Research problem: “The 60-30-10 phenomenon in senatorial elections: Is this simply an artifact of law of large numbers?”

I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Dr. Felix Muga III showed that the total votes of Team PNOY (12), UNA (9), and other candidates (12) follow the 60-30-10 pattern for all canvass times. COMELEC explains this phenomenon as simply the result of the law of large numbers. Our aim then is to verify this claim of COMELEC by changing the elements of each 12-9-12 grouping and see if a similar constant ratio of a:b:c still holds for each canvass.

II. METHODOLOGY

A. Listing the Combinations

You have three bins: _ _ _. The first bin has 12 candidates. The second bin has 9 candidates. And the last bin has 12 candidates. The number of combinations for the first bin regardless of permutations or rearrangements is C_1 = 33!/((33-12)!12!) = 33!/(21!12!). Once you have chosen the elements of the first bin, the number of combinations left for the second bin regardless of permutations is C_2 = 21!/((21-9)!9!) = 21!/(12!9!). And once you have chosen the elements of the second bin, the number of combinations left for the third bin is C_3 = 12!/((12-12)!12!) = 12!/(0!12!) = 1. Thus, the total number of combinations of 33 senators placed in 12-9-12 bins is

C = C_1C_2C_3 = [33!/(21!12!)][21!/(12!9!)][1] = 33!21!/(21!12!12!9!) = 33!/(12!12!9!) = 1.0429×10^(14).

This listing cannot anymore be done by hand.

B. Computing the ratios

For each combination of candidates in the 12-9-12 bins, compute the total number of votes B_1 in each bin 1, the total number of votes B_2 in bin 2, and the total number of votes B_3 in bin 3. Define the vote vector

V = [B_1, B_2, B_3]/(B_1 + B_2 + B_3) = (b_1, b_2, b_3),

where b_1, b_2, and b_3 are greater than 0 but less than 1. We can see that the only linearly independent variables are b_1 and b_2, because b_3 = 1 – b_1 – b_2. Plot the b_1 and b_2 in the x and y axis. Trace the path of the (b_1, b_2) point as a function of integer canvass time t. If the b_1:b_2 ratio is fairly constant, then the plot will look like a fuzzy ball of a particular radius. Measure the radius of the smallest ball that contains all the points. Alternatively, one may get the root-mean-square value of the distances of the points from the centroid and use this RMS value as the radius.

C. The Bubble Chart

We now have a table with columns defined by (combination in bin 1, combination in bin 2, b_01, b_02, R_0), where (b_01, b_02) is the centroid or the average percentage values of each bin . We plot (b_01, b_02, R_0) in a bubble chart.

D. Clustering

We cluster the bubbles according to bubble radius. We use the 2D standard deviation (or RMS value) of the percentages Team Pinoy-UNA-Others combination as a unit of measurement. We classify bubbles according to sizes and we make a histogram. We compute the probability that a normalized bubble radius is between 0 and 1, between 1 and 2, between 2 and 3, and so on. If the probability for the normalized bubble radius is at its peak at 1, then we have reason to believe that what COMELEC says is true: it is just the law of large numbers. But if the peak is elsewhere and farther from 1, then we have a reason to doubt COMELEC’s statement.

III. DATA

I don’t have data for each canvass. This is simply the number of votes counted for each candidate during each canvass.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

I need the help of a programmer.

Advertisements

John Carlos “JC” G. de los Reyes: Senatorial candidate of Ang Kapatiran Party

John Carlos “JC” G. de los Reyes: Senatorial candidate of Ang Kapatiran Party

John Carlos “JC” G. de los Reyes: Senatorial candidate of Ang Kapatiran Party

Born February 14, 1970, married to Dunia Valenzuela with four children, Gabriel 14, Santiago 12,Barbara, 10 and Juliana 1.

JC as he is known is owner/proprietor of Legobrick Systems and Designs (www.facebook.com/legobrickphilippines), managing director of Barbara’s Foods, Inc.  and sole proprietor of RJ Marine Allied and General Services, a company engaged in shipping services. He is at present, president of Ang Kapatiran Party, national political party, and President of the Intramuros Tourism Council.

