A quick count is not an exit poll!

Nov 13, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – A few days ago, I heard a former APNU+AFC official speaking about the 1992 general elections and repeating the familiar allegation that those elections were rigged. In attempting to discredit the findings of the Carter Center, he referred to its quick count as an exit poll, arguing that Guyana does not have exit polls because, as he put it, which Guyanese would tell you how he or she voted?

The argument was revealing, but not for the reason he intended. It demonstrated, what I believe was either a misunderstanding of the methodology employed by the Carter Center or an attempt to confuse two entirely different methods of electoral observation.

A quick count is not an exit poll. An exit poll involves interviewing voters after they have cast their ballots, asking them how they voted. It relies on their willingness to disclose their voting choices and, consequently, is subject to the limitations associated with interviewing, non-response and the possibility that respondents may not always tell the truth. A quick count, on the other hand, does not ask voters how they voted. It examines the actual votes counted at polling stations.

The science behind a quick count is straightforward, although its application requires considerable statistical expertise. Rather than examining every polling station, observers select a scientifically determined sample of polling stations that is representative of the country as a whole. The selection is made in advance, using statistical sampling techniques designed to ensure that the sample reflects the geographical and electoral characteristics of the population.

The principle is the same one used in reputable scientific surveys, opinion research and population studies. One does not have to examine every member of a population to arrive at a reliable conclusion about the whole population. What matters is that the sample is properly selected, sufficiently representative and large enough to produce a statistically reliable estimate.

In the case of the 1992 elections, the Carter Center selected approximately seven per cent of all polling places. Observers were assigned to these predetermined locations and, after voting ended, witnessed the actual counting of ballots. They then obtained the official tally sheets, recording the votes received by each political party. These figures were transmitted by radio or delivered personally to the Carter Center’s headquarters in Georgetown.

There was no interviewing of voters. Nobody was asked how they voted. The observers were recording the actual votes counted in the presence of election officials and party agents. The statistical method then uses the results obtained from the selected polling stations to estimate the likely distribution of votes across the entire electorate. Because the sample is scientifically selected, the results can be extrapolated to produce a remarkably reliable projection of the national outcome, together with a calculated margin of error.

This is not guesswork. It is mathematics.

And the 1992 exercise demonstrated just how effective the methodology could be. The Carter Center’s quick count was based on 69 polling places systematically selected throughout Guyana. With a margin of error of approximately three percentage points, it projected that the PPP/Civic would receive 54.8 per cent of the vote and the PNC 40.8 per cent. The eventual official results gave the PPP/Civic 53.5 per cent and the PNC 42.3 per cent.

In other words, the quick count had projected the outcome remarkably accurately, identifying the winner and the approximate size of the winning margin several days before the Elections Commission completed its national tabulation. By 1 a.m. on October 6, barely seven hours after the polls closed, the Carter Center had already arrived at its projection. But the more important issue is not simply the accuracy of the quick count. It is the attempt to discredit the outcome of an election whose legitimacy was independently examined and internationally certified.

The October 5, 1992 elections were historic. They were the first elections in 28 years in which all political parties and international observers agreed that the electoral process was free and fair. That is not a retrospective invention by the PPP. It is recorded in the foreword to the Carter Center’s comprehensive report, Observing Guyana’s Electoral Process, 1990–1992. The report stated that, for the first time in 28 years, all Guyana’s political parties and international observers agreed that the election was free and fair and that a peaceful transfer of power had occurred. And the Carter Center was not alone in reaching that conclusion.

The Commonwealth Observer Group, which operated independently of the Carter Center, conducted its own extensive examination of the electoral arrangements and the conduct of polling. The Commonwealth observers concluded that, taking the country as a whole, the organisation and conduct of the poll had been “properly and impartially carried out”. They further reported that they had found no evidence of attempts to manipulate the voting process and that, notwithstanding shortcomings which they identified, the problems had not seriously affected the polling process. The Commonwealth had deployed observers across all ten administrative regions, examined the electoral arrangements, visited polling stations, observed the voting and witnessed the counting of ballots. Its report was the product of an independent international observation mission. The International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), which had provided substantial technical assistance in preparing Guyana for the elections, also recorded that the Carter Center and Commonwealth observer missions were able to certify the elections as free and fair.

It is worth recalling that the association between electoral manipulation and rigged elections in Guyana is rooted in the country’s political history under PNC rule, particularly during the elections of 1968, 1973, 1980 and 1985. The electoral credibility of those years was widely challenged, and the international community repeatedly expressed concerns about the integrity of the process. Indeed, the Carter Center’s involvement in Guyana arose precisely because of the longstanding loss of confidence in the electoral system. Its intervention, together with pressure from other international organisations, helped secure the reforms that made the 1992 elections possible.

To be fair to history, Desmond Hoyte eventually accepted those reforms, including a reconstituted Elections Commission, a new voters’ list and the counting of ballots at polling stations. Those reforms helped make the 1992 elections credible. That, too, should be acknowledged. A political party is entitled to disagree with an electoral outcome. Its supporters are entitled to question political decisions and even to challenge the conduct of an election with evidence. What they cannot reasonably do is dismiss a scientifically established statistical methodology by confusing it with an exit poll.

The 1992 elections were not certified free and fair because Jimmy Carter liked Cheddi Jagan, nor because the Carter Center wanted the PPP to win. They were certified because independent observers examined the process, witnessed the voting and counting, scrutinised the results and found that the outcome reflected the will of the electorate. You cannot change history simply because you dislike its outcome. And you cannot turn a scientific method into an exit poll simply because its findings contradict your political narrative.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• AFC, APNU, Elections, exit poll, General Elections, Peeping Tom

---