WHY NOW?

Jul 15, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Mr. Vincent Alexander, a much respected gentleman, must not flatter himself into believing that because this column opted to publish a response to his views that he has somehow forced a change in editorial policy in respect to the Peeping Tom column.
In the Peeping Tom column of May 16, 2013 it was explained that it is not the general practice for this column to respond to its critics. However, there are obvious exceptions to this rule such as instances where inaccuracies are alleged.
If Peeping Tom is being accused of an inaccuracy, then Peeping Tom is within editorial policy to respond to such charges. Peeping Tom has been accused of being wrong in relation to the controversy over the declaration of the results of the elections of 2011; and thus reserves the right to offer clarification and, I daresay, enlightenment, to those concerned.
What Mr. Alexander has done in his letter, ‘Peeping Tom’s Second Response Was Equally Wrong” published in this newspaper’s edition of July 14, 2013, is to merely confirm that the mistake that arose in relation to the computing of the seats for the 2011 General Elections could only have been a calculation error and was not due to the wrong formula being employed.
Indeed from the example and facts cited by Elections’ Commissioner Alexander in his response, it is clear that the problem arose because of a mistake in the value of one of the variables used and not because of any change in the formula.
The formula for apportioning the seats remained the same throughout. The total number of votes cast is divided by the requisite number of seats to be apportioned to find the electoral quota. The votes for each party is then divided by this electoral quota to determine how the seats are apportioned using the largest remainder Hare quota formula, which was explained in a previous column.
This formula requires only two variables, the votes cast and the seats to be apportioned. If the charge is that the formula was altered it would mean that some other variable would have to be substituted.
What has however been revealed is that the mistake occurred not because of the substitution of any variable but because the incorrect divisor, that is the value of a variable, was used.
To give an example of how the wrong divisor can result in a mistake without changing the formula, take the case of a batsman who bats for twelve innings and scores a total of 144 runs. In two of those innings he was left not out. To find his average, you have to divide total runs by the total times he was dismissed. This means his average is supposed to be 144 divided by ten. His average is 14.4. However, if because of a mistake, the person calculating the average does not deduct the two times the batsman was left not out it would mean he would divide instead of by ten by twelve, which would give an average of 12.
Now this is not a problem with the formula for calculating average. It is problem with the value of the divisor used which in this instance would not change the formula but only the derived result. In other words this is a calculation mistake by virtue of the use of the wrong value in the divisor.
In the case of the 2011 elections, we are told that what happened was that in determining the results of the elections, the constituency seats (25) were first calculated and then the national top- up seats were calculated. As such, instead of dividing the national vote by sixty five, the CEO divided by forty, which is the total of the national top up seats. Why could that not be an inadvertent mistake considering that there are indeed forty top -up seats?
This is not a mistake that can be hidden because if the total votes cast were divided by forty it would affect all the parties since only forty of the sixty five seats would be allocated under this latter computation. And the mistake would be obvious to all the Commissioners.
These Commissioners are required to certify the results before they are released and therefore the responsibility for the accuracy of the declaration rests with the Commissioners.
It is easy for the Commissioners to determine whether there is a problem. They know the total votes cast; they know this has to be divided by sixty five and they are supposed to know the largest remainder Hare quota formula. With this information, it is a simple task for them to calculate the seat allocations.
They do not even need to know the assignment of geographic seats because the number of seats to be allotted in the National Assembly requires one to know the total votes cast nationwide and the total number of seats, sixty five.
If a party gains twenty six seats when the total votes cast is divided by the number of seats in the National Assembly, and ten seats when the total votes in the geographic constituency is divided by the seats assigned to that constituency, what it means is that from the 26 seats, ten persons must be chosen from their constituency list.
What Mr. Alexander is suggesting happened was that the seat allocation (25) for the geographic seats was first determined, then the other forty remaining seats were determined and the two numbers added. This is not a case of using the wrong formula; this amounts to splitting the overall seats into two components, 25 constituency seats and forty top-up seats and determining each separately.
I am suggesting to him that this mistake could not have passed muster. Once the total votes are known, all Commissioners would be able, with a simple calculator, to determine how many seats each party would have in the National Assembly. They therefore cannot be hoodwinked.
It is precisely because someone did his calculations that the original mistake was corrected before it became fatal. The system was therefore self- correcting.
But let us assume for argument sake that there was an attempt to give the PPPC an extra seat. In short let us indulge in the conspiracy theory.
If this was known then why is action only being taken now? The issue is not about whether this mistake was known publicly. From the reaction of the media, it would seem that the revelations of Mr. Alexander took the nation by surprise. Perhaps there were persons who knew about this mistake but chose not to make it widely known.
The issue however is why, if there was this conspiracy, is action only now being taken, almost 20 months after the elections? Why was the CEO allowed to have his contract run to its end?
Why no investigation to determine whether this “mistake” was deliberate? Why only now and only when the contract of the Chief Elections Officer is due to be renewed?
Let it be recalled that there was once in this country a Chief Elections Officer who the then Opposition had accused of being involved in producing bogus and fraudulent results. Yet, this same man saved the day in a subsequent election by having done a manual count of the total votes cast, rather than relying on the computer tally. Experience matters! With checks and balances, mistakes can be caught before they present problems.
When the verdict is arrived in relation to the contract of the Chief Elections Officer, it may be time for the parties to decide the fate of the Commissioners in regard to what is alleged to have happened in the process leading to the declaration of seats. Perhaps, it is time for a completely new Commission.

---

---