The reliability of Electronic Voting Machines (EMVs)

India just concluded monumental elections for the 15th Indian Congress (Lok Sabha).  The voting was done through Electronic Voting Machines.  There is a public debate in India about the accuracy and the tamper-proof resistance of these machines.

There is debate about Electronic Voting Machines in the U.S. and other parts of the globe.  Several scientists have commented on the reliability of these machines.  Here is an interesting editorial in The New York Times on this topic.

Abstract: “Electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper record of every vote cast cannot be trusted. In 2008, more than one-third of the states, including New Jersey and Texas, still did not require all votes to be recorded on paper. Representative Rush Holt has introduced a good bill that would ban paperless electronic voting in all federal elections. Congress should pass it while there is still time to get ready for 2010.”

Article: How to Trust Electronic Voting (New York Times)

Presidents Barack Obama, George Bush and Bill Clinton, and their legacies

William McGurn has an insightful opinion piece (in The Wall Street Journal) arguing persuasively why President Obama’s public policy prescriptions and philosophy not only repudiate President George Bush (that was inevitable and natural) but more importantly President Bill Clinton too.

The following observations are not those of McGurn but of this blog.  The public policy prescriptions of Barack Obama were evident from the campaign.   That’s why it was surprising when Hillary Clinton agreed to join the cabinet.  It is also a testament to the big-heartedness and public-spiritdness of both President Bill Clinton and Secretary Hillary Clinton to join Obama’s team and be such a co-operative and unassuming member of the team.  In the longer run, the bigger legacy of President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton may be just this: their public spiritedness.

Here is the abstract of the piece by McGurn, and the link to the actual article.

Abstract: “..there’s a persuasive case that the legacy most threatened by the Obama presidency belongs to the last Democrat who sat in the Oval Office: Bill Clinton. Think about it. It was Mr. Clinton who campaigned on the promise to “end welfare as we know it.” It was Mr. Clinton who signed the bill removing the Glass-Steagall barriers separating commercial from investment banking. Most famously, it was Mr. Clinton who assured us that “the era of Big Government is over.” Today all the assumptions that once defined Bill Clinton’s “New Democrats” are being contested by the Obama White House. And nowhere is the contrast more stark than on the defining issue of trade.”

Link to the entire article: Obama and the Clinton Legacy

Tim Geithner: How We Tested the Big Banks (in New York Times)

As we await the results of the stress tests of the U.S. banks, Tim Geithner has written on the parameters/variables employed in these tests.

Here is the abstract: However, the banking system has also needed a more direct and forceful response. Actions by Congress and the Bush administration last fall helped bring tentative stability. But when President Obama was sworn into office in January, confidence in America’s banking system remained low. Because of concern about future losses, and the limited transparency of bank balance sheets, banks were unable to raise equity and found it difficult to borrow without government guarantees. And they were pulling back on lending to protect themselves against the possibility of a worsening recession. As a result, the economy was deprived of credit, and this caused severe damage to confidence and slowed economic activity.

Here is the link to the full article: How We Tested the Big Banks

Political preferences change for the sake of change (variety seeking by the electorate)

Howard Baker has a wonderful thought piece in Washington Post on how time and tide (even in therm of political preferences) change in the affairs of men and societies.

Here is the abstract: “Things change because things change, not because of any ideological primacy or purity on a particular end of the political spectrum. The American people are, for the most part, highly practical and pragmatic. They like what works, and in a properly functioning political system, two broad-based national parties will offer them reasonable alternatives for what is likely to work best.”

Here is the link to the article:Time and the Political Tides

The Economist on Predicting behavior and Forecasting choices: Interview by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com

Nate Silver has gained his reputation as an accurate forecaster.  Silver uses sophisticated statistical tools such as Logit Model to describe and predict choices.  Silver’s website, FiveThirtyEight, is a must for any policy person interesting in predicting choice.  The Economist did an interesting interview with Nate Silver.

