Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: vooke on September 01, 2017, 03:12:47 PM
-
I don't like Scribd because it is a nightmare downloading from there. Just click on these Google Drive links and read off your browser or download.
JB Ojwang
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8empCZTNZTWRyTVk
Njoki Ndungu
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8empCZTNZTWRyTVk
-
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
-
That is why the numbers argument always puzzled me. They never seemed to be bothered or felt important to explain the legal process of how the numbers were acquired and did not feel the need to challenge Orengo and Otiende's theory that once the process is flawed, the numbers become the fruit of the poisonous tree and should not be eaten. I think the 2013 decision influenced this strategy because it was argued to a largely academic bench. This bench is now composed of more career judges who are used to details and evidence and were not going to be mesmerized by lectures on broad based principles of democracy and tutorials on how to draw a legal petition as PLO attempted.
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
-
And here's the determination
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8UV9wLXlmN0p5aEU
-
That is why the numbers argument always puzzled me. They never seemed to be bothered or felt important to explain the legal process of how the numbers were acquired and did not feel the need to challenge Orengo and Otiende's theory that once the process is flawed, the numbers become the fruit of the poisonous tree and should not be eaten. I think the 2013 decision influenced this strategy because it was argued to a largely academic bench. This bench is now composed of more career judges who are used to details and evidence and were not going to be mesmerized by lectures on broad based principles of democracy and tutorials on how to draw a legal petition as PLO attempted.
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
Exactly, Kichwa. Ive always said that one of my biggest beefs with the arrogant Ahmednassir was how he humiliated career judges on TV, not for corruption, but for their "failure" to get a masters or phd once they joined the bench.
I was just shaking my head over that rubbish the whole time: How does someone going to classes for a year, sitting exams, writing a thesis give ANY advantage over 20, 30 years of judicial experience??? That is such a pathetic, superficial, small-minded view, that getting an extra two papers from academic institutions can compete with and then beat actual experience. All you need to do is read a judge's jurisprudence to know whether he does his job well or not. And this is usually known in the legal community. The only other consideration should be integrity.
But nooo. Leave elitist fools like Ahmednassir to convince Kenyans that a PhD thesis and journal articles are a superior metre to mountains of juridprudence and the general experience of handling disputes day to day for a decade or more.
Another reason I thought it was dumb: THIS WAS THE SUPREME COURT!!! How exactly do you promote untested judges with zero experience handling disputes to your number one court? At most, they should have started at the High Court. Supreme Court judges should be picked from High Court and Court of Appeal judges in my view. Anything else is incredibly irresponsible in my view.
-
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
She can only be vindicated in a repeat where Uhunye gets just about the same number of votes. It'll prove that whatever irregularities were there never materially affected the outcome. But I'm certain there will be a raft of excuses why Babu lost again should this be the case.
-
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
She can only be vindicated in a repeat where Uhunye gets just about the same number of votes. It'll prove that whatever irregularities were there never materially affected the outcome. But I'm certain there will be a raft of excuses why Babu lost again should this be the case.
My hunch is the ruling may have had nothing to do with the material outcome or how it was affected. It seems to be all about the integrity of the process. Granted, an integral process may result in a different outcome, but not necessarily. The point remains. It's more about whether one can vouch for the result.
-
Yes Windy. I think vooke is still stuck in numbers argument even after the CJ clearly dismissed that line of argument by stating that free and fair election is a process. This majority of the court who subscribes to that opinion will careless about how the numbers will look in November so long as the process is strictly and closely adhered to.
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
She can only be vindicated in a repeat where Uhunye gets just about the same number of votes. It'll prove that whatever irregularities were there never materially affected the outcome. But I'm certain there will be a raft of excuses why Babu lost again should this be the case.
My hunch is the ruling may have had nothing to do with the material outcome or how it was affected. It seems to be all about the integrity of the process. Granted, an integral process may result in a different outcome, but not necessarily. The point remains. It's more about whether one can vouch for the result.
-
Yes Windy. I think vooke is still stuck in numbers argument even after the CJ clearly dismissed that line of argument by stating that free and fair election is a process. This majority of the court who subscribes to that opinion will careless about how the numbers will look in November so long as the process is strictly and closely adhered to.
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
She can only be vindicated in a repeat where Uhunye gets just about the same number of votes. It'll prove that whatever irregularities were there never materially affected the outcome. But I'm certain there will be a raft of excuses why Babu lost again should this be the case.
My hunch is the ruling may have had nothing to do with the material outcome or how it was affected. It seems to be all about the integrity of the process. Granted, an integral process may result in a different outcome, but not necessarily. The point remains. It's more about whether one can vouch for the result.
Unfortunately that seems like a difficult point to get across. Which leaves me even more impressed by this particular majority for whom I had little respect, though I was misguided in retrospect.
And it's just more than integrity. It's also the rule of law.
-
Yes Windy. I think vooke is still stuck in numbers argument even after the CJ clearly dismissed that line of argument by stating that free and fair election is a process. This majority of the court who subscribes to that opinion will careless about how the numbers will look in November so long as the process is strictly and closely adhered to.
Njoki was all about the will of the electorate. How it comes about, whether by wananchi storming state house or whatever, is obviously irrelevant to her. She needs to go. Grace Mumbi should take her place.
She can only be vindicated in a repeat where Uhunye gets just about the same number of votes. It'll prove that whatever irregularities were there never materially affected the outcome. But I'm certain there will be a raft of excuses why Babu lost again should this be the case.
My hunch is the ruling may have had nothing to do with the material outcome or how it was affected. It seems to be all about the integrity of the process. Granted, an integral process may result in a different outcome, but not necessarily. The point remains. It's more about whether one can vouch for the result.
Look again at the three issues under consideration
(i) Whether the 2017 Presidential Election was conducted in
accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution
and the law relating to elections.
(ii) Whether there were irregularities and illegalities committed in
the conduct of the 2017 Presidential Election.
(iii) If there were irregularities and illegalities, what was their
impact, if any, on the integrity of the election?
I hope I don't sound patronizing, but what is your understanding of integrity? In any context.
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
A key part of that definition, Article 81(v):
(v) administered in an impartial, neutral, efficient, accurate and accountable manner.
Well worth a few minutes of reflection.
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
Where does the constitution define free and fair? I don't have it handy.
We don't yet have their reasoning. So criticizing it without seeing it, that's just premature. That said, we know that they believe that an election is a process, not an event. That laws are there to be obeyed and they feel IEBC unjustifiably failed to obey them. That the irregularities were to such an extent that it invalidates the process. Maybe they got the right winner, but they simply failed to follow the law. They are saying "guys, just follow the law".
Njoki's and Ojwang's is based on their views that the process is not important, as long as the numbers reflect the will of the voter. That even if there are irregularities, they are only important if they affect the outcome. The problem with this reasoning is that you cannot know the will of the voters if the process is so tainted that you cannot vouch for a result. And it promotes lawlessness.
-
Where does the constitution define free and fair? I don't have it handy.
Article 81.
Njoki's and Ojwang's is based on their views that the process is not important, as long as the numbers reflect the will of the voter. That even if there are irregularities, they are only important if they affect the outcome.
A truly absurd argument. How on earth does one know that the numbers reflect the will of the people if one is doesn't now how the numbers were obtained?
Njoki and Ojwang are "right" only in a very narrow sense. For example, if there are illegalities and irregularities in only three voting stations (total 2100) votes and the margin in question is 500,000 votes, then it would make no sense to invalidate the outcome. But if the process is irredeemably tainted, then one cannot just look at the numbers---for the very simple reason that one doesn't know what the numbers mean. A very simple case is ballot-stuffing: people vote freely, and their votes are counted fairly (as in each vote is counted as equal to any other vote), but is that really free and fair?
-
I don't like Scribd because it is a nightmare downloading from there. Just click on these Google Drive links and read off your browser or download.
JB Ojwang
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8empCZTNZTWRyTVk
Njoki Ndungu
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8empCZTNZTWRyTVk
Both "links" lead to Ojwang's stuff. I did manage to find Ndung's bit, and it starts with this:
I am however, of a different opinion. At the heart of democracy are, the people, whose will constitute the strand of governance that we have chosen as a country.
Yes, that is from a Supreme-Court judge, in a public opinion, on a very important national matter. And, no, it's not a "one-off"; the remainder of the learned judge's display of learning is of the the same quality.
-
Where does the constitution define free and fair? I don't have it handy.
Article 81.
Njoki's and Ojwang's is based on their views that the process is not important, as long as the numbers reflect the will of the voter. That even if there are irregularities, they are only important if they affect the outcome.
A truly absurd argument. How on earth does one know that the numbers reflect the will of the people if one is doesn't now how the numbers were obtained?
Njoki and Ojwang are "right" only in a very narrow sense. For example, if there are illegalities and irregularities in only three voting stations (total 2100) votes and the margin in question is 500,000 votes, then it would make no sense to invalidate the outcome. But if the process is irredeemably tainted, then one cannot just look at the numbers---for the very simple reason that one doesn't know what the numbers mean. A very simple case is ballot-stuffing: people vote freely, and their votes are counted fairly (as in each vote is counted as equal to any other vote), but is that really free and fair?
Kenya is a society where you can steal money from the public purse and when caught you wire it back and all is good. Most often you just mention that they are coming after "my people" and you are in the clear. So the idea that merely breaking laws without affecting the outcome is acceptable is well established. That could explain why a lot of people are puzzled by this ruling.
-
This whole "did not affect the outcome" argument makes no sense. There were peculiar stations with 100% turn out and all these voted 100% for Uhuru. How anyone can think the right process was abandoned for any other reason than to "affect the outcome" is beyond me. The IEBC just decided to botch this because they were bored? And no one still knows why they adamantly shielded servers from scrutiny: what was in them they were terrified would be seen? I understand NASA also presented their own agents" copies that showed material departures with those IEBC presented. All these together affected 5 million votes. Way more than the 1.4 M gap. So how does Njoki or Ojwang or even our own vooke know that this reflected the votes on the ground??? :o :o
-
If I was playing a soccer game and I followed these peoples reasoning I can just score by using my hands and win right?
