaction is not an option – the climate will not wait for our computer models to improve.

So what can we do? Are we too small and insignificant to actually make any difference? I could start throwing in names like Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi to show that we can change the world. However, I want to be less abstract and suggest what each one of us can, and should, be doing.

The most important thing we can do is to engage politically – simply writing to you MP gives them more power and leverage. Important decisions are being made at local, national and global levels of government and some of you will be making these decisions somewhere down the line.

As individuals too we must do our bit to reduce our carbon consumption. Think seriously about where you can cut down your energy usage – is the laptop on standby? Do you need central heating with the window open? Why boil water for five cups when you’re only making one? It’s quite simple really: we just need to start to think twice and become less wasteful!

“How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.”
– Anne Frank

 

Advice

0

I am a 1st year undergraduate who had a gap year. I wasn’t particularly good about using a condom when I was travelling, and I went to some fairly questionable places…

I’m absolutely terrified that I’ve got AIDS, but I’m too scared to go to the doctor because what if I find out I do have AIDS? Surely that’s the end of everything? Can people live normally with AIDS?

ANON

First of all let me start by saying that AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is caused by HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and while there is no cure for HIV the treatments now available mean that sufferers can live well and in good health, providing that the antiretroviral drugs are taken everyday. To be diagnosed with HIV is not the death sentence it was when the virus was first discovered, so do go to your doctor or the local GUM clinic and get tested.

I would suggest to anyone who has had unprotected sexual intercourse that they should get tested for all sexually transmitted infections (STIs) as infections such as gonorrhea, chlamydia and syphilis are these are also particularly common and easy to contract. While HIV is a worry, especially if you have had unprotected sex in countries where the virus is prevalent, chlamydia is the most common STI in Britain, with the highest number of cases found in 16 – 19 year olds (Health Protection Agency).

Even if you only slept with one person without using protection, think about whom else they might haave slept with and the number of partners that person may have had. Free testing is available at your local GUM clinic, or perhaps your university might have a scheme in place that can help you.

For more advice on HIV and how to be tested for the virus have a look at the Terrence Higgins Trust website.

One of my friends mentioned something about a vaccine against cervical cancer called Gardasil. Is it available on the NHS? And if it’s not, how important is it that I get it?

I’m a 20 year old woman and I’ve never been really ill (other than colds and a broken ankle…). I tried to look it up on the internet, but I got confused about the difference between Gardasil and other cervical cancer injections.

ANON

This is a very good question, as I’m sure many young women are asking questions about what this new cervical cancer vaccination is, what it does and whether it is available to them.

The NHS has started a program in schools, vaccinating all girls in Year 8 against the cervical cancer causing virus, HPV (the Human Papilloma Virus). HPV is a sexually transmitted infection that can cause cervical cancer, although in many cases women may have the Human Papilloma Virus, but do not suffer from it.

99% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV, but only 13 strains of HPV (of which there are hundreds) cause cervical cancer. The other strains of HPV are either harmless or cause genital warts.

HPV is also not just contracted by sexual intercourse, but by any sexual contact, which is why the NHS has started vaccinating girls at such a young age, before they become sexually active. However, the cervical cancer vaccination is beneficial to any girls up until the age of 25.

If you have been sexually active, as many girls at 20 are, you may already have contracted HPV (for which you can be tested); however the cervical cancer vaccination will protect you specifically against the cancer causing strains.

It is here that you may have found the confusion between the different cervical cancer vaccinations available. The NHS is using a vaccination called Cervarix® which protect against two strains of cancer causing HPV (strains 16 and 18 that cause 70% of cervical cancer).

However there is another cervical cancer vaccination available called Gardasil®. The difference between the two vaccines is that Gardasil®, as well as protecting against the two strains of cancer causing HPV, also protects against the two strains that cause genital warts. Both vaccines are available on-license in the UK and have undergone rigorous safety testing.

While you cannot receive the cervical cancer vaccination on the NHS unless you are aged 12-13, or soon to be within the NHS scheme, it is available to you privately, either through your GP or a private clinic. For more information regarding the cervical cancer vaccination go to www.nhs.uk/hpv.

It is also very important, as neither vaccine protects against all cancer causing strains, that all women have cervical screening later in life. This is available on the NHS from the age of 25.

I’m heading off to Kenya over Christmas to work in an orphanage. I’m worried about Malaria and whether I have to take malarial tablets: I’ve heard so many bad things about them. Will I get paranoid if I take them? What else do I need to get vaccinated against?

UNDERGRADUATE
NEW COLLEGE

Well, every year approximately 2000 British travellers return home with malaria, so it is very important that if you are going to areas in Kenya that are at risk of malaria, that you are protected, not just by antimalarials medicine, but also from mosquito bites.

