went to the polls Saturday to elect candidates for the lower house of parliament and four provincial assemblies. Mr. Sharifs party, the center-right(PML-N) is projected to win over 120 seats, with the ruling center-left(PPP) trailing by a huge margin. Despite making gains and galvanizing new voters to take part, a national upset wasn't in the cards for former cricket-starand his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

But Sharif isnt going to take over power tomorrow or even next week. Theres a lengthy process ahead of forming a coalition.

The victorious Sharif told supporters on Saturday night that he would like an absolute majority and not have to ask for votes but was open to talking to every party. He is often said that he is open to a coalition, but has warned that a split mandate is not what Pakistan needs given the scale of the country's challenges.

Pakistans lower house of parliament the main legislative body comprises 342 seats, of which 272 were up for grabs in the election. Polls for several seats were suspended after the deaths of candidates. Polling may also be conducted again for one seat in , which was marred by reports of electoral fraud and delays. The other 60 seats, "reserved" for women and non-Muslims, are indirectly elected based on the number of seats won by their parties. The party that reaches a majority with 172 seats formsthe next government at the federal level.

To reach the magic 172, Sharif will now have to form alliances, even if these are with parties that his center-right party is ideologically opposed to. So while the dust of the elections has settled and those killed in pre-election violence are mourned, a storm will be kicked up in , where the PML-N is headquartered.

The most probable choices would appear to be the -Functional (PML-F), a nationalist party from the , and political parties fromand Sindh, such as the(MQM). These negotiations will take time and will need to be conciliatory in tone, which Sharif, for one, has displayed in the years preceding his partys victory. The MQM has had a contentious relationship with Sharif in the past, and a congratulatory statement by MQMs London-exiled chieftook a dig at the PML-N as a "representative party of ," as opposed to a party with national standing.

ROLE FOR AMERICA?

Leaked diplomatic cables released byshowed that after the last national elections in 2008, several parties discussed their options for coalitions with American diplomats. But in a report released prior to the May 11 elections, thethink tank noted that the goal ofpolicy should be to work with not attempt to control Pakistans internal political processes. Only Pakistanis themselves are capable of establishing a more stable, democratic system capable of balancing diverse interest groups and effectively addressing the countrys challenges.

Elections for some seats in the upper house of parliament, the Senate, are next scheduled for 2015. These elections are indirect, with Senators voted in by members of the four provincial assemblies. The PPP currently has a majority in the Senate, which provides the party with the opportunity to effectively block legislation if it is in the opposition in the National Assembly.

While the make-up of provincial governments isnt necessarily dictated by who won a majority in the National Assembly, it often has a spillover effect. The PPP and the PTI are projected to gain a majority in the Sindh andprovinces respectively, while the PML-N would retain its Punjab stronghold and could form a government with Balochistans nationalist political parties in that province.

Newly elected members of the National Assembly, Pakistans lower house of parliament, will elect a speaker and a deputy speaker, after which the assembly will elect a "leader of the house" the prime minister and an opposition leader. The prime minister will be sworn in by , who is the dynastic head of the PPP, and a cabinet will be picked comprising Senators and newly elected legislators. A presidential election is due later this year.

Related stories

Become a part of the Monitor community

Mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday that the average on the 30-year loan dropped to 3.62 percent. That's down from 3.66 percent last week and the lowest since long-term mortgages began in the 1950s.

The average rate on the 15-year mortgage, a popular refinancing option, slipped to 2.89 percent, below last week's previous record of 2.94 percent.

The rate on the 30-year loan has fallen to or matched record low levels in 10 of the past 11 weeks. And it's been below 4 percent since December.

Cheap mortgages have provided a lift to the long-suffering housing market. Sales of new and previously occupied homes are up from the same time last year. Home prices are rising in most markets. And homebuilders are starting more projects and spending at a faster pace.

The number of people who signed contracts to buy previously occupied homes rose in May, matching the fastest pace in two years, the National Association of Realtors reported last week. That suggests Americans are growing more confident in the market.

Low rates could also provide some help to the economy if more people refinance. When people refinance at lower rates, they pay less interest on their loans and have more money to spend. Many homeowners use the savings on renovations, furniture, appliances and other improvements, which help drive growth.

Still, the pace of home sales remains well below healthy levels. Many people are still having difficulty qualifying for home loans or can't afford larger down payments required by banks.

And the sluggish job market could deter some would-be buyers from making a purchase this year. The U.S. economy created only 69,000 jobs in May, the fewest in a year. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent last month, up from 8.1 percent in April.

The government reports Friday on June employment.

Mortgage rates have been dropping because they tend to track the yield on the 10-year Treasury note. A weaker U.S. economy and uncertainty about how Europe will resolve its debt crisis have led investors to buy more Treasury securities, which are considered safe investments. As demand for Treasurys increase, the yield falls.

