Ron Paul: Road to the General Election

by Ali-Asad

libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action. Capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.
Merriam-Webster Online

After thinking about Ron Paul for a week, I've come to the conclusion that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for President. Now before you riot give me a chance to tell you why he will not win and why a primary loss will not be the end of the road. Firstly, why will Ron Paul not win the Republican nomination for President?

Ron Paul's interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press revealed that Paul has not broken out of the mould of the 'extreme change' candidate. In my previous post about Paul, I argued that he must make his arguments appeal more to mainstream conservatives by detailing policy specific and showing that he is a regular conservative on issues like the terrorism and abortion (both are bad). But Paul was too busy arguing that the entire system of government was flawed. Also, the half-hour allotted to him by MSNBC did not allow Paul to get into any specifics because of the wide range of issues covered. Understand this: in a republican primary a candidate of 'extreme change' who has is not viewed as a reliable conservative will appear undesirable and, more importantly, unelectable. Could I be completely wrong on this matter? Yes. The (unscientific) Iowa Button Poll showed Ron Paul in third place. A 3rd place finish for Paul would give him a huge boost in terms of legitimacy, electability and credibility. But the resurgence of Paul could provoke a backlash from mainstream conservative who will then rally around one candidate, and so locking up the nomination; that candidate could be McCain because of his recent surge nationally and in Iowa. And so we have somewhat fairly established Paul not winning the Republican nomination. What's next?

Ron Paul should run as an independent. Why? Firstly, he will have a wider audience for his message, and allow him to break out of the mould of the 'extreme change' candidate into someone who is a viable alternative. In a general election setting, Paul will be able to paint himself as an anti-establishment candidate and will be able to win support from those who recognise a need for fundamental change. After the publicity the primaries will give Paul, announcing his candidacy as an independent will further raise his national profile. This will allow Paul to register enough support in the polls to be eligible to take part in the presidential debates. These debates will allow poll to further get out his message and will show him to be of equal standing to the Democratic and Republican candidates (though they make see Paul's message as dangerous and gang up on him). Could Ron Paul win any states in a general election. Sure. The Mountain West has a long tradition of being non-interventionist and libertarian (keep your hands of our guns and the world outside of our border doesn't concern us too much). But winning electoral votes would just be icing on the cake. Of course there is the possibility that in a close election, Paul's electoral votes would be crucial. But I'm stretching it, and digressing.

The main goal of a Ron Paul campaign in the general election must be to secure over 5% of the national popular vote. This achievement will entitle future candidates of that 'minor' party to federal campaign funding. Therefore, I do not advocate Ron Paul run as an independent; he must run as a candidate for the third largest party in America: The Libertarian Party. This party is no joke. According to the Libertarian National Committee website, the party has over 200,000 registered members and, according to Wikipedia, over 600 members in elected positions across the country. This party has the infrastructure to be a nationally competitive but has no nationally competitive presidential candidate. The libertarian ideology is simple enough but has never received its fair share of scrutiny or public debate. With republicans spending like "drunken sailors", the libertarians remain the only party for small government. But never mind the ideology, the US is one of the few countries in the world dominiated by 2 parties; even the UK's parliamentary system, a system that favors only 2 major parties, has a diverse range of parties with a credible third party alternative. This situation does not appear consistent with the democratic ideal of choice. Therefore, America desperately needs a nationally competitive third party. Ron Paul has the chance to establish one.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Public Funding of Presidential Elections, FEC

Libertarian National Committee Website

The Libertarian Party (US), Wikipedia

Putting Bhutto in Perspective

"An obituary should be an exercise in contemporary history, not a funeral oration".
Peter Utley

The media has portrayed the death of Benazir Bhutto as a tragedy and blow to democracy in Pakistan. In times like these that it would be wise to go back to examine Pakistan’s history to get a better understanding and true perspective of her death. Benazir Bhutto's father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto founded Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in 1967. It was his party that came 2nd in the 1970 elections that eventually led to the partition of Pakistan resulting in the creation of the nation-state Bangladesh. In 1970, Pakistan was divided geographically in East and West Pakistan. East Pakistan was dominated by one political party: the Awami League. This party won almost all the parliament seats of East Pakistan thus giving them an outright majority in Pakistan's national assembly. But the politicians of West Pakistan could not bear being ruled by East Pakistan. This fact resulted in a civil war in which Bangladesh eventually achieved independence with the help of India but at a huge cost in terms of lives. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto went on to become President and later Prime Minister of the new diminished Pakistan. In 1977, due to increasing unpopularity, Bhutto was ousted out of power by Army General Zia-ul-Haq, and was later tried and executed. This leads into Pakistan’s role in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