While some of the antimalarials available do have side effects such as dizziness, nausea and photosensitivity, not everyone who uses them will suffer these side effects, or at least not that badly. There are also some antimalarials, such as Malarone, that are pretty much side-effect free.

Anyway, the symptoms of malaria are far worse and indeed life-threatening compared to any side effects. I would suggest that you speak to your GP or Nurse and they will advise which form of antimalarials would be best for you.

I have heard of some people saying that you won’t get bitten by mosquitoes if you have alcohol in your blood, or if you eat Marmite… these are malarial myths. I also once knew someone who decided to use homeopathic medicine instead of taking antimalarials. There is no evidence that homeopathic or herbal medication will protect you from malaria, or any other tropical disease.

For Kenya, malarial protection is needed in much of the country, although Nairobi and the highlands (above 2500m) are at very small risk. It is during the rainy months of November and December that epidemics occur and risk is at its highest. You will also need to be vaccinated against Diphtheria, Polio, Tetanus, Hepatitis A, Typhoid and Yellow Fever (a yellow fever certificate is not required).

Additional vaccines that you may want to think about include cholera and Hepatitis B. I don’t know exactly where the orphanage you’re working at is, or what you’ll be doing there, but Hepatitis B and Cholera vaccines are suggested if there are a large number of people living in small and unhygienic conditions and if you will be exposed to children (from cuts and scratches) or may be in need of surgical procedures.

For more information regarding malaria, antimalarials and other travel advice speak to the travel nurse at your local surgery, or go to one of the many travel clinics which you can find online. You may also find the following websites useful: Malariahotspots.co.uk, Fco.gov.uk, Nathnac.org, and Fitfortravel.nhs.uk

 

Travel: Sweden

0

Even the most jingoistic of patriots must surely admit that they have, buried somewhere deep inside, an envy of Sweden.

Why? Well let’s briefly consider the facts. Number one: Swedes are, with a few exceptions – such as a certain former England coach – beautiful. As a native of Hull, where 20 is the new 40, I found going to Sweden a bit like leaving a city of ugly sisters and arriving to a nation of Cinderellas.

Number two: Swedes have a lot of space. Just nine million people live in a country bigger than Britain; there’s even a forest in the middle of Gothenburg. Number three: Sweden is safe. There are no gun-wielding gangs here.

The list could go on, but the point is that Sweden doesn’t do bad connotations. However, is there a hidden dark side to the country; are there any blemishes to this seemingly pure profile?

Well, if there is one thing that could tentatively be perceived as a negative, then it is a lack of freedom, which may seem slightly paradoxical in one of Europe’s most left-leaning countries. After Denmark, Sweden has the second highest tax burden in the world with the average citizen yielding 50% of their earnings; meanwhile a third of the workforce is employed by the government.

You’ll struggle to find a better education and health care system in Europe, but imagine taking home only half of what you earn. So Sweden is not the place to get filthy rich, but, walking down the wide boulevards of Gothenburg, you can see the effect that all of that government money has.

The city drips efficiency, from its perfectly symmetrical buildings to its rigorously clean pavements. Trams trundle earnestly by; they are the main form of transport around the city centre, and there are about as many cars as you might expect to see in London if an authoritarian Green party were to dethrone Boris.

A stroll through one of the city’s many parks in the evening is interrupted by an encounter with two yellow-uniformed women, revealing that Gothenburg has volunteers to patrol some of the shadier areas of the city, a policy aimed at deterring trouble-making youths. If they decide that you are not out to meddle, they send on your way with a hug and a lollipop.

With the soundtrack of a culture festival filling the city’s streets with music, I felt that Gothenburg is trying to achieve that most difficult of balances, a sense of community and cosmopolitanism.

Just an hour from the centre of Gothenburg and you can be gazing out across mountains, lakes and fjords. Not that there is the need to ‘escape’ from the stresses of Swedish urban life, because there don’t appear to be any.

The strength of Swedish socialism seems to spread to all corners. Even in the back-alleys, there is not a beggar to be seen, while the city centre has subsidized housing for young people.

And what of the nightlife? Sweden has great music, including, pleasingly, a sizeable amount of cheese; and it has beautiful people, so there’s your answer.

Despite the fact that so far, this article might as well be a PR release from the Swedish tourism board, intuition does raise reservations. Maybe the cause of this unease is that geographically and politically, Sweden is far from being central. One young Swedish woman echoed this feeling, telling me that she was moving to England because she wanted ‘to be closer to where everything happens’.

Perhaps it’s that it all seems too Stepford Wives-esque, and that the powerful influence of the state lingers in the air. It’s not that there is an invasion into the privacy of people’s lives – this is no Orwellian state – it just all seems a little too perfect.

Or maybe it’s just that familiarity and fondness for Britain’s idiosyncrasies obscure the objectivity necessary to write on the subject.