There are rules to every process and that is something they do not seem to understand. If laid down rules are not followed then what is the point of having a competition? A pathetic ruling form these two.
-
All these people going on about "the court's decision is about process, not outcome" all over have lost leave of their senses. OF COURSE it's about the outcome! The right process leads to a right outcome and the wrong one leads to a wrong outcome. The court invalidates the OUTCOME precisely because it cannot be satisfied that this outcome is correct! This is what kina Ojwang are slyly labling "uncertainties". A clever ploy. Yes Ojwang, if you are reasonably uncertain about whether the right winnet has been declared, you cant in good conscience uphold that result.
The method the court uses to test the outcome is the process, the trackable trail, but the bottom line is that a FAIR court would maintain the result ONLY if it had no good readons to doubt that at the very least, the RIGHT candidate was declared winner even if it cannot be sure the exact gap by which he won. In this case, it appears the anomalies were so widespread that the court couldn't do that. Perhaps kina Njoki have a special method for vouching for their confidence that the right person was announced winner that they will share in a more detailed judgment?
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
.
If uhuru had the numbers he needn't have rigged. I suspect he doesn't have the numbers and his waterloo is coming.
-
All these people going on about "the court's decision is about process, not outcome" all over have lost leave of their senses. OF COURSE it's about the outcome! The right process leads to a right outcome and the wrong one leads to a wrong outcome. The court invalidates the OUTCOME precisely because it cannot be satisfied that this outcome is correct! This is what kina Ojwang are slyly labling "uncertainties". A clever ploy. Yes Ojwang, if you are reasonably uncertain about whether the right winnet has been declared, you cant in good conscience uphold that result.
The method the court uses to test the outcome is the process, the trackable trail, but the bottom line is that a FAIR court would maintain the result ONLY if it had no good readons to doubt that at the very least, the RIGHT candidate was declared winner even if it cannot be sure the exact gap by which he won. In this case, it appears the anomalies were so widespread that the court couldn't do that. Perhaps kina Njoki have a special method for vouching for their confidence that the right person was announced winner that they will share in a more detailed judgment?
Hear hear. Why is this so hard to understand? I think my compatriots are willfully blind
-
The right process leads to a right outcome and the wrong one leads to a wrong outcome.
That's exactly what I'm saying; the question at SCOK was whether the process was materially WRONG enough to lead to a WRONG outcome. 4:2 it was vs it was not.
If the process is repeated with all the WRONGS big/small righted and it yielded the SAME results, then these wrongs were immaterial.
SCOK are in other words hypothesizing that the observed wrongs were either material or immaterial. Another election would prove or disprove their hypothesis
Moonki,
Here are the dissenting opinions. Sorry I posted the same links
Ojwang
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8empCZTNZTWRyTVk
Njoki
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8OEVMSFEyZkhNb0E
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
.
If uhuru had the numbers he needn't have rigged. I suspect he doesn't have the numbers and his waterloo is coming.
That's my thinking too my broda, though no evidence of rigging has been adduced so far. NASWA basically proved the results are unreliable but I doubt they attempted to show any results which were reliable like say forms 34As of their own
-
If the process is repeated with all the WRONGS big/small righted and it yielded the SAME results, then these wrongs were immaterial.
....
SCOK are in other words hypothesizing ... Another election would prove or disprove their hypothesis
Not quite. That would be case only if all other aspects of the elections stay unchanged.
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
.
If uhuru had the numbers he needn't have rigged. I suspect he doesn't have the numbers and his waterloo is coming.
That's my thinking too my broda, though no evidence of rigging has been adduced so far. NASWA basically proved the results are unreliable but I doubt they attempted to show any results which were reliable like say forms 34As of their own
As it is we know turnout in central(real and imagined) was almost maxed out. The 700k gap between presidential and other elections was the stuffing. Add onto it the server generated votes during transmission and you begin to see where Jubilee votes max out. Please note that there's a fair chance that part of the rig was dumping Odinga's votes into the spoilt vote bucket. So add those onto Odinga's plus any that were reallocated to Uhuru too.
Question is, where else are they going to get more votes from? Ati 70%+1. Uhuru and Ruto need to start packing their sh*t and vacating the people's State House pronto. My greatest hope is that these thieving bastards don't try "terrorism" and other dark acts like they did during their ICC trials between now and election time.
-
If the process is repeated with all the WRONGS big/small righted and it yielded the SAME results, then these wrongs were immaterial.
....
SCOK are in other words hypothesizing ... Another election would prove or disprove their hypothesis
Not quite. That would be case only if all other aspects of the elections stay unchanged.
That's why I said I get even if we got the same results, there would be attempts to explain them away first rather than admit Maraga was wrong.
Top of my mind is voter apathy and lower turnout affecting NASWA strongholds due to travel. Many travelled from NBO to vote so much that they sparked fears. Dvd had to appeal to them to remain.
The other one is money. Whatever is needful between now and the rerun costs money and Babu has shallow pockets
Finally there is campaign strategy.
All in all, absence of clear deviation from pre-8.8 conditions, coupled with nigh exact similar results I will take that as evidence that Maraga's was just a populist/political and more importantly WRONG decision.
His decision needs some icing by means of different results, else it won't be celebrated as it is now.
-
Termie I deleted my post as I was editing it and I'm not typing it again.
The constitution defines free and fair. The ruling simply said the elections were not free and fair because of bla de bla.
A repeat that yields exact same results reduces the free and fair issues to hygiene factors that shouldn't have invalidated the results in the first place.
Ojwang and Njoki stated in their dissent that the claims of not free and fair were spurious.
.
If uhuru had the numbers he needn't have rigged. I suspect he doesn't have the numbers and his waterloo is coming.
That's my thinking too my broda, though no evidence of rigging has been adduced so far. NASWA basically proved the results are unreliable but I doubt they attempted to show any results which were reliable like say forms 34As of their own
As it is we know turnout in central(real and imagined) was almost maxed out. The 700k gap between presidential and other elections was the stuffing. Add onto it the server generated votes during transmission and you begin to see where Jubilee votes max out. Please note that there's a fair chance that part of the rig was dumping Odinga's votes into the spoilt vote bucket. So add those onto Odinga's plus any that were reallocated to Uhuru too.
Question is, where else are they going to get more votes from? Ati 70%+1. Uhuru and Ruto need to start packing their sh*t and vacating the people's State House pronto. My greatest hope is that these thieving bastards don't try "terrorism" and other dark acts like they did during their ICC trials between now and election time.
Central turnout was not high or even higher than national average.
Check any constituency or county in Central and get back
-
All these people going on about "the court's decision is about process, not outcome" all over have lost leave of their senses. OF COURSE it's about the outcome! The right process leads to a right outcome and the wrong one leads to a wrong outcome. The court invalidates the OUTCOME precisely because it cannot be satisfied that this outcome is correct! This is what kina Ojwang are slyly labling "uncertainties". A clever ploy. Yes Ojwang, if you are reasonably uncertain about whether the right winnet has been declared, you cant in good conscience uphold that result.
The method the court uses to test the outcome is the process, the trackable trail, but the bottom line is that a FAIR court would maintain the result ONLY if it had no good readons to doubt that at the very least, the RIGHT candidate was declared winner even if it cannot be sure the exact gap by which he won. In this case, it appears the anomalies were so widespread that the court couldn't do that. Perhaps kina Njoki have a special method for vouching for their confidence that the right person was announced winner that they will share in a more detailed judgment?
In a technical sense you are right. The outcome is the wrong outcome because the process is illegal. If Floyd Mayweather is not disqualified for hitting below the belt, that is a wrong outcome; even if he likely wins without that infraction. He may well go on to win the rematch. But the previous disqualification remains valid. The real problem is just not following the law.
The outcome as in who won or lost played a minor role in this ruling but not entirely zero. There indeed were Forms 34(B I believe) that were defective that added up to 2.3 million votes. Ngatia argued that they included areas that Raila won. But if they were defective, the idea that you can use them to say Raila won such and such is of course flawed. Given that 2.3 million is greater than the margin of victory and SCOK is not into political punditry, those would all be thrown out and yet they could change the outcome(in theory).
-
If uhuru had the numbers he needn't have rigged. I suspect he doesn't have the numbers and his waterloo is coming.
That's my thinking too my broda, though no evidence of rigging has been adduced so far. NASWA basically proved the results are unreliable but I doubt they attempted to show any results which were reliable like say forms 34As of their own
As it is we know turnout in central(real and imagined) was almost maxed out. The 700k gap between presidential and other elections was the stuffing. Add onto it the server generated votes during transmission and you begin to see where Jubilee votes max out. Please note that there's a fair chance that part of the rig was dumping Odinga's votes into the spoilt vote bucket. So add those onto Odinga's plus any that were reallocated to Uhuru too.
Question is, where else are they going to get more votes from? Ati 70%+1. Uhuru and Ruto need to start packing their sh*t and vacating the people's State House pronto. My greatest hope is that these thieving bastards don't try "terrorism" and other dark acts like they did during their ICC trials between now and election time.
Central turnout was not high or even higher than national average.
Check any constituency or county in Central and get back
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
-
If uhuru had the numbers he needn't have rigged. I suspect he doesn't have the numbers and his waterloo is coming.
That's my thinking too my broda, though no evidence of rigging has been adduced so far. NASWA basically proved the results are unreliable but I doubt they attempted to show any results which were reliable like say forms 34As of their own
As it is we know turnout in central(real and imagined) was almost maxed out. The 700k gap between presidential and other elections was the stuffing. Add onto it the server generated votes during transmission and you begin to see where Jubilee votes max out. Please note that there's a fair chance that part of the rig was dumping Odinga's votes into the spoilt vote bucket. So add those onto Odinga's plus any that were reallocated to Uhuru too.
Question is, where else are they going to get more votes from? Ati 70%+1. Uhuru and Ruto need to start packing their sh*t and vacating the people's State House pronto. My greatest hope is that these thieving bastards don't try "terrorism" and other dark acts like they did during their ICC trials between now and election time.
Central turnout was not high or even higher than national average.
Check any constituency or county in Central and get back
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
Windy - what counties/constituencies are these that were stuffed? Please share I do the confirmation from the portal.
-
When I get to my computer I'll share.