As depicted in the recent movie Charlie Wilson's War, the US managed to help the Afghanis defeat the US by funneling military aid through Pakistan. Much of this helped was conveyed through the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency). The ISI provided much of the training and weapons to Afghani resistance fighters. This involvement put the ISI into contact with what would later become extremist Taliban elements including Osama bin Ladin which later developed into a symbiotic strategic relationship. These Taliban elements needed training and weapons to help defeat the Soviets and later take over Afghanistan while the ISI found a proxy through which Pakistan could exert influence in the region. But this relationship came to an end after 9/11 with President and Army General Musharraf siding with the US against the Taliban. This act infuriated many hard-line extremist elements within Pakistan. There has always been a section of Pakistan that has bought into the idea of having a perfectly Islamic government. Most of these Islamists derive their support Wahabbi Saudi Arabia and have recruited popular support among the poor and rural communities where illiteracy rates are very high. The Islamist political parties have always been a force in Pakistani politics. This leads us to more recent history.

In 1998 and Pakistan’s prime minister Nawaz Sharif tried to get rid of Army Chief Musharraf by denying his plane landing rights. In response, Musharraf instigated a bloodless coup and took power. After 9/11 Musharraf was threatened by US Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage to support the US against the Taliban otherwise Pakistan would be “bombed into the stone age”. Needless to say, Musharraf complied. Over the course of Musharraf’s term, the Islamist supporters have been increasingly angry at Musharraf for giving into pro-Western demands; his crackdown on certain extremist parties was especially unpopular. More recently, Musharraf created wider opposition by sacking Pakistan’s Chief Justice and suspending the constitution. These actions caused the general public to fear that Musharraf was quickly taking the country down the road of military dictatorship. Sensing this unpopularity, Benazir Bhutto tried to strike a deal with Musharraf to let her return from self-imposed exile and compete in elections. Nawaz Sharif also makes a comeback sensing President Musharraf’s weakness . To satisfy opposition demands, Musharraf stepped down as Army Chief and announces that parliamentary elections will be held in early January. Bhutto and Sharif returned to Pakistan and received great receptions. But Bhutto was under attack from day one; a suicide bomb attack killed more than 100 people at a rally welcoming her return. And now we come to the present.
Bhutto died at a rally on Thursday; the cause of death is still to be determined. Initial reports stated that she had been shot. Recent video evidence shows that a gunman did get off three shots before the suicide bomb. But the Pakistani government maintains that those three shots missed, and that it was the shock of the bomb blast that caused Bhutto to hit her head on a lever and later die. The government has been accused of either perpetrating a cover-up or denying responsibility for a serious security lapse. Is it possible that there was some government involvement behind the attack? Yes, of course. The army and ISI consist of many extremist supporters though it is unlikely that they had the support of the government as a whole. An Al-Qaeda leader in Pakistan denies the group’s involvement in the attack.

So, who benefits from Bhutto’s death? Not Musharraf or the PPP: Musharraf’s credibility has been seriously damaged and he will struggle to win the presidency in a legitimate fashion. The PPP has lost its charismatic leader and may lose influence. The only person who may benefit is Nawaz Sharif. As the only popular civilian leader, Sharif could use his influence to try and unite all opposition parties against Musharraf. But Sharif has been accused of serious corruption, and his leadership could force Musharraf to stay in power no matter what happens. Pakistan is running out of options.

References

Pakistan, Wikipedia

Benazir Bhutto, Time

Pakistan Dispute Erupts Over How Bhutto Died, VOA News

An African Election: Kenya

The most important political office is that of the private citizen".
~Louis Brandeis

On December 27^th the people of Kenya will elect a new President and Parliament. Three men compete for the presidency; two are old faces and the third is a young-up-and-comer who could prove to be a spoiler. A plethora of parties compete for parliament seats resulting in a whole bunch of meaningless acronyms: KANU, MDM-K, NARC etc. But how did Kenya get here? It was only in 2002 that the country was being ruled by one dominant party and president; the president was Daniel Arap Moi and the party KANU (Kenya African Nation Union - yes I'm afraid these acronyms matter after all).

