The Law of Conservation of Credibility
July 1st, 2009 by benign0Allow me to start off with a famous O.B.Q. (Original benign0 Quote):
The trouble with wiping dust off a mirror is that we get a clearer image of ourselves.
- benign0
As such, I cannot agree more with what Norman Sison wrote in a comment on Cocoy’s brilliant piece “Missing the Point on the Road to 2010“:
[...] Credible elections, whether automated or not, is an expression of the people’s will. Otherwise, a government ceases its reason for being, or raison d’etre, once it no longer reflects the people’s will. That’s how a democracy works.
Yes indeed.
“Credible elections” will in principle give a more accurate reflection not only of the “people’s will” but also the people’s character.
So lets put a number on the qualifier “credible”. Say, a 95% accurate (i.e. the remaining 5% attributable to uncertainty resulting from fraudulent activity) election result constitutes a “credible” outcome.
Thus;
A 95% accurate election outcome can be considered to be a credible reflection of “the people’s will”.
Now let’s say, for argument’s sake, that today’s elections are 75% accurate. This “75% accuracy” metric can be taken to imply that the current crop of politicians sitting in comfy offices in Congress reflect the character of the Filipinos to an accuracy of “only” 75%. Given the kinds of adjectives we love to use to describe our politicians, we can further infer that these same adjectives describe the character and will of the electorate to an accuracy of 75% as well, right? That’s because, in this example, we can be sure only with 75% confidence that our leaders embody the will and character of the electorate.
To digress a bit, consider this confronting question…
Who is the most feared politician today in terms of his “winnability”?
[Hint: Both his nickname and surname start with an "E". ;) ]
… and then hold that thought while we move along under the same thought experiment I introduced earlier:
Today we can find comfort in giving ourselves the benefit of the doubt to the tune of 25% uncertainty that our politicians are an evil lot and that we are all victims of an Evil Empire. Kung baga all the troubles we seem to battle in our efforts to represent our interests in Government have to do with that 25% rate of uncertainty in the legitimacy of our representatives’ and executives’ claim to the offices they currently hold.
Now envision a world in which a successful computerisation of elections was implemented in the Philippines along with a successful control over the non-automated processes involved in handling and encoding the vote into said systems. Presumably we’d have that 95% credibility in our elections to enjoy in such a world. Woo hoo!
Bring your thoughts back to that feared politician I mentioned earlier, and there’s the rub:
Winnable politicians will still win in such a world.
The criteria for who gets to rule and who gets to legislate in our sorry society does not change.
This hypothetically credible election has the following effects:
:D It reduces the credibility of our excuses for staging ocho-ocho “revolutions” from 25% to 5%; and,
:D It reduces the credibility of our excuses for not taking accountability for the quality of our Government from 25% to 5%.
Call it benign0’s brilliant Law of Conservation of Credibility. Every new capability acquired changes the landscape of accountability we face. The ouster of Ferdinand Marcos in that 1986 “revolution” removed what at the time was seen as the singular excuse for our chronic failure to prosper as a nation. It took more than 20 years since that “solution” for us to appreciate the reality that Marcos alone did not account for our chronic impoverishment.
We need to apply that twenty-year lesson in the way we regard our so-called “politics” today, especially considering that the moral asendancy of today’s “Opposition” is not as clear-cut as it was in 1986.
In the case of “poll automation”, for example, the spin created by the pontifications of today’s “Opposition” easily lead public perceptions down dead-end routes. And as such…
Many Filipinos have held high hopes that automation would help plug opportunities for mass cheating through changing of the results when they are unduly delayed by slow counting. The withdrawal of TIM has heightened concerns that the 2010 election might not be held or that an election marred by fraud might lead to a failure in election, providing an excuse for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to declare a national emergency which would result in the extension of her term beyond 2010.
… that’s what people who are not much into the habit of thinking are routinely led to believe. The reality is that whether or not there is an on-going initiative to “automate” elections, politics have a way of subverting even the best laid governance plans — including one that involves a scheduled election.