-
What disappoints me as a Raila supporter is the lack of circumspection among many of us.
1. The process was flawed so Uhuru must have rigged. Really? - there was no such finding. Those same justices you are praising absolved Uhuru of any wrongdoing. And don't start on that story of how Uhuru is so cleaver and left no evidence. Those are theories not facts.
2. Raila as good as has won. This is the most laughable attitude I have seen being thrown around everywhere by NASA fans. Get down to work and actually assume Uhuru won and work to override that win.
3. Njoki & Ojwang are incompetent/corrupt and should be fired. This is just plain arrogance. Next time Maraga et al go against Raila what will you have to say? In fact four of these justices ruled unanimously against Raila in 2013 and they were called korti bandia. I have seen Windy suggest there were dissenting opinions that were muzzled in 2013 - a wild theory he cannot back up.
All we got is a fresh rerun. They bravado is unnecessary. We are counting unhatched eggs. vooke makes alot of sense.
-
What disappoints me as a Raila supporter is the lack of circumspection among many of us.
1. The process was flawed so Uhuru must have rigged. Really? - there was no such finding. Those same justices you are praising absolved Uhuru of any wrongdoing. And don't start on that story of how Uhuru is so cleaver and left no evidence. Those are theories not facts.
2. Raila as good as has won. This is the most laughable attitude I have seen being thrown around everywhere by NASA fans. Get down to work and actually assume Uhuru won and work to override that win.
3. Njoki & Ojwang are incompetent/corrupt and should be fired. This is just plain arrogance. Next time Maraga et al go against Raila what will you have to say? In fact four of these justices ruled unanimously against Raila in 2013 and they were called korti bandia. I have seen Windy suggest there were dissenting opinions that were muzzled in 2013 - a wild theory he cannot back up.
All we got is a fresh rerun. They bravado is unnecessary. We are counting unhatched eggs. vooke makes alot of sense.
I think you're ignoring Orengos submission that many firm 34As were forgeries. An allegation supported by the scrutineering of the originals as well as the IT. The IT in particular confirmed deletions of 34As.
Letting Uhuru off was the let down for me. He should've been banned from all elections. The process wasn't flawed, it was infiltrated and defeated by riggers. Chebukati and Chiloba did not rig for themselves
-
Letting Uhuru off was the let down for me. He should've been banned from all elections. The process wasn't flawed, it was infiltrated and defeated by riggers. Chebukati and Chiloba did not rig for themselves
This is the opinion of bryan not the SCOK's. Why should Uhuru be banned from all elections? You're letting your disdain of the man blind you to the reality: he was absolved - while IEBC was actually ordered to conduct fresh elections. Note too that IEBC Chair Chebukati was not directly condemned and may well run the next round. Hate them but don't dismiss or underrate them.
-
The court ruled that there were irregularities and illegalities. Irregularities do not require intent and may have been due to incompetence, and unintentional omissions or commissions. However, the illegality part of the findings is very serious and if there is evidence that Ouru campaign participated in the illegalities, i.e, bribing IEBC officials, then Bryan is right. The judges probably did not find such and that is why they cleared Ouru. We all know as Kenyans that whatever Chiloba did to help jubilee, he was well compensated.
Letting Uhuru off was the let down for me. He should've been banned from all elections. The process wasn't flawed, it was infiltrated and defeated by riggers. Chebukati and Chiloba did not rig for themselves
This is the opinion of bryan not the SCOK's. Why should Uhuru be banned from all elections? You're letting your disdain of the man blind you to the reality: he was absolved - while IEBC was actually ordered to conduct fresh elections. Note too that IEBC Chair Chebukati was not directly condemned and may well run the next round. Hate them but don't dismiss or underrate them.
-
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
The results in PDF
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf
And in Excel
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
Of course it was not low,but not substantially higher than national average
Wait, on second thought it was very high. Approaching 90%
-
As a matter of fact I as Robina don't know this - neither that Chiloba deliberately botched the elections, nor that he was compensated, nor by whom. Those are assumptions you have made and I say this in all honesty. Here's an equally wild theory: perhaps Uhuru was cheated of a wider victory by this fraud?
The court ruled that there were irregularities and illegalities. Irregularities do not require intent and may have been due to incompetence, and unintentional omissions or commissions. However, the illegality part of the findings is very serious and if there is evidence that Ouru campaign participated in the illegalities, i.e, bribing IEBC officials, then Bryan is right. The judges probably did not find such and that is why they cleared Ouru. We all know as Kenyans that whatever Chiloba did to help jubilee, he was well compensated.
-
The court ruled that there were irregularities and illegalities. Irregularities do not require intent and may have been due to incompetence, and unintentional omissions or commissions. However, the illegality part of the findings is very serious and if there is evidence that Ouru campaign participated in the illegalities, i.e, bribing IEBC officials, then Bryan is right. The judges probably did not find such and that is why they cleared Ouru. We all know as Kenyans that whatever Chiloba did to help jubilee, he was well compensated.
KM,
My 2cents
Two things will define Maraga's legacy;
1. The actual judgement
2. Results of the rerun
The judgement will show us what irregularities and illegalities were there and we can all judge for ourselves whether they really affected the integrity and outcome. I'm also interested in the unconstitutionality bits of the election especially transmission because that's where they focused as per their summary.
The rerun is more interesting than even the judgement. It does not matter what legalese and arguments they used, what matters is whether their conclusions will be validated by the rerun.
If Elections(E) with Irregularities (R) and Illegalities (L) yields Uhuru victory (U) or E+R+L=U, then E-R-L =/=U. But if E-R-L=U, then R,L=0, or the 'illegalities and irregularities' never affected the results, they were immaterial as Ojwang and Ndung'u contended.
I know it sounds crazy reserving praise for someone being praised by every legal mind in and outside the country,but I maintain that only a rerun can PRACTICALLY demonstrate the merits of this judgement.
So wait for the full judgement,and then the rerun.
-
The court ruled that there were irregularities and illegalities. Irregularities do not require intent and may have been due to incompetence, and unintentional omissions or commissions. However, the illegality part of the findings is very serious and if there is evidence that Ouru campaign participated in the illegalities, i.e, bribing IEBC officials, then Bryan is right. The judges probably did not find such and that is why they cleared Ouru. We all know as Kenyans that whatever Chiloba did to help jubilee, he was well compensated.
KM,
My 2cents
Two things will define Maraga's legacy;
1. The actual judgement
2. Results of the rerun
The judgement will show us what irregularities and illegalities were there and we can all judge for ourselves whether they really affected the integrity and outcome. I'm also interested in the unconstitutionality bits of the election especially transmission because that's where they focused as per their summary.
The rerun is more interesting than even the judgement. It does not matter what legalese and arguments they used, what matters is whether their conclusions will be validated by the rerun.
If Elections(E) with Irregularities (R) and Illegalities (L) yields Uhuru victory (U) or E+R+L=U, then E-R-L =/=U. But if W-R-L=U, then R,U=0, or the 'illegalities and irregularities' never affected the results.
I know it sounds crazy reserving praise for someone being praised by every legal mind in and outside the country,but I maintain the thinly a rerun can PRACTICALLY demonstrate the merits of this judgement.
vooke, with respect, that makes ZERO sense. Stop confusing judgments with MOAS. The soundness of court decisions is determined on their adherence to sound principles. This you have created here is an arbitrary and strange test. I have read and heard countless comments from the most ordinary wananchi on both sides who understand perfectly way that Maranga isnt saying anything but that the election should be done well per law. He is NOT sayin Raila won. Or that Uhuru lost. Everyone seems to understand that perfectly well.
So clearly do they understand the ruling that they are happy to do the election again so their win can or loss can be free or fair and they can accept. Who are these confused chaps you are envisioning who dont get this? I have never in my life seen a worse test for a judgment. They are not Pundits saying Uhuru lost or Raila won and I have seen no one yet thats confused about that.
-
The court ruled that there were irregularities and illegalities. Irregularities do not require intent and may have been due to incompetence, and unintentional omissions or commissions. However, the illegality part of the findings is very serious and if there is evidence that Ouru campaign participated in the illegalities, i.e, bribing IEBC officials, then Bryan is right. The judges probably did not find such and that is why they cleared Ouru. We all know as Kenyans that whatever Chiloba did to help jubilee, he was well compensated.
KM,
My 2cents
Two things will define Maraga's legacy;
1. The actual judgement
2. Results of the rerun
The judgement will show us what irregularities and illegalities were there and we can all judge for ourselves whether they really affected the integrity and outcome. I'm also interested in the unconstitutionality bits of the election especially transmission because that's where they focused as per their summary.
The rerun is more interesting than even the judgement. It does not matter what legalese and arguments they used, what matters is whether their conclusions will be validated by the rerun.
If Elections(E) with Irregularities (R) and Illegalities (L) yields Uhuru victory (U) or E+R+L=U, then E-R-L =/=U. But if W-R-L=U, then R,U=0, or the 'illegalities and irregularities' never affected the results.
I know it sounds crazy reserving praise for someone being praised by every legal mind in and outside the country,but I maintain the thinly a rerun can PRACTICALLY demonstrate the merits of this judgement.
vooke, with respect, that makes ZERO sense. Stop confusing judgments with MOAS. The soundness of court decisions is determined on their adherence to sound principles. This you have created here is an arbitrary and strange test. I have read and heard countless comments from the most ordinary wananchi on both sides who understand perfectly way that Maranga isnt saying anything but that the election should be done well per law. He is NOT sayin Raila won. Or that Uhuru lost. Everyone seems to understand that perfectly well.
So clearly do they understand the ruling that they are happy to do the election again so their win can or loss can be free or fair and they can accept. Who are these confused chaps you are envisioning who dont get this? I have never in my life seen a worse test for a judgment. They are not Pundits saying Uhuru lost or Raila won and I have seen no one yet thats confused about that.
The judgement touches on the issues of law as well as the integrity of the process. Once the ruling is out, I'm certain it will be vigorously debated whether the elections were really held contrary to the constitution. That bit doesn't concern me at all, I'll leave that to legal minds, and I can assure you that even there,there will never be any consensus.