Since Kenya's Independence in 1963, KANU was the ruling party and governed under a one-party constitution between 1982-1991 with Moi and president since 1978. But in 1991 the one-party clause was repealed and Kenya has its first multi-party democratic election. But KANU has entrenched itself into Kenya's political system, and Moi's rule smacked of authoritarianism; the opposition parties never had a chance. But in 2002 a turn of events changed Kenya's political scene dramatically.

In 2002, Moi decided to step down from the office of the presidency and guided Uhuru Kenyatta, the son of Kenya's first president, to lead the KANU party. But this time around the opposition was determined to win, and so they united under a 'rainbow' coalition called NRC (National Rainbow Coalition). The NRC selected as its candidate Mwai Kibaki; a political veteran who had competed in the Kenya's first multi-party election in 1992. The stage was set for the departure of an authoritarian African leader. But what if his part lost? Would Kenya slide into chaos? The country feared the involvement of the military; I know because my family left Kenya before the election. And so almost exactly 5 years ago the rainbow coalition defeated KANU and Kibaki became the president, and it all happened without any coups, riots or killings. For the first time the Kenyan people were allowed to trully speak, and their voice counted.

The Kibaki administration has done many good things; free primary education and solid economic growth are two. The country's press have come into their own with greater freedoms and better news coverage. But many great problems still remain. Corruption is frequently cited as Kenya's most serious challenge. The Kibaki administration has not really made great strides in this regard; witness the lack of any prosecutions in the Goldenberg scandal where 10% of the country's GDP was funneled through a gold-exporting company. And now Kibaki seeks a reelection.

Several months ago, the jockeying for position among the political parties was intense. Eventually, Kibaki managed to pull together a group of parties under the umbrella PNU (Party of National Unity) which includes KANU with Uhuru Kenyatta deciding against running for president (KANU was still compete independently for seats in parliament). Another contender for the presidency is Raila Odinga who is another long time politician who competed in the 1992 election. He will leads the ODM party (Orange Democratic Movement - named after the orange symbol denoting supporters of the failed constitutional reform referendum). But Odinga faced competition for the ODM nomination from another politician Kalonzo Musyoka who used to be a member of KANU before switching his allegiance to the rainbow coaltion that won power in 2002. Musyoka split from split from ODM creating that ODM-Kenya party. His campaign for presidency rounds out the major players in the race. All polling done for this election shows Kibaki and Odinga is a close race with Musyoka registering single-digit but potentially crucial support.

We have come full circle to the eve of the Kenyan presidential and parliamentary elections. Ominous rumblings of electoral fraud have gotten louder. A close election may result in one party not recognizing the election of the election. This eventuality would be a sad result for a country whose political process has come so far in the 21^st century. Let's just hope this new parliament will not act like the last whose first order of business was to give themselves a pay rise.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

2002 Kenya General Election, Wikipedia

Are parties ready for a handover? - Daily Nation

Goldenberg Scandel, Wikipedia

Kenya Economic Profile, Economist Intelligence Unit

Kenya Profile, BBC

All this for 40 delegates?

"Maybe they’ll vacillate until the bitter end, leaving it all up to the final primary in South Dakota in June. And that would be great. Finally, instead of allowing a few thousand corn farmers to decide the fate of the nation, we could place the power where it rightfully belongs, with a few thousand wheat farmers."
~Gail Collins

From January 3rd in Iowa to June 3rd in Montana and South Dakota, voters will choose over 2,500 delegates to decide the presidential nominee for both the democratic and republican parties. Each state gets a certain number of delegates based on how much that state has supported the party in elections. But each party uses a different methodology. The democrats use the proportion of voters who voted democrat in the last 3 elections and the number of votes that state has in the electoral college whereas the republicans use a base number of delegates determined by the size of the state and that base number is topped up by bonuses for voting republican in a presidential elections, electing a republican senator etc. Interesting both parties will include so called 'superdelegates' to help nominate their party's candidate. These superdelegates have not been elected and include members of congress and National Committee members. There will be around 800 democratic superdelegates and 600 republican superdelegates around to help select a nominee come convention time in late August/early September.

