Latest update December 25th, 2024 1:10 AM
Latest News
- Guyanese losing millions from Govt. and Opposition’s failure to to manage oil sector
- ‘Guyana’s Stabroek Block success is like a Michelin Star Restaurant’ – Exxon official
- Gaza appeals for help as Israeli army attacks key hospitals
- Face the Press, Mr. President!
- State makes application to revoke Brutus’ bail
A demonstrably false argument
DEAR EDITOR,
I taught Math in a New York City High School, and I am much intrigued and befuddled about these terms, “simple majority” and “absolute majority”, as they relate to the recent decisions on the NCM.
I have considered the following majority votes in a 65-member parliament.
33/32 51%
34/31 52%
35/30 54%
36/29 55%
37/28 57%
38/27 58%
39/26 60%
40/25 62%
Which is a simple majority? Which is an absolute majority?
Attorney Nandlall and several other writers say the Constitution makes no mention of an “absolute majority”. In one instance (regarding the extension of parliament) it did mention 2/3 majority, but with regards to NCM it refers only to “a majority”.
Allowing that those deliberating are hung-up over the term “absolute majority”, is there a Mathematical reasoning why the majority side must include a margin of at least 3 votes over the minority side to qualify as an absolute majority? Why isn’t 1 (one) sufficient to qualify as a majority – whether simple or absolute?
The position (34/31) is a margin of 3-votes separating majority from minority. There doesn’t seem to be a clear understanding that this Math problem is really a pie of two unequal parts – increasing one side by one vote necessarily means the other side loses a vote.
Trying to figure out what is a majority out of 65 is not like purchasing a 1/2 pound of onions that sells for 25 cents a pound (25/2 = 12.5 rounded to 13), and the customer pays 13 cents. The reason for the rounding-up is that the shop-owner cannot lose (must be a commercial law) – and that half-cent is not coming from thin air; it is coming from the pocket of the customer.
For this reason, Dr. Alexis’ argument: (65/2 =32.5 round-up to 33, then +1 = 34) is wrong. Where is the 0.5 coming from? Where is the +1 coming from? Not from this air, but from the other side of the two unequal parts of the pie.
Dr. Alexis does not recognize that his configuration now produces a margin of 3 (34/31) between the two sides. It is my opinion that he has presented a demonstrably false argument.
Mike Persaud
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Merry Christmas, Ya Filthy Animals!
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- Ah, Christmas—the season of goodwill, good cheer, and, let’s not forget, good riddance!... more
Breaking the Chains of Poverty: A need for political will
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The year 2024 has underscored a grim reality: poverty continues to be an unyielding... more
Weekend Cartoon