He studied in Ateneo de Manila for his elementary education, and graduated in De la Salle for high school. He finished his B.A. in Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio. In 1999 he finished his post-graduate studies in Public Administration from the University of the Philippines and has a law degree from Saint Louis University, Baguio City.

In 1993 he taught Philosophy in the then Center for Research and Communication, now the University of Asia and the Pacific, and was under the tutelage of Fr. Joseph de Torre, a Spanish priest of the Holy Cross who wrote extensively on the social teachings of the Church. This training led him to work with Fr. Joe Dizon, being lead animator of Solidarity Philippines, a movement to pro-actively advance the Social Teachings of the Church. In 1995, he ran and was elected City Councilor of Olongapo. During his term, he focused on the poor, the youth and cooperatives.

In 1996, JC met Nandy Pacheco in the National Renewal Movement. JC a new politician at age 25 was disappointed with the political party he joined as there was no emphasis on platform and principles. He was then a member of the Nacionalista Party in name but not in heart.

During this time President Ramos’ men were ramming down charter change as his term was to end in 1998. De Venecia’s Rainbow Coalition was the source of patronage and power. Also, that same time was wrought by fear and uncertainty for an Estrada presidency. This was the backdrop under which the National Renewal Movement was organizing.

In 1998, JC did not run for re-election out of disgust for patronage/trapo politics and campaigned for Santi Dumlao and Nandy Pacheco of National Renewal’s Bago Party. Unfortunately, they lost but the fire and zeal obviously did not end there. It was after this, and after intense prayer and discernment that it was a genuine accountable and responsible political party that was seen as the missing link for real reforms in Philippine Politics.

In late 2003, Norman Cabrera for Central Luzon, JC de los Reyes for Northern Luzon and Fr. Leonardo Polinar for the Visayas and Mindanao gathered the needed signatures for the accreditation of Alliance for the Common Good or Ang Kapatiran Party. It was finally accredited by COMELEC on 8 May 2004 or 2 days before the 10 May 2004 elections.

After a decade absent from local politics, JC ran under Kapatiran party in the 2007 elections and, among the party’s 30 local and national candidates, he was Kapatiran’s lone winner.

He campaigned against illegal drugs, rampant violations of worker’s rights at Hanjin and was outspoken against illegal fish cages in Olongapo. More recently, he also led protests against the proposed coal power plant and criticized government’s plan to open more casinos in Subic. He filed numerous cases before the Ombudsman against high ranking government officials where he himself was complainant.

In the 2010 national elections, he was the youngest presidential candidate who led the charge for new politics, together with a vice-president, 8 senatorial and 50 local candidates. Though they lost the election, they won the awareness of the people on issues such as the RH bill, the political dynasties issue, the FOI and the need for platform and principles based politics.

(Note: Thanks to Norman Cabrera of Ang Kapatiran Party for sharing to me this article.)

Parliamentary system for the Philippines

I read about the Comelec’s disqualification of some party-list groups.  I also read about Ang Kapatiran’s advocacy against political dynasties.  I think the abuse of the party-list and political dynasties cannot be curbed in our present constitution.  So I would like to propose the adoption of the parliamentary system with proportional representation in a unicameral congress; we abolish the senate.  The only problem is how will the congress be represented.

I think we can have several political parties.  The number of representatives of each political party will depend on the number of votes for the party.  In a sense, we abolish the party-list system and expand it to all political parties. Suppose there are 100 seats in the Congress. If 50% of the listed voters voted for Ang Kapatiran Party, then 50 members of the party gets seated in the Congress.  If 25% voted for the Liberal Party, then 25 members of the Liberal party gets seated in the Congress.  And so on.  In this way, people will simply write the names of the parties in the ballots.

The naming of the party is also being abused with many parties taking Filipino names so that they can take advantage of the “Ang” preposition.  This is really crazy.  I think the political party names in the sample ballot needs to be arranged according to the noun or adjective and not to the preposition.  Thus, Liberal Party should be listed before Ang Kapatiran.  The other possibility is to remove such list entirely: it is then the party’s problem to make them memorable during election day.

