Yes, there is free money and it belongs to you

 A very good example of why populism doesn't work has to do with the U.S. Federal Budget (this also applies to the Eurozone and most of unaffiliated EUNA) and the common populist position for a balanced budget.  The common is line is that families know that they must balance their budgets and so does the Federal government.  Say a family's income doubles.  They will likely move to a bigger house, taking on a bigger mortgage, buy newer and better cars, taking on car loans.  So, in that year, they will actually spend more than they earn through borrowing and they will take on more debt.  It is also not a true statement because families do not have control of the currency and, thus, have none of the benefits that can be derived from managing the money supply.

The central government, on the other hand, does have a hand in creating money supply.  Generally, the money supply needs to be increased by Real GDP + Inflation target divided by money velocity.  This has traditionally been done through fractional reserve lending by banks.  In other words, the banks only need to hold 10% of what they lend in the form of various reserves.  Another way of looking at that is that the banks are allowed to loan a deposit out ten times and they do this by creating more money in circulation.  The profit from doing that accrues to the bank and beneficially to their stockholders.

The Federal Reserve (or other National Banks) does this through manipulating the member banks' cost of money.  The logic is that if the central bank lowers interest rates to their member banks, the member banks can lower the interest rates to their customers.  From this, it is assumed that the demand for loans will increase and the banks will create more money.  It is, however, an imprecise tool.  It is conceivable, and in fact has happened, that the central bank will lower interest rates and private borrowers, for other reasons, will decide to deleverage.

This happened during the 2008 financial crisis.  Much of this 'deleveraging' was in the form of corporations going bankrupt and massive mortgage defaults.  In the face of this massive forced deleveraging, lowering interest rates would accomplish very little in stimulating borrowing.  So, the central banks had no choice but to infuse money supply into the system or the whole economy would suffer a catastrophic liquidity collapse.  They managed to support the money supply by purchasing bonds with created money.  This was called Quantitative Easing.  It is very effective and very precise.  It managed to keep the recession from becoming a depression.

In the 21st Century, two things have taken place that render the traditional fractional reserve method of managing money supply even less effective.  First, banks are losing much of their business to other institutions.  For example, a family's mortgage is generally funded by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other securitizing organizations.  What this means is that the securitizer will bundle a large number of mortgages and then issue bonds with the mortgages as collateral.  By some Accounting legerdemain, the mortgages sort of disappear, with the bonds, referred to as derivatives, remaining.  Second, businesses that once was a very significant borrower with banks are using a series of other sources of non-equity financing.

The 'establishment' tends to demonize QE (as quantitative easing is called), not because it has very good reasons for it, but because the financial industry has become dependent upon fractional reserves as a source of income.  However, in large part, it is defending a practice that seems to be dying no matter what they do. 

One of the major advantages of QE, beyond its effectiveness and precision, is that the profits do not accrue to the member banks, but rather to the U.S. Treasury.  In other words, QE kills two birds that we really want dead with one stone.  First, Federal deficits are, in essence, free.  Yes, the Treasury must pay interest on the debt, but the interest flows right back to it.  Second, it is more efficient and effective.

A whole lot of research has shown that a small inflation rate is beneficial to the Economy and, thus, the well being of the citizens.  Much is made of the dollar losing 90% of its value over the last 70 years.  While true, it is also mostly irrelevant.  Unless of course, 70 years ago, your grandparents put their life savings under their mattress and your parents, and now you, left it there.  Yes, it lost 90% of its purchasing power.  However, most people live 'pay check to pay check', which means that between earning a dollar and spending a dollar the loss in purchasing power amounts to a small fraction of 1%. 

So, if the central bank targets inflation at, say, 2.5% and the economy grows at a real rate of 2.5%, money supply will need to increase by 5%.  If money supply is, say, $16 trillion, money supply will need to increase by $800 billion.  The central bank does this by buying debt, most commonly, government debt.  It should be noted that this is not always the case.  The U.S. Federal Reserve has bought debt of the government authorized mortgage securitizers to increase money supply while lowering mortgage rates when compared to other debt instruments.