Here is the abstract: “NATE SILVER has been called a “prodigy”, a “wunderkind”, and a “genius”. Using his unique methodology, he was able to correctly predict every state but Indiana in the 2008 presidential election. He also got every Senate race right. That is why we here at The Economist find ourselves visiting his website, FiveThirtyEight, several times a day. This week Democracy in America talked with Mr Silver about polling, predictions and politics.”

Here is the link to the interview: Seven questions for Nate Silver

U.S. and Global Economy: Banks, TARP, Stress Tests and Policy

Another report on U.S economy from Vageesh Naik of Reva Capital Markets —

Executive Summary: “Mixed economic data and better than expected bank earnings helped buoy stocks higher. This bear market rally has had a decent run, but with PE multiples around 20, I think we should be in for a correction. Rates however stayed in a range helped along by Fed purchases. BoA, Wells and Morgan Stanley are scheduled to release earnings this week. Watch out for details on the methodology (i.e. robustness) behind the stress tests on April 24. ”

Analysis:  “The results of the stress tests will be announced (unclear to what granular detail, but at least which firms require capital) on May 4. Some media reports describe a classification of banks into 4 categories – A: allowed to repay TARP, B: less than desired capital but allowed to operate independently, C: undercapitalized and require TARP assistance and D: to be taken over by the government. Also banks are increasing getting worried that the administration will use the stress tests to force banks to book losses on the toxic assets. The TARP capital fund is down to the last $135bn, reducing the ability to provide much more capital assistance.

In the meantime, the regulators will disclose the stress test methodology in a white paper on April 24, which looks at off B/S commitments, earnings projections, risks of operations and composition and quality of their capital. I have long argued in this column that transparency is key, and I hope that the release provides us that.

Goldman, JP Morgan and Citi posted better than expected results due to trading activity and general business of banking. While I don’t doubt that this has been a great environment for trading with high volatility and wide bid-ask spreads and net interest margins, I can’t help but question the true value of the loans and securities on the books. Barons points out that these earnings might be a function of the unwinding of AIG contracts. This would then be just a onetime gain. Watch out for BOA results on Monday, Wells and Morgan Stanley on Wednesday and Amex, Fifth Third and Sun Trust Banks on Thursday.

The focus in the bank earning calls seems to be on returning the TARP capital, but I find it ironical that these strong results are in fact all a function of government policies – 0% funds rate, increased FDIC deposit insurance, FDIC backing of 3 year unsecured bank debt and the Fed buying MBS, which is spurring a refi wave and thereby increasing bank margins.

JP Morgan does not intend to use the PPIP, stating that the toxic assets are not depressing lending. This is probably a function of the bank not wanting the federal restrictions that participating in the PPIP might entail.”

Karl Rove reviews the 2008 U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections

Karl Rove reviews the data and makes interesting observations about the 2008 Presidential elections.  The complete article can be seen in The Wall Street Journal, and here is an abstract —

“Political races are about candidates and issues. But election results, in the end, are about numbers. Wa So now that the dust is settling on the 2008 presidential race, what do the numbers tell us?

First, the predicted huge turnout surge didn’t happen. The final tally is likely to show that fewer than 128.5 million people voted. That’s up marginally from 122 million in 2004. But 17 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000 (three times the change from 2004 to 2008).

Second, a substantial victory was won by modest improvement in the Democratic share of the vote. Barack Obama received 2.1 points more in the popular vote than President Bush received in 2004, 3.1 points more than Vice President Al Gore in 2000, and 4.6 points more than John Kerry in 2004. In raw numbers, the latest tally shows that Mr. Obama received 66.1 million votes, about 7.1 million more than Mr. Kerry.

One of the most important shifts was Hispanic support for Democrats. John McCain got the votes of 32% of Hispanic voters. That’s down from the 44% Mr. Bush won four years ago. If this trend continues, the GOP will find it difficult to regain the majority.

In a sign Mr. Obama’s victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).”