I don’t think we can curb political dynasties in our present system.  Some names are associated with politics: Recto, Aquino, Pimentel, Laurel, etc.  Some families have a good track record for service; but some also have a long tradition for corruption.  Philippines is really ruled as an oligarchy by a few ruling families, in the same way as Feudal Europe was once ruled by a few noble families.  So when we vote for a party and not a surname for the congress, we partially remove the clout of the political families. Thus, by the adoption of the parliamentary system, the citizens would focus more on the party platform rather than on the personalities behind them.

Now, what do we do in the local scale–the province, the city, and the barangay?  I think we can also adopt the same parliamentary system.  We can also propose a policy for political parties that members cannot be nominated to a higher position if he has no experience serving in the lower position.  So the resume of government officials should look like this: barangay parliament member (3 years), city parliament member (3 years), provincial parliament member (3 years) , national parliament member (3 years).  The prime minister of each parliament is voted by the members of the parliament.

Bishop Deogracias Iniquez opposes Supreme Court Decision: Accreditation of LADLAD is pushing homosexual abnormality

MANILA, April 9, 2010— A Catholic bishop assailed a Supreme Court decision allowing a gay rights party to participate in May 10 elections. Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Iniguez said allowing a party-list group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders in Congress is foul.

“We recognize them, respect them, but their situation is an abnormality. The person is approving and encouraging an abnormality, which is unnatural,” Iniguez said.

The country’s highest court yesterday ordered the Commission on Elections to accredit Ang Ladlad party-list for the next month’s elections. In November the poll body barred Ang Ladlad from the polls, citing moral grounds. But the Supreme Court said that homosexuality is not a crime.

Bishop Iniguez said the Catholic hierarchy opposes the court decision and said accrediting the gay rights group is pushing abnormality.

In the 2007 elections, the election commission also rejected the party on the ground that it did not represent a “marginalized and underprivileged” sector as required by election laws.

Ateneo de Manila University Professor Danton Remoto, chairman of Ang Ladlad with over 22, 000 registered members, said they would advocate “equal rights and not special rights” in the workplace and in schools to remove discrimination against homosexuals. He said same-sex marriage was not on their agenda, adding that it would prosper in the Philippines anyway. (Roy Lagarde/CBCPNews)

LADLAD party list and Comelec: Some scriptural reflections on the real meaning of discrimination

I.  Comelec, CHR, and LADLAD

A group of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBT), led by Danton Remoto, an English professor in Ateneo de Manila University, asked the Commission on Elections to approve as a Party List their group named LADLAD, a Filipino word which means “public display of homosexuality”.  The Comelec, led by the presiding commissioner Nicodemo C. Ferrer, dismissed the petition on moral grounds:

Petitioner should be denied accreditation not only for advocating immoral doctrines but likewise for not being truthful when it is said that “it or any of its party list representatives have not violated or failed to comply with laws rules and regulations relating to the elections.”

Furthermore, should this Commission grant the petition, we will be exposing our youth to an environment that does not conform to the teachings of our faith.  Lehman Strauss, a famous bible preacher and writer in the U.S.A., said in one article that “older practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth.”  As an agency of the government, ours too is the State’s avowed duty in Sec. 13, Article II of the Constitution to protect our youth from moral and spiritual degradation.

We are not condemning the LGBT, but we cannot compromise the greater number of our people, especially the youth.

(Scrbd article.  Note page 6 is missing.  This page contains I think the Oct. 2, 2008 detailed comment of the Comelec).

