[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
#4409: Fwd: Arthur replies to Chapman Re: #4376 (fwd)
From: Charles Arthur <email@example.com>
Keywords: election results, CEP
>Chris Chapman wrote:
><< Can anyone explain it to
> me? It seems to me the question is simple; did the CEP
> calculate the proportion of those voting for each
> candidate as a percentage of ALL VOTES CAST and not
> just those cast for the top 4, or not?
It seems Haiti Progres was misled by the CEP's initial release of partial
Senate results in early June when they used one method, and the definitive
results released by the CEP on June 19th, for which they had used another.
I think everyone now agrees that for the Senate elections of May 21st 2000,
the CEP used the following method to calculate the percentages:
They counted up the valid votes cast for all the candidates - sometimes 2
per ballot paper because there were 2 Senate seats up for election in all
departments except the Central Department where there were 3, and sometimes
1 per ballot paper because people did not know or were not told they had 2
votes. When they arrived at these individual totals, they put them in order,
and took the four candidates with the highest number of votes. They added
these four totals together, and then divided this total in two (or in 3 in
the Central Department). The resultant figure - call it 100% - was used to
calculate the percentage that each of the four highest scoring candidates
I think that the OAS but not the CEP, now believes that the following method
should have been used to calculate the Senate results:
Count up all the valid votes cast for all the candidates. Add all these
together, and divide the total by 2 (or by 3 in the Central Department). Use
this figure as the one against which the individual percentages should have
For example, let's call the first method 'A', and the second method 'B', and
see the difference for the results of one department - the Artibonite,
(figures supplied by the OAS EOM in Haiti).
Method A used by the CEP:
Top 4 highest-scoring candidates in the Artibonite:
Medard Joseph (Fanmi Lavalas) 158,664 votes
Mondesir Sanon (Fanmi Lavalas) 139,074 votes
......... Benoit (Mochrena) 54,808 votes
Gustave Vil (Mochrena) 45,318 votes
Total for these 4 candidates = 397,864
Divided by 2 = 198,932
Medard Joseph 79.75%
Mondesir Sanon 69.9%
....... Benoit 27.5%
Gustave Vil 22.7%
Medard Joseph and Mondesir Sanon qualify as first round winners. Medard
Joseph is Senator for 6 years, Mondesir Sanon for 4 years.
Method B advocated by the OAS:
Total number of valid votes cast in the Artibonite: 616,787
Divided by 2 = 308,396
Medard Joseph (FL) 51.4%
Mondesir Sanon (FL) 45.1%
...... Benoit(Mochrena) 18%
Medard Joseph (FL) is elected Senator in the first round for a term of 6
years. Sanon (FL) and Benoit (Mochrena) should contest a second round to
decide a winner of the Senate post for 4 years.
I hope this clears this aspect of it up. There are however numerous other
questions that need answering:
What method was used in 1990, 1995 and 1997? If the same method was used
before, why did the OAS not say anything until the results became known?
Where in all this is IFES - in receipt of US$ 8 million of US funds to help
with the elections?
Why did the CEP use one method for the partial Senate results and another
for the definitive results?
Why the CEP use one method for the definitive Senate results and another for
the definitive results for the Deputies?
Why does Leon Manus say that FL won 5 Senate seats, and the OAS say it won 7
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com