Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: Simanova on August 01, 2016, 02:18:35 PM
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CovwXK9WAAAtou4.jpg)
-
And here is confirmation that the so called defections and support for Jubilee arising from "revolt" in CORD is State Sponsored.
Remember he is another political reject finding a way through betrayal and undermining the interests of his own people. He lost heavily when he bribed to get an ODM ticket in a FORD K area thus almost compromising CORD in Trans Nzoia. Jubilee is welcome to him anytime. I see they have cleared the way for him by sending Eunice ona wild goose chase in Nairobi:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CowKMbeWYAAjqBl.jpg)
-
Here you can see Jubilee is cornered. They can't find a cohesive explanation why they are against announcing binding Presidential Election results at the polling station. They now claim that would lead to violence:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CowoveKXYAEYa4a.jpg)
-
Here you can see Jubilee is cornered. They can't find a cohesive explanation why they are against announcing binding Presidential Election results at the polling station. They now claim that would lead to violence:
It would only lead to violence if the overall tally does not correspond to what was announced at the polling stations. But that is the whole point. Right?
Until we get the basic elections right, I am highly skeptical of tyranny of numbers theories.
-
CORD has the numbers only if their supporters come out and vote and IEBC does not rig.They have to insist on presidential results being announced at the polling stations and live screening of election results by media houses.
-
This is where Jubilee comes out in its true colors.
1. They are against polling station results
2. They are against Wananchi staying at polling stations until the results are announced and transmitted in their presence
3. They are against the list of published at every polling station and the National register accessible at least three months to election and throughout the election
4. They do not want a paper trail for all electronic activity
5. They do not want a stipulation that persons not identified electronically cannot vote
6. Are against the use of other ID cards
CORD has the numbers only if their supporters come out and vote and IEBC does not rig.They have to insist on presidential results being announced at the polling stations and live screening of election results by media houses.
-
This rarely seems to concern Kenyans, but I believe IEBC should also be periodically reviewing constituency boundaries. To maintain a level of equality of the vote. What is their strategy?
-
Simanova:
What are those numbers, and where do they come from?
-
Simanova:
What are those numbers, and where do they come from?
If I hazard a guess, it's one of those numbers each side seems to have access to. Pro-tyranny or pro-rigging. Coincidentally agreeing with whatever narrative is out there.
I don't buy the CORD nor the Jubilant line simply because neither are trustworthy. It doesn't help that IEBC itself doesn't seem to have a handle on the numbers.
It's a mess that those responsible have shown little interest in quelling.
-
Simanova:
What are those numbers, and where do they come from?
These numbers have been circulating for months on FB and other social media.
Looked for the source and, not surprisingly, didn't find it.
Doubt that anybody knows where they came from.
-
These numbers would only occur with Nithi-style turnout. They are voodoo. If only they were real.
-
Simanova:
What are those numbers, and where do they come from?
From the corrupted IEBC register of 2013
-
These numbers would only occur with Nithi-style turnout. They are voodoo. If only they were real.
Which areas do you know for a fact cannot produce the "Nithi-style" voting pattern. The idea of the tyranny of numbers is based on registered voters. Mutahi Ngunyi spread the propaganda and it was swallowed whole by the media. He has since been asked to explain it and has bulked. It was a lie from the start.
-
From the corrupted IEBC register of 2013
If I were you, I'd be focusing on the numbers for next year. What do those look like?
[Ngunyi Tyranny] It was a lie from the start.
What did CORD do at the time to counter the "lie"? It all seems a bit late now.
-
You might be aware that the IEBC as currently constituted is a gang of fraudsters. I need not explain why we will concentrate on figures by a new commission.
From the corrupted IEBC register of 2013
If I were you, I'd be focusing on the numbers for next year. What do those look like?
-
You might be aware that the IEBC as currently constituted is a gang of fraudsters. I need not explain why we will concentrate on figures by a new commission.
It's been 4+ years since the last elections. Did the commissioners suddenly become fraudsters, or did CORD just now realize that they are fraudsters?
People have already registered for 2017. What do those current numbers look like, regardless of whether the commissioners are fraudsters? And how will changing the IEBC affect those numbers?
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CovwXK9WAAAtou4.jpg)
This is BS! Central alone was 2.9m.. Eastern is 50-50! Three ukambani counties countered by Embu, Meru and Tharaka, Isiolo and Marsabit 50-50!