Much has also been made of the very rapid rise in money supply and the demagogues have tried to convince voters that this is unrealized inflation.  It may be, but that is unlikely.  In February 2020, M2, the most commonly quoted money supply statistic, was at $15,447 trillion.  Two years later, in February 2022, it increased to 21,812 trillion.  Obviously, the approximately $6.4 trillion increase is much more than the $800 billion X 2 = $1.600 trillion explained in the previous paragraph.  Normally, that would spell a very hefty amount of inflation.  However, during those two years, the velocity of money fell from about 1.4 to 1.1 and has stayed there since.  The Federal Reserve needed to put money into circulation to counteract that drop or substantial deflation would have taken place.

If velocity returns to its previous level, money supply will need to be reduced by about $800 billion.  This can easily be done by the Federal Reserve selling that many government bonds.  If it is sold to domestic investors, it will put upward pressure on interest rates.  If it is sold to international investors, it will increase the value of the dollar in Forex markets.  Clearly, there is $4 trillion of money supply not accounted for ($6.4 gross increase - $1.6 trillion 'earned' increase - $800 billion of velocity).  Where is the rest?  Most of it is the result of increased QE.  In other words, it is sitting on the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve.    If that is not going to turn into inflation, and it will be a total of $4 trillion / $21.8 trillion = 18%, the Federal Reserve will need to sell $4 trillion of its government bonds.  That will ease inflation but increase interest rates.  That results in a careful balancing.

As stated earlier, M2 needs to be increased by about $800 billion per year in order for the Federal Reserve to hit their inflation target.  If this is done by QE, it literally is 'free money', hence the title of the article.  Some of it may or may not be done through fractional reserve.  However, with the need to increase interest rates, that will not work.  So, the Federal Reserve really has no choice but to buy debt in order to reach the goals.  This does not need to be Federal debt.  It could be, again, debt issued by the mortgage industry, State and municipality debt or corporate debt.  It even could buy equity if it so chose.  What they buy really isn't as important as the issuing of new money.

However, and this is the second part of the title, the proceeds from the purchase accrues to you, the tax payer.  This logic, that the Federal government can overspend by $800 billion per year and, thereby, either increase spending or lower taxes.  If the income explosion that I predict increases Real GDP growth per year by 5% per year, the 'free money' pool will increase to $1.2 trillion.  How it should best be spent is a matter of political discussion.  However, first it must be recognized as a thing to be discussed.  Right now, this piece of Economics is being obfuscated.

The one sentence is a restatement of the title, 'Quantitative Easing creates free money and it belongs to you.  What should be done with it?'

 I published this in 1999 It was mostly ignored and when it was commented upon, it was ridiculed.

What If There Were 2,000 Television Networks?

Since its inception, access to television programming has been restricted. Until the introduction of cable and satellite television, viewing options were generally limited to three broadcast networks, Public Television and frequently one local independent station. Because the Federal government claimed ownership of the airwaves, freedom of expression was severely restricted through several controlling mechanisms.

With the introduction of cable television in the 1980's, the government lost the power to control programming and shows began to enter our homes that would have been censored during the broadcast era. Many people considered much of the cable programming morally, politically or cultural offensive. When this reached a critical level in the 1990's, public dialogue began to focus on self-censoring technologies such as the V-chip.

Although cable television dramatically increased our viewing options, it was still relatively restricted. First, in order to acquire one of the multiplexed channels, a network had to present a complete spectrum of programming. This required large amounts of capital and restricted access to the marketplace. Second, because of the limited number of available multiplexed channels, ratings were important and most of the cable networks chased the same mainstream viewing preferences.

High speed Internet access will change everything about television. Currently, there are many competing technologies, however, the edge most likely will go to systems such as AT&T Broadband that use an existing multiplexed cable channel. You literally will be watching cable television, but the source of the signal will be directed through the Internet. AT&T is positioning itself to be a full-spectrum Internet supplier, including Internet based television and movies.

