First the cunning plan, though.

Raising doubts over whether the electronic voting machines are tamper-proof, Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy today mooted a new idea saying the election commission should modify the EVMs so that one gets a receipt after casting the vote as in the case of an ATM.

“That the EVMs are tamper-proof is a false claim. However, the machines can be modified on the lines of ATM wherein we will get a receipt after casting the vote which can be put into a sealed box,” he told reporters here.

Looks like a good plan. But here’s the catch. We know that votes are often bought and duly paid for by the crooks politicians who generally engage in this farce contest the elections. The voter is usually bribed with a bottle of liquor and perhaps Rs 100, and told to vote. The problem is that there is no certain way of ensuring that the voter indeed voted for the party that bribed him. So a lot of the bribes are wasted on people who end up voting for the other parties. With an ATM-like receipt, the voter can now prove that he has indeed kept his promise.

So here’s how it will go. Party pays Rs 100 up front and tells the voter that he will get Rs 400 upon production of proof-of-voting. (Somewhat like the proof-of-purchase you need to send in to get your cash rebate.) Said voter votes, pockets the little receipt, exchanges it with the party for Rs 400. Now that is called efficiency. The party now does not have to get cheated out of the vote that they bought fair and square (for sufficiently elastic definitions of ‘fair and square.’)

“Waitammit,” you may say, “Does not the party have a reason to not keep its promise now that the vote is cast?” Not really. If the party reneges on its promise, word will get around and the party will lose its credibility. There’s honor among thieves but only because of a reputation effect.

You may object and say, “But that ATM-like receipt is supposed to go into a sealed box. So how can the guy keep the receipt to collect his Rs 400?”

The box is sealed. How can anyone tell whether Mr Bribed Voter deposited it or not? He could as well deposit some other scrap of paper. He would have a reason to do so given that without it he stands to lose Rs 400.

The plan is bollocks. Voting machines are machines with software or firmware that can have malicious bits built into them. They can never be certified to be absolutely tamper proof. Or rather the manufacturer cannot credibly prove that the machine cannot be compromised. There is only one way for making it almost tamper proof: by publishing the software that runs the machines. Open source code has that advantage. Bugs and other concealed features are more likely to be detected by third parties.

All this electioneering and voting is a farce anyway in a country like India. Adding electronic voting machines whose source code is not revealed ups the degree of farce one notch. Adding little ATM-like receipts ups the farce even more. When will all this end?

Related Posts:

A Cargo Cult Democracy. May 2004:

In the case of India, we have a cargo cult democracy. It looks like one with electronic voting machines and election speeches and manifestos, with pollsters and pundits, with election commissioners and voting stations. Only the deep backend is missing. There is no understanding of issues of substance among the people who vote. Put up a name which is recognizable, and they would vote for or against that name. Promise enough freebies (free electricity, for instance) and they will vote for you, never mind that it may bankrupt the state and that eventually it will impoverish the same voting public. For democracy to work, you need accountability — both among those who vote and those who are elected. In an area where the government is seen as a source for endless handouts by the people, and the leaders look upon their stint in the driving seat as an excellent opportunity to steal from the public, democracy is not likely to work.

On Being Ruled by Toads. Dec 2004:

India is as I have maintained before a cargo-cult democracy. Centuries of being ruled by foreigners creates a culture of servility and powerlessness that is hard to overcome. In a strict sense, Indians deserve to be ruled by toads because they “elect” to be ruled by toads. Being ruled by toads has the ripple effect that finally culminates in an abjectly poor country that is euphemistically referred to as a “developing economy.”

Certainly, children should not have to work for a living. Childhood is when a person needs nurturing, schooling, time to play and explore, the opportunity to grow both emotionally and physically. When a child is forced to work, it hampers her growth, stunts her psychological and intellectual development, and prevents her from realizing her full potential. Child labor is an unmitigated evil and any society which suffers from it should be grossly ashamed of that fact.