But if there were Oscars for states, then there’s no doubt that Sweden would be a perennial nominee for ‘Best Country’. I’d hoped that it would disprove its enviable stereotype, and would reveal something unexpected. I’d hoped, slightly sadistically, to find something wrong with it. I didn’t.

Perhaps though, therein lies its weakness. There is a lot wrong with Britain, but hardship inspires creativity and the anger that is often necessary to achieve. Somehow this Scandinavian country seems sterile by comparison.

Sweden is a bit like the house of a middle-class family, looked after by a prim housewife. Everything sparkles, you can see your reflection on the kitchen work-surface, nothing is untidy.

Yet this perceived perfection is unnerving. Reassuring sights, such as a book left out of place or spilt coffee on the kitchen table – something that might make it feel more homely – are absent. What a ridiculous analogy, you might say – and of course ten days in a country is not long enough to fairly judge it – but somehow Sweden has got it so right that there seems to be little left to fight for; indeed describing it is a bit like describing someone as ‘nice’.

So, Sweden: objectively ten out of ten, but personally, the rough edges of Britain remain more appealing.

Chambers: The Running Man

0

It seems harder now than ever before to find sporting role models. The tabloids consistently feed on stories of sportsmen brought low by sex, drugs, and corruption. Over the summer, however, Britain finally found sporting heroes whose commitment and talent could not be questioned; the Olympics in Beijing excited the whole country and bolstered its national pride.

Yet Britain’s Olympic results could have been even better. Whilst Team GB was failing to make any real impact on the track, one of the best sprinters of our times was sitting at home watching on TV. Dwain Chambers was banned from the Olympics after failing a drug test in 2003. Since then, he has come to symbolise the problem of drug-related cheating in athletics. Not many have shown sympathy to the sprinter from Islington. Not only has he suffered the frustration of being unable to fulfil his Olympic dreams, he has become a focal point of the war against drugs in sport.

Nevertheless, there are many arguments in support of Chambers that have gone unheard, and whilst he does not claim innocence, he does have a point to prove and a story to tell. This was, he says, one of the main reasons why he came to the Oxford Union last Thursday.

‘No matter what I say about the rules, I failed to comply with them’

“I want to give people an insight into my life and hopefully put on a good show,” Chambers declares. He appears nervous but excited as I meet with him shortly before he will address the Union. Though he strolls in with the arrogant swagger we associate with many international sprinters, he speaks in a calm and humble manner, admitting to finding public speaking far more nerve-wracking than the sport he knows best.

“This is the unknown. During the 100 metres I feel in control. But I’m nervous because I have been invited to a place I never thought I would visit. This is the great Oxford Union. So many famous and important people have spoken in this building. I feel honoured to have been asked to speak.”

When confronted with the inevitable question about his drug ban, Chambers trots out his standard answer. Though he has uttered this same response countless times over the last few years, his words do not lack passion. “No matter what I say about the rules, I failed to fully comply by them. The rules were already in place before I chose to go down that road. Ultimately it ended my Olympic dream.” With his agent hovering alongside, Chambers is quick to add a plug. “All my opinions can be found in my forthcoming book.”

It is hard to deny Chambers’ wish to offer his side of the story. “At the moment people have only been fed information by the press and haven’t heard my point of view. Hence why I am doing an evening like tonight, to try and sway people’s perception about me and to try and get them to know me for who I am, and to make them understand I am normal like everybody else.”

‘Drugs don’t work, use me as a reference point’

Chambers becomes increasingly roused when asked to offer any advice for aspiring athletes who contemplate the use of steroids or other drugs. “For one, they don’t work. Use me as a reference point. Believe in your own heart that you can go out and achieve. Once you start believing someone else’s dream you are going to go and ruin your career. If you’re born with a talent and the ability to go out and compete, then you can achieve any goal you want to.”
There have been comparisons drawn between Chambers’ case and that of 400m runner Christine Ohuruogu. She missed three drug tests, and was banned from competing for one year. Yet her Olympic ban was overturned, and she came back from Beijing with a gold medal. Chambers seems genuinley happy for Ohuruogu, who has gone through a similar experience to him. But there is still an underlying anger. He can still picture himself with a gold medal round his neck.

“A part of wishes it was me, but at the same time, mine and Christine’s situaton are different. I was caught taking drugs, but her situation was different and we must give her the benefit of the doubt. A strong part of me still feels that the courts should have given me a second chance as well, because that’s what Christine was given. She was given a second chance, and she was able to go on to become World and olympic champion. But I don’t have any disagreements with her. I see her all the time on the track, and im very happy for her.”

Although Chambers claims that he has come to terms with his punishment and wants only to look ahead, the scars remain unhealed and unconcealed. In the course of a relatively short conversation, he reveals a deep self-contradiction.