So, you would think the candidates would target delegate rich states. But that's not the case; their focus is Iowa. Why? Two words - Momentum & Media. As the conventional primary wisdom goes, the Iowa caucuses test the candidates for the first time. This primary demonstrates whether a candidate can really win an election. And once candidates proves themselves to the serious Iowa caucus-goer, they have it made. The nation's press will shine their spotlight on the winner making everyone aware that Iowa has just picked a winner. This media coverage generates momentum allowing the candidate to slingshot their way to victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina. This snowball effect allows the candidate to then 'run the tables' securing the nomination for their party. That is the conventional wisdom. That was John Kerry's road to the nomination in 2004. Will 2008 follow the convention? This question can only be answered by considering the two major parties separately.

The above conventional scenario is most plausible in the democratic race. According to Intrade.com(a fascinating online exchange where people can trade contracts involving real world events), Obama has a 35% chance of winning Iowa, with Hilary at 34% and John Edwards and 27%. In other words, the contest in Iowa is extremely close. This fact makes winning Iowa all the more important. It is very easy to see the winner of Iowa go on to take the nomination. Take 3 different scenarios;

Obama wins Iowa narrowly but his victory shows that he is electable and so he goes on to win in New Hampshire all but securing his candidacy. Black voters in South Carolina realize that this black kid might actually win and come out to support him in droves. His nomination is secured.

Hilary wins Iowa narrowly but surely. The recent lowering of expectation helps fuel intense media coverage and the aura of inevitability comes back. This aura makes winning in New Hampshire and South Carolina a cakewalk. The nomination is hers.

Edwards wins in Iowa. The media puts it down to solid organization and a resonating message. Edwards loses New Hampshire narrowly to Hilary but goes into South Carolina confident. Then, Edwards speaks to the soul of the party and argues for winning based on left-wing principles. He looks electable and takes South Carolina and goes on to the take the nomination.

The last scenario does have some kinks in it. If Edwards wins in Iowa, it will be a narrow win. Obama and Clinton have the money and the name-recognition to fight and claw back the nomination. Also, a Richardson or Biden 3rd place showing in Iowa could make the primary voters take a second look at the more experienced candidates. But I can only see that happening in the case of Joe Biden.

Now, for the republicans;

I'm not even going to try separating this race into possible scenarios; I can conceive a situation where four different candidates win the first five primaries. A crazy thought I know. So, how much does Iowa matter in this race? Not a whole lot. The pundits now assume Mike Huckabee will take Iowa. But a victory in Iowa will hardly help him in New Hampshire where McCain and Romney are battling it out. Could Thompson come back and give Huckabee a run for his money in South Caroline. Maybe Febuary 5th will save Guliani with the 20+ delegate-rich states voting. But an Iowa upset is not completely off the cards: Romney could come back to win, a strong showing by Paul could help him appear more electable, a strong 3rd place for Guliani would boost his depressed campaign like nothing else. The republicans are disorganized like never before. But their intense scrap for the nomination has helped them understand that, in the end, Iowa only has 40 or so delegates.

The Iowa caucuses will take place on January 3rd followed by the New Hampshire open primary (independents can vote) on January 8th.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Paging the lesser of 8 evils, Gail Collins

2008 Democratic Nation Convention, Wikipedia

Convention Delegates, The Republican Source

Intrade Realtime Quotes, RCP

A chance in hell for Ron Paul?

Not a snowball's chance in hell
~Japanese idiom

Does Ron Paul have a chance in hell of winning the republican nomination? He languishes at 5% or below in the national polls and has not broken double-digits in any of the early primary states; including New Hampshire which has a considerable libertarian leaning. Paul finds himself in a vicious cycle: his low poll numbers lead to little media attention which leads to little name recognition and familiarity among the general public which results in low poll numbers. In a cable news interview, Ron Paul cited the fact that most of his supporters are young and have cell phones, which are not called by the pollsters. This argument is a double-edged sword. Yes most of his supporters are young but young people have traditionally been less likely to vote. But his followers are an enthusiastic bunch. Perhaps Paul's poll numbers are just a true reflection of his awareness and support. In any case, Ron Paul must break this vicious cycle.

The key to Ron Paul obtaining recognition among the general voting population lies with the media. I am no media conspiracy advocate; I don’t believe the media has an agenda of influence but influence they do; especially with phrases such as ‘top tier candidates’ and ‘long-shot contender’. There is some subtle psychology going on. One thing the candidate could do is to make his ‘extreme’ ideas sound attainable and achievable in practice. For example, Ron Paul consistently argues for a policy of non-intervention but republican primary voter may say; that sounds good but what about the 'war on terror'. Don't we have to fight them over there so they don't come here and attack us? Ron Paul needs to link his non-interventionism with the war on terror in a way that will reassure candidates. Secondly, Ron Paul could stress the core republican values that appeal to primary voters. These issues include abortion and fiscal discipline. Once primary voters realize that they share many of Paul's views they will ask a crucial question; can he win?