What concerns me is the integrity bit. In short,the results were hopelessly unreliable. Babu did not go to court because of a principle called integrity; he went there because he felt whatever lacked in the election disadvantaged him. The court just aksin IEBC to remedy that and repeat. So if they did and he still lost,the remedy never disadvantaged Babu in the first place. It's only the Court imagined they did.
-
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
The results in PDF
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf
And in Excel
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
Of course it was not low,but not substantially higher than national average
Wait, on second thought it was very high. Approaching 90%
Thanks, that spreadhseet has apostrophes and needs cleansing before delving in. I'll do it later when I get to a bigger screen. Assuming that turnout was as you say 90%, and Uhuru and co still needed to stuff the ballots, then his 70%+1 is just load of bull.
Next time rigging will be very tricky.
This is why he's driving around hurling abuse. Chap knows his goose is cooked. Worse so now that he's been caught stealing.
-
I guess in Robina's eyes Chiloba is in the habit of committing illegalities just for the fun of it. Nothing to see here.
-
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
The results in PDF
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf (https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf)
And in Excel
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel)
Of course it was not low,but not substantially higher than national average
Wait, on second thought it was very high. Approaching 90%
Here is the link I have Chebukati Results (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EMP-vVTSqoWGtuV1FoVW81cG8/view) ordered by turnout. Red is jubilant, blue is NASA.
-
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
The results in PDF
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf
And in Excel
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
Of course it was not low,but not substantially higher than national average
Wait, on second thought it was very high. Approaching 90%
Thanks, that spreadhseet has apostrophes and needs cleansing before delving in. I'll do it later when I get to a bigger screen. Assuming that turnout was as you say 90%, and Uhuru and co still needed to stuff the ballots, then his 70%+1 is just load of bull.
Next time rigging will be very tricky.
This is why he's driving around hurling abuse. Chap knows his goose is cooked. Worse so now that he's been caught stealing.
Karibu. I converted the document online so they may explain it.
Uhunye's days may be numbered if he stole to get 54%. I'm yet to see anything convincing on this end,and I felt his results were hard fought, we'll find out soon
-
The judgement touches on the issues of law as well as the integrity of the process. Once the ruling is out, I'm certain it will be vigorously debated whether the elections were really held contrary to the constitution. That bit doesn't concern me at all, I'll leave that to legal minds, and I can assure you that even there,there will never be any consensus.
What concerns me is the integrity bit. In short,the results were hopelessly unreliable. Babu did not go to court because of a principle called integrity; he went there because he felt whatever lacked in the election disadvantaged him. The court just aksin IEBC to remedy that and repeat. So if they did and he still lost,the remedy never disadvantaged Babu in the first place. It's only the Court imagined they did.
I see. But if Baba went to court to complain of problems that he felt disadvantaged him and the court asked IEBC to fix them and they did and he still lost, the conclusion is Raila imagined it, not the court. Its like if you complain to a referee that a goal is wrongly scored and he sees yes, the scorer was ahead of the ball on the other side and cancels it. If you score again the next minute without flouting the rules, it will not mean the referee made the wrong call the first time.
-
The judgement touches on the issues of law as well as the integrity of the process. Once the ruling is out, I'm certain it will be vigorously debated whether the elections were really held contrary to the constitution. That bit doesn't concern me at all, I'll leave that to legal minds, and I can assure you that even there,there will never be any consensus.
What concerns me is the integrity bit. In short,the results were hopelessly unreliable. Babu did not go to court because of a principle called integrity; he went there because he felt whatever lacked in the election disadvantaged him. The court just aksin IEBC to remedy that and repeat. So if they did and he still lost,the remedy never disadvantaged Babu in the first place. It's only the Court imagined they did.
I see. But if Baba went to court to complain of problems that he felt disadvantaged him and the court asked IEBC to fix them and they did and he still lost, the conclusion is Raila imagined it, not the court. Its like if you complain to a referee that a goal is wrongly scored and he sees yes, the scorer was ahead of the ball on the other side and cancels it. If you score again the next minute without flouting the rules, it will not mean the referee made the wrong call the first time.
Exactly. It's the fucking rules. I am starting to get bewildered that this is not so obvious.
-
The judgement touches on the issues of law as well as the integrity of the process. Once the ruling is out, I'm certain it will be vigorously debated whether the elections were really held contrary to the constitution. That bit doesn't concern me at all, I'll leave that to legal minds, and I can assure you that even there,there will never be any consensus.
What concerns me is the integrity bit. In short,the results were hopelessly unreliable. Babu did not go to court because of a principle called integrity; he went there because he felt whatever lacked in the election disadvantaged him. The court just aksin IEBC to remedy that and repeat. So if they did and he still lost,the remedy never disadvantaged Babu in the first place. It's only the Court imagined they did.
I see. But if Baba went to court to complain of problems that he felt disadvantaged him and the court asked IEBC to fix them and they did and he still lost, the conclusion is Raila imagined it, not the court. Its like if you complain to a referee that a goal is wrongly scored and he sees yes, the scorer was ahead of the ball on the other side and cancels it. If you score again the next minute without flouting the rules, it will not mean the referee made the wrong call the first time.
Exactly. It's the fucking rules. I am starting to get bewildered that this is not so obvious.
My conclusion is that jubilee has done a number on their supporters. They've become willfully blind to crime, corruption and basic theft.
-
The judgement touches on the issues of law as well as the integrity of the process. Once the ruling is out, I'm certain it will be vigorously debated whether the elections were really held contrary to the constitution. That bit doesn't concern me at all, I'll leave that to legal minds, and I can assure you that even there,there will never be any consensus.
What concerns me is the integrity bit. In short,the results were hopelessly unreliable. Babu did not go to court because of a principle called integrity; he went there because he felt whatever lacked in the election disadvantaged him. The court just aksin IEBC to remedy that and repeat. So if they did and he still lost,the remedy never disadvantaged Babu in the first place. It's only the Court imagined they did.
I see. But if Baba went to court to complain of problems that he felt disadvantaged him and the court asked IEBC to fix them and they did and he still lost, the conclusion is Raila imagined it, not the court. Its like if you complain to a referee that a goal is wrongly scored and he sees yes, the scorer was ahead of the ball on the other side and cancels it. If you score again the next minute without flouting the rules, it will not mean the referee made the wrong call the first time.
No. The issues were real but not big or serious enough to disadvantage him.
Babu has severally claimed he was rigged out. He went to court to get justice, another shot in a fairer fashion. The courts bought his narrative. Imagine if Uhuru got exact same votes he got while Babu concedes. Do you honestly wish to tell me you won't have second thoughts on merits of his petition?
4 vs 2, who was right? Was invalidation well founded or was it populist?
The converse is true. If Uhunye loses miserably say gets 44% while Babu grabs 54%, the whole world will say Maraga saw irregularities, overturned the election,and the rerun proves it.
Look at the ruling without your legal shades. Look at an ordinary voter persuaded Babu's victory was robbed,goes back to the ballot and Babu loses. What does he make of this? It's a fat lie that Babu's victory was stolen. Maraga gave Babu a second chance he never deserved.
Your analogy is deeply flawed; scoring is highly probabilistic (1001 factors work into a goal) unlike elections which are deterministic(voting patterns don't shift in days) especially when repeated so closely. Yes,no election is like the other but there is no reasonable expectation of serious deviation
-
vooke, with respect, that makes ZERO sense. Stop confusing judgments with MOAS. The soundness of court decisions is determined on their adherence to sound principles. This you have created here is an arbitrary and strange test. I have read and heard countless comments from the most ordinary wananchi on both sides who understand perfectly way that Maranga isnt saying anything but that the election should be done well per law. He is NOT sayin Raila won. Or that Uhuru lost. Everyone seems to understand that perfectly well.
So clearly do they understand the ruling that they are happy to do the election again so their win can or loss can be free or fair and they can accept. Who are these confused chaps you are envisioning who dont get this? I have never in my life seen a worse test for a judgment. They are not Pundits saying Uhuru lost or Raila won and I have seen no one yet thats confused about that.
Exactly.
On Vooke's (1): Maraga and his majority will stay in the history books for a very simple reason: the court was largely expected to just stamp Uhuru's "victory". They did not do that; and indeed the anger, insults, and threats from the likes of Uhuru only reflect their astonishment.
(Further, the significance of the judiciary's showing of some spine goes well beyond the elections.)
On Vooke's (2), a point he keeps repeating in different forms: the logic is faulty.
(i) We haven't seen the judgement, but a core part of it seems to be the process was so tainted that the numbers are meaningless and cannot be used to announce the winner.
(ii) Now, let us suppose that in Round 2, the same number of people vote in exactly the same way, there are no illegalities and irregularities, and Uhuru still wins by the same margin. That would tell us absolutely nothing about the soundness of the judgment in (i). Whatever happens in Round 2 cannot possibly alter what happened in Round 1 and which was the basis of the judgement.
-
The judgement touches on the issues of law as well as the integrity of the process. Once the ruling is out, I'm certain it will be vigorously debated whether the elections were really held contrary to the constitution. That bit doesn't concern me at all, I'll leave that to legal minds, and I can assure you that even there,there will never be any consensus.
What concerns me is the integrity bit. In short,the results were hopelessly unreliable. Babu did not go to court because of a principle called integrity; he went there because he felt whatever lacked in the election disadvantaged him. The court just aksin IEBC to remedy that and repeat. So if they did and he still lost,the remedy never disadvantaged Babu in the first place. It's only the Court imagined they did.
I see. But if Baba went to court to complain of problems that he felt disadvantaged him and the court asked IEBC to fix them and they did and he still lost, the conclusion is Raila imagined it, not the court. Its like if you complain to a referee that a goal is wrongly scored and he sees yes, the scorer was ahead of the ball on the other side and cancels it. If you score again the next minute without flouting the rules, it will not mean the referee made the wrong call the first time.
Exactly. It's the fucking rules. I am starting to get bewildered that this is not so obvious.
My conclusion is that jubilee has done a number on their supporters. They've become willfully blind to crime, corruption and basic theft.
I don't know if it's willful or they just don't consider it corruption and theft. Because if you steal a chicken, people will kill you. It means on some level they know when something is wrong. Unfortunately it's a trait they share with NASA supporters.