That social worker, just like the policy makers who came up with the ban, is a monkey. A monkey which attempts to save a fish from drowning by putting it up on a tree. Well intentioned perhaps but devastating in consequence. From the frying pan into the fire, as it were. Stupid and retarded because these monkeys are unable to distinguish between causes and consequences. Please, lord, please save us from the do-gooders since we are already suffering immeasurably.

Child labor is a symptom; it is not the problem. The problem lies elsewhere and unless the problem itself is addressed, merely addressing the symptom makes the situation immensely worse for the victim children. The children who have to work are most certainly the children of desperately poor parents. Poor people do not love their children any less than rich people do. It is dire necessity that forces them to take that drastic step. It is a choice that they make after considering the alternatives. It is a rational response to an unbearable condition.

Consider a hypothetical scenario. Ramesh is the 8-year old son of very poor parents living in a slum in Mumbai with 4 siblings younger than him. The parents are extremely poor and cannot adequately feed and clothe their five children. Naturally they don’t have money to spare to send Ramesh to school. Instead they depend on Ramesh’s income of Rs 15 a day from working in a small roadside restaurant to be able to keep their other children from falling from mild malnutrition to severe starvation. Ramesh gets to eat the leftovers at the restaurant.

Then the monkeys move in. Ramesh loses his job at the restaurant and now has to rummage among the garbage bins around the city to keep body and soul together. His parents send out Ramesh’s six-year old little sister to fend for herself as the mother has to work longer hours at a construction site to make up for the loss of Ramesh’s cash income. In about a year, the family is significantly worse off than before the monkeys made their move. From an already bad situation, they find themselves worse off. All thanks to the retards that make policy.

A law banning child labor would be a wonderful policy response if there were evil parents who while being quite capable of giving their children a good caring home instead sent them to out to labor in restaurants and factories. That law would be welcome if prevented from working as domestic help, the child was provided the opportunity to go to school, live in an adequate home, receive sufficient nutrition. But that law does not do any good if the alternative to working as a domestic help (and getting something to eat even though treated as a second class citizen of the house) is slow starvation.

Child labor is a rational strategy within the larger framework of the society. There are many factors that go into that response. First, there is inadequate production of stuff. Which leads to why some people get a very small share of that production. In other words, their incomes are low. These people may then have too many mouths to feed. Low status of women in society leads to more children than can be reasonably cared for. Oversupply of unwanted children leads to a low “price”, that is, they are under-valued. Lacking sufficient social safety net, some families are forced to augment their incomes through child labor.

I don’t see how banning child labor can help the cause of extremely poor children. How about throwing the parents of children who work into prison? Seems to me that that policy would have equally “beneficial” consequences. How about increasing the fines on people who employ children? It will merely make the hiring of children more expensive and fewer children will be employed and the “over supply” of child labor will drive down their wages further. And of course, fines means some government employees will extract bribes from employers so as to look the other way. To make up for additional cost of paying off corrupt government officials, the employers will reduce the “benefits” the child receives for his labor.

The evils of child labor cannot be wished away, nor legislated away. The way out is to address the complex of causes which leads to the effect which is millions of children being denied a childhood. The rational solution would involve, first of all, implementing policies which prevent the birth of too many unwanted children. “Family planning” vigorously implemented. But then, no political party has the guts to do so. Next, make it a law that a child laborer has to be paid the same wages as an adult. This would give employers no reason to employ children when for the same wages they can have an adult worker. Third, provide schools and meals at schools (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) for all children. This would make schools attractive for those children who are poor enough to have to work for food. Finally, provide very poor parents a monthly stipend if their children attend school regularly. This would help them make ends meet without having to send their children to work. THEN, and only then, pass a law banning child labor.

I should stress that all of the above (and more) should be done. Just doing one and not the rest will make things worse. For instance, just giving poor parents a stipend for sending their children to school will incentivize them to have more children. Therefore, you have to limit the number of children that people can have.

Is India capable of doing all that is required to eradicate child labor? No. So in the meanwhile we doom millions of innocent children to a life that I would not wish on a rabid dog: rummage in the garbage and slowly starving to death. At least for the rabid dogs I would simply shoot them. For the children, we impose a living hell.

Mera Bharat Mahan. It is all karma, neh?