The Vote Tallying Case Simplified

[Omollo]

Presidential results are certified and issued to the agent (representing the candidate).

You will have a very hard time re-creating the Rigging Centre at Bomas
 

For MP & MCA - the const Returning Officer is final. For govenor, senator and women rep - the County RO is final. For presidential - the Chair of IEBC as the RO is final. Each of them need to get result from guys below them, verify, ran sanity checks, dispute or disregard some - and finally announce the winner.This they ought to do is presence of party and candidate agency - and ought to be documented - and those can become part of petition to court.

[RV Pundit]

The Returning Officer at Bomas will have to openly and accurately collate results from all polling stations and promptly announce the results.
Unless you're saying we don't need a presidential returning officer?

Presidential results are certified and issued to the agent (representing the candidate).

You will have a very hard time re-creating the Rigging Centre at Bomas
 

For MP & MCA - the const Returning Officer is final. For govenor, senator and women rep - the County RO is final. For presidential - the Chair of IEBC as the RO is final. Each of them need to get result from guys below them, verify, ran sanity checks, dispute or disregard some - and finally announce the winner.This they ought to do is presence of party and candidate agency - and ought to be documented - and those can become part of petition to court.

[Omollo]

The same constitution Chapter 86-

(b) the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results announced promptly by the presiding officer at each polling station;
(c) the results from the polling stations are openly and accurately collated and promptly announced by the returning officer;

We are asking that they run a credible election in accordance with the law not some rules that create massive avenues for rigging results. The constitution does not give the IEBC the power to contradict its express provisions nor transgress against the intentions of the same.

IEBC are in charge of elections including those Returning Officer who you have so much faith in. They should be allowed to ran the elections. The constitution and Laws allows IEBC to come up with regulation of conducting election.

You either have faith in Chebukati & team - or you don't.

You should because you just forced the previous team out.

I have always believed in the hierarchy of laws:

1.the constitution;
2. Laws
3. Regulations

I have yet to come to any jurisdiction that places regulations above laws or laws above the constitution! I think the constitution of Kenya warns laws and regulations to stay out of it way because in case of a traffic jam, it will bulldoze the rest out of the way.

Pundit, what you have posted are regulations.

[Omollo]

When you start writing your own constitution in which include Bomas, I quit. Like I told you, this time ni nyinyi mtasema you've been robbed. Everything you depended on in 2013 is either gone or on thin ice about to sink.

The Returning Officer at Bomas will have to openly and accurately collate results from all polling stations and promptly announce the results.
Unless you're saying we don't need a presidential returning officer?

Presidential results are certified and issued to the agent (representing the candidate).

You will have a very hard time re-creating the Rigging Centre at Bomas
 

For MP & MCA - the const Returning Officer is final. For govenor, senator and women rep - the County RO is final. For presidential - the Chair of IEBC as the RO is final. Each of them need to get result from guys below them, verify, ran sanity checks, dispute or disregard some - and finally announce the winner.This they ought to do is presence of party and candidate agency - and ought to be documented - and those can become part of petition to court.

[RV Pundit]

Don't see any problem - except when final results announced in polling station xyz exceed say registered voters or those who turned up to voter - then IEBC has to step in and disregard those results.

The same constitution Chapter 86-

(b) the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results announced promptly by the presiding officer at each polling station;
(c) the results from the polling stations are openly and accurately collated and promptly announced by the returning officer;

[RV Pundit]

Don't see how this winning strategy - unless you just want chaos to reign. If Uhuru want to steal - he will easily buy or intimidate 290 returning officer to announce flawed final results - but that will plunge the country into chaos - something Raila without any winning strategy is keen on. Already NASA is on court challenging the appointment of ROs - claiming IEBC despite being independent need to involve them in selecting ROS . They are realizing too late in the game that final RO results - mean they've to be so sure of 290 ROs - which is no easy fete. At least you can focus on Chebukati & team 24-7 - but how are you going to stop 290 ROs from announcing flawed final results?

I haven't seen Jubilee rush to court. It just IEBC versus NASA. Jubilee are waiting for IEBC to conduct election and they will win by bigger margin.