Nairobi is 50-50!
Now compute again
-
Here you can see Jubilee is cornered. They can't find a cohesive explanation why they are against announcing binding Presidential Election results at the polling station. They now claim that would lead to violence:
Red: Wouldn't that just encourage another variation on ballot-stuffing? There are several other reasons why this is a bad idea, especially in a place like Kenya, and I am astonished that anyone serious would propose it.
-
Here you can see Jubilee is cornered. They can't find a cohesive explanation why they are against announcing binding Presidential Election results at the polling station. They now claim that would lead to violence:
Red: Wouldn't that just encourage another variation on ballot-stuffing? There are several other reasons why this is a bad idea, especially in a place like Kenya, and I am astonished that anyone serious would propose it.
TBH I don't know how this would be enforced. But the idea itself, I think it's a reasonable one. The authoritative result should at the polling station. That was in fact the rationale behind electronic transmission of the results. Minimize or eliminate chances of altering results; except that it simply never got to work, whether by design or accident.
It may not prevent ballot stuffing. But that is something EVID ought to eliminate. Again, EVID, by design or accident, never got to see the light of day.
-
It is a well proven anti-rigging method. For starters there iare thousands of these polling stations as opposed to one so called "tallying center". To stuff ballots one would need to transport them and this apart from being a huge and logistical nightmare would be easy to detect and stop.
Mexico ended the 100 years' of Institutional Party rigging through this method.
I am all ears ready to listen to the many reasons against it. For instance Khalwale recounts an incident in Kakamega where the polling officer refused to transmit genuine results and only did so late at night after getting the figures to transmit from the IEBC. This and many other incidents were contained in the affidavit the Supreme Court threw out. Needless to add that the figures she transmitted were highly inflated. This would not have happened if the results were read at the station in public view. The riots referred to can now be placed in the right context whereby citizen protest the tinkling with genuine results.
Plus why is it the results come to Nairobi three days after fact. I would propose some sanctions against officials who fail to announce the results within an hour of completing the counting aware that most stations have just about 2000 voters.
Here you can see Jubilee is cornered. They can't find a cohesive explanation why they are against announcing binding Presidential Election results at the polling station. They now claim that would lead to violence:
Red: Wouldn't that just encourage another variation on ballot-stuffing? There are several other reasons why this is a bad idea, especially in a place like Kenya, and I am astonished that anyone serious would propose it.
-
TBH I don't know how this would be enforced. But the idea itself, I think it's a reasonable one. The authoritative result should at the polling station. That was in fact the rationale behind electronic transmission of the results. Minimize or eliminate chances of altering results; except that it simply never got to work, whether by design or accident.
It may not prevent ballot stuffing. But that is something EVID ought to eliminate. Again, EVID, by design or accident, never got to see the light of day.
(Keep in mind that this is Kenya.)
The essential problem is not in the mere reporting from polling stations; that of itself is a good idea. The real difficulties arise from the nation that numbers reported at that level should be binding. I say it would encourage a variation of ballot-stuffing because there would be no need to actually stuff ballot-boxes; instead, just report whatever number one has in mind.
Going to the next levels, there is the potential for a nightmare: What happens when there is a huge difference between the figures from the polling stations and those at the tallying centre, those from the actual (physical) ballot papers etc., given that the starting figures are supposedly binding? And so on. I see the possibility of numerous legal and other types of problems.
Replace "binding" with "provisional", and you have fewer problems. For votes to be binding or authoritative at the polling-station level, it seems to me that at least two things are necessary:
(1) All candidates have their representatives at all polling stations.
(2) All of the representatives at a polling station agree on the result to be announced.
How would that work in tribal Kenya, where violence against "the other side" is the norm in elections? What would happen to a Raila (Uhuru) representative deep in Central (Nyanza) if he or she objects to bogus results?
Simanova wrote:
For instance Khalwale recounts an incident in Kakamega where the polling officer refused to transmit genuine results and only did so late at night after getting the figures to transmit from the IEBC ... This would not have happened if the results were read at the station in public view.
That's one side of the coin. The other side is where the "public" at the polling station is in favour of announcing inflated figures that support their "our man". Would voters in Central (Nyanza) really object to bogus figures being announced in favour of Uhuru (Raila)?
-
Mexico ended the 100 years' of Institutional Party rigging through this method.