Ron Paul must look electable for voters to give him a chance. The appeal to change is the initial attractor but it is electability that gives staying power. Can he beat Hilary? Paul must argue that he is the one republican candidate who you won't catch flip-flopping. He is the true reliable conservative who puts the Romney crowd to shame. But again Paul must be practical; seeming like an anti-war crazy does him a disservice and his just bad politics. Will Ron Paul defend this country if it is attacked? Is he willing to use the military as a force for good? Ron Paul must answer yes to these questions first and then mention his reservations about the preemptive use of the military rather than the other way around. For electoral strategy, low expectations will not help Ron Paul. For him, low awareness drives low expectation which results in a losing formula

Ron Paul has shown that he is a skilled politician. He uses his straight-talk to inspire his followers. Now, a greater test lies ahead. Ron Paul must make the transition from niche candidate to a mainstream contender without straying from his principles. His first test will be Sunday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. There's no Sunday talk show more mainstream than Meet the Press. Appeal to the masses Paul. In the end, it is the masses that count.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Republican primary polls, RealClearPolitics

Meet the Press with Tim Russert, MSNBC

Matching up the Potential Debaters

"...to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners"
The Commission on Presidential Debates

Both Iowa and New Hampshire are too close to call. The nomination for both parties are up in the air. But come September 2008 the Democrats will have one nominee, the Republicans will have one nominee and the both of them will duke it out on TV in the presidential debates. (This precludes a popular independant run, Bloomberg or Ron Paul anyone?) This time around we may have an actual debate. The Commission on Presidential debates has announced that the debate format will be a little different. The debates will allow "direct exchanges between the candidates" in order to increase the "educational value of the general election debate". Apparently, having a real debate wasn't a good enough reason to allow these "direct exchanges". But this change may make the debates more entertaining, interesting and revealing; so these debates may make a real difference. So let's go ahead and take a look at some of the more interesting debate match-ups.

Biden - Guliani

Both these men come of as straight talkers with a lot of testorone. Biden can actually call out Guliani on any foreign policy issue because of his experience. Guliani's aggressiveness and tough guy image will be negated by Biden's wit and pragmatist approach.

Verdict: Slightly Favors Biden

Clinton - Guliani

This match-up has great potential for fireworks. Guliani has to be careful; his aggressiveness will turn Clinton into a victim and an underdog in the man's only world of politics. Clinton has the skill to play the role of victim and defend herself from Guliani's attacks. But she can't be caught waffling.

Verdict: Favors Clinton

Edwards - Guliani

Guliani will have a lot of success painting Edwards as an extreme liberal. If Edwards tries move to the center he will look unauthentic, which already concerns many people. Edwards comes across as more likeable but that will only go so far.

Verdict: Favors Guliani

Obama - Guliani

Guliani will test Obama's experience; this applies especially in the issue of foreign policy. If Obama can fend off that charge, he will have success with his message of hope and change. This match-up will be two very different styles but don't expect too many fireworks.

Verdict: Even

Biden - Huckabee

This will be a contest of Biden straight talk versus Huckabee's witty charm. Biden will hit Huckabee hard on experience, and that will be the difference no matter how many pithy comments Huckabee can pull out of the hat

Verdict: Favors Biden

Clinton - Huckabee

The Economist calls this a blowout for Hilary. I don't agree. Huckabee's common sense approach will enable him to gain the upper hand on Hilary during policy debates. People understand one-line moral principles better than the complexities of policy debates. Also, Huckabee will not fall into the trap making Hilary the victim.

Verdict: Favor Huckabee

Edwards - Huckabee

This presents an intriguing match-up. Huckabee has been called a "Christian leftist". Both have messages of hope and are committed to their faiths. Edwards will have to pull to the right and talk about his faith potentialy alienating some of his supporters. They cancel each other out on experience.

Verdict: Slighly Favor Huckabee

Biden - McCain

Here we have two highly distinguished senators. Both are also straight-talkers. I could have imagined seeing these two on the same ticket. The exchange will turn out to be a fairly friendly encounter.