Mark Halperi: Ten interesting observations on the U.S. Presidential election

Mark Halperin recites ten interesting observations about the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections.  Visit Time.com for the complete article.  Here is an abstract —

“3. Wrong Track Sky-High

“By Election Day, the national mood was so sour that fundamental change seemed the most rational choice.”

4. Outsiders In

“Experience is an overrated commodity in presidential politics, but typically at least one of the two major parties nominates someone with long-standing ties to Washington and backing from the party establishment.”

6. An African American but Not Just an African American

“…not only was race not Obama’s signature dimension by any measure, but — with the exception of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy — it was barely an issue at all.”

7. Best. Reality Show. Ever.

“Politics is show business for ugly people, the old joke goes, but the 2008 campaign was just plain show business, with a cast of fascinating if not always camera-ready players.”

8. Internet Fund-Raising Comes of Age

“In September, when Obama collected a stunning $150 million in 30 days, almost 75% of the haul arrived via the Web.”

10. An October Surprise (in September)

“The drumbeat of bad economic news never let up through Election Day, drowning out any other message Republicans tried to deliver and blunting the impact of character attacks against Obama.””

Marc Ambincer’s reflections on why Obama won and McCain lost

Marc Ambinder’s (The Atlantic) thoughtful analyses on the why Barack Obama won and John McCain lost the U.S. presidential elections can be found in his blog, http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

Here is part of that analysis —

“– Obama is a once-in-a-generation candidate, a brilliant communicator in an age of communication. Cool and consistent under pressure. He grew over the course of two years into a candidate voters believed was ready to be president. The right candidate at the right moment. The most un-Bush of any of the Democratic candidates.

— The financial crisis, and the candidates’ response to it.  Probably the crucial moment for both campaigns. The voters saw the two men react to an unexpected crisis. Voters seemed to prefer Obama’s steadiness to McCain’s suspended campaign. McCain’s sudden decision was 180 degrees from what he had been saying a week before (“fundamentals of our economy are strong”).

— Sarah Palin. Polling shows that she drove some voters away from Sen. McCain and to Barack Obama. Voters judged her to be too inexperienced to be president. Also, instead of appealing to independents, she became a polarizing figure.  ALSO — her persona highlighted McCain’s age and health since she could have taken over. ALSO — her selection killed the “inexperience” argument against Obama.

— Message, message, message. Obama branded himself as “Change” two years ago, McCain tried Maverick, Reformer, Country First, Steady Hand At The Wheel, Tax Cutter, and even flirted with “Real American” by the end, and none of them were consistent.”

Concession Remarks by Atal Behari Vajpayee in May 2004, and John McCain in November 2008

Many Indians have compared the then Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s concession remarks in 2004 to John McCain’s touching concession remarks on November 4th evening.  In May 2004, Atal Behari Vajpayee and his party Bharatiya Janata Party lost in India’s parliamentary elections — that electoral outcome was a stunning event as no pre-elections poll had even hinted this.  At that point, Prime Minister Vajpayee relinquished power with ease and grace, and without any efforts to cobble together any unholy and unseemly electoral coalition partnership.

Upon review, I do find a common sense of generosity and purposefulness in Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s remarks and John McCain’s remarks.  Thanks to P.K. Ramakrishnan, and Bibrama Sinha who pointed me to this.  And here are the remarks by the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee as reported in The Tribune on May 13th, 2004 —

“Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who this evening submitted his resignation to the President, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, said his party and alliance might have lost, but India had won.

“India has shown its resolve and capability to overcome the challenge of cross-border terrorism. India has also embarked on a historic peace process with our neighbour. It will remain my lifelong wish to see
that we herald a new chapter of peace, cooperation and friendship in  South Asia, with the People’s Republic of China and with other nations in the world,” Mr Vajpayee said in his address to the nation.

The outgoing Prime Minister began his address by saying that he accepted the verdict given by the people. He said when he assumed office, the nation was faced with the challenge of stability, good
governance and development.

“It is for you — and history — to judge what we achieved during this period,” he said and added that the country was stronger and more prosperous than when the reigns of office were put in his hands.”