To calculate average rates, Freddie Mac surveys lenders across the country on Monday through Wednesday of each week.

The average does not include extra fees, known as points, which most borrowers must pay to get the lowest rates. One point equals 1 percent of the loan amount.

The average fee for 30-year loans was 0.8 point, up from 0.7 percent last week. The fee for 15-year loans also was 0.7 point, unchanged from the previous week.

The average rate on one-year adjustable rate mortgages fell to 2.68 percent, down from 2.74 percent last week. The fee for one-year adjustable rate loans rose to 0.5 point, up from 0.4 point.

The average rate on five-year adjustable rate mortgages was unchanged at 2.79 percent. The fee stayed at 0.6 point.

The FDA said the results of a recent study showed that children exposed to valproate products in the womb had lower IQ at the age of six than children who were exposed to other antiepileptics.

Drugs containing valproate are used to prevent migraine headaches, treat epileptic seizures and manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder.

Abbott Laboratories' Depacon, Depakote, Depakote CP, Depakote ER and Depakene, and Noven Therapeutics LLC's Stavzor and their generics contain valproate. (http://r.reuters.com/nej87t)

Drugs containing valproate already carry a boxed warning for birth defects.

"Valproate medications should never be used in pregnant women for the prevention of migraine headaches because we have even more data now that shows the risks to the children outweigh any treatment benefits for this use," FDA's Director of the Division of Neurology Products, Russell Katz said.

This is the second time the FDA has warned on drugs containing valproate. In a June 2011 press release, the regulator had issued interim results of a study showing reduced cognitive functions in three-year-old children exposed to valproate.

(Reporting By Pallavi Ail in Bangalore; Editing by Roshni Menon)

1.Lewis Hamilton (Britain) Mercedes 1:21.001

2.Sebastian Vettel (Germany) RedBull - Renault1:21.602

3.Fernando Alonso (Spain)Ferrari1:21.646

4.Kimi Raikkonen (Finland) Lotus - Renault1:21.676

5.Mark Webber (Australia)RedBull - Renault1:21.718

6.Nico Rosberg (Germany) Mercedes 1:21.776

7.Sergio Perez (Mexico)McLaren1:21.790

8.Felipe Massa (Brazil)Ferrari1:21.978

9.Romain Grosjean (France) Lotus - Renault1:21.998

10. Paul Di Resta (Britain)Force India - Mercedes 1:22.019

11. Daniel Ricciardo (Australia) Toro Rosso - Ferrari 1:22.127

12. Jean-Eric Vergne (France)Toro Rosso - Ferrari 1:22.166

13. Adrian Sutil (Germany) Force India - Mercedes 1:22.346

14. Jenson Button (Britain)McLaren1:22.355

15. Nico Huelkenberg (Germany) Sauber - Ferrari 1:22.389

16. Esteban Gutierrez (Mexico) Sauber - Ferrari 1:22.793

Cavendish, the British standout with the Omega Pharma-Quick Step team, clocked three hours 56 minutes, three seconds over the mostly flat 168-kilometre leg from Mola di Bari to Margherita di Savoia.

Elia Viviani, an Italian with Cannondale, crossed second, and Matthew Goss, an Australian with Orica-GreenEdge, was third, both with the same time as Cavendish.

It was the 12th Giro stage win of Cavendish's career and his 99th victory overall. The Isle of Man rider also won this year's opening stage in Naples.

Defending champion Ryder Hesjedal of Victoria was 52nd in the stage and remained fifth overall, 34 seconds behind Paolini.

Stage 7 Friday is a hilly 176-kilometre leg from San Salvo to Pescara.

Five years ago, a friend of mine, Harshada Rajani, experienced the same string of events I describe above. As a 23-year-old, perfectly healthy medical student, she had two headaches that just didnt feel normal. After seeing several doctors who told her they were migraines, she came down with dizziness and vomiting. Then she lost control of her voice and woke up in the hospital having had a debilitating stroke at the base of her brain.

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Led Zeppelin, that band that wrote the book on heavy rock, is now helping to rewrite the book on digital publications.

Acclaimed rock photographer Neal Preston's new e-book breaks ground for the genre with interactive video, 80 contact sheets and photos never previously published.

Preston followed the band throughout the '70s and opened up his vast archive to create a rich, intimate experience with the world of Jimmy Page and Robert Plant.

Sharon Waxman grilled Preston on "Led Zeppelin: Sound and Fury," which was published on Monday and available on iTunes. You've had this archive forever, but you only published many of these photos now. Were you just waiting for the iPad to be born?

No. I wasn't even waiting for computers to be born. This is the direction that book publishing is taking. It's a little leap of faith, we're in uncharted territory here.