I personally just care for what is good for kenya. What do we do when we get flawed results - say exceeding registered votes? Do we say they are final and just announce them? Or do we reject them. That is more important issue.

When you start writing your own constitution in which include Bomas, I quit. Like I told you, this time ni nyinyi mtasema you've been robbed. Everything you depended on in 2013 is either gone or on thin ice about to sink.

[MOON Ki]

if still struggling read here https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/o8K6y0Co5S.pdf

That's a start, thank you.    Now, here is what you wrote:

Chebukati is the presidential returning officer.

Which part of that document supports  that claim?   From what I gather, the term "returning officer" is explicitly defined in the law, as are the associated tasks and powers, and the definition and other text suggest that no member of the IEBC can function as a "returning officer" of any sort.   (I could be wrong, although I went through the relevant documents and took a look at all they had to say about "returning officers".)

You also write that:

For MP & MCA - the const Returning Officer is final. For govenor, senator and women rep - the County RO is final. For presidential - the Chair of IEBC as the RO is final.

Which part of the law supports that claim?   As far as I can see, there is no such distinction.   In fact, a quick look shows  the constituency returning officer has an equal role for all positions--MCA, MP, Presidential.

And page 14 seems quite clear on Chebukati's role:

I see no problem with any of that. 

Basically, he is to---

(i) check that the numbers he has been given match those on the forms signed by the constituency returning officers;

(ii) do the sums on the sgned-for numbers;

(iii) sign some form;

(iv) announce the results.

That's it.

All that seems to be far less that the powers you have been claiming on his behalf; and it could, as Terminator suggests,   all be done by machine. In particular, I don't see the basis on which he would be able to change anything from the constituency level or where he has room to argue with the numbers signed for at the constituency level.     So, as in most places, people ought to be able to "call" the results simply by looking numbers declared at the lower level, and unless Chebukati has some magical calculator that would yield different sums, he has no more say over "presidential" numbers than he has over "lower level" numbers ... basic checks and signatures.

What have I missed or not understood?

[RV Pundit]

Here we go with hair splitting.The Const Ro, the county Ro, and Chebukati as Ro of presidential do the same job. They receive results, verify, add them up again and finally issue the winner with certificate.

[MOON Ki]

Here we go with hair splitting.The Const Ro, the county Ro, and Chebukati as Ro of presidential do the same job. They receive results, verify, add them up again and finally issue the winner with certificate.

There you go with the "hair-splitting" claim.   This might come as a surprise to you, but the law really matters in such cases; that is actually what this thread is about!   (Read the title and opening "post".)  Also, the manamba view of the "same job" is both unhelpful and  inaccurate.   (Read the relevant documents.)

[RV Pundit]

That is some leap. The law is now before the court of appeal. I think all ROs (be it const, county or presidential) should be allowed to verify the results; not just act as conveyor belt; that will stop rogue POs or ROs from messing up elections knowing they are final. Any alteration or rejection made at any level should be documented and should be done in full presence of all agents & observers.Anything else is inviting chaos...which NASA are angling for.

If RO turn up at KICC or Bomas with flawed results. Chebukati should say No. If there are simple corrections needed - say the made mathematical error or transposed some figures - then agents & RO can clean that up.

There you go with the "hair-splitting" claim.   This might come as a surprise to you, but the law really matters in such cases; that is actually what this thread is about!   (Read the title and opening "post".)  Also, the manamba view of the "same job" is both unhelpful and  inaccurate.   (Read the relevant documents.)

[RV Pundit]

Kibe nails it here. Const RO does not conduct presidential election. It chebukati the chair of IEBC who conduct presidential elections.

https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001236476/why-high-court-got-it-wrong-on-presidential-tallying-case
This interpretation is clearly wrong because the duty to hold presidential elections in the 290 constituencies is vested in the chairperson of IEBC as the presidential returning officer, which is the real reason why the presidential results declared by constituency and county returning officers are deemed provisional. There is no statutory or constitutional mandate for a constituency returning officer to announce final presidential election results because the mandate vests in the chairperson of the Commission. So, the role of CRO is merely facilitative.
Read more at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001236476/why-high-court-got-it-wrong-on-presidential-tallying-case

[MOON Ki]

That is some leap. The law is now before the court of appeal. I think all ROs (be it const, county or presidential) should be allowed to verify the results; not just act as conveyor belt; that will stop rogue POs or ROs from messing up elections knowing they are final. Any alteration or rejection made at any level should be documented and should be done in full presence of all agents & observers.Anything else is inviting chaos...which NASA are angling for.

