#4711: Re: #4703: CEP Conducted Complete Count and Ignored IT (fwd)

[Robert Corbett <bcorbett@netcom.com>]

From:HYSEKA@aol.com

The Professor wrote:

<The CEP adopted the top-four method AFTER the May 21st election, even though 
the counting method had been the largest bone of contention to the 1997 
elections.>

Professor, if you mean that the CEP used the top-four method AFTER the 
December 16, 1990 elections (method which they used then), I will agree with 
you wholeheartedly. This is true. But if you mean to say that the CEP adopted 
the top-four method ONLY AFTER the May 21, 2000 elections, I will call that 
bogus. For you and I know that such method was used in 1990, 1995 and 1997 
without any objection.

Also Professor, regarding the 1997 elections, the main (and probably only) 
issue of contention was, that OPL accused Lavalas of having used tricks in 
the process. Now, if your argument is correct and that, "the counting method 
had been the largest bone of contention to the 1997 elections", how come the 
investigative report that came out (which I read) discussed the issue of 
vote-rigging, rather than counting procedure for the senatorials? Please make 
it clear for me (us) here.

Hyppolite Pierre