12910: stanley honorat re:12872 elections... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: stanley honorat honorat <shonorat@hotmail.com>

in reference to the election debate in general, and to post #12872 in
particular, i think that there are a few clarifications that need to be
made.
first, in comparing the election process in the united states to that of
haiti, there are differences that are overlooked by all of us that change
the dynamics of the issue.  in the united states the election of the
president is through an electoral college, unlike haiti.  it is possible for
a candidate to lose the popular vote and still be elected president.  in
happened once in us history, when john quincy adams became president
although he lost the popular vote to andrew jackson (1824).
also, there is a statistical difference that needs to be made between
majority and plurality.  majority is defined as the number which is over
half of a particular total, whereas plurality is the state of being plural,
the greater number (both definitions taken from webster's dictionary). for
example with a sample population of 100, the majority is anything more than
50, but the plurality could be less (ie- if the sample is broken done into
33,37, and 30... then 37 achieves plurality)this distinction is important in
the question of whether an american president is a "majority" president or
not (for example george w bush in 2000).  in 1960, john f kennedy won 49.7%
of the popular vote (a difference of aproximately 113,000 votes), meaning he
achieved plurality but not majority. in contrast, the election of president
in haiti is based on majority (art. 134 of the constitution of 1987).  i
think that these differences, among others, make comparisons between the two
systems tenuous, at best.
now, in terms of election in hati (the 2000 elections in particular), there
are several points that have not been brought up that i feel need to be.
for one thing, one writer stated " In the 2000 elections, although
irregularities took place, it is clear that no matter how many rounds of
voting
happened, the Lavalas candidates would have won."  the irregularities were
grave enough to cause not only the opposition to cry outrage, but others as
well.  the oas report stated that "ambassador marville the mission's concern
about the number of serious irregularities which, in case of legislative
elections in particular, compromised the credibility of the elections..."
(oas chief of mission reports to permanent council on haiti elections, july
13, 2000).  the use of the word serious before irregularities changes the
gravity of the problem.  secondly, it is worth noting that the (then)
president of the electoral council, leon manus, refused to sign the election
results, siting too many problems.  he was forced to take refuge in an
embassy and is now living in exile.  notice that he stated (on radio) that
he was called into the national palace, and in the presence of then
president rene preval, asked to sign results that had been fabricated.  also
a reference to note is that of mario andresol, former commisioner of police
who stated that police officers were instructed to get rid of urns full of
votes without their having been tabulated.  he is also now living in exile.





_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com