Verdict: Even

Obama - McCain

This match-up embodies the dilemma of change versus experience. Obama must answer the inexperience charge but Obama could easily label McCain has a continuation of the Bush foreign policy. A tough debate indeed.

Verdict: Even

Clinton - Romney

Both these candidates are policy wonks and both have been accused of flip-flopping on various issues. Critics have argued that Romney comes across as slick and phoney but next to Hilary it won't matter. Romney will demonstrate a good command of the issues without putting Hilary down.

Verdict: Slightly Favors Romney

Edwards - Romney

Edwards will have to answer the charge on insufficient executive experience, which Romney will use repeatedly. If Edwards tacks to the center he will be accused on flip-flopping. But if Edwards sticks with his populist message he may come off as the more inspirational candidate. Romney may have success portraying Edwards as an extreme liberal.

Verdict: Favors Romney

References

Commission on Presidential Debates

For Japan: The Time is Now

"Doing is a mistake, not doing is a huge mistake".
~Japanese Proverb

I haven't studied economics in 4 years. But I'm telling you to buy Japan. Why?
You need to put your money somewhere. Invest in America? No one knows what will happen in 2008. Most are predicting a slowdown. Some say recession. The Capitalists say all the signs point to boom. Who are we supposed to believe? If there's one rule of thumb to go by, it's that the consensus is nearly always wrong. So, either recession or boom for America then? Who knows. 2008 is Japan's year.

Japan came out of the 90's recession barely squeaking by into growth. But since 2003, Japan's annual GDP has grown by around 2% a year. Nothing special you say. Mediocre in fact. Japan's growth is not being held back by economic fundamentals; the problem is political.

Back in 2003, the Koizumi government had some success with reforms. But the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) did not have the stomach or motivation for more comprehensive reform of the banking and lending system. Koizumi was the LDP's star but he always had a tense relationship with the party core. Koizumi made the contraversial decision to allow Japanese troops to be sent to Iraq. In 2006, Shinzo Abe took over but bribery scandals made his reign ineffectual. And now we have Fukada who also has troubles. The opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won control of the upper for the first time in Japan's history. The lower house is still in LDP hands. Currently, the government is still embroiled over a a fight as to whether Japan should send refueling ships to help American warships in the Middle East. This action, as well as Koizumi's decision to send troops to Iraq, calls into question Japan's pacifist constitution. This whole mess takes away from the government's ability to focus on reforms to stimulate economic growth. This fight has a lot to do with pre-election posturing. Fukada could call a general election in 2008. But it is only after the next election will the Japanese government be focused enough to work on reform. So get in now.

I'm a fan of ETFs (exchange traded funds). Instead of buying a single company such as Toyota or Japan, why not buy a fund that (generally) tracks the whole economy? My ETF of choice is the iShares MSCI Japan Index (ticket: EWJ). Do your research. Then go get EWJ.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

The Economist

Japan GDP - Real Growth Rate, Index Mundi

EWJ @ Yahoo Finance

*As of Friday, December 21st 2007, I do not own any shares in any Japan related stock or fund including EWJ.

A statistical proof of God?

by Ali-Asad

"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."
~George Gallup

In this quote, George Gallup hints at the probabilistic proof of God. This proof argues that the chance our universe evolved from the big bang to the way it is today are extremely minuscule. Roger Penrose, Oxford scholar and contemporary of Stephen Hawking, popularized this argument in his book The Emperors New Clothes. Here, Penrose calculated the probability of that the universe evolved into what it is today from all the possible random outcome. This figure he calculated to be;
1 in 10¹⁰¹²³.
That's an infinitely small probability; 0.000(+10,120 more zeros).

But can we put forward a more basic argument for the existence of God based on the science of statistics? How about the fact that the probability that a continuous random variable takes an exact value is equal to exactly zero? Let me explain.

Firstly, what is a continuous random variable? A random variable is just anything we can measure that varies; e.g. the number of cats in each home for the district you live in. In one house there could be 2 cats; in another 0, in another 4 and so forth. This random variable is an example of a discrete random variable. Discrete just means the random variable takes exact values (you can't have half a cat, or a quarter etc). A continuous random variable would be a measure of something like temperature or height. These don't take specific exact values but in practice we usually round them off for simplicity and that makes them discrete.
So far we've defined a random variable as a measure of something that varies and there are two types; discrete and continuous.