There are some obvious implications of this change in prevailing technology. One is the 'episode archive'. After its airing, a television show will be uploaded onto the Network web site for people to view whenever they want. Advertising rate cards will begin to quote two rates; one for the initial airing and a 'per view' rate from the archive. There is no particular reason why the advertisements in the initial broadcast must be the same as the ones in the Archive version. In fact, there is no reason why the archive version must contain advertising at all. For a nominal fee, the viewer can choose to download a commercial free version.

Western civilization has become change receptive. There are many, many examples of a new technology moving from 'surprising' to 'old hat' in just a couple of years. Internet based television will profoundly change people's viewing habits. The 'broadcast schedule' which has been an embedded assumption of television from the beginning will disappear. People will watch a particular television show when it suits their mood, not when it is being shown. Many people will choose to purchase commercial free versions which will completely change the way television is financed and how people become aware of their purchasing options.

The evolution to Internet based television will also dramatically modify the role of the Network. Time slot competition will become meaningless. Prime Time will also lose its significance. Networks can offer more or less programming than the time slots that have traditionally been the determinant. Ratings and share, which has driven so much of the Industry, will no longer be a decision making criteria. If a show is profitable, it will be made available. The cost of Internet supplied television will be low, consequently the number of profitable shows will explode.

Today, we are mostly there.  Both Broadcast TV (though mostly delivered through cable) and cable TV is still mostly dominant, but losing ground quickly.  Netflix, Hulu, Amazone Prime, HBO, Paramount, Disney+ and others are now the Internet delivered Networks that I envisioned, producing their own content. According to surveys, the majority of people now get their news from the Internet, and this includes many Internet based news networks and independent shows.

Often, what I am saying today may seem counterintuitive, even wrong.  But, so did this little article 23 years ago.  One of my problems as a 'public intellectual' is that I do tend to live 20 years in the future and that is beyond the planning horizon for most people.  When they do think about 20 years in the future, it is seriously clouded by propaganda, hopes and fears. Not for me.  I have no agenda and my motivation is totally that of curiosity.

We Need to Leave Facebook

I just was locked out of Facebook for 24 hours over what they considered to be a 'hate speech' comment.  I will explain it here for fear that if I tried to explain it on Facebook I would be censored again and be put on a road to permanent banishment.

Many of my Facebook friends know that I spend much of the year in Albania.  One of them commented with a map that showed the mean IQ of the Balkan nations.  Albania was shown on the map as 89.  I confessed that, yes, if you go to Albania you will notice that, as a group, they are slow on the uptake.  It isn't a huge difference.  Americans have a mental age of about 15, on average, and Albanians average a mental age of 13.5.  That is what got me in trouble for stating that one group is inferior to others.  

The question is whether the 10 point difference is 1) an artifact of the test, i.e. cultural unfairness, 2) the result of environmental differences, or 3) the result of actual differences in allelic frequencies, i.e. genetic.

My response related to the Flynn Effect.  Essentially, during the 20th Century, IQs in Western countries increased at the rate of about 2 points per decade.  The reason for this is controversial.  I explain it as being essentially the same as if a population was subjected to increasing emphasis on exercise.  Over time the population would get stronger.  Modern technological society is cognitively more challenging than the preceding agricultural society.  Therefore, as a country emerges into the tecnological age, the increasing 'cognitive exercise' will result in higher IQs.

Until recently, Albania has been a technologically backward nation.  The 10 point lower IQ in Albania could be explained as a result of it being about 50 years behind in technological development.

That does not mean that cultural unfairness and genetics don't play a role.  For example, if 10 year olds in a technologically advanced country and 10 year olds in an undeveloped country are both given IQ tests, the first group, when asked to complete a number progression will be somewhat practiced with them while the second group may find the problem completely novel.  That puts them at a disadvantage.

There has been an enormous controversy over whether there is a genetic component to the IQ differences between 'races' and nationalities.  The controversy astonishes me.  Of course there is.  Or, more properly stated, it would be perplexing if there wasn't.