I took a look at the Mexican system and especially what happened in 2006 and 2012. At any rate, the core of system involves much more than just reporting at the polling-station level; so I'm not sure that that alone would fix the problems in Kenya.
A bit of Mexican electoral history could provide some necessary context. Decades of one-party dominance supported by tampering with the vote created a plethora of allegories for common electoral practices that seem drawn from Magical Realism literature:
...
With these precedents, it is no surprise that recent Mexican electoral history is characterized by attempts to foster trust in electoral outcomes, primarily by coping with three main forms of electoral fraud: controlling who votes, tampering with the vote count, and vote buying.
The first type of fraud � on the voter list � has been addressed through a voter registration list that is administered by an autonomous electoral authority, and audited by all political parties. Similarly, voters on the registration list receive a voter ID card that is a requisite to vote, and get an indelible (acid) mark on their right thumb after voting.
On this election, about 1.2 million randomly selected citizens counted the votes of more than 50 million voters.
Seems like a good idea. Has anyone looked at the current voter registration list? Has anyone even asked to look? (I can never get any answers whenever I ask about current registration.)
The second type of fraud � in the counting of votes � has been addressed with multiple layers of scrutiny. Polling stations are manned by randomly selected citizens, whose performance can be audited in situ by party representatives and citizen observers, especially when they produce vote tallies. Days later, ballots can be recounted on every district whenever an objection to the tally is presented, when the amount of ballots does not correspond to the tally, or when the difference between the first and second place on the district is less than 1% of the votes.
On this election, nearly 2 million party representatives and 32 thousand citizens observed vote counts, and over 132 million ballots were recounted to correct vote tallies.
...
The important thing is that the electoral process in Mexico is not formally over until the Electoral Court (a special court in the Judiciary branch that deals exclusively with electoral matters) declares a winner. And that will not happen until the last complaint is resolved � which could take months � as was the case in 2006 � but must happen before September 6th.
source: http://themonkeycage.org/2012/07/post-election-report-ii-revisiting-fraud-and-the-2012-mexican-presidential-election/
-
Concerning the Voter register: It is one of the big issues under discussion at the select committee. As you have seen with the case of Mexico and from the article I posted here recently, the IEBC created confusion over the voter register to facilitate rigging. Here are some of the things they did:
- Voters were electronically "transferred" to Jubilee strongholds increasing the number of voters and thus giving the riggers the opportunity to stuff ballot boxes without ending up with the tell tale 120% as of 2007. The result of this was that many genuine voters could not vote or were indicated to have already voted. I witnessed a dozen who came to complain that they had been chased from the polling stations and threatened with arrest
- When it comes to tallying strategically recruited and compromised polling officers are equipped with a secret phone and instructed to wait with transmission of results until they are called and instructed what figures to enter. In most cases this depends on the opposition results from other areas and the inflation is intended to counter opposition gains. Hence the "delay" in submitting results from the riggers strongholds or compromised areas. Now this is hard if there is an established and verified and accessible voter register preferably PRINTED. The IEBC lied that it could not afford to print the register!!!! The ECK said the same. It is our mistake that we did not follow up, especially with Raila cheated that Kibaki was backing him and his close aides totally compromised. The IEBC deliberately created confusion over the voter register but would later argue in court that that there was only one register. wait a moment.... Two. The Constitution allows only ONE. The Supreme Court said AMEN
- You will note that despite all their efforts, they still faced a runoff and had run out of money for a new set of bribes. They then came up with another register which they said is of "The Disabled". This arose after it became untenable to add fictitious names in the master register after it had been submitted to the petitioner and the court.
So there is no confusion, CORD holds that there is no Voter Register. It wants it clearly established that there shall be ONE voter register and it shall be printed and copies given out to political parties and others who want it. That there is no separate register for The Disabled.
-
TBH I don't know how this would be enforced. But the idea itself, I think it's a reasonable one. The authoritative result should at the polling station. That was in fact the rationale behind electronic transmission of the results. Minimize or eliminate chances of altering results; except that it simply never got to work, whether by design or accident.
It may not prevent ballot stuffing. But that is something EVID ought to eliminate. Again, EVID, by design or accident, never got to see the light of day.
(Keep in mind that this is Kenya.)
The essential problem is not in the mere reporting from polling stations; that of itself is a good idea. The real difficulties arise from the nation that numbers reported at that level should be binding. I say it would encourage a variation of ballot-stuffing because there would be no need to actually stuff ballot-boxes; instead, just report whatever number one has in mind.