-
I guess in Robina's eyes Chiloba is in the habit of committing illegalities just for the fun of it. Nothing to see here.
Chiloba has not run other elections before to the best of my knowledge, I could be wrong. He was hired as IEBC CEO along with Chebukati after NASA hounded the previous officials out of office. What habits is he in - is he honest? I don't know. Because of extreme propaganda from Jubilee and NASA, I chose to believe few things such as information from the court ruling. They ruled there were grave flaws, not bribery and outright sabotage like you may have concluded. Possibly just incompetence? They didn't find rigging either, that's a convenient assumption too. They absolved Uhuru of mischief, however you want him barred from this and future elections. Why do you accept the invalidation but not the absolution?
It's understandable why you and I may see the ruling from different viewpoints: we support Raila to different extents and for reasons apart. I am unconvinced there was rigging but wish Raila the best in the re-run.
-
On Vooke's (1): Maraga and his majority will stay in the history books for a very simple reason: the court was largely expected to just stamp Uhuru's "victory". They did not do that; and indeed the anger, insults, and threats from the likes of Uhuru only reflect their astonishment.
(Further, the significance of the judiciary's showing of some spine goes well beyond the elections.)
On Vooke's (2), a point he keeps repeating in different forms: the logic is faulty.
(i) We haven't seen the judgement, but a core part of it seems to be the process was so tainted that the numbers are meaningless and cannot be used to announce the winner.
(ii) Now, let us suppose that in Round 2, the same number of people vote in exactly the same way, there are no illegalities and irregularities, and Uhuru still wins by the same margin. That would tell us absolutely nothing about the soundness of the judgment in (i). Whatever happens in Round 2 cannot possibly alter what happened in Round 1 and which was the basis of the judgement.
(I) by secret ballot;
(ii) free from violence, intimidation, improper in uence or corruption;
(iii) conducted by an independent body;
(iv) transparent; and
(v) administered in an impartial, neutral, ef cient, accurate and accountable manner.
Looking at our constitutional definition of free and fair, it is quite possible that Uhuru's 54% was real. For instance, transparency alone is enough to call an election not free and fair. But that's is not to mean a candidate padded their votes. Accurate means his real votes were +/- 54%. Neutral may or may not affect a candidate's performance...and so forth.
Maraga (and Babu of course) had better pray that whatever ways the election fell short of constitutional and electoral laws principles,Uhuru's REAL votes were way less than 54%, else he will be another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months.
-
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
The results in PDF
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf
And in Excel
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
Of course it was not low,but not substantially higher than national average
Wait, on second thought it was very high. Approaching 90%
Thanks, that spreadhseet has apostrophes and needs cleansing before delving in. I'll do it later when I get to a bigger screen. Assuming that turnout was as you say 90%, and Uhuru and co still needed to stuff the ballots, then his 70%+1 is just load of bull.
Next time rigging will be very tricky.
This is why he's driving around hurling abuse. Chap knows his goose is cooked. Worse so now that he's been caught stealing.
These turnout records are OK - 86% max. They are higher in Jubilee which appears to explain the now invalid 54%. No county or constituency has 100% turnout. I am still waiting to see the stuffed polling stations list from someone... - Windy?
-
On Vooke's (1): Maraga and his majority will stay in the history books for a very simple reason: the court was largely expected to just stamp Uhuru's "victory". They did not do that; and indeed the anger, insults, and threats from the likes of Uhuru only reflect their astonishment.
(Further, the significance of the judiciary's showing of some spine goes well beyond the elections.)
On Vooke's (2), a point he keeps repeating in different forms: the logic is faulty.
(i) We haven't seen the judgement, but a core part of it seems to be the process was so tainted that the numbers are meaningless and cannot be used to announce the winner.
(ii) Now, let us suppose that in Round 2, the same number of people vote in exactly the same way, there are no illegalities and irregularities, and Uhuru still wins by the same margin. That would tell us absolutely nothing about the soundness of the judgment in (i). Whatever happens in Round 2 cannot possibly alter what happened in Round 1 and which was the basis of the judgement.
(I) by secret ballot;
(ii) free from violence, intimidation, improper in uence or corruption;
(iii) conducted by an independent body;
(iv) transparent; and
(v) administered in an impartial, neutral, ef cient, accurate and accountable manner.
Looking at our constitutional definition of free and fair, it is quite possible that Uhuru's 54% was real. For instance, transparency alone is enough to call an election not free and fair. But that's is not to mean a candidate padded their votes. Accurate means his real votes were +/- 54%. Neutral may or may not affect a candidate's performance...and so forth.
Maraga (and Babu of course) had better pray that whatever ways the election fell short of constitutional and electoral laws principles,Uhuru's REAL votes were way less than 54%, else he will be another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months.
My position is that jubilee needn't have stuffed ballots had they had the numbers.
-
These turnout records are OK - 86% max. They are higher in Jubilee which appears to explain the now invalid 54%. No county or constituency has 100% turnout. I am still waiting to see the stuffed polling stations list from someone... - Windy?
Robina,
The idea is if turnout was higher in Central than the 'average', the excess was stuffed ballots.
What I find more ridiculous is claims that Jubilee rigged in NASWA strongholds. Like they would have been called out right away. I can tell you for free that even if Babu won in 2013 and was the president, it would be nigh impossible to rig in Kiambu. You don't steal with all them hostile negroes eyeballing you.
-
These turnout records are OK - 86% max. They are higher in Jubilee which appears to explain the now invalid 54%. No county or constituency has 100% turnout. I am still waiting to see the stuffed polling stations list from someone... - Windy?
Robina,
The idea is if turnout was higher in Central than the 'average', the excess was stuffed ballots.
What I find more ridiculous is claims that Jubilee rigged in NASWA strongholds. Like they would have been called out right away. I can tell you for free that even if Babu won in 2013 and was the president, it would be nigh impossible to rig in Kiambu. You don't steal with all them hostile negroes eyeballing you.
Vooke, the stuffing was e-stuffing. It wasn't done locally in katch. There's an analysis of the Jirongo angle doing the rounds.
http://www.kenyainsights.com/jirongo/
Explains it.
-
My position is that jubilee needn't have stuffed ballots had they had the numbers.
True, but did he stuff ballots?
That's an assumption.
And my point is,while all irregularities and illegalities are wrong, the most important ones are those that suppress or outrightly rob your opponent of their genuine votes while padding yours.
Babu couldn't care less if the results were recorded on a serviette so long as he got his votes, but he'd be worried stiff if his votes were stolen before being recorded on form 34A with currency-grade security features.
-
My position is that jubilee needn't have stuffed ballots had they had the numbers.
True, but did he stuff ballots?
That's an assumption.
And my point is,while all irregularities and illegalities are wrong, the most important ones are those that suppress or outrightly rob your opponent of their genuine votes while padding yours.
Babu couldn't care less if the results were recorded on a serviette so long as he got his votes, but he'd be worried stiff if his votes were stolen before being recorded on form 34A with currency-grade security features.
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
-
My position is that jubilee needn't have stuffed ballots had they had the numbers.
True, but did he stuff ballots?
That's an assumption.
And my point is,while all irregularities and illegalities are wrong, the most important ones are those that suppress or outrightly rob your opponent of their genuine votes while padding yours.
Babu couldn't care less if the results were recorded on a serviette so long as he got his votes, but he'd be worried stiff if his votes were stolen before being recorded on form 34A with currency-grade security features.
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
bryan,
I am waiting for Maraga's detailed ruling but I don't believe this story from the information available currently. If the forms were forged, why does NASA not have a single photo/image (taken by phone/camera) of the original unforged forms? Those would surely prove rigging. Omollo tells us that NASA agents did not take a single photo because they were afraid of Matiang'i. Imagine that - despite the presence of local & international media & observers - NASA agents were too scared to do their job - to take a single photo of the legit results that were later forged. 11K of those. However they were not too scared to append their signatures to the forgeries :( Something is really flawed about this explanation. It is at this point that I grew cold feet about NASA's claims.
The detailed ruling will tell us if the deep flaws were due to rigging or incompetence or whatever - hopefully too in whose favor.
-
NASA presented something like 5,000 of their own agents copies to the court. That we have not seen them on nipate does not mean they don't exist. And while we are at it, why would anyone resort to unauthorized forms after they had been issued proper forms, and then to fo that to the tune of thousands? Thousands of agents just decided to dump the forms they were issued and replace them with different forms...why exactly would that happen?
Why would anyone risk contempt charges rather than permit access to the servers as ordered on live TV by the top court? What were they afraid of? The log copies they gave already showed unauthorized access and delition of forms, and the fact that the over 40, 000 KIEMS never communicated with the IEBC server but that all uploads happened from a mere 277 places...I mean seriously...that reminds me of the "Omolloesque" 'remote voting' charges that were ridiculed on this board for endless weeks.
Robina, you say you are objective but you arent. You have a position: there was no rigging, and from that you are setting the standards of proof that would be acceptable to you. If no one produces a photo, none of the other smelly things matter as far as evidence go. Any explanation would be preferable to interference until you see a photo. It is an ok position but it is a position on one side, just like Bryan's. (And mine). Its not neutral.
-
Turnout in central was the highest, generally toying with the limits of possibility. Numbers you only see in countries with mandatory voting. I am on a phone so I can't share the spreadsheet.
The results in PDF
https://www.iebc.or.ke/uploads/resources/m3f8arLNjp.pdf
And in Excel
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2rMMQJiqMB8ZUlyd05MbmIwOGM/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msexcel
Of course it was not low,but not substantially higher than national average
Wait, on second thought it was very high. Approaching 90%
Thanks, that spreadhseet has apostrophes and needs cleansing before delving in. I'll do it later when I get to a bigger screen. Assuming that turnout was as you say 90%, and Uhuru and co still needed to stuff the ballots, then his 70%+1 is just load of bull.
Next time rigging will be very tricky.
This is why he's driving around hurling abuse. Chap knows his goose is cooked. Worse so now that he's been caught stealing.
These turnout records are OK - 86% max. They are higher in Jubilee which appears to explain the now invalid 54%. No county or constituency has 100% turnout. I am still waiting to see the stuffed polling stations list from someone... - Windy?