‘If I had gone to the Olympics, I would have finished second or third’

He expresses his frustration at missing out on his ‘Olympic dream’, but he also seems to be attempting to convince himself that the continuation of the ban can be seen in a positive light. “This was Usain Bolt’s time. I believe it was his time. In some respects I’m kind of glad. I didn’t want to bring my issues to Beijing. One part of me is happy I didn’t go. Yes, I would have loved to compete, but I’m also glad I’m doing what I’m doing now, so I can change people’s perception of me by going out there and giving them an insight into my life.” Chambers nods as if he has persuaded himself, if not anybody else in the room.

“I firmly believe, that if I had gone to the Olympics, I would have finished second or third. There’s no way I would have run 9.69, but could I have run 9.89? There’s a strong possibility. But that opportunity has passed, and now I look to the future and next year’s world championship.”

If Chambers can achieve success in the sprinting world over the next few years, it will be an impressive feat for a man that has suffered so much criticism. And what about the London games in 2012? “I’ll be there in some capacity. I won’t be competing. But whatever happens, I will be there supporting.”

 

5 Minute Tute: The Electoral College

0

HOW EXACTLY DOES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WORK?

There are 538 votes in the electoral college. Each state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives. Every state has two Senators, whereas the number of Representatives is based on population. On election day voters vote for electors nominated by the parties, rather than the candidates themselves, and the electors subsequently meet to cast their votes. In most states the candidate receiving the most votes is allocated all of that state’s electoral votes (known as ‘winner-takes-all’), although a few states permit the electoral vote to be split. If no candidate receives 270 electoral votes, the election of the President falls to the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote, while the Senate would choose the Vice-President.

WHICH ARE THE KEY STATES THIS YEAR?

The electoral map of the United States seems to be retaining its general features: a sea of red in the south and middle of the country, with the blue states clustered on both coasts and around the Great Lakes. As in recent elections, the states of Florida and Ohio are both important battlegrounds, but the global financial crisis appears to have opened up the race in a number of other states, some of which have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since the 1960’s (Indiana and Virginia) or 1970’s (North Carolina). Finally the two parties are pretty closely matched in the western states of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

WHEN AND WHY WAS IT CREATED?

It was established by the United States Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified by the states. Using their knowledge of the classical world, the Founding Fathers devised a system of indirect election as a check against the popular majorities which they feared might propel the republic towards tyranny. According to Alexander Hamilton, the small number of electors chosen from “the general mass” would be more likely to possess the discernment required for “such complicated deliberations”. The electoral college was also designed to meet the needs of a society which lacked the transport and communications networks necessary for national campaigns.

DOES IT BENEFIT EITHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS?

The cynical answer would be that the system favours whichever party controls the voting apparatus in any given state (for example Florida in 2000). Some argue that the electoral college benefits Republicans, since it gives disproportionate power to less populated, rural states by basing only part of a state’s share of the electoral votes on population. However it is third parties who stand the most disadvantaged under these ‘winner-takes-all’ arrangements: witness Ross Perot, who received 19 million popular votes in 1992 but not a single vote in the electoral college. Its defenders claim that this is actually an advantage, because the two party system maintains the stability and integrity of the nation by mitigating against the emergence of extremist or regionalist parties.

HOW DOES IT AFFECT CAMPAIGNS?

The working of the electoral college has a huge influence over campaign strategy, since it makes victory less about winning the most votes and more about winning votes in the right places. Obviously it is much more important for a candidate to win in California than in Wyoming, although in a close race candidates will be looking to achieve victory with the votes of smaller states as well. Since many states are reliably blue (Democrat) or red (Republican), the election is often fought in the ‘swing-states’, where either party could win. The system can also produce discrepancies between the number of actual votes a candidate receives and their result in the electoral college. In 1860 39% of the popular vote secured Abraham Lincoln the presidency with 180 electoral votes, whereas his rival Stephen Douglas received a paltry 12 votes for his 29% of the popular vote.

HAS REFORM EVER BEEN ATTEMPTED?

Since its inception, there have been more than 700 proposals to reform the electoral college. These have ranged from replacing it entirely with direct elections (which would require an amendment to the Constitution), to reforming it via the so-called ‘interstate compact’. Under the compact states would agree to cast their electoral votes for the candidate who wins the most votes nationally, a mechanism which would come into effect once states possessing 270 or more electoral votes between them had signed up. The current system has plenty of critics – not least because in the electoral college some people’s votes are simply worth more than others – and opinion polls conducted over the past 50 years have consistently suggested that the majority of Americans favour change. However, there are many obstacles to reform, including the fact that many states are reluctant to relinquish the enhanced weight which the electoral college gives them.