How do we find the probability that a continuous random variable takes an exact value? Imagine we define our (continuous) random variable as the height of all children in a school. Is there anyway to understand how these heights vary? Yes; the good ol' bell curve. But how the bell curve came about is important. It was actually discovered by a dude called DeMoivre; he found the bell curve was a good approximation for the binomial distribution when (n) was large.

Say what?

My post on Understanding Margin of Error describes what I'm talking about; but I'll go over it again. If I were to go up to one of the children in this school and ask them; "is your height 5 feet?" they would respond yes with a probability of (p) where (p) is the % of all school going children in the population of height 5 feet. This is the Bernoulli test. Now if I ask this child more questions like "Are you 4 feet tall?" and so on; eventually I will ask them (n) questions trying to deduce their height. If I could ask them an infinite number of questions (statisticians are just cool like that), I'd get a perfect picture of how tall this child is. This action of making (n) large (asking a lot of questions in the example) results in the bell curve or normal distribution. This fact hints at the power of the bell curve; you find it everywhere in nature.

Now we have a distribution that will help us find the probability a random child in this school is less than 5 feet, greater than 5 feet or exactly 5 feet. Let's try to find the probability that the child is exactly 5 feet and let's imagine that the average height of all school children is 4 feet. How do we find this probability. Firstly, we know that the total area under this curve must be 1 other (the sum of all the probabilities for each probable value must equal 1). So we have to find the area under the curve using what, calculus? Heck no. We can approximate the area under the curve with a rectangle (calculus is just cool like that).
Area of rectangle = length * width
Our length is 5 feet and our width is...0! Ouch.
Therefore the probability that our child is exactly 5 feet is exactly 0, as is the probability for any exact value.

Now the 64 million dollar question is; Given the above, how is it that I (and you too) have an exact definite height? The probability of us having an exact height is. Additionally, the bell curve applies to many other measures such as weight. I weigh an exact amount but should I? Can I? In his book God Hypothesis, Michael Corey makes a similar but less rigorous argument using the constants of nature. He argues that these constants that make the universe work could have taken an infinite range of values and so the probability that they have this one perfect value is in fact 0.

In other words, the probability of the word around us existing like we see it is exactly 0. Does that make for an effective argument for the existence of God? Or does that make the science behind beginning of the universe even more interesting?
Perhaps both.

And that's jus' the tip

Comment below.

References

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780641706011&z=y

The Normal Distribution, Wikipedia

Normal Distribution, West Virginia University

http://www.amazon.com/God-Hypothesis-Discovering-Goldilocks-Universe/dp/0742520544

Understanding "Margin of Error"

by Ali-Asad

"Statistics is like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive; but what they conceal is vital."
Aaron Levenstein

The media constantly feeds us a barrage of numbers from opinion poll surveys on vital topics such as; the war in Iraq, presidential approval and who will win in Iowa and New Hampshire. But little emphasis is put on an accompanying number; the margin of error. Firstly, I must point out that I am just as guilty of this as anyone else. In my 'Edwards in Iowa' post below I suggested that former Senator John Edwards may cause an upset in Iowa because supporters of the lesser-polling candidates prefer him as their second choice. The numbers:

Edwards - 29%
Obama - 24%
Clinton - 15%

So, what was the margin of error? The Rasmussen report cites the poll's margin as being "+/- 3%". Now what does that really mean?

Basically, if we were to repeat this poll an infinite number of times (math/stat people love thinking they can do things forever), 95% of our poll results would be within 3% of the results of this specific poll.

But how did we get all this? Consider that when a pollster asks a question there is a probability (p) that this person will respond yes and (1-p) that they will respond no. Pollsters seek to estimate the true (p) of the population based on the (p) of the sample they obtain. This is a Bernoulli random variable (also called a Bernoulli trial). When we expand this to a poll to (n) people we get a Binomial random variable. And if (n) is large, we can say that this random variable is has an approximate normal distribution (ie the distribution follows the infamous bell curve). This fact is important (thank the statisticians for this) because it allows us to conduct confidence intervals; basically allowing us to find an interval based on a desired level of confidence in the interval. Most polls use a confidence level of 95% and the margin of error is usually calculated as 1/√(n).

Recapping the 2 main points;

1. If we kept repeating our poll, 95%(or whatever confidence level we choose) of our poll results would be within the margin of error.
2. The above rests on the assumption that the answer to the poll question has an approximate normal (bell curve) distribution.