Going to the next levels, there is the potential for a nightmare: What happens when there is a huge difference between the figures from the polling stations and those at the tallying centre, those from the actual (physical) ballot papers etc., given that the starting figures are supposedly binding? And so on. I see the possibility of numerous legal and other types of problems.
Replace "binding" with "provisional", and you have fewer problems. For votes to be binding or authoritative at the polling-station level, it seems to me that at least two things are necessary:
(1) All candidates have their representatives at all polling stations.
(2) All of the representatives at a polling station agree on the result to be announced.
How would that work in tribal Kenya, where violence against "the other side" is the norm in elections? What would happen to a Raila (Uhuru) representative deep in Central (Nyanza) if he or she objects to bogus results?
Simanova wrote:
For instance Khalwale recounts an incident in Kakamega where the polling officer refused to transmit genuine results and only did so late at night after getting the figures to transmit from the IEBC ... This would not have happened if the results were read at the station in public view.
That's one side of the coin. The other side is where the "public" at the polling station is in favour of announcing inflated figures that support their "our man". Would voters in Central (Nyanza) really object to bogus figures being announced in favour of Uhuru (Raila)?
There are real challenges no doubt. I think those challenges, you raise in points 1) and 2). Those are problems independent of the idea of binding results at the poll station. They still exist even where results are provisional. You still have those problems, on top of the ones related to having the validity of poll results being decided elsewhere.
I don't know what if anything can be done about that. I am sure it would take some serious brainstorming just to find something workable. Is anyone working on that? Most certainly not.
You almost want to have video of the entire voting and counting process in the stations. Something for which technology exists. Then have the parties with the time and resources be able to challenge results on that basis.
-
The Mexican solution is to recount the actual votes at the polling station and get the truth
-
The only solution it to replace humans as much as possible with technology - and don't despair when it fails - but deploy failproof technology that minimize human collusion to rig election in respective strongholds.Rather than tech being addon luxury for provisional results - make it mandatory - that mean everything is captured electronically as much as possible, audio-visual recording of all the proceedings,electronically marked papers, name it. These kind of tech is now available cheaply.
If IEBC cannot get the electronic thing working - then repeat the election.
Of course some will come with conspiracy theories about "geometric progression" or "hacking" or name it...but nothing will stop people in my village...colluding to award UhuRuto 99% of all the registered votes and Omollo village doing the same for Raila.
How CORD intend to solve that by having final results announced is beyond me. They are going to compound the problem. At least the rigging now is controlled by the fear that verification going up to IEBC in Nairobi will catch the errors. But everyone announcing final results in Kapsenger vilage! That will be CHAOS.
-
The difference here is that we are trying to get a foolproof system that delivers a winner and you are sticking to the current one that you admit is full of mistakes.
Nowhere have I said that we need a failproof system. We are simply proposing changes to eliminate the possibility of the system being exploited by unpopular leaders who convince themselves they have the right to rule over those who win.
It is possible to acquire the system you describe (in cheek) with all the monies wasted on procurement and bribery of judges etc. The amount Iringo and Kimemia took on the back of six land rovers from NBK during the petition looks like the right "size" to finance such a system.
We know however that such systems can easily be hacked and everything altered. So we are banking on both technology and trust in the people. The people can ensure that ballot boxes are not stuffed. The people can ensure that counting is honest.
Technology may not stop ballot stuffing but it can document it.
I picked another piece of propaganda you are recycling.
CORD is NOT in charge of elections in CORD areas. So there is no chance that we would rig as Uhuru rigs. This is an old Kibaki narrative of "they rigged too".
The only solution it to replace humans as much as possible with technology - and don't despair when it fails - but deploy failproof technology that minimize human collusion to rig election in respective strongholds.Rather than tech being addon luxury for provisional results - make it mandatory - that mean everything is captured electronically as much as possible, audio-visual recording of all the proceedings,electronically marked papers, name it. These kind of tech is now available cheaply.
Of course some will come with conspiracy theories about "geometric progression" or "hacking" or name it...but nothing will stop people in my village...colluding to award UhuRuto 99% of all the registered votes and Omollo village doing the same for Raila.