Until recently, populations were primarily isolated from each other.  We see clear and obvious differences in things like skin pigmentation, hair and eye color, etc.  However, there are many more subtle genetic differences.  Various populations have different immune systems, different enzyme profiles, etc.  When I took Population Genetics, one of our more advanced problems was to take a number of allelic frequencies for Europeans, West Africans and African Americans and from this information estimate what percent of African Americans' genetic heritage comes from Europe.  Put simply the question was, "How white is the average American black"?

With just a little reflection, since IQ differences are 70% genetically determined, one would assume that these groups, and others, have substantial differences in allelic frequencies at gene sites that affect IQ.  The notion that, somehow, they all cancel out and result in the same genetic IQ is implausible in the extreme.

Facebook censorship is based upon a progressive world view that, despite the claims of 'following the science', is not well supported by the evidence.  For example, while human industrial activity is increasing atmospheric CO2 and thereby contributing to higher mean global temperatures, the claim that this constitutes an existential threat to humanity is difficult to support.  I suspect that is only a matter of time before that claim will be censored on Facebook.

So, while personal updates are fine on Facebook, serious posts and the ensuing discussions are definitely not fine.  To clarify I don't subscribe to much of the conservative world view as well.  But at Polymaths.Locals.com I don't get censored for it.  And neither will you.

Locals.com is far from a perfect social media platform.  However, it is likely the best available right now.  So, please register.  Right now, it's mostly me, but the intention is to grow it to more contributing Polymaths in the future.

Without Bayes, You Are Easily Tricked

Suppose 1% of the population has COVID.  The COVID test is 99% accurate.  You are going to travel internationally and a negative PCR (99% accurate) test is required.  Your test is positive.  What is the probability that you have COVID?   Most people will answer 99%.  After all, the test is 99% accurate.  The correct answer is 50%.  

This is how it works.  Suppose 1,000,000 people selected at random are tested.  1% have COVID so, in this thought experiment, there are 10,000 with it.  Since the test is 99% accurate, 9,900 will test positive.  990,000 do not have COVID, but because the test is 99% accurate, 1% or 9,900 will test positive, anyway.  So, in total, 19,800 will test positive and half of those do not have the disease.

This is Bayesian probability and is properly used when there are prior relavent probabilities.  Withhout training, people are really very bad at properly assessing these situations.  Because of this it can and is used to trick people, without lies. You will be told that 10,000 people tested positive for COVID and that the test is 99% accurate.  They did not lie.  But you will likely walk away with the impression that the 10,000 estimate is very close to reality.  You now know that it may be very wrong.

This was highlighted when the 'Monte Hall Problem' was widely published.  It goes like this. A game show host shows you three doors and tells you that there is a donkey behind two doors and a brand new car behind the third one.  He tells you that you may have what is behind the door you select.  Nearly everyone understands that they have ⅓ chance of getting a car.

However, rather than showing you what you won, the gameshow host opens one of the doors that you didn't choose to expose a donkey.  He then tells you that you can stay with the door you selected or switch.  The question is, 'should you stay or switch"?

The vast majority of people say it doesn't matter. When I first heard this problem, I immediately said, "You switch, of course", which is the correct answer.  I knew the correct answer because I know Bayesian Probability.  What is interesting is thàt most people didn't believe the answer even when it was explained to them.

The best way to explain the answer is like this.  There was a ⅓ chance you selected a car and a ⅔ chance that you didn't.  When the game show host opened one of the doors, the ⅔ chance that you didn't choose a car resides in just the one door.  You should switch to it.

Returning to the issue of COVID, in order to assess the meaning of reported statistics, the person conversant in Bayesian Probability will understand that without two values, the positivity rate and the test accuracy, the reported number may or may not be reliable.

Let's take a look at a recent day for U.S. reported numbers.  The number of tests reported was 1,494,000 and the reported cases was 93,000.  This is a positivity rate of 6.28%.  So, if the accuracy of the tests is 93.6%, all reported cases would be false positives.

