Maybe I am a simpleton in many ways, but then again sometimes I believe the simple solution is often the best. However, today I came across something which I had often heard quoted or paraphrased in the past known as “Pascal’s Wager.” Basically, Pascal presents a situation where an individual is trying to decide whether there is a higher power or not. As a means to make this decision, Pascal decides to examine the consequences of either position and to follow them to their conclusion if one is right versus the other. If divinity exists, the person with faith will have eternal life. If divinity is nonexistent, the person with faith will simply cease to exist (the same as the person without faith). Thus, if one were simply going to wager with a decision about whether God exists, then the consequences of faith are at least equal to and at most infinitely better than not having faith. It is an interesting argument to say the least. Based upon conflicting actions with conflicting positions one is to examine the consequences to determine which action might be best. Naturally, my mind eventually wondered to our current political situation and the uncertainty many individuals may feel as they decide which way to vote on the upcoming Initiative 42 school funding proposal. Based upon our current conflicting advertising and opinions about the proposed Initiative 42, what might be a way to apply this type of logic to decide which way to cast one’s ballot?