-
It all depends where you think rigging happens. You seem convinced it happen after the polling station. I think it happens right in the polling station and sometimes along the pipeline. I am a technophile and I think we can deal with rigging easily by adopting tech. CORD idea is simply laughable considering the ethnic nature of our nation...both in settlements and politics..I can bet 80% of polling station are in homegenous tribal regions..where most of collusion happen..in presidential election. People are going to be strict on local elections for MCA..but when it come to the top...it "agreed" all the votes go to Raila or Uhuru. That is source of huge discrepancies in presidential and other elections.
CORD are probably working on stopping Kibaki era rigging -of holding numbers & padding them at Returning Officer level - or Moi era of ballot stuffing when votes where counted at Const Level...but certainly not the contempary issues.
The difference here is that we are trying to get a foolproof system that delivers a winner and you are sticking to the current one that you admit is full of mistakes.
Nowhere have I said that we need a failproof system. We are simply proposing changes to eliminate the possibility of the system being exploited by unpopular leaders who convince themselves they have the right to rule over those who win.
It is possible to acquire the system you describe (in cheek) with all the monies wasted on procurement and bribery of judges etc. The amount Iringo and Kimemia took on the back of six land rovers from NBK during the petition looks like the right "size" to finance such a system.
We know however that such systems can easily be hacked and everything altered. So we are banking on both technology and trust in the people. The people can ensure that ballot boxes are not stuffed. The people can ensure that counting is honest.
Technology may not stop ballot stuffing but it can document it.
I picked another piece of propaganda you are recycling.
CORD is NOT in charge of elections in CORD areas. So there is no chance that we would rig as Uhuru rigs. This is an old Kibaki narrative of "they rigged too".
-
The Mexican solution is to recount the actual votes at the polling station and get the truth
See my (1) and (2) above. How would you get a meaningful recount at a time when, say, people deep in Nyalgunga have decided that their man is getting rigged out? You think they will quietly let Uhuru's man sit in?
-
There are real challenges no doubt. I think those challenges, you raise in points 1) and 2). Those are problems independent of the idea of binding results at the poll station. They still exist even where results are provisional. You still have those problems, on top of the ones related to having the validity of poll results being decided elsewhere.
In theory, yes, they are independent; in the practical context of tribal, no-elections-without-violence Kenya they are not. Take the scenario I have given Simanova (above): The Nyalgunga polling station announces that 120% of the registered voters have cast their votes for Raila; Jubilee objects; and at the time CORD people are "sure" the elections are being stolen by Jubilee and are baying for somebody's blood. How do we check what is in the actual debe? Do you think Jubilee's man will he allowed to quietly observe a recount? (Just now Simanova has started a thread about Kikuyus being attacked in Bungoma, supposedly because some politicians there support Jubilee!)
The only "easy" solution I can see is to take the debe to someplace (e.g. Nairobi) where the Jubilee rep can observe a recount without fear of being molested. The difficulties in (1) and (2) then no longer exist, because the conditions have changed: "polling station" gets replaced with "central counting station" (the case now). That necessarily means that the polling-station results must be provisional.
Technology is seemingly a good solution, but we have seen how that works (or not) in Kenya.
I am sure it would take some serious brainstorming just to find something workable. Is anyone working on that? Most certainly not.
I imagine it is possible to find something workable; almost anything is possible. But the way to find such solutions is not to sit around doing nothing for 4+ years and then, on the eve of the elections, start dishing out half-thought-out ideas.
-
The supreme court failed Kenya in 2013 big time. It was presented with enough evidence of impropriety for it to have ordered a run-off with specific instructions for the loopholes to be plugged by the IEBC. The supreme court had the power to supervise IEBC during the run-off and make sure that IEBC implemented its recommendations or orders on how the votes were to be counted and transmitted. Its going to take technology and a very persistent and honest court to develop a system that is acceptable to all albeit not perfect. Giving up is not an option. We have to stop lionizing thieves and demonizing/blaming victims.
-
The supreme court failed Kenya in 2013 big time. It was presented with enough evidence of impropriety for it to have ordered a run-off with specific instructions for the loopholes to be plugged by the IEBC. The supreme court had the power to supervise IEBC during the run-off and make sure that IEBC implemented its recommendations or orders on how the votes were to be counted and transmitted. Its going to take technology and a very persistent and honest court to develop a system that is acceptable to all albeit not perfect. Giving up is not an option. We have to stop lionizing thieves and demonizing/blaming victims.
Did you see the evidence CORD presented to the supreme court?
Why do you think Mutunga looked so sad during the case?