I have already tried to point this out: it has very little to do with what you think; the law is what matters, and that is so regardless of what appeal is where.    (Appeals and so on are about the interpretation of the law, and, like all matters before any court, they start on the presumption that the law matters!)

[RV Pundit]

I think you're an irritant.

I have already tried to point this out: it has very little to do with what you think; the law is what matters, and that is so regardless of what appeal is where.    (Appeals and so on are about the interpretation of the law, and, like all matters before any court, they start on the presumption that the law matters!)

[MOON Ki]

Kibe nails it here. Const RO does not conduct presidential election. It chebukati the chair of IEBC who conduct presidential elections.

Here is what the Elections Act says:

38.   Holding of elections

After a notice of an election has been published in the Gazette under section 14, 16, 17 and 19, every returning officer shall proceed to hold the election according to the terms of the notice and in accordance with the regulations relating to elections.

Section 14: presidential elections
Section 16: MP elections
Section 17: Governor elections
Section 19: MCA elections

All four levels.  This idea of one person doing "these other" levels and another person doing that "most-important" presidential  level simply has no support in the law.

And Sections 14-19 are quite clear on the role of the IEBC: it will publish in the Gazette a notice that elections are to be held and, within 21 days of that notice, inform the returning officers, who will then conduct whatever elections are to be held.   

(As I have already noted, it is not possible to interpret "returning officer" in a manner  that includes any member of the IEBC.)

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Don't see any problem - except when final results announced in polling station xyz exceed say registered voters or those who turned up to voter - then IEBC has to step in and disregard those results.

The same constitution Chapter 86-

(b) the votes cast are counted, tabulated and the results announced promptly by the presiding officer at each polling station;
(c) the results from the polling stations are openly and accurately collated and promptly announced by the returning officer;

You just have to have faith that this will not be a problem.  If it is, that is what the courts are there for.  The current arrangement has not prevented shady-looking results from going through anyhow.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kibe nails it here. Const RO does not conduct presidential election. It chebukati the chair of IEBC who conduct presidential elections.

Here is what the Elections Act says:

38.   Holding of elections

After a notice of an election has been published in the Gazette under section 14, 16, 17 and 19, every returning officer shall proceed to hold the election according to the terms of the notice and in accordance with the regulations relating to elections.

Section 14: presidential elections
Section 16: MP elections
Section 17: Governor elections
Section 19: MCA elections

All four levels.  This idea of one person doing "these other" levels and another person doing that "most-important" presidential  level simply has no support in the law.

And Sections 14-19 are quite clear on the role of the IEBC: it will publish in the Gazette a notice that elections are to be held and, within 21 days of that notice, inform the returning officers, who will then conduct whatever elections are to be held.   

(As I have already noted, it is not possible to interpret "returning officer" in a manner  that includes any member of the IEBC.)

It appears Chebukati has no permission to change numbers or do some rocket science arithmetic that ROs and political party agents may have missed.  In the citations you made, I haven't seen anything that allows him to fix the math or that sort of thing.  It looks like those activities end with ROs.

[MOON Ki]

I think you're an irritant.

That's not very nice.  Here's a book for you: https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495655065&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+win+friends+and+influence

$0.73 on Kindle, $2.84 for used paperback.

[MOON Ki]

It appears Chebukati has no permission to change numbers or do some rocket science arithmetic that ROs and political party agents may have missed.  In the citations you made, I haven't seen anything that allows him to fix the math or that sort of thing.  It looks like those activities end with ROs.