The LADLAD complained that this is gender discrimination.  And the Commission on Human Rights supports their claim:

CHR said however that the poll body’s decision “smacks of prejudice and discrimination.”  “There is or can be no basis in law to deny the registration of the party, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of homosexuality, much less on homosexuality equated to immorality. To make assertions based on their homosexuality is patently discriminatory,” she said.  “Homosexuality is not a counterculture. It is part of the diversity of Philippine culture. Homosexuals are part of the Filipino family and unavoidably must be part of our politics,” CHR chair Leila De Lima was quoted in the statement as saying.  “There is no governmental policy which characterizes homosexuality as illegal nor immoral,” De Lima said. (ABS-CBN)

II.  Discrimination in Scriptures: Clean and Unclean, Holy and Profane, Good and Evil

Discrimination has been defined as something bad, so that we have now invented phrases like racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and age discrimination.  These things should not happen, modern society says.  We must not discriminate.

But let us consider the etymology of discriminate and discrimination:

Discriminate.1620s, from L. discriminare “to divide,” from discrimen, derived n. from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating (adj.) “possessing discernment” (1792).

Discrimination. 1640s, “the making of distinctions,” from L. discriminationem, noun of action from discriminare (see discriminate). Especially in a prejudicial way, based on race, 1866, Amer.Eng. Meaning “discernment” is from 1814.

To discriminate is to divide, to make distinctions, to discern.  If you read the book of Genesis, you will see that God is discriminating: God placed order in chaos by separating light from darkness, day and night, heaven and sea, sea and land, animals and fishes, plants and birds, male and female.  Creation can never be accomplished without discrimination.  And God said that it is good.

If you read the book of Exodus and Leviticus, you will see that God gave a precise rules for determining whether something is clean or unclean.  Thus Israelites have all these rules regarding water potability (don’t drink a cup of water if an insect falls on it), food (carnivores and and non-fishes cannot be eaten), leprosy (suspected lepers are quarantined), etc.

Why all these rules for clean and unclean?  Moses said to Aaron:

You must be able to distinguish between what is sacred and what is profane, between what is clean and what is unclean; you must teach the Israelites all the laws that the LORD has given them through Moses. (Lv 10:10-11)

Thus, the laws to distinguish clean and clean are laid out as a pedagogical tool to help the Israelites to know what is sacred and profane.  If you are a teacher, you will first teach students the arithmetic rules like 2 apples + 3 apples = 5 apples before you teach them the algebraic rules of 2x + 3x = 5x.  You first start with something concrete, then you go to something abstract.  Since God is a good teacher, he first teaches Israelites clean and unclean things and actions, then He teaches them why Israel is a holy nation and not like the other nations, why the priest is holier than the levites, why the Bread of the Presence and the Ark of the Covenant are holy, etc.  Material to Spiritual.  This is the divine pedagogy.

After teaching the distinction between clean and unclean, holy and profane, Moses commanded Aaron to teach all the laws that God has given them through Moses.  This is the third step: moral.  What is good?  What is evil?  These questions are answered by the Ten Commandments.

The sixth and ninth commandments are “Though shalt not commit adultery” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”  On these two laws we can group all the sexual sins and among them are on homosexuality:

You shall not have carnal relations with your neighbor’s wife, defiling yourself with her. You shall not offer any of your offspring to be immolated to Molech, thus profaning the name of your God. I am the LORD. You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent. (Lv 18:20-23)

Notice that adultery, abortion, homosexuality, and bestiality are enumerated together. Adultery and abortion are the ones that will result if the Reproductive Health Bill pushes through; homosexuality if LADLAD becomes a Party List; and bestiality will not be far behind.

And God said:

Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves. Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants. You, however, whether natives or resident aliens, must keep my statutes and decrees forbidding all such abominations by which the previous inhabitants defiled the land; otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it, just as it vomited out the nations before you. Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people. Heed my charge, then, not to defile yourselves by observing the abominable customs that have been observed before you. I, the LORD, am your God. (Lv 18:24-30)

If Filipinos do not wish to vomited out of the land called the Philippines, God says that we must never do these abominations.  God is faithful to his promises.  Let us reject the Reproductive Health Bill and not allow LADLAD as a Party List.

So is the Comelec discriminating towards lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgenders (LGBT) in LADLAD?  Yes, Comelec is indeed discriminating, because God Himself is discriminating.  We must purge the evil in our midst.