Several studies have been undertaken and various tests and testing protocols have found a wide variety of results, so the mix of tests used is very imoortant.  Not surprisingly, people who had symptoms and tested positive were much more likely to have the disease.  This tells us that the trend toward testing asymptomatic people with rapid tests (as happens with travel or entrance requirement testing) means that most of the reported cases may be false positives.

Another outgrowth of Bayes is how you react to a positive test result.  If the reported posivity rate in your locale is low you understand that, in spite of the 99% accuracy, your positive result is likely to be false.  So, you will know to take the test again.  The probability of a negative second result is high.  

The belief is that statistcs lie.  They don't.  However, your ignorance of statistics can lead you to misinterpret the stastistcs that are presented to you.  Politicians, 'the news' and other charlatans can take advantage of this to mislead you.  I argue that a mandatory course on 'Everyday Statistics' should be given in the K-12 curriculum.  That, of course, would require the very people who are using statistics to mislead to agree.  Of course, they won't.

Locals.com

 I am migrating from Facebook.com to Polymaths.Locals.com for several reasons

1) Facebook is ineffective.  I have learned that Facebook will only notify about 5% to 10% of Friends, Members or Followers of my posts.  Also, the more counter-woke they are, the fewer people will be made aware of it.  It is important to recognize that Facebook is not shadow banning just conservatives.  They are throttling all messages that are counter to the woke message. So, most of my Polymath posts are throttled.

When Facebook first emerged, the founder of a group was allowed to directly notify all members as long as the group had fewer than 5,000 members.  Then they eliminated direct notifications entirely.  Why?  Because, they knew that if people were notified of all posts, they would get swamped and they would start unfriending and quitting groups.  However, Facebook sells your group memberships and friends, so they don't want you doing that.

Locals.com doesn't sell such affiliations, so they have no problem with my ability to e-mail you notification of posts.  I will not swamp you.  I will send you a weekly e-mail that will provide you with Abstracts of important articles.

2) There are likely about 15,000,000 polymathic types on the Internet.  After huge effort with no compensation for my time, I was able to accumulate about 3,000 of them in Polymathica.  Of course, when I posted, at best, only about 300 of them would be notified.  Facebook provides no feasible path from 3,000 to a significant portion of 15,000,000.  They understand that any group that reached that level would no longer need Facebook.

Locals doesn't involve itself in such behavior.  However, just as importantly, Locals also blends in a Patreon type function.  Certainly, you understand that nothing is free.  Facebook sells your online behavior.  Locals doesn't, but rather requires you to support the group in order to participate.  I haven't determined it yet, but in essence you are selling your privacy for $12 to $18 per year.  

3) The other advantage is that Facebook keeps all the money that it gets for selling your information.  None of it benefits the group.  Say Membership in Polymaths.Locals.com costs $15 per year.  Some can be used to pay one or more administrators, but most of it will be used to build the group.  Your life options will explode when there is a Polymaths.Locals.com with 6 or 7 figure membership that will more than pay for the nominal support required to build it.

4) Polymaths.locals.com will create a platform that will facilitate some of its members to become professional polymaths.  Nearly all of us must engage, usually full time, in a job that in no way is polymathic.  In other words, we are required to be a Polymath on a part time basis.  That can change, but it will require a degree of commitment.  Polymathica, the Facebook group, has existed for over a decade, but in all that time, the plight of aspiring Polymaths has not improved.  We can change that.

Locals.com is hardly perfect, though it is improving.  It is blending in features of ezines and YouTube/Rumble.  I'm sure it will continue to improve.  As every journey begins with a first step, so does your journey to a more polymathically friendly environment.  That first step is signing up at Polymaths.Locals.com

How an Additional 4 Trillion USD Gets Financed.

In 2020 and 2021, the Federal deficit is projected at 5.5 trillion USD.  However, 1.5 trillion is consistent with the Federal Reserve's target.  The other 4.0 trillion needs to be dealt with outside of normal monetary activities.  The U.S. economy will be dramatically affected by the added debt, but how it will be affected will be determined by both fiscal and monetary policy decisions.