I don't know about any stuffed polling stations. I also doubt turnouts in the 80% ranges are true.
The thing that does it for me though. Where the hell were those portal numbers coming from? They certainly weren't coming from the polling stations. It's almost a month and IEBC has not demonstrated a single transmission's full life cycle. Just one transmission with source, destination and times. In my books that's incriminating.
Unless someone erased the evidence on the server. But such an act itself also demands suspension of belief in this process or any of its fruit. These numbers no longer tell us anything meaningful. Vifaranga vya computer seems appropriate.
I have no idea exactly what happened or how. But IEBC or someone with ties to it tried to pull a fast one on us.
-
Robina,
The idea is if turnout was higher in Central than the 'average', the excess was stuffed ballots.
This is just NASA propaganda... just like Jubilee claims that a majority in parliament proves they won the presidency. High turnout is not rigging.
-
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
Does anyone have this report? I would love to see it. I mean the real one from the registrar - not Jubilee or NASA propaganda material.
-
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
Does anyone have this report? I would love to see it. I mean the real one from the registrar - not Jubilee or NASA propaganda material.
There
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2rMMQJiqMB8WEdvRURHbEoxVVU
-
Robina,
The idea is if turnout was higher in Central than the 'average', the excess was stuffed ballots.
This is just NASA propaganda... just like Jubilee claims that a majority in parliament proves they won the presidency. High turnout is not rigging.
Yeah,maybe we should aks them what they deem to be 'normal' turnout before the rerun. It's a hunch-feeling thing
Migori,Homabay turnout for instance is virtually indistinguishable from Kiambu.
In fact if you removed the names of the constituencies,the 'skeptical' ones here can't tell the results apart
-
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
Does anyone have this report? I would love to see it. I mean the real one from the registrar - not Jubilee or NASA propaganda material.
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
Does anyone have this report? I would love to see it. I mean the real one from the registrar - not Jubilee or NASA propaganda material.
Vooke availed the real one last Tuesday. He might still have links to it. I suspect orengos was even more detailed and that they should be read together.
-
NASA presented something like 5,000 of their own agents copies to the court. That we have not seen them on nipate does not mean they don't exist. And while we are at it, why would anyone resort to unauthorized forms after they had been issued proper forms, and to the tune of thousands? Why would anyone risk contempt charges rather than permit access to the servers? What were they afraid of? The log copies they gave already showed unauthorized access and delition of forms, and the fact that the polling stations never communicated with IEBC server but that all uploads happened from 277 places...that reminds me of the "Omolloesque" remote voting charges that were ridiculed on this board for endless weeks. Robina, you say you are objective but you arent. You have a position: there was no rigging, and from that you are setting the standards of proof that would be acceptable to you. It is an ok position but it is a position on one side, just like Bryan's. (And mine) Its not neutral.
Yes Kadame, Robina's stand is that the elections were flawed not rigged. That the flaws have not been proven to favor either Uhuru or Raila which would be rigging. That Uhuru was absolved of wrongdoing which he would not have been if rigging in his favor was found. This is mostly based on what the court said. When the court releases further details I might change my mind.
This is my opinion obviously. If you have a whiff of those 5K forms of Orengo... that would be nice to share.
About IEBC's/Chiloba's criminal intents - the fraud/incompetence/etc - forging forms, botching gadgets and deleting records - how does this prove rigging? How do I even know who or what motivated them? Most people have concluded this is Uhuru's dirty work because he is the incumbent and was declared winner. Not me. Such ideas are subjective I think. I chose to rely on the neutral court in the absence of alternative convincing evidence.
-
Looking at our constitutional definition of free and fair, it is quite possible that Uhuru's 54% was real. For instance, transparency alone is enough to call an election not free and fair. But that's is not to mean a candidate padded their votes. Accurate means his real votes were +/- 54%. Neutral may or may not affect a candidate's performance...and so forth.
Maraga (and Babu of course) had better pray that whatever ways the election fell short of constitutional and electoral laws principles,Uhuru's REAL votes were way less than 54%, else he will be another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months.
Sigh. Let me give it one more short. Of course, it is possible that Uhuru's 54% was real. It is even possible that without the "problems" Uhuru's votes might have been 74%. Likewise, it is possible that Raila's votes were actually 55% .... or they could have been 77%. Pick whatever numbers you like.
A core part of the judgement seems to be that the process was so f**ked up that the numbers don't mean anything; that's way a repeat had been ordered. Put another way, we don't if the 54% was real; so we'll have another go at it. The results in Round 2 might "show" that the 54% was real; but that would not alter the fact that in Round 1 things were so bad that we did not know.
You can come up with alternative numbers and possibilities (for Round 1), such as those I have given above, but they will not change the fact the we have no way of knowing.
Rails need to pray, as he hopes to win the next round. Maraga is in a different position: I understand that he is a devout Christian, so I imagine he already prayed hard to be guided in his actions. And he probably feels that he had divine guidance even as he adhered to man's law. What should be now be praying for?
-
Robina,
The idea is if turnout was higher in Central than the 'average', the excess was stuffed ballots.
This is just NASA propaganda... just like Jubilee claims that a majority in parliament proves they won the presidency. High turnout is not rigging.
Yeah,maybe we should aks them what they deem to be 'normal' turnout before the rerun. It's a hunch-feeling thing
My argument on turnout is that if turnout was maxed out before the rig, then it is unlikely that they'd be able to top their current performance. 100% however is suspect in any society
-
My position is that jubilee needn't have stuffed ballots had they had the numbers.
True, but did he stuff ballots?
That's an assumption.
And my point is,while all irregularities and illegalities are wrong, the most important ones are those that suppress or outrightly rob your opponent of their genuine votes while padding yours.
Babu couldn't care less if the results were recorded on a serviette so long as he got his votes, but he'd be worried stiff if his votes were stolen before being recorded on form 34A with currency-grade security features.
The fact the 34As were forged, tells us that the original counts were suppressed and possibly destroyed. This is further explained by the hackers that deleted 34As off the servers. Someone was on a clean up of evidence.
Additional ballots or counts of ballots were introduced to create the "winning" margin and put it beyond contention. We need access to the evidence that nasa put forward. The other clue is the bitter opposition that ngatia and muite had of Orengos IT report. Nasa need to release it in full. It must have had gems in it.
bryan,
I am waiting for Maraga's detailed ruling but I don't believe this story from the information available currently. If the forms were forged, why does NASA not have a single photo/image (taken by phone/camera) of the original unforged forms? Those would surely prove rigging. Omollo tells us that NASA agents did not take a single photo because they were afraid of Matiang'i. Imagine that - despite the presence of local & international media & observers - NASA agents were too scared to do their job - to take a single photo of the legit results that were later forged. 11K of those. However they were not too scared to append their signatures to the forgeries :( Something is really flawed about this explanation. It is at this point that I grew cold feet about NASA's claims.
The detailed ruling will tell us if the deep flaws were due to rigging or incompetence or whatever - hopefully too in whose favor.
Sawa. Also I recommend that you watch Norwojees submissions to the supreme court. It dwelt on specifically the 11k 34As that were unavailable for days. I suspect that are the ones that were doctored to fit the rigged numbers.
-
Looking at our constitutional definition of free and fair, it is quite possible that Uhuru's 54% was real. For instance, transparency alone is enough to call an election not free and fair. But that's is not to mean a candidate padded their votes. Accurate means his real votes were +/- 54%. Neutral may or may not affect a candidate's performance...and so forth.
Maraga (and Babu of course) had better pray that whatever ways the election fell short of constitutional and electoral laws principles,Uhuru's REAL votes were way less than 54%, else he will be another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months.
Sigh. Let me give it one more short. Of course, it is possible that Uhuru's 54% was real. It is even possible that without the "problems" Uhuru's votes might have been 74%. Likewise, it is possible that Raila's votes were actually 55% .... or they could have been 77%. Pick whatever numbers you like.
A core part of the judgement seems to be that the process was so f**ked up that the numbers don't mean anything; that's way a repeat had been ordered. Put another way, we don't if the 54% was real; so we'll have another go at it. The results in Round 2 might "show" that the 54% was real; but that would not alter the fact that in Round 1 things were so bad that we did not know.
You can come up with alternative numbers and possibilities (for Round 1), such as those I have given above, but they will not change the fact the we have no way of knowing.
Rails need to pray, as he hopes to win the next round. Maraga is in a different position: I understand that he is a devout Christian, so I imagine he already prayed hard to be guided in his actions. And he probably feels that he had divine guidance even as he adhered to man's law. What should be now be praying for?
I understood you the first time. The point is if the ruling was based on cosmetic aspects of the election, it was a waste of time like say legalizing gay unions in the middle of Turkana with thousands facing starvation.
Uhuru's victory in the rerun means Maraga overestimated the extent and impact of these irregularities and illegalities on the expression of the will of the people which is what the constitution envisions and the whole point of invalidation.
The decision is solid and will be quoted for many years and in many jurisdictions,but so would be its practical implications here. Babu victory is good for the decision,Uhuru win is very bad. Maraga plus his conscience plus grasp of the evidence at hand exaggerated
-
My argument on turnout is that if turnout was maxed out before the rig, then it is unlikely that they'd be able to top their current performance. 100% however is suspect in any society
Please expound. Sorry it's a slow morning.
-
My argument on turnout is that if turnout was maxed out before the rig, then it is unlikely that they'd be able to top their current performance. 100% however is suspect in any society
You're right. But I don't know what makes you believe that turn out in the rerun would be higher than before. Baba already said this was his last stab and they gave their best. But we never had 100% or even 90% nowhere
-
I understood you the first time. The point is if the ruling was based on cosmetic aspects of the election, it was a waste of time like say legalizing gay unions in the middle of Turkana with thousands facing starvation.
Uhuru's victory in the rerun means Maraga overestimated the extent and impact of these irregularities and illegalities on the expression of the will of the people which is what the constitution envisions and the whole point of invalidation.
You still keep repeating the same argument, in different forms. Yes, let's wait and see it.
Uhuru's victory in a re-run cannot reverse time and alter what Maraga knew or did not know at the time of the judgement.