As far as I can tell, he does not, and, perhaps, for good reason: he is not best placed for that, or to, as has been suggested, "step in and disregard those results".   Disregard them on what basis and in favour of what "better" results?.   If you look at the bit of the law that the IEBC is relying on in its dubious power-grab---the vague bit about "provisional" vs. "final" results---the most sensible interpretation, in line with the Constitution, would be to permit changes in accordance with changes officially made at the lower levels.   

To my mind, though, there is a much larger issue here: Kenyans are obviously not yet ready to change the type of person they elect to "leadership".  Are they, at least, prepared to change the "mechanics" into a more honest and less bothersome sort?   ("Bothersome" in our part of the world = "serious mayhem".)

The numerous variations in our electoral laws are an interesting read.  I took a look at a bunch of  pre-2010 stuff, and I noted the endless activity in tinkering before and after; even RV Pundit's "proof" (see link above) is barely one month old!   But the 2007-2008 disaster produced some sort of awakening---the new Constitution---and, as I see it, the issue now is whether the Constitution will prevail.   I know my compatriots well, and I have few illusions, but I hope I will be surprised.   

[Omollo]

I think you're an irritant.

That's not very nice.  Here's a book for you: https://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0671027034/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1495655065&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+win+friends+and+influence

$0.73 on Kindle, $2.84 for used paperback.

[Omollo]

It appears Chebukati has no permission to change numbers or do some rocket science arithmetic that ROs and political party agents may have missed.  In the citations you made, I haven't seen anything that allows him to fix the math or that sort of thing.  It looks like those activities end with ROs.

As far as I can tell, he does not, and, perhaps, for good reason: he is not best placed for that, or to, as has been suggested, "step in and disregard those results".   Disregard them on what basis and in favour of what "better" results?.   If you look at the bit of the law that the IEBC is relying on in its dubious power-grab---the vague bit about "provisional" vs. "final" results---the most sensible interpretation, in line with the Constitution, would be to permit changes in accordance with changes officially made at the lower levels.   

To my mind, though, there is a much larger issue here: Kenyans are obviously not yet ready to change the type of person they elect to "leadership".  Are they, at least, prepared to change the "mechanics" into a more honest and less bothersome sort?   ("Bothersome" in our part of the world = "serious mayhem".)

The numerous variations in our electoral laws are an interesting read.  I took a look at a bunch of  pre-2010 stuff, and I noted the endless activity in tinkering before and after; even RV Pundit's "proof" (see link above) is barely one month old!   But the 2007-2008 disaster produced some sort of awakening---the new Constitution---and, as I see it, the issue now is whether the Constitution will prevail.   I know my compatriots well, and I have few illusions, but I hope I will be surprised.   

For once the constitution is clear and unambiguous. If Chebukati wishes he can assume the ROs are representing him in all the 290 Constituencies.

The high court has also been very clear in it's determination. It maintained fidelity to the constitution in its findings.

But I suspect the court of appeal is an "irritant" for jubilee as it hurries to the Supreme Court. I would be watching to see how it will reverse itself on a matter it has previously ruled in disfavor of one litigant when it too clearly spoke and was heard.

I dare say the Supreme Court dodged a bullet with it's misconduct by the Rawal case. As we say it's now suspended over molten lava hanging by a fast burning thread. If it gets this wrong and appears a useful tool to aid electoral fraud - for that would be the outcome - its survival wouldn't be guaranteed. Before am accused of issuance of threats, I want to remind everyone of the Gerrymandering by Kibaki prior to 2007 elections, stuffing the bench and the ECK. In hindsight I never understand why ODM went to the polls run by Kibaki's personal advocate Kihara Muttu?

Jubilee is stacking the cards and expecting NASA to sit and play.

Again and as I have said before, if it's a walk in the park why all these tricks? Going back to manual voting, importing kits whose quality isn't vouched for, etc? But still they feel they need the results to be corrected!

If the arithmetic is wrong and the votes exceed the actual voters that's not a matter to be corrected. How would anybody correct that? It's evidence that someone has tampered with the election. It moves to a different instance to be adjudicated by the courts. It's two weeks. Hopefully this time if its jubilee suing they can present evidence minus videos which they constantly rule inadmissible