CLOSE
Getty Images
Getty Images

How Will We Vote If There's A Disaster On Election Day?

Getty Images
Getty Images


In a briefing after Hurricane Sandy hit the East Coast on Tuesday, a reporter asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie the question that was probably on many minds: What about Election Day?  "It doesn't matter a lick to me at the moment,” Christie responded. “I've got bigger fish to fry." Theoretically, a week will give governments enough time to clear roads and restore power so voting is possible next Tuesday. But if Sandy had hit a week later, how would people have voted?

Experts tell NPR that there is no contingency plan or law that dictates what should happen if a major natural disaster strikes on Election Day. Many states have provisions that focus on local effects—like moving polling places to neighboring precincts—that could conceivably be used to reschedule an election. But according to the Congressional Research Service, “The Constitution does not provide in express language any current authority for a federal official or institution to ‘postpone’ an election for federal office.”

Postponing the vote, whether in a single city, state or across multiple states, would likely skew the results of a national election. And in the event of a huge natural disaster, not only will it be difficult for voters to actually traverse roads in order to vote, but state and local officials will have many other priorities than ensuring that voting centers remain open and properly staffed.

There are some options that could take the pressure off, like early voting. But many states don’t offer in-person early voting, which has become its own political issue (some states are trying to discourage the practice). And, says North Dakota Senator Ray Holmberg, “Elected officials are reluctant to take on the task of canceling the election and being accused of doing that for partisan purposes.”

While it would undoubtedly be smarter to have a plan in place should an event like Sandy occur on or just before Election Day, Doug Lewis, executive director of the National Association of Election Officials, isn’t hopeful that we’ll get one. "We'll ignore it until it happens, and when it happens, we'll figure it out," he told NPR. "It's not the best way to go about doing something like this." Bottom line: In the event of an Election Day disaster, officials will be left scrambling.

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Big Questions
Why Is a Pineapple Called a Pineapple?
iStock
iStock

by James Hunt

Ask an English-speaking person whether they've heard of a pineapple, and you'll probably receive little more than a puzzled look. Surely, every schoolchild has heard of this distinctive tropical fruit—if not in its capacity as produce, then as a dessert ring, or smoothie ingredient, or essential component of a Hawaiian pizza.

But ask an English-speaking person if they've ever heard of the ananas fruit and you'll probably get similarly puzzled looks, but for the opposite reason. The average English speaker has no clue what an ananas is—even though it's the name given to the pineapple in almost every other major global language.

In Arabic, German, French, Dutch, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Swedish, Turkish—even in Latin and Esperanto—the pineapple is known as an ananas, give or take local variations in the alphabet and accents. In the languages where it isn't, it's often because the word has been imported from English, such as in the case of the Japanese パイナップル (painappuru) and the Welsh pinafel.

So how is it that English managed to pick the wrong side in this fight so spectacularly? Would not a pineapple, by any other name, taste as weird and tingly?

To figure out where things went wrong for English as a language, we have to go back and look at how Europeans first encountered the fruit in question, which is native to South America. It was first catalogued by Columbus's expedition to Guadeloupe in 1493, and they called it piña de Indes, meaning "pine of the Indians"—not because the plant resembled a pine tree (it doesn't) but because they thought the fruit looked like a pine cone (umm, ... it still doesn't. But you can sort of see it.)

Columbus was on a Spanish mission and, dutifully, the Spanish still use the shortened form piñas to describe the fruit. But almost every other European language (including Portuguese, Columbus's native tongue) decided to stick with the name given to the fruit by the indigenous Tupí people of South America: ananas, which means "excellent fruit."

According to etymological sources, the English word pineapple was first applied to the fruit in 1664, but that didn't end the great pineapple versus ananas debate. Even as late as the 19th century, there are examples of both forms in concurrent use within the English language; for example, in the title of Thomas Baldwin's Short Practical Directions For The Culture Of The Ananas; Or Pine Apple Plant, which was published in 1813.

So given that we knew what both words meant, why didn't English speakers just let go of this illogical and unhelpful linguistic distinction? The ultimate reason may be: We just think our own language is better than everyone else's.

You see, pineapple was already an English word before it was applied to the fruit. First used in 1398, it was originally used to describe what we now call pine cones. Hilariously, the term pine cones wasn't recorded until 1694, suggesting that the application of pineapple to the ananas fruit probably meant that people had to find an alternative to avoid confusion. And while ananas hung around on the periphery of the language for a time, when given a choice between using a local word and a foreign, imported one, the English went with the former so often that the latter essentially died out.

Of course, it's not too late to change our minds. If you want to ask for ananas the next time you order a pizza, give it a try (though we can't say what you'd up with as a result).

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

nextArticle.image_alt|e
iStock
arrow
Big Questions
Why Do They Build Oil Rigs in the Middle of the Ocean?
iStock
iStock

Ryan Carlyle:

We put the rigs where the oil is!

There aren’t any rigs in the “middle” of the ocean, but it is fairly common to find major oilfields over 150 km off the coast. This happens because:

  • Shallow seas often had the correct conditions for oil formation millions of years ago. Specifically, something like an algae bloom has to die and sink into oxygen-free conditions on the sea floor, then that organic material gets buried and converted to rock over geologic time.
  • The continental shelf downstream of a major river delta is a great place for deposition of loose, sandy sediments that make good oil reservoir rocks.

These two types of rock—organic-rich source rock and permeable reservoir rock—must be deposited in the correct order in the same place for there to be economically viable oil reservoirs. Sometimes, we find ancient shallow seas (or lakes) on dry land. Sometimes, we find them underneath modern seas. In that latter case, you get underwater oil and offshore oil rigs.

In the “middle” of the ocean, the seafloor is primarily basaltic crust generated by volcanic activity at the mid-ocean ridge. There’s no source of sufficient organic material for oil source rock or high-permeability sandstone for reservoir rock. So there is no oil. Which is fine, because the water is too deep to be very practical to drill on the sea floor anyway. (Possible, but not practical.)

This post originally appeared on Quora. Click here to view.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios