[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

#4939: The CEP did bluff : a proof (fwd)

From: Laurent Beaulieu <laurbeaulieu@wanadoo.fr>

Pharaon?s Secrets

by Laurent Beaulieu

According to Luciano Pharaon, director of the electoral operations in Haiti,
the CEP has used the same method in 2000 as in 1990 and 1995 (when there
were also simultaneous multiple Senate elections) to calculate the
percentage scored by the candidates standing for senatorial post. Fraud is a
much more important problem. But since so many people are repeating Pharaon?
s statement, I wanted to clear the matter up. Who tells the truth ? Luciano
Pharaon or the former member of the 1995 CEP who has denied his allegations
? The evidence presented below are contrary to Pharaon?s allegations.
Consider the following two points.


I have found the detailed results (for eight departments out of nine) of the
first round of the 1995 Senate election, as provided by the CEP. Samuel
Madistin, who was a candidate in the Artibonite department, scored only
48.2% of the votes cast. Indeed, as his colleagues of Artibonite and South
East, he had to contest his seat in a second round.
What would have happened if the 1995 CEP had used the method supported by M.
Pharaon, which only takes into account the top four contenders ? My
calculations show that the CEP would have said that, scoring 90% of the
votes cast (nearly as much as Dany Toussaint in May 2000), M. Madistin had
been elected outright in the first round. That shows that the 1995 CEP DID
NOT USE the method advocated by M. Pharaon.
 In 1995, only ten seats were won in the first round. My calculations show
that the CEP would not have organized a second round for Senate in any
department if it had used Pharaon?s method. Find please in the appendix the
data that I have used to calculate the percentage scored by M. Madistin.


As for the December 1990 election, I have not gotten detailed results.
Meanwhile I have read that only five senators had been elected outright in
the first round though elections took place in nine departments. This is
enough to prove now that in 1990 the CEP did not use the method advocated by
M. Pharaon. This can be demonstrated as the argument is quite simple.
Let us contemplate a constituency where two senators have to be elected (the
proceeding would be the same with three senators). M. Pharaon?s method takes
into account only the four highest scoring candidates, as if nobody had
voted for any other candidate. This method is also based on the assumption
that everybody has voted for two contenders (among the top four candidates)
and not for only one. Thus the number of electors who have voted for the top
four candidates may be calculated by summing their votes and dividing the
result by two.
These candidates have gotten a, b, c and d votes and the percentage that
they have scored is A, B, C and D. It follows :
A= 100 x 2 x a /(a+b+c+d)
B= 100 x 2 x b /(a+b+c+d)
C= 100 x 2 x c /(a+b+c+d)
D= 100 x 2 x d /(a+b+c+d)

In these formulas, the figure 100 is used to obtain the percentage. If A, B,
C, or D is greater than 50%, the candidate corresponding to this letter is
elected outright in the first round election.
You may notice that by summing up A+B+C+D, you get 100 x 2 x
(a+b+c+d)/(a+b+c+d), that is 200. Now if the sum of four numbers equals 200,
at least one of them is necessarily greater than 50 (unless each one equals
50). That means that if in an election the CEP uses the same method than in
2000, at least one candidate in each constituency scores more than 50% of
the votes cast. Consequently, if ever in at least one constituency no
candidate has been elected outright in the first round, you can assert that
the CEP did not use the Pharaon?s method !
That is clear ! This shows that in 1990 and 1995, the CEP did not use the
method carried out in 2000, since in several constituencies no senator was
elected in the first round balloting.


The method according to which the candidates who do not figure as the top
four ones are rejected is an invention of the 2000 CEP. It nearly changes a
two-rounds election into a one-round election since the first top candidate
is elected even if he has not gotten the absolute majority. It betrays not
only the letter but also the spirit of the electoral rules carried out in
July 1999 by the same CEP (cf the articles 58-64, which are even more
precise than the corresponding ones of the February 1995 electoral law).
In 2000, as in 1995 and 1990, it had been decided that the Senate election
would be a two-round election. Was it a good decision ? That is another
debate. Anyway it was a political choice and not a technical matter. A
two-round election prevents a candidate from being elected if more than 50%
of the voters definitively dont want him to seat in the Senate. It gives the
other candidates the opportunity to make a coalition to beat the first round
highest scoring candidates. Is it what the CEP wanted to hinder by means of
a last-minute trick ?


A) According to the CEP, M. Madistin has gotten 66927 votes in the first
round balloting in 1995. The three candidates following him have gotten
47776, 17856, and 16945 votes. All together the 22 candidates of Artibonite
have gotten 277688 votes. To calculate the number of voters, the CEP divided
this figure by 2. This peculiar way of calculating the number of voters (it
assumes that each one marked two candidates on the ballot paper) is the only
point in common with the Pharaon method.

B) When three candidates have to be elected (as in the Centre department in
May 2000 and in each department in 1990), M. Pharaon?s method takes into
account the six (instead of the four) highest scoring candidates and puts
300 instead of 200 in the formulas. In this case too, at least one candidate
scores automatically more than 50%.

C) The absurd method advocated by M. Pharaon may have surprising
consequences. For instance, three candidates may score more than 50% in a
constituency where only two senators have to be elected. If ever a candidate
is very popular and if many electors vote only for him, then he will score
more than 100% !

D) Here are the documents that I have consulted.
- Tables entitled ? Résultats définitifs des élections du 25 juin et du 13
août 1995 ?, bearing the rubber-stamp of the CEP, August 1995.
- ? Une Semaine en Haïti ?, 278/279, September 1995, Collectif Haïti de
- Christian Lionet (1992) : ? Haïti : l'année Aristide ?, p. 253,
L'Harmattan, Paris.
- The electoral document of February 1995 can be read on the following web
page : www.haiti.org/documents.htm
- The electoral document of July 1999 can be read on the following web site