-
I understood you the first time. The point is if the ruling was based on cosmetic aspects of the election, it was a waste of time like say legalizing gay unions in the middle of Turkana with thousands facing starvation.
Uhuru's victory in the rerun means Maraga overestimated the extent and impact of these irregularities and illegalities on the expression of the will of the people which is what the constitution envisions and the whole point of invalidation.
You still keep repeating the same argument, in different forms. Yes, let's wait and see it.
Uhuru's victory in a re-run cannot reverse time and alter what Maraga knew or did not know at the time of the judgement.
I used if because it is all conditioned on the outcome.
It's true you can't rewrite history but a repeat election days later minus the so called irregularities and illegalities is the best test of SCOK's reasoning. The judgement is testable and will be tested shortly
-
I understood you the first time. The point is if the ruling was based on cosmetic aspects of the election, it was a waste of time like say legalizing gay unions in the middle of Turkana with thousands facing starvation.
Uhuru's victory in the rerun means Maraga overestimated the extent and impact of these irregularities and illegalities on the expression of the will of the people which is what the constitution envisions and the whole point of invalidation.
You still keep repeating the same argument, in different forms. Yes, let's wait and see it.
Uhuru's victory in a re-run cannot reverse time and alter what Maraga knew or did not know at the time of the judgement.
I've given up on this one too. If a process is so botched that you cant tell what outcome is real, it doesnt mean that you are claimin there is no outcome. It just means that you are saying: I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. DO IT AGAIN SO I KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER! When you do find the right answer, how that is supposed to rubish your need to know the right answer is beyond me. Its not logic vooke is employing here. He is used to testing prophets and their prophecies (and MOAS) with future outcomes that he is employing that methodology where it makes not one iota of sense. Its like how when you have a harmer all problems start looking like nails :o
-
Invalidation seems to have been based on some subjective grounds probably explaining the dissenting opinions so you can't divorce invalidation from the repeat because that's where it'll be tested.
-
So says you. That is why they have seven justices. Most of the court decisions are subjective/objective. The "reasonable man" is a subjective/Objective" test. Objective in that any reasonable man similarly situated in that jurisdiction would arrive at a similar decision but subjective in that a reasonable man in another jurisdiction may not neccessarily arrive at the same answer.
Invalidation seems to have been based on some subjective grounds probably explaining the dissenting opinions so you can't divorce invalidation from the repeat because that's where it'll be tested.
-
So says you. That is why they have seven justices. Most of the court decisions are subjective/objective. The "reasonable man" is a subjective/Objective" test. Objective in that any reasonable man similarly situated in that jurisdiction would arrive at a similar decision but subjective in that a reasonable man in another jurisdiction may not neccessarily arrive at the same answer.
Invalidation seems to have been based on some subjective grounds probably explaining the dissenting opinions so you can't divorce invalidation from the repeat because that's where it'll be tested.
It was anything but unanimous. No problem with that,and that's why I defer to the rerun to see who was right.
-
So says you. That is why they have seven justices. Most of the court decisions are subjective/objective. The "reasonable man" is a subjective/Objective" test. Objective in that any reasonable man similarly situated in that jurisdiction would arrive at a similar decision but subjective in that a reasonable man in another jurisdiction may not neccessarily arrive at the same answer.
Invalidation seems to have been based on some subjective grounds probably explaining the dissenting opinions so you can't divorce invalidation from the repeat because that's where it'll be tested.
It was anything but unanimous. No problem with that,and that's why I defer to the rerun to see who was right.
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
-
So says you. That is why they have seven justices. Most of the court decisions are subjective/objective. The "reasonable man" is a subjective/Objective" test. Objective in that any reasonable man similarly situated in that jurisdiction would arrive at a similar decision but subjective in that a reasonable man in another jurisdiction may not neccessarily arrive at the same answer.
Invalidation seems to have been based on some subjective grounds probably explaining the dissenting opinions so you can't divorce invalidation from the repeat because that's where it'll be tested.
It was anything but unanimous. No problem with that,and that's why I defer to the rerun to see who was right.
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
vooke wants us to indict the court in future for not being omniscient. :D
-
So says you. That is why they have seven justices. Most of the court decisions are subjective/objective. The "reasonable man" is a subjective/Objective" test. Objective in that any reasonable man similarly situated in that jurisdiction would arrive at a similar decision but subjective in that a reasonable man in another jurisdiction may not neccessarily arrive at the same answer.
Invalidation seems to have been based on some subjective grounds probably explaining the dissenting opinions so you can't divorce invalidation from the repeat because that's where it'll be tested.
It was anything but unanimous. No problem with that,and that's why I defer to the rerun to see who was right.
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
vooke wants us to indict the court in future for not being omniscient. :D
I have a sneaking suspicion this is his protest against the ruling. Some are convinced he is non-partisan. I am not one of those.
-
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
-
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
No. Because I understand what integrity means.
-
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
No. Because I understand what integrity means.
What is your understanding of integrity?
-
vooke, it means that you can vouch for the outcome, "show your work" to use an academic example. The difference between honest work and cooking.
-
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
No. Because I understand what integrity means.
What is your understanding of integrity?
Internal consistency. You can say, this result is because of these inputs. That the inputs were not reverse engineered from a final result. That there is no room for alternative routes to that same outcome. That you can throw open your servers to prying eyes and the processes show that they are part and parcel of this same election.
It has nothing to do with who won or who lost. Kadame's schoolwork example should help. Correct answers without showing your work mean nothing.
-
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
No. Because I understand what integrity means.
And I honestly don't know anyone who seems to be in danger of this future indictment of the court. Only people I've seen like that don't trust the court NOW, anyway, because Uhuru has started demonizing the court. That's your typical follower like Raila's would follow him anywhere. Understandable. But how this is gonna taint the court's name globally, in other courts, among journalists, basically anyone who understands that the court said "conduct the elections properly" I don't know. The only people who everyone is waiting to test are Jubilee and NASA. So far, vooke is the only one I've found waiting to test the court's past decision based on the outcome of a future election. :o
-
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
No. Because I understand what integrity means.
And I honestly don't know anyone who seems to be in danger of this future indictment of the court. Only people I've seen like that don't trust the court NOW, anyway, because Uhuru has started demonizing the court. That's your typical follower like Raila's would follow him anywhere. Understandable. But how this is gonna taint the court's name globally, in other courts, among journalists, basically anyone who understands that the court said "conduct the elections properly" I don't know. The only people who everyone is waiting to test are Jubilee and NASA. So far, vooke is the only one I've found waiting to test the court's past decision based on the outcome of a future election. :o
It is indeed a jubilant narrative right now. That the court made a mistake and this will be shown in the election. Why one group so hell bent on an opaque system is truly puzzling to me.
-
I think the best examples of integrity was when we were introduced to long division. The teachers wanted us to clearly show how you arrived at 100 divide by 3. The teachers did not care about the correct answer but they wanted to clearly see the process. They knew you could easily get the answer through a calculator or any other short cut method but process was important because once you know the process, the answer is not important. Integrity is the same. Our parents or our church or our moral mentors are more concerned about integrity. They teach us the process that you have to go through regardless of the result. We teach our kids certain things like sharing, being kind, honest, empathy, hard work, helping others, etc. We do not assure them that the result would be beneficial to them personally but that these values are time tested to lead and long time beneficial to all of us as human beings. It is these values that separate us from animals. The process is therefore more important and I think Maraga would not mind an Ouru presidency if his win can pass the test of integrity.
The only test of this ruling is if we are able to verify and vouch for the subsequent winner. And even that does not necessarily invalidate it. The ruling I have seen talks about integrity, not outcome.
I said before the decision is solid,cast in steel so it can't be invalidated.
But the practical implication of the majority decision will be questioned should the rerun yield the same results.
Integrity is a highly subjective concept and you can hide enough under integrity. I also think integrity is a means and not end in itself. The end is free expression of the will of the people.
Look, if Uhunye gets 54% without integrity and 54% with integrity,won't you have lingering doubts on the claims of no integrity in the original election?
No. Because I understand what integrity means.
And I honestly don't know anyone who seems to be in danger of this future indictment of the court. Only people I've seen like that don't trust the court NOW, anyway, because Uhuru has started demonizing the court. That's your typical follower like Raila's would follow him anywhere. Understandable. But how this is gonna taint the court's name globally, in other courts, among journalists, basically anyone who understands that the court said "conduct the elections properly" I don't know. The only people who everyone is waiting to test are Jubilee and NASA. So far, vooke is the only one I've found waiting to test the court's past decision based on the outcome of a future election. :o
-
My argument on turnout is that if turnout was maxed out before the rig, then it is unlikely that they'd be able to top their current performance. 100% however is suspect in any society
Please expound. Sorry it's a slow morning.
Robina,
I will respond to your queries by posing the questions below:
1) Would a popular government that won the elections need to influence (read rig the election by way of changing results) the election?
2) Would a popular government attack the supreme court like they have?
3) Would a popular government insist on keeping the IEBC and blocking the the examination of the electoral register before the new election?
Yesterday Windy posted a table showing turnout across the country. Jubilee zones had turnouts of around 90%. Now if we assume (major assumption that is solely mine), that with that sort of turn out Uhuru managed 54% of the vote, how is he going to get to 70%+1 as he and his fans claim while he's logically exhausted his votes? It is very unlikely that he will make inroads in opposition areas where he's seen for what he really is. An electoral thief. The Gusii have left him too following his stupid attack on the CJ.
-
Internal consistency. You can say, this result is because of these inputs. That the inputs were not reverse engineered from a final result. That there is no room for alternative routes to that same outcome. That you can throw open your servers to prying eyes and the processes show that they are part and parcel of this same election.
It has nothing to do with who won or who lost. Kadame's schoolwork example should help. Correct answers without showing your work mean nothing.
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results. Your own definition shows that.
-
My argument on turnout is that if turnout was maxed out before the rig, then it is unlikely that they'd be able to top their current performance. 100% however is suspect in any society
You're right. But I don't know what makes you believe that turn out in the rerun would be higher than before. Baba already said this was his last stab and they gave their best. But we never had 100% or even 90% nowhere
vooke, I am not saying turnout will be higher, but challenging the Jubilee claim that they'd win the election by 70%+1 when they maxed out their turnout as well as stuffed the ballots. Unless 1.4 millions jubilidiots are sired, born and raised within the next 60 days, Jubilee will lose big...
