rePost :: New Comelec rules disallow election complaints at precinct level – Nation – GMANews.TV – Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs – Latest Philippine News

This would speed things up greatly but I fear for places where people are running against the incumbent this will test the the determination and honor of the local comelec officials. This would also level the playing field for candidates with less money (read:: less corrupt) because incumbents have enough cash to put lawyers in each clustered precinct. Local politicians usually use the lawyers to slow the pace of voting in the precincts whose voters they do not own. In some ways you can think of these lawyers as thugs or as protectors of the sanctity of the ballot because they either impede you or protect your vote, a true double edged sword.

Candidates can no longer complain about possible anomalous election documents at the precinct level and instead, wait for the winners to be proclaimed first, according to new rules promulgated by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) over the weekend.
Comelec Resolution 8804 says that candidates, political parties, and party-list groups can only question documents that they deem to be suspicious – such as election results, for instance – and challenge the results before the proclamation of winners if there is an “illegal composition of the board of canvassers (BOC)” and “illegal proceedings of the BOC.”
via New Comelec rules disallow election complaints at precinct level – Nation – GMANews.TV – Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs – Latest Philippine News.

rePost::You’re So Vain – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com

As I’ve said in the past this is what irks me with the presidential forums. More on fluff , less on substance. More on gimmickry, less on actual policy.

I had, I have to admit, hoped that the nation’s experience with George W. Bush — who got within hanging-chad distance of the White House precisely because Al Gore was punished for actually knowing stuff — would have cured our discourse of this malady. But no. Why not?
Chait professes himself puzzled by the right’s intellectual insecurity. Me, not so much. Here’s how I see it: in our current political culture, the background noise is overwhelmingly one of conservative platitudes. People who have strong feelings about politics but are intellectually incurious tend to pick up those platitudes, and repeat them in the belief that this makes them sound smart. (Ezra Klein once described Dick Armey thus: “He’s like a stupid person’s idea of what a thoughtful person sounds like.”)
Inevitably, then, such people react with rage when they’re shown up on their facts or basic logic — it’s an attack on their sense of self-worth.
The truly sad thing, though, is the way much news reporting goes along with the condescension meme. That’s Waldmann’s point. You really, really might have expected that the Bush experience would give reporters pause — that they might at least ask themselves, “Isn’t it my job to ask whether a politician is right, as opposed to how he comes across?”
But NOOOO! [/Belushi]
via You’re So Vain – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com.

Musings On Philippine Healthcare 2010 20 26

I can guess that we probably have a high coverage rate in the Philippines. This is because unlike the US in the Philippines if you have work you have PhilHealth,SSS and GSIS. This leaves two groups of people out. The rich people who don’t “work” (own business , etc), and the very poor who can’t but it. Of the rich, they obviously have cash to burn but I suspect if in the USA one of the major causes of bankruptcy is medical emergency/conditions then the rich of the Philippines may not have it any much better. The poorest of the poor have healthcare if they live in Makati and Muntinlupa and during elections government officials such as the soon to be former president distribute PhilHealth Cards.
What I’m trying to say is that during the happy moments that my mind wanders towards the Philippine Government I see PhilHealth, SSS and GSIS, without the same kind of fight that the US encountered in trying to enact them. What I see is a Davao where I saw less people smoking because of too many restrictions (that I agree with). What I see is a Makati where Jejomar Binay is showing the Philippines what can be done by the local government for it’s constituents. What I see is a President (GMA) who has shown just how powerful the presidency can be with the right incentives.  We have a people whose trying to learn about the candidates.  We have the BIR harrassing Shell which shows we aren’t as controlled by corporations as the US (Although I don’t agree with what they are doing, this is almost extortion).
There is hope. The Philippines is not that far away from where it could be!!!

Please Help With Question :: Mind Games And The 2010 Elections | Filipino Voices

Stat friends especially those who work for the said polling firms please help with this question.

In the past, face-to-face interviewing was viewed by US opinion research experts as an appropriate method for conducting opinion surveys. It ostensibly allowed them to select the “right” respondent to be interviewed. After major failures, however – notably, the erroneous forecast of Thomas Dewey’s victory over Harry Truman in the 1948 US presidential elections– this survey method was abandoned, so much so that reputable pollsters in the US have now discarded it altogether.
Why was this? We invite some experts to tell us why. Chava Frankfort-Nachnias and David Nachmias in Research Methods in the Social Sciences write: “The very flexibility that is the interviewer’s chief advantage leaves room for the interviewer’s personal influence and bias.”
The pollster Kenneth Warren in his book, In Defense of Public Opinion Polling, says: “The cons of door-to-door interviews far outweigh the pros…Because of the sensitivity or personal nature of some questions, interviewers, because they were placed in face-to-face situations, have admitted that they sometimes guessed or fudged responses…These problems are a major source of bias in personal interviews, causing significant contamination of the poll data.”
These methodological and practical problems, according to Warren, doomed face-to-face interviews forever. By 1980, nobody in the US wanted to pay for this type of “fatally flawed and grossly inaccurate” surveys.
This, however, seems to have had no persuasive effect on our local pollsters.
A second glaring weakness is the extensive and general use of quota sampling to create “a representative sample” of the Philippine population. In quota sampling, survey respondents are picked from different types of people (e.g. by age, sex, religion, income) and various predetermined areas (e.g. region of country, as well as urban or rural).
This method is the most familiar form of non-probability sampling. It is supposed to mirror the same proportions in the targeted survey populations, but doesn’t. And it proved to be an earth-shaking failure in 1948 after three leading US pollsters–Gallup, Roper and Crossley—erroneously called the US presidential election in favor of Dewey instead of Truman. In the United Kingdom, where it persisted, it was blamed for the failure of the pollsters to predict Prime Minister John Majors’ victory in 1992.
“Quota sampling could never work in practice,” says Professor Warren. “Not only could pollsters not know the exact demographics so they could pick a representative sample that actually reflected the proper demographical proportions, but it was naïve to think that the interviewer could manage to interview the precise people needed to fill each quota.”
Thus today, reputable US pollsters rely almost exclusively on probability random sampling to create a “representative sample,” says Warren.
Why then do local pollsters continue to use quota sampling and face-to-face interviewing for their surveys? Why haven’t they adopted probability random sampling, which has protected US opinion polls from using contaminated data?
via Mind Games And The 2010 Elections | Filipino Voices.