How so?

It differs exponentially from a traditional coffee-table book. The photos look killer on the new iPad with the retina display. It was a way to really give the fans even more of what they so crave - all that behind-the-scenes stuff. In this kind of book you can include so much more -- audio captions, video interviews.

You shot that famous photo of Jimmy Page drinking from a Jack Daniels bottle backstage. Do you tell that story?

There's audio caption of taking that photo. Sometimes you remember shooting a picture, sometimes you don't. I remember that photo. I happened to be sitting to his right in the dressing room; I had a Nikon with a 24mm lens on my lap, and I was going to say something to Jimmy and I saw the bottle move toward his mouth and I picked up the camera, shot one frame, and I don't know if he even realized I was there shooting it.

Was he upset that you published it?

I don't believe we released that photo initially. I was brought in to work for them. In 1970 I was 18 and I ended up at press conference to announce that Led Zeppelin had supplanted the Beatles as No. 1 band in the world in a MelodyMaker poll.

The reason I was hired was they were notoriously cloistered. Not secretive but with very small inner circle unlike the Stones, when Mick Jagger had 100 people getting his laundry. It was pretty amazing they let any photographer come in and have the run of the store. I was that guy.

How did that come about?

Danny Goldberg, their publicist, hired me. I'd done work for the band through Atlantic Records. He called me up and said: "Pack your bags if you want to go on tour with us." I got that call in November 1974. January 1975 I was working for them.

What's so great about these images is you really feel like you're on stage with those guys.

In one of those, Jimmy's looking right at me, there's dry ice, you see Robert - during song called "No Quarter." Right after I shot that he came up to me and started talking to me. Reason I love that photo is that it feels like being on stage with Led Zeppelin. It sucks you right in.

Access is the currency I have to trade in. Night after night, day after day, week after week, as a photojournalist, you become invisible. When you become invisible, that's when you can capture the magic.

Did the band approve the photos in book?

No, the band was not part of this book, though they received it and I understand they like it very much. This was a different platform, and a new one, and one that hasn't really been exploited in terms of this kind of book, this kind of band.

This book is $9.99 - it's inexpensive compared to a coffee-table book. Is this the world photographers live in now? It's a digital book. You can't have tactile experience with it. However, this is the way publishing is going. There are two things that I hope people get out of this book. One is for the fans, it's a total wet dream. It's right up the vein.

To get the contact proof sheet - you start to see photographically how I think. They can hear the stories they wouldn't hear unless they were up in my house having dinner. And I hope fans get a sense of how much of myself I've put into this book.

I'm very proud of my writing. Stevie Nicks did my intro, because back in the day, she was the first person who sat and looked at a stack of my prints, and said, "You've got to do a book."

Citing officials close to the discussions, Savage reports the plan, a brainchild of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, would allow courts to impose stiff fines on Internet communications providers who refuse to comply with federal search orders. The FBI, which has sought similar changes for at least the past three years, says it must update the nation's surveillance laws to keep pace with the rapidly evolving world of digital communications.

Back in 2010, the FBIthat would have forced companies with Internet messaging capabilities, like Skype and Facebook, to revamp their services so they could easily turn over users' communications histories — including encrypted messages — to the government. While telecommunications companies, like AT&T, are already required by law to have such systems in place, the proposed change was intended to bring that decades-old law into the digital age.

But now, the FBI is pursuing a different strategy.

: 

While the F.B.I.'s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department's attention. []

The proposal would allow judges to impose escalating fines, starting at $25,000 per day, should companies refuse to comply with court-ordered wiretaps. Companies that receive wiretap orders will have 30 days to discuss any technical limitations with the government that would prevent them from being able to comply, according to the Times.

Critics worry that the change could endanger confidential communications. They say it could pressure Internet communications providers to install backdoor wiretapping capabilities before the government comes calling. Such backdoors, critics fear, could easily be exploited by hackers. 

"The government should be doing everything in its power to increase the security of our communications networks, not riddling them with interception backdoors that will likely be exploited by criminals and foreign governments," Chris Soghoian the American Civil Liberties Union said in a . "History has shown time and time again that interception backdoors are fundamentally at odds with good cybersecurity."

The FBI insists that the proposed changes would not amount to an end run around the Constitution.

"This always requires a court order," Andrew Weissmann, the FBI's legal counsel, said in a . "None of the 'going dark' solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications." 

Yet asWednesday, citing government documents obtained by the ACLU, the Justice Department and FBI have hinted that they may not seek search warrants to review such online correspondence. 

"[I]f we combine that kind of cavalier attitude toward our constitutionally mandated protections with vastly expanded technical surveillance capabilities, then we’ve got a real problem," . "Civil libertarians have a right to be nervous. Expanded power implies expanded opportunities to abuse that power."

