#4129: On electoral Computations, the OAS/EOM ... (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From: Max Blanchet <MaxBlanchet@worldnet.att.net>
On electoral computations, the role of the OAS,
elatriye

Early last week, the CEP (Provisional Electoral
Council) published results to the effect that Lavalas
(OFL) candidates for the Senate had won 16 out of 17
seats, 28 seats in the lower house and were leading in
25 other races. These results were presented as final. At
least this was my reading based on the results presented
by AHP, SICRAD, HOL, etc.

On Friday of last week, the Electoral Observation
Mission (EOM) of the Organization of American States
(OAS) dropped a bombshell in the form of a letter
(published on Corbett) from its chairman to the head of
the CEP, Léon Manus. It stated simply that the CEP had
miscalculated its percentages and that perhaps half of the
OFL winners in fact would have to go to a second round.
Specifically, the OEM objected to the fact that the CEP
used only the total of the top four candidates and had
excluded the votes of lesser candidates from the total,
thereby skewing the percentages calculated on this basis.

I will illustrate with a simple example. The names are my
own invention and should not be used to try and identify
real candidates.

Let us assume that in the first round, according to the
CEP the top candidates performed as follows:

Candidate	# of Votes 	%

Dani		100,000		58.83

Milann		  40,000		23.53

Marilo		  20,000		11.76

Sizi		  10,000		  5.88

Total		170,000		100.00

Therefore, Dani is declared the winner by the CEP!

The EOM in effect is saying, "hold it CEP, you left out
the other candidates and ought to include their votes in
keeping with the letter of the electoral law which requires
that the winner must have 50% of all votes plus one."
Accordingly, the results should be:

Candidate	# of Votes 	 %

Dani		100,000		46.30

Milann		  40,000		18.52

Marilo		  20,000		  9.26

Sizi		  10,000		  4.63

Boirond	    	    9,000		  4.17

Boivert	    	    8,000		  3.70

Jolibois	  	    7,000		  3.24

Boichaud	    	    6,000		  2.78

Mirto		    5,000		  2.31

Aleks		    4,000		  1.85

Dormeus	    	    3,000		  1.39

Alcius		    2,000		  0.93

Ajax		    1,001		  0.46

Cerbère	     	       999		  0.46

Total		216,000		100.00

Accordingly, Dani and Milann should go to the second
round.

How did the CEP respond?

First, its spokesman, Mr. Médard told the EOM in
un-diplomatic terms to buzz off. Mr. Manus in more
measured tones told the OEM in effect "folks, we
have always done it this way, certainly since 1990
and the international community has been aware of
this methodology all along." Mr. Manus did not
respond to the substance of the challenge, namely
that the methodology violates the letter and spirit of
the electoral law.

My comments:

First of all, Resolution 1080 of the OAS gives that
institution a certain "droit de regard" on the status
of democracy in the member states. The Republic of
Haiti signed that resolution and Lavalas in exile
availed itself of its provisions to enlist the support
of the OAS and its then-chairman Soarez to roll back
the coup d'état of September 1990.

Second, the OAS has been busy in recent months in
implementing its "droit de regard" in electoral matters.
The most recent case has been Peru where the OAS
walked out because it could not countenance Fujimori's
electoral ways.

Third, even though, the CEP may have used this
methodology in the past, it must address the fact that it
appears to be in violation of the electoral law and must
at the very least be given a complete airing.


Fourth, the CEP must publish all relevant statistics,
that is to say the votes obtained by all candidates to
all seats and indicate clearly whether such statistics are
preliminary or final.