And while “[...]proponents of automation have offered it as a panacea for clean election [...]“, the fact is…
[...] It is not. The machines will be fed with returns collected by the Comelec and will be operated by technicians. A quick count system can only deliver results swiftly, but if the inputs are not honest or have been tampered with, the tabulation would not reflect the popular will. Such a system, if tampered with, could only facilitate mass cheating.
Modern or primitive methods applied, Philippine elections will remain essentially the same in practice. And we can find comfort in that reality in the way we will continue to remain happy in the comfy delusion that we are the righteous but hapless victims of a perceived circumstance (i.e. the “evilness” of politicians) that is way past its use-by date.
=========
Join us on Facebook!
July 1, 2009 at 9:06 pm
you’re right. automated or not, our elections can be marred by massive cheating. however, i can’t help but be disappointed that automation may not push through.
on the “evilness of politicians.” it’s a real problem, is it not? Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier for our country to progress if it were run by people who are not “evil”?
July 1, 2009 at 9:26 pm
So anyone joined the “Primaries” dito?
July 1, 2009 at 10:13 pm
“Allow me to start off with a famous O.B.Q. (Original benign0 Quote):”
Hhmmm Benigs, would you stop whatever you’re smoking or taking? I think you’re hallucinating again with that leftover LSD. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOO8-Jp-xsg
July 1, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Poll automation is not the all solution of our leadership ills in
our country. It is just one of the problem areas. Winnability of
any political candidate does not reflect, the candidate to be the
will of the people.
There are provinces in our country ruled by Family Political Dynasties. These Family Political Dynasties compromise to each
other. That there are no other choices. Some sort of political cartel. Other choices are denied to the people, except themselves.
I grew up in such a province. There is no true reflection of the
will of the people. So, you can have the most corrupt politician
elected in such a province.
July 2, 2009 at 12:13 am
One way to escape local dominace is to have a voting process wherein no one can double-check who you voted for. You have to use the special pen and fill out your ballot right next to the machine. Then insert the ballot. If someone paid for your vote, they’ll never know if you actually did.
Meanwhile, Rep Teddy Locsin has repeatedly said that “anyone who says these machines can be tampered with are lying!”
From what I know, I agree. Good luck to snyone who would try to manipulate the results in a massive way. Like ATMs, these machines are too limited in function to be compromised.
Since the notion keeps popping up in different threads, can anyone describe the actual methodology of tampering? Or even the potential targeted portion of the machine or process? And how this could affect the overall results?
July 2, 2009 at 8:36 am
Well, I quickly skimmed until I came to the line I thought read “Credible erections” and decided I’d better read this piece in detail. Damn, it turned out to be another voting machine article with social/philosophical intonations.
Your words, as per usual, rattled around in my brain a bit, and came out saying, essentially, ok, if people have confidence in the election, they think they are being well governed. If they do not, they can continue to use the weatherworn excuse, “we are getting screwed by our leaders”.
You figure 2010 in the Philippines will be more of the same, the politics will subvert the will of the people, and people will continue to be dissatisfied.
I suspect that if Mr. E wins, things will be no worse off than now, maybe considerably better. If Mr. V wins, start buying property near the planned expressways where he has invested. If Mr. T wins, maybe his wife will prove accurate when she says her hubby is committed to doing things differently. I think a credible election is a good thing, but the real deal is who sits in the power seat. Skilled at managing, profound at principle, dedicated at heart, honest in the wallet. It is simple, but whither, dear candidebatables, is that one good man (or woman)?
You know, I don’t care about the VFA, or the constitution rewrite, or foreign ownership of land and businesses, or health care, or poverty, or any specific issue. I care about CHARACTER. You can have clear and sensible positions on all the issues in the world and still be a lousy President.
That is Joe’s law of Character over Issue.
(Yeah, yeah, Ben. I know, I know. I can’t vote. It is an intellectual position, simply stretching the brain a bit. You should try it some time.)