Praise::Presidential bet to rival Aquino: ‘I want you to succeed’ – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

This is called the Rights Based Approach to Development. I commend him the Presidential candidate for being updated in the some of what’s in fashion in the Development Community

When Aquino’s turn came, he said: “Thank you to Councilor JC for, acknowledging that I have a chance of running the country.”
He said human rights were not simply about the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, but also the right to a decent living, and the right to have food on the table.
via Presidential bet to rival Aquino: ‘I want you to succeed’ – INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos.

The Obama Plan: Stability & Security For All Americans | The White House

Happy to have hope back in action. Now we just need hope for the Philippines? Noy? Gibo? Gordon? Perlas? Villanueva? (Alphabetical Order)

The Obama Plan: Stability & Security For All Americans

“It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don’t. And it will lower the cost of health care for our families, our businesses, and our government”

via The Obama Plan: Stability & Security For All Americans | The White House.

Better Press Corp Please::Noynoy leads in survey commissioned by ally – Nation – GMANews.TV – Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs – Latest Philippine News

Now, why wasn’t the headlines Manny Villar in statistical tie with survey commissioned by ally (Ronnie Puno).
I’m calling BS on mr Jerrie Abella.

Noynoy leads in survey commissioned by ally
JERRIE ABELLA, GMANews.TV
02/21/2010 | 10:21 PM
Liberal Party (LP) standard-bearer Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III regained his lead in the latest polls for the presidential race, but the camp of his closest rival, Sen. Manny Villar, shrugged off the results as mere “psywar.”
A national survey by London-based Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) showed Aquino leading by 11 percent over Villar of the Nacionalista Party.
The survey, commissioned by LP’s senate slate campaign manager Sen. Francis Pangilinan, was conducted from January 28 to February 3.
“The results of the survey confirm our long-standing position that our people yearn for real change in their lives and aspire for a new direction for our nation,” Pangilinan said in a statement.
via Noynoy leads in survey commissioned by ally – Nation – GMANews.TV – Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs – Latest Philippine News.

Better Class Of Politicians!!!!:Hope Is Back:Weekly Address: President Obama Says it is Time to Move Forward on Health Care Reform | The White House

People are judged not by what they wanted or intended to do but rather what they accomplish!
Hope is back!!! Welcome back Hope!!! Healthcare Reform Now!

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
February 20, 2010
The other week, men and women across California opened up their mailboxes to find a letter from Anthem Blue Cross. The news inside was jaw-dropping. Anthem was alerting almost a million of its customers that it would be raising premiums by an average of 25 percent, with about a quarter of folks likely to see their rates go up by anywhere from 35 to 39 percent.
Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.
The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.
And as bad as things are today, they’ll only get worse if we fail to act. We’ll see more and more Americans go without the coverage they need. We’ll see exploding premiums and out-of-pocket costs burn through more and more family budgets. We’ll see more and more small businesses scale back benefits, drop coverage, or close down because they can’t keep up with rising rates. And in time, we’ll see these skyrocketing health care costs become the single largest driver of our federal deficits.
That’s what the future is on track to look like. But it’s not what the future has to look like. The question, then, is whether we will do what it takes, all of us – Democrats and Republicans – to build a better future for ourselves, our children, and our country.
That’s why, next week, I am inviting members of both parties to take part in a bipartisan health care meeting, and I hope they come in a spirit of good faith. I don’t want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that’s been with us for generations.
It’s in that spirit that I have sought out and supported Republican ideas on reform from the very beginning. Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people. I hope Democrats and Republicans can come together next week around these and other ideas.
To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system. We know where the broad areas of agreement are. And we know where the sources of disagreement lie. After debating this issue exhaustively for a year, let’s move forward together. Next week is our chance to finally reform our health insurance system so it works for families and small businesses. It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.
What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.
via Weekly Address: President Obama Says it is Time to Move Forward on Health Care Reform | The White House.

rrePost:: Invisible platform : Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose :: The Long View

If machinery wins National Elections (I’m acutely aware that local elections can be won by a better party machinery) then Pichay should be a senator now. Obviously he isn’t. QED.
Wish people really call BS on these politicians. We would have a shorter news cast.

I have heard it said that Teodoro played a central role in formulating the NPC platform and he himself has been saying things that suggest familiarity with a draft platform. This has been particularly true in recent weeks, coinciding with the period work on a platform has been taking place, as Magno mentioned. The term “subsidiarity” that he mentioned at a recent forum is a vintage Christian Democratic one and is, surely, a hint of what the Lakas-Kampi-CMD platform might put forward. This inability to publish a platform means the ruling coalition believes Prospero Pichay’s statement that their candidate will win because of party machinery and not public sentiment.
via The Long View: Invisible platform : Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose.