What about the null hypothesis?

Jun 23, 2018 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

In scientific enquiries – and this applies also to social science research – a hypothesis is not framed in the form of a question. It is therefore disingenuous to propose a hypothesis which asks if an Indian Elections Chairman had cast his vote in favour of an Indian for the position of Chief Elections Officer whether the PPPC would have claimed racial bias.
A hypothesis has to be put in the form of a statement or proposition. The objective is not to prove the hypothesis but to disprove, reject or nullify the null hypothesis that is the opposite of the research hypothesis.
The controversy at GECOM, therefore, cannot be reduced to spurious questions. The issue in contention is not that an African Chairman voted for an African candidate, but rather that there was division over two candidates and the casting vote went in favour of the second ranked candidate, who was African, as opposed to the first ranked candidate who was Indian.
The assumption being made by the PPP is that the candidate that the minority on the Commission supported was, in its opinion, more meritorious, but that a choice was made for another candidate. The PPP, therefore, is raising questions about the motivation of the majority vote. On the assumption that the Indian candidate was more meritorious, the PPP is questioning what the reasons were for bypassing that candidate
Explanations have been provided as to why persons voted the way they voted. At least one of those who voted in favour of the second ranked candidate said that the decision turned on the better grades of the second ranked candidate as against the first ranked candidate, as well as some other allegations which are unprintable and which have been disputed.
The President of Guyana rejected three lists of names submitted to him for nomination for Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission. After the second list was rejected and the opinion of the Court sought on the interpretation of ‘fit and proper’, the President introduced criteria which he said a ‘fit and proper’ candidate should possess. He said that the person should be impartial, independent and have integrity.
Incidentally, the case of Therrien v Canada (Ministry of Justice) and another [2001] 2 SCR 3, Gonthier J, used the same criteria in relation to someone performing a judicial function.
The judge noted that “The public will therefore demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. It will at least demand that they give the appearance of that kind of conduct. They must be and must give the appearance of being an example of impartiality, independence and integrity. What is demanded of them is something far above what is demanded of their fellow citizens.”
The management of an election is an important activity. The conduct of those administering the election must be irreproachable, so as ensure greater confidence in the management of the elections. The person selected should be above partisan politics, is independent, and has personal and professional integrity. The person should also appear to have these qualities.
The question therefore needs to be asked whether, on all sides, the criteria introduced by the President for the position of Chairman of GECOM was considered when deciding who would be appointed as Deputy Chief Elections Officer. When it comes to such senior appointments, it is always best that there either be unanimity or consensus.
The Deputy Chief Elections Officer is likely to succeed the Chief Elections Officer, who is required to publicly declare the results of an election. For this reason alone, it would have been prudent for there to have been unanimity or consensus rather than division over this appointment.
In the absence of either unanimity or consensus, a compromise could have been offered instead of a casting ballot which still leaves a divided Commission. Two Deputy Chief Elections Officers could have been appointed, one with responsibility for elections management and the other for administration.
As it stands what exists, presumably, within the Commission, is one Chief Elections Officer and one Deputy Chief Elections Officer, which implies a one-to-one reporting arrangement, a most inefficient arrangement for a bureaucracy which has pretensions of being the best in Guyana.

Latest News

What about the null hypothesis?

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Beckford brace Slingerz to fourth win on the trot, as Santos topple...

West Indies Women’s World Cup hopes in jeopardy...

GCC, Ogle, East Bank among winners as Demerara...

Unbeaten GCA storm to 2025 title

Tucber Park Cricket Club receives cricket gear...

Young guns flourish at Moo! National Junior’s...

Features/Columnists

Of Silk and Steel

Collaborative Government–Private Sector Action Imperative for a Resilient Trade Future

Rogue cops – only a few around

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

What about the null hypothesis?

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| April, 14th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]