M2 is currently around 19.5 trillion.  If it was increased by the whole 4.0 trillion through monetization or 'quantitative easing'(commonly referred to as 'printing money'), it would result in an additional 4.0/19.5 ~ 20% inflation, over and above the Fed's 2% target. If it was incurred over two years, it would result in 12% inflation per year.  The U.S. would survive that, though it would undoubtedly shake confidence in the dollar.  To clarify, the Federal Reserve undertakes QE by buying Treasury debt with newly created money.

On the other hand, if the Treasury auctioned debt to domestic lenders only, yields would go way up but it would not create inflation.  It would push up interest rates, since the Treasury would need to incentivize the purchase.  In order to do so, investors would need to liquidate other positions and thus would reduce market valuations, primarily of stocks and bonds, but likely also gold and perhaps crypto.  As investors liquidated some of their positions to fund their treasury buy, those investments could be pushed into a bear market territory from which they may not easily recover.

Third, Treasuries could be purchased internationally.  Like private domestic purchasers, substantial international funding would require a substantially higher yield.  This, also, will push interest rates higher.  While counter intuitive to most people, large International treasury purchases will actually strengthen the dollar.  That is because the purchases will be in dollars and they will reduce the supply of USD in forex markets.  With increasing oil prices, demand could also increase.  In fact, rising oil prices is likely part of the explanation for the recent strength of the dollar.

An important factor is that increasing treasury yields could increase federal interest expense and therefore future deficits.  The scope will likely be insufficient to cause a fiscal death spiral.  To explain, increasing interest rates creates increased deficits (unless it is financed through QE) which increases the amount of Treasuries sold which increase interest rates, which increases deficits, etc.  Still, rising interest rates is certainly a downside to current policy decisions that created the additional 4.0 trillion USD of deficits..

Lastly, the 4.0 trillion could be reduced through tax increases.  However, the Laffer Curve probably limits this as a useful action.  To clarify, Arthur Laffer claimed that lower tax rates decrease government revenue simply from lower rates.  However, less intuitive, there is a point where higher tax rates by slower economic growth and increased tax avoidance behavior actually reduces total tax revenue.  The Biden Administration has already signaled its interest in a substantial tax increase, so we know that an attempt will be made to finance some of the 4.0 trillion USD in this way.

While fiscal policy will have an effect on how the budget shortfall is financed, it is primarily monetary policy that will determine the ultimate outcome.  The Federal reserve will need to decide, after estimating the degree to which increases in tax revenues can cover the shortfall, how much it will finance through QE and how much it will allow to be funded by the marketplace.  It can only affect how much is financed domestically and how much internationally by encouraging Congress to change laws to either incentivize or disincentivize either the international or domestic investors.

Financing through tax increases or Q.E. does not increase the Federal debt while Treasuries funded either by domestic or international investors does.  So, the claims made in the popular press that the whole of 5.5 trillion is added to the debt are incorrect.  We know that the Treasury debt.  It will be financed through tax increases and, while no statements have been made thus far, the Fed necessarily will purchase a substantial portion of it.  It is likely that the Fed will have resistance to adding more than an additional 2.0 trillion USD to its balance sheet, so it will have a hard ceiling on inflation at about 7%.

I'm not sure how they will do it, but I suspect that Treasury will look for ways to encourage foreign purchase of Treasury debt.  The reason is that the increases in interest rates and inflation will depress the value of the dollar, while international purchases will strengthen the dollar.  

So, in summary, interest rates and inflation almost certainly will increase.  Because of the massive deficit spending, economic growth will increase,  however, the increases in tax rates will tend to depress economic growth.  Also, the equity and debt markets will likely turn bearish as investments in Treasuries will increase.

Hyper-inflation is not really a risk and, even with China, Iran and Russia attempting to move away from USD as the reserve currency, a collapse in the dollar is not likely.  People misunderstand what causes hyper-inflation.  It is actually a 'velocity' death spiral.  In the U.S., today, velocity is usually around 1.3 to 1.7.  It is calculated by dividing GDP by money supply.  When velocity increases money supply needs to shrink or inflation will ensue.  Unfortunately, historically and to a degree, even today, many currencies do not have an effective way to decrease money supply rapidly.  Consequently, rapid increases in velocity will exacerbate inflation.

A velocity of 1.5 means that, on average, any given dollar is spent once every 243 days.  If velocity increases to once every 180 days, this will result in inflation of 243/180 = 35%.  However, that increase in velocity can happen very quickly, say in 3 months, which creates an annualized rate of inflation of 1.35^4 = 232%.  When that level of devaluation of the currency takes place, clearly people will not hold onto their currency for very long.  They will be inclined to convert their currency asset into a hard asset almost immediately upon receiving it.  So, if velocity increases to a turnover once every 3 days, inflation will be 243/3 = 8,000%.  This has happened many times throughout history.

It happens precisely because people lose confidence in the currency.  If the Fed states that they expect inflation to increase to 7% for two years and if the public believes them, the velocity induced devaluation death spiral will not be ignited.  While there is a substantial community, mostly gold bugs, that loudly proclaims the coming collapse of the dollar, in reality, the likelihood of such a collapse is slight.

Especially, on the Right, there are many pundits proclaiming an imminent collapse of the dollar, hyperinflation and a resultant depression level economic downturn.  While this substantial deficit spending, whether needful or not, is hardly a good turn of events, the apocalyptic prognostications can be safely disregarded.

If the U.S. had 21st Century Elections

One may think that the 2020 election was rigged or not.  But one thing is clear.  It is still being run with 19th Century procedures.  The uncertainty, the claims of fraud in voting and/or counting are all the result of the use of antiquated data integrity methods.  How should the election be run?  Well, I'll tell you. 

Registration should be made by appearing at an official state office and providing proof of identity, proof of eligibility to vote and proof of address.  Once this is done an account is opened in your name where you will choose a e-mail address and password.  This website and account is where you will vote.  We already know how to secure this.  If I log into Netflix on a different interface, I will get a notice on my e-mail.  If I change my password, I will get a notice.  In other words, I may get hacked, but they really can't keep me from knowing.

Next, varying by state, I will be notified that voting is open.  This may be a week or two before the election date.  I can make my selections immediately and I can change them as I wish up to the 'polls closed' date and time.  Every time I save a change, I will receive an e-mail to inform me.  At any time, I can save a copy to my computer, date stamped.  Sensible people, right before the 'polls close' date and time, will go in, verify the integrity of their ballot, freeze it and save a certified copy.  

This will also, automatically, be sent, with a coded identity to each campaign office.  The purpose of this is that the official vote totals should agree with the copies received by the various campaigns.  If they do not, anonymous tracing of differences will find the causes of discrepancy.  The State election offices will have a conversion table, coded identity to e-mail, so that individuals with a discrepancy will be notified with official vote that they can compare to their saved and certified vote.

Through this process, vote count error can be reduced to zero.  However, given the process, the discrepancies should be close to zero.

Now, one of the things that is constantly brought up by Democrats is that the process is too burdensome for the lower income people.  Actually, that is a disingenuous argument because even homeless people usually have a cheap smart phone.  SNAP and Medicaid recipients get cell service for free.  Basic burner smart phones can be purchased for $10.  Just the same, every official state office or agency can and should have the facility to update a person's account for them.  It is a red herring argument and should be ignored.

I'm sure that data security experts can improve upon this.  After all, it is just off the top of my head and I am not a data security expert.  What I know is that my bank gives me very secure data and update capability already.  Vote integrity is fundamentally an easier process.

I am on a path to renouncing my U.S. citizenship and in anticipation, I do not participate in voting through a U.S. Embassy.  This is more a matter of the U.S. being a laughing stock as it condemns the election quality of other countries while it clearly cannot assure its own.