Joe
July 2, 2009 at 9:14 am
You’re on to something here Joe. Essentially you are saying that we all just have to play the cards dealt to us well. Invest based on whatever writings on the wall you see.
Do that instead of being a crybaby over a perception of some immovable circumstance that can — with a bit of thinking — be circumvented.
That’s what everyone else on the winning side of the victimisation equation are doing in any case. ;)
In this world there will always victims and there will be victimisers. No amount of liberalist whining will cure that human condition (in fact it is a condition of the overall world of living organisms). You simply have to decide on which of the two camps you’d like to join.
July 2, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Benign0,
If you wish to make me appear deeper than I am, go ahead. It was an accident of expression, a search for comfort and reality amongst the angst, founded somewhat on the principle that when you strike bottom, there’s but one way to go.
Re. victims and victimisers, whiners and doers, you are absolutely correct, though we Americans would put a “zed” in there somewhere. Drawing one of those parallels you dissed elsewhere, in America, democrats suffered as victims gnashing their teeth for 8 years under Bush, now the conservative republicans are whining like the country elected a traitor to all humanity as its President.
So, really, all the gnashing and whining here in the Philippines is not so extraordinary. What is extraordinary is that there are so many gnashers and so few (simply) dealing with it.
(I’m personally a reformed gnasher. I made the mistake of reading your material, which looped around in a circle and met RealityCheck’s incessant cry for facts head-on.)
Joe
July 5, 2009 at 1:42 am
Benigno,
Ex- Pres. Estrada was already considered by many to be the man to beat in the 1998 elections. Yet more than 60% did not vote for him.
Since you are an advocate of that Japanese manufacturing engineers’ advice of “Do it right the first time”; you would have indicated if there were more than just the so called camp of the victim and the so called camp of the victimiser.
Since you indicated no other camps, then simply there are but 2 camps to belong to as far as you are concerned and that no amount of liberalist whining will cure that.
But then it should be no surprise to everyone that you hold only 2 sets of people.
I do remember implying that you probably have at least one “deviation” for which your book was created to satisfy.
http://filipinovoices.com/encapsulating-the-philippine-national-debate/comment-page-1#comment-58961
And you can show everyone how clear your mirror is for you by admitting which of the 2 camps you belong to.
So which of the 2 camps are you going to be admitting? You can even admit that you belong in both.
But then you might want to be thinking of your so called brilliant “Law of Conservation of Credibility” right about now for yourself. (if you think there is anything to conserve)
July 13, 2009 at 11:17 pm
@justice league:
I really don’t understand what your problem is. This article clearly places accountability on people for their circumstance, and illustrates an all-too-real dilemma whether one will:
(a) choose to prosper and celebrate economic/social/political advantage WITHIN an unjust system (the role of victimizer); or
(b) choose to not be part of group-a which means in keeping your integrity and maintaining your conscience you keep your principles at the expense of said eco/socio/political advantage (the role of victim).
This victim-victimizer relationship happens all around us. Are you a victim? Are you a victimizer? What – you’re neither? Are you telling us all that you’re not a weakling of a victim, and you’re no vile victimizer, which means you’re the third person in the room with no concern for how the other two are related? My, my, you’ve just implied that you’re a neutral party who doesn’t care about-, is not affected by-, and will make no attempt-, to influence any positive change that would cost you nothing (because if intervening would cost you, then you’re no longer the unaffected neutral party, you’d be a victim too). So, which one are you? Are you none of the three? You mean there’s a fourth person in the room? Lost in the metaphor?
So what about the Law of Conservation of Credibility gets your goat? Didn’t you get it that the more credible our elections become, the less credible our excuses for our circumstances become? conversely, the less credible the elections are, the more credible our excuses for the way things are? Bottomline: We have to own up and be accountable for putting the right people into power.
By the way, your ad hominem, to quote,
“But then you might want to be thinking of your so called brilliant ‘Law of Conservation of Credibility’ right about now for yourself. (if you think there is anything to conserve)”
does not apply.