View this article onGetIssues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

In a cavernous room packed with lobbyists and immigration activists, the panel rejected numerous moves to impose tougher conditions on border security before immigrants who entered the country illegally could take the first steps along a new pathway toward citizenship.

Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona part of a bipartisan group that helped draft the measure joined all 10 Democrats in blocking the changes. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who has yet to announce a position on the overall legislation, opposed one and supported the others.

Assuming the core political alignment remains intact, the committee is expected to approve the measure within two weeks and clear the way for an epic showdown on the Senate floor in June.

White House aides watched from the sidelines as the committee began its work on a bill that President Barack Obama has made a top priority in the opening months of his second term.

Painstakingly negotiated by a bipartisan "Gang of Eight," the measure would clear the way for tens of thousands of new high-tech and lesser-skilled workers to enter the country while also requiring all employers to check the legal status of their employees. But it was the core trade-off securing the border against future illegal immigration while setting up a 13-year process by which immigrants unlawfully in the country could qualify for citizenship that generated the most controversy by far.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who helped draft the bill, said it would "change our policy so that the people who are needed to help our economy grow can come into this country, and at the same time we will note that when families are divided the humane thing to do is bring those families back together.

"Because we so dramatically stop the flow of illegal immigration, we can do both.And we do, and do it fairly."

Republican critics made no claim they can defeat the bill in committee and concentrated instead on casting doubt on assertions that it will secure the U.S.-Mexican border before it allows immigrants illegally in the United States to take their first steps toward legal status.

"The triggers in the bill that kick off legalization are weak," said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, referring to a series of requirements that must be met before unauthorized immigrants can apply for legal status. "No one can dispute that this bill is legalization first, enforcement later."

He said the last extensive overhaul of immigration in 1986 had also claimed it would end illegal immigration. "We thought we were so certain...and we screwed up," he said of those who voted for the bill 37 years ago, himself among them.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he feared the result of the measure would be a shell game in which "amnesty takes effect but not enforcement."

The political stakes were high. One Republican who helped draft the legislation and another who seems destined to oppose it have ties to the tea party and are both considered possible presidential candidates in 2016. And despite the deep partisan differences, an atmosphere of cordiality reigned, marred only once when tempers flared briefly in a clash between Schumer and Texas Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.

The first challenge to the legislation came on Grassley's proposal to require six months to elapse between the time the southern border is secured and immigrants may begin seeking legal status, a step that Schumer said would"delay, probably forever, any legalization" for immigrants now living in the country without authorization.

The second was advanced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and sought to require that both houses of Congress vote to declare the border secure before the citizenship process could begin. Under the legislation as drafted, the secretary of Homeland Security has the authority to make that declaration.

"Many of us are concerned that the border fencing and security triggers in this bill leave too much discretion to the secretary," Lee said.

Graham said he feared the result would inevitably be deadlock, in which the Democratic-controlled Senate would declare the border secure while the Republican-controlled House would counter that it was not.

Cruz later tried to require that the number of U.S. border patrol agents be tripled on the U.S.-Mexico border and the amount of equipment stationed there be quadrupled before any immigrant could apply for a change in legal status.

Also rejected was Sessions' call for construction of 700 miles of double-fencing along the Mexican border. Hatch opposed Cruz' proposal and supported the other changes that were rejected. He has not yet declared a position on the legislation, although he is expected to be heavily influenced by the number of visas it approves for workers in the high-tech industry, which has a significant presence in Utah.

Eager to demonstrate their openness to changes, Democrats stressed that they had agreed to a number of Republican proposals.

One, advanced by Grassley, specifies that a requirement for 90 percent of would-be border crossers to be stopped or turned back must apply to the entire southern border, not just "high-risk" sectors.

But a verdict on perhaps the most contentious proposal to assure that immigrants in the country illegally are treated the same regardless of sexual orientation is not expected to come to a vote until next week or the week after. Gay rights groups are adamantly seeking the provision be inserted into the measure, but Republicans have warned that could splinter the coalition behind the bill and doom its chances for passage.

The legislation was drafted by Democratic Sens. Schumer and Dick Durbin of Illinois, who are on the committee, and Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Michael Bennet of Colorado, who are not, as well as Flake and Graham and Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and John McCain of Arizona.

Under the legislation as drafted, immigrants who entered the United States illegally before Dec. 31, 2011, and have been in the country since then may apply for Registered Provisional Immigrant status. To qualify, they must pass a background check, have no serious criminal conviction on their record, pay any back taxes they owe and a pair of $500 fines.

At the end of a decade, they may apply for permanent residency, pay an additional fine of $1,000 and meet other requirements. After an additional three years, they may apply for naturalization.

___

Follow Erica Werner on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ericawerner