Latest update February 9th, 2025 5:59 AM
Latest News
- “Oil-rich Guyana is worse off from the very start”- Glenn Lall
- Terrence Campbell to remain member of oil money Investment Committee despite transparency concerns in use of revenues
- Trump freezes aid to South Africa amid spat over land expropriation law
- 102 Venezuelans to be deported for illegally entering Guyana
- Man shoots woman with arrow and bow
Inherently flawed assumptions in arriving at the number 34
DEAR EDITOR,
The 50% plus 1 formula used to calculate the Absolute Majority is standard practice in most Democratic Societies, however the assumptions used in Guyana to arrive at the number 34 are inherently flawed.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about what exactly is an Absolute Majority and a Simple Majority so I will start my thesis by stating the generally acceptable definitions as follows:
Absolute majority: This refers to a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of the house.
Simple Majority: This refers to the majority of more than 50% of the members present and voting.
As stated above, it is standard practice in most Democratic Societies to use the formula of 50% plus 1 to calculate the Absolute Majority and Simple Majority. To calculate 50%, one simply divides by two as was done by Dr. Francis Alexis. He then correctly stated that, “the 65 members of the National Assembly had to be divided by two, which would result in 32.5, but since the .5 represents half and there is no half-member”. He then proceeded to round up this non-existing half member and made him whole and then stated “that number needs to rounded off to 33, and add one more, making the majority 34 – an absolute majority”.
The inherent flaw in Dr. Francis Alexis’ argument is that it is humanly impossible to divide a person in two and then make them whole again. That being the case, it is compulsory to ignore the .5 and then add 1 to the result which would make the Absolute Majority 32 +1 = 33. This would be 50.77% and is greater than 50%!
I would like to use the following examples to calculate Simple Majority to reinforce my case:
1. If we were to assume that only 60 Members of Parliament turned up on a particular date and all voted to pass a minor bill. Then the Simple Majority required to pass that bill would be 60 divided by two, which would result in 30 and then we add on 1 more making the Simple Majority 31.
2. If we were to then assume that of the 60 Members of Parliament that turned up on that particular date, only 59 voted to pass the minor bill while one abstained. Then the Simple Majority required to pass that bill would be 59 divided by two, which would result in 29.5. If we used the correct procedure and ignore the non-existing half member and added 1 to 29, then the Simple Majority would be 30.
However, if we were to use the inherently flawed argument postulated by Dr. Francis Alexis, then we would round up the 29.5 to 30 and then add 1 to get a Simple Majority of 31.
The examples above clearly demonstrate the inherent flaw in Dr. Francis Alexis’ arguments since it is not mathematically possible for the Simple Majority of both 60 and 59 to be the same number 31!
It is pellucid that the attorneys in this case did not properly research this matter. A cursory search of Google provided the following example of how Lok Sabha, the Lower House of India’s Parliament calculates Absolute Majority; https://www.clearias.com/majorities-indian-parliament/
“Absolute majority
It refers to a majority of more than 50% of the total membership of the house. For example, as the total membership of Lok Sabha is 545, an absolute majority in Lok Sabha means – 50% of 545 plus 1, i.e. 273.”
If we were to apply the inherently flawed argument postulated by Dr. Francis Alexis in this example, then 545 divided by 2 is 272.5, rounding this up would give 273 and adding 1 would result in an answer of 274 which is obviously incorrect since in Lok Sabha, the absolute majority of 545 is 273.
It is my fervent hope that the Guyanese attorneys who will argue this matter in the CCJ would properly research this topic and will not display the level of gullibility, shown recently in the High Court, and which has made us the laughing stock in the Caribbean.
Yours truly
T. Singh
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Due diligence on investments must become a priority
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In 1985, the Forbes Burnham government looking for economic salvation, entered into a memorandum... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