So take opinion poll results with a touch of salt, and especially if they are about the race among the democrats in the Iowa caucuses. Recall the unique caucus methodology of the democrats in Iowa in the post below. A true opinion poll that reflects these nuances would have to; take a poll of who 'likely' caucus-goers support (just as in normal polls). Next we would have to take into account caucus-goers shifting allegiances through persuasion. This factor could be modeled by taking factors such as caucusing experience and volunteer training and constructing a distribution of what % of candidate support will be lost to which candidate. After all that, we would then cut all candidates below the 15% threshold, and determine who their supporters would now support using the shifting allegiances distribution.
That could make for a very long research paper, or an interesting blog post...

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

References

Dems tight poll in Iowa, USA Today

Margin of Error & Confidence Interval, Concered Journalists

Rudimentary Statistics, Professor's Pool of Polls

Edwards for Iowa?

"John Edwards - his time is now"
Des Moines Register Editorial Board

This headline shows Iowa's statewide newspaper endorsing democratic candidate John Edwards - in 2004. Why bring up this obscure part of caucus history? There's no doubt that the Register's endorsement helped propel Edwards to second place behind Edwards in the 2004 caucuses. But just a few days ago the Register endorsed Hilary Clinton; supporting her nomination for the Democratic party. This is strange in light of the fact that the Register's editorial board still considers Edwards to be right on his main 2004 theme of two America's; one for the rich and one for the poor and the middle class. The Register goes on to heap praise upon for the former NC senator until the last line where they claim that he may be "too divisive a figure". Balls.
Senator Edwards has staked out clear positions on major issues such as Iraq (wrong to vote for it) and healthcare (government mandated). These policies do appear quite populist in nature. But can the Register really disqualify Edwards because he has staked out clear positions? On top of that, the Register is endorsing Senator Clinton who is just as divisive a figure if not more.

So what really disqualifies Edwards this time around?
Poll numbers. Plain and simple.

According to RealClearPolitics.com, Edwards is averaging around 13% nationally among the Democratic contenders and for the past month or so has been pushed into 3rd place in a media-hyped two horsed race between Senators Clinton and Obama. In other words, the media has forgotten about Edwards while they were (at first) relishing inevitability of a Hilary nomination and (now) caught up in Obama's ascent.

But don't count Edwards out. If anything, count on him for an upset.
Why?
Because the Iowa caucus system among the Democrats is not a straightforward go in and vote for your guy and hope for the best. Not at all. Basically, all caucus-goers convene at their precincts meeting place and proceed to stand in the corner that corresponds to which candidate they support. Then each team tries to convince fellow caucus-goers why there candidate is the best. Now caucus-goers may switch allegiances. Then, any candidate who does not muster enough support to be viable (15%) is deemed out of the running and the caucus-goers who supported that candidate are free to align themselves with another candidate. Let me illustrate the importance of the last few sentences with a (hypothetical) example.
If I was in Iowa(too cold) and could caucus (I'm not even a citizen), imagine I supported Biden (I do like the guy) and Obama was my second choice (quite possible). If while caucusing, Biden was deemed 'not viable' I would switch my support to Obama. Why is that important? Because Clinton, Obama and Edwards seem to be getting around 25% support in Iowa. This leaves 25% for all the other candidates. But that 25% may have to make a choice as to who they like they most between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. This choice could make all the difference.

I wasn't the first one to discover this idiosyncrasy in the system. The Washington Post cites a Rasmussen poll where among the lower polling candidates (mid tier/lower just seems so disrespectful for men of their background and experience) John Edwards is the 2nd choice of 29% of those polled; followed by Obama with 24% and Clinton with just 15%. Upset anyone?

And that's jus' the tip.

References

Why Clinton, DesMoinesRegister.com

Rating the Other Candidates, DesMoinesRegister.com

RCP Democrats, Iowa

RCP Democrats, National

Second choice voters, WashingtonPost

"Everything is One"

"Look at what was said; not who said it"
(Imam) Ali ibn Abi Talib

Let me introduce this blog by stating the different ideas that were competing to be my first blog entry;

Predicting the winner and losers of the Iowa caucuses

Further developing an online donation based charity

Getting through Plato's Republic

Rationality in faith (the one quoted hints to where my loyalty in faith and 
spirituality lie)

A unified theme? Some would be skeptical. But that is the nature of ideas. True ideas interest. Interests acts. And all action takes place in this finite world. They are all one.

And that's jus' the tip.