You should’ve just said directly that benign0 has no credibility to you.
July 18, 2009 at 10:34 am
Parallax,
For one, I don’t accept his claim of the 2 camps of victimizer and victim.
Honeybees aren’t generally known to victimize anyone/thing when they make honey.
No I did not imply whatever you are saying.
Since I don’t believe in Benigno’s claim; your scenario does not apply to me.
But since you believe in what Benigno claimed; then it definitely applies to you.
Since there are only 2 camps to choose from (and there will always be 2 camps) and that 1 camp are victims, doesn’t it follow that those who choose to be victims remain as victims FOREVER?
And Benigno implied that there would be only 1 winning side; didn’t he?
But anyway, for those victims who will be successful in influencing POSITIVE CHANGE, will they still be victims or will they now be victimizers? Benigno did say that there will always be victimizers.
How about those victims who in one way or another were not successful in influencing positive change but who live in a society where some victims were successful in influencing positive change; if they remain as victims, who victimizes them now?
How does this positive change affect the victim-victimizer relationship? Benigno did say “In this world there will always victims and there will be victimisers.”
How much of a positive change then is this positive change you are referring to?
Why the question? What have I specifically said AGAINST Benigno’s so called brilliant Law of Conservation of Credibility?
You are the one who said that; not I!
Since you put it that way, WHICH OF A OR B DID YOU CHOOSE and which of A or B is the winning side?
That is your scenario so you should be more than willing to answer the question above but then you might want to be thinking of Benigno’s so called brilliant ‘Law of Conservation of Credibility’ right about now for yourself. (if you think there is anything to conserve)
July 18, 2009 at 12:11 pm
@justice league,
Well, frankly, I chose to be among the “victimizers.” I will tell you that my heritage is most likely different from and exclusive of, yours. I work my own hours and I gain my share of wealth out of making my employees work hard on wages while I get profits undisclosed to them. Instead of actually rasing salaries en masse, I simply throw a month’s worth of wages for 5 lucky employees at a raffle every bi-annual team-building seminar, not inclusive of the managers of course. I capitalize on the Filipino willingness to be employed even with practically unreasonable hours, subpar but legal wages, the most affordable affordable medical benefits, and snail-paced advancement. Yet, I get to sleep like a baby at night, because I’m not losing sleep over money. I won’t argue with you on the honeybees because we were clearly talking about PEOPLE.
Having admitted to which party I belong to, which you can’t do because you’re lost in your own overanalysis, I do realize that I have an unfair advantage so much so that I even have time to read up on blogs like this while my people work their ass off on a Saturday. You get the government you deserve, and I don’t blame myself for reaping the benefits.
Here’s a clue: It’s a wake-up call. I’m actually less affected by the situation than you are, so this “law” has an insight you ought to understand and understand well. If you choose not to learn from it, then by all means go the same path. I’ll just do as you do. (if you think there is anything to conserve)
July 19, 2009 at 4:41 am
Parallax,
You obviously didn’t understand me the first time. There is nothing to admit on that because I don’t accept Benigno’s claim of the 2 camps!
You’re lucky your rant is too childish to be taken seriously.
But nevertheless your case was referred to Green Lantern. But one look at your post; he flew away laughing, saying you don’t belong in his rogue gallery.
You belong in Batman’s!
July 19, 2009 at 8:16 am
Come visit me at Arkham then. Bring your friends. We got Jolly Cow melamine milk for breakfast. Bwahahaha!
July 19, 2009 at 10:27 am
That explains a lot!
Batman says he’ll have a talk with the authorities of Arkham over this.
But we can’t say if Batman will give a you personal visit or not. He’s been so different since his last encounter with Darkseid!
As for the rest of the League, we’re extremely busy.
July 22, 2009 at 10:12 am
Hal is a Chinese businessman? And Kyle doesn’t care? Will Arkham be able to contain Parallax?
JL’s not paying much attention. Tsk, tsk.
July 27, 2009 at 3:11 am
Yes, from the looks of it; Arkham can!