-
vooke, I am not saying turnout will be higher, but challenging the Jubilee claim that they'd win the election by 70%+1 when they maxed out their turnout as well as stuffed the ballots. Unless 1.4 millions jubilidiots are sired, born and raised within the next 60 days, Jubilee will lose big...
That's a bullshiet claim just as 10M Strong slogan. It's our version of Hakka
-
vooke, I am not saying turnout will be higher, but challenging the Jubilee claim that they'd win the election by 70%+1 when they maxed out their turnout as well as stuffed the ballots. Unless 1.4 millions jubilidiots are sired, born and raised within the next 60 days, Jubilee will lose big...
That's a bullshiet claim just as 10M Strong slogan. It's our version of Hakka
Dude we'll be here at the next vote. My question is always the same. If Jubilee had the numbers, why did they rig the election?
If Jubilee had won, why did they work day and night doctoring 34As, deleting the same and even leaning on the judges before the ruling?
Simples.
-
vooke, I am not saying turnout will be higher, but challenging the Jubilee claim that they'd win the election by 70%+1 when they maxed out their turnout as well as stuffed the ballots. Unless 1.4 millions jubilidiots are sired, born and raised within the next 60 days, Jubilee will lose big...
That's a bullshiet claim just as 10M Strong slogan. It's our version of Hakka
Dude we'll be here at the next vote. My question is always the same. If Jubilee had the numbers, why did they rig the election?
If Jubilee had won, why did they work day and night doctoring 34As, deleting the same and even leaning on the judges before the ruling?
Simples.
Bro,
We (myself and Robina) are not denying that Jubilee rigged,we are saying there has been no evidence adduced so far. Perhaps the full judgement will delve into the exact nature of illegalities and we may change our mind.
The court cleared Uhunye of any wrong doing which is highly unlikely if there were massive evidence of rigging as NASWA claims.
So the full judgement and the repeat will confirm this.
-
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
A standard definition of "integrity" includes this:
2.2 Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data.
I think that may be applied directly to the elections without any references to results. In particular, things can be done in two steps:
(1) Was the process lacking in integrity? (That can be answered without reference to the results.)
(2) If the answer to (1) is YES, was the lack of integrity so serious as to make the results meaningless?
-
vooke, I am not saying turnout will be higher, but challenging the Jubilee claim that they'd win the election by 70%+1 when they maxed out their turnout as well as stuffed the ballots. Unless 1.4 millions jubilidiots are sired, born and raised within the next 60 days, Jubilee will lose big...
That's a bullshiet claim just as 10M Strong slogan. It's our version of Hakka
Dude we'll be here at the next vote. My question is always the same. If Jubilee had the numbers, why did they rig the election?
If Jubilee had won, why did they work day and night doctoring 34As, deleting the same and even leaning on the judges before the ruling?
Simples.
Bro,
We (myself and Robina) are not denying that Jubilee rigged,we are saying there has been no evidence adduced so far. Perhaps the full judgement will delve into the exact nature of illegalities and we may change our mind.
The court cleared Uhunye of any wrong doing which is highly unlikely if there were massive evidence of rigging as NASWA claims.
So the full judgement and the repeat will confirm this.
All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.
-
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
A stsndard definition of "integrity" includes this:
2.2 Internal consistency or lack of corruption in electronic data.
I think that may be applied directly to the elections without any references to results. In particular, things can be done in two steps:
(1) Was the process lacking in integrity? (That can be answered without reference to the results.)
(2) If the answer to (1) is YES, was the lack of integrity so serious as to make the results meaningless?
Let's work with your definition.
Internal consistency of what exactly? I will ignore the electronic data bit as a common application of the term integrity. Adding it in will prove my point
-
Internal consistency of what exactly?
Of the process. That's what exactly.
I will ignore the electronic data bit as a common application of the term integrity.
Go for it. But I recall a lot of noise about servers and what-not in these elections, so I thought it might be relevant.
-
All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.
They said illegalities not criminal acts. While rigging is an illegality there is more to the term than just that. We just can't be certain.
Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?
All said,rigging is not something you would put past the duo; with bottomless pockets and facing real threat from Babu,they may have attempted to compromise IEBC.
-
Internal consistency of what exactly?
Of the process. That's what exactly.
I will ignore the electronic data bit as a common application of the term integrity.
Go for it. But I recall a lot of noise about servers and what-not in these elections, so I thought it might be relevant.
IEBC has voters register, they have KIEMS kits,ballot papers and boxes...hardware. I also know the processes that were subject of the petition.
I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody
Come to think of it, I'm starting to believe that there's a false dichotomy between processes and results
-
All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.
Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?
This is an assumption you and Robina are making: that if the court had found that the illegalities/irregularities favoured Jubilee, it would have indicted Jubilee along with the IEBC. Those are two separate things. If I was judging I would never say that if I caught A doing something that favored B, I would then automatically indict B without evidence of B's own wrongdoing just because he was the beneficiary of the wrong-doing of A. What the court said was that it did not find evidence of Uhuru's wrong doing. And indeed if Uhuru used IEBC, why would the court find otherwise without direct evidence of collusion?
-
All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.
Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?
This is an assumption you and Robina are making: that if the court had found that the illegalities/irregularities favoured Jubilee, it would have indicted Jubilee along with the IEBC. Those are two separate things. If I was judging I would never say that if I caught A doing something that favored B, I would then automatically indict B without evidence of B's own wrongdoing just because he was the beneficiary of the party caught doing wrong-doing. What the court said was that it did not find evidence of Uhuru's wrong doing. And indeed if Uhuru used IEBC, why would the court find otherwise without direct evidence of collusion?
Good point. Still, there's zero proof of rigging so far.
-
I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody
They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results". But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.
Now consider these two scenarios:
(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.
(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.
Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.
Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather. Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months". But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc. So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours. Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.
My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!
-
I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody
They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results". But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.
Now consider these two scenarios:
(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.
(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.
Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.
Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather. Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months". But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc. So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours. Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.
My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!
Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.
You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.
-
All well and good, I note that you are skeptical about the good judge's ruling that explicitly said that criminal acts were committed.
They said illegalities not criminal acts. While rigging is an illegality there is more to the term than just that. We just can't be certain.
Absolving Uhuru of wrong doing is quite telling. Do you think they would have said so if there was clear evidence of rigging in favor of Uhunye?
All said,rigging is not something you would put past the duo; with bottomless pockets and facing real threat from Babu,they may have attempted to compromise IEBC.
breaking electoral law is a criminal offence
-
I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody
They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results". But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.
Now consider these two scenarios:
(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.
(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.
Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.
Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather. Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months". But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc. So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours. Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.
My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!
Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.
You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.
They involve results only to the extent of their meaninglessness. They are unusable results because you can't say what they reflect.
-
I am asking you to point out which of these does not touch on the results. Here they are;
1. Voting
2. Counting
3. Tallying
4. Transmission
5. Declaration.
6. Communication-pressers...
7. Custody
They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results". But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.
Now consider these two scenarios:
(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.
(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.
Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.
Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather. Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months". But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc. So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours. Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.
My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!
Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.
You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.
They involve results only to the extent of their meaninglessness. They are unusable results because you can't say what they reflect.
While you may play word games and definitions, half of Kenya believes Babu was rigged out. The other half believes he was thrashed. The former believe SCOK has given Babu another lifeline just as the latter except at the expense of their victory. When he wins they will break into even more wilder cheer,they will say Babu has been vindicated.
What will the former say once Babu is thrashed? 'We can say what the results reflect'?
-
Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.
You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.
I did state the I had given my last comment, but it seems necessary to return and say this: I did indeed get "personal", but it was not intended to be in a negative way, and I apologize if it came across that way. I genuinely intended and hoped to give you some helpful advice.
Oh, if by "results" you mean everything that there is on just about everything, then yes. As I indicate above, I have a simple-minded understanding of "results" in elections: for me they are the numbers on which winners and so forth are declared, the declarations based on said numbers, ...; I have learned something new. Your interpretation is also interesting in this way: we should not interpret the SC's judgement to mean that the "process so tainted that the results are meaningless"; it now appears that the "results" themselves were hopelessly tainted.
Now, I'll definitely leave you guys to it.
Peace, Love, and Unity.
-
Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.
You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.
I did state the I had given my last comment, but it seems necessary to return and say this: I did indeed get "personal", but it was not intended to be in a negative way, and I apologize if it came across that way. I genuinely intended and hoped to give you some helpful advice.
Oh, if by "results" you mean everything that there is on just about everything, then yes. As I indicate above, I have a simple-minded understanding of "results" in elections: for me they are the numbers on which winners and so forth are declared, the declarations based on said numbers, ...; I have learned something new. Your interpretation is also interesting in this way: we should not interpret the SC's judgement to mean that the "process so tainted that the results are meaningless"; it now appears that the "results" themselves were hopelessly tainted.
Now, I'll definitely leave you guys to it.
Peace, Love, and Unity.
Apologizing if is just as bad as not apologizing. Who told you I'm hurt and in need of a drink? If your pride can't suffer you to unconditionally apologize please keep it thank you.
The numbers used to declare winners and losers are recorded in these forms. That's exactly what I meant by results. Process v results is a false dichotomy; it's all about results.
-
They will all "touch on the results" for the very simple reason that they are all part of a process that ultimately leads to "results". But that is quite a different matter from what I was responding to, which was this:
With reference to an election, you can't define integrity without reference to the results.
Perhaps an example will help you: There are certain official forms (34-whatever) that are supposed to be filled with numbers (results), that supposedly have some anti-mischief features, that are supposed to be signed by an authorized person, etc.
Now consider these two scenarios:
(a) In some cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been filled in, signed by the appropriately authorized person, and so on, .... exactly as laid down in relevant procedures.
(b) In some other cases, the official 34-whatever forms have been replaced with pages from school "exercise books", have not been signed, .... and the relevant procedures have generally been flouted.
Taking (a) and (b) together---and without the slightest regard to the numbers they contain (a.k.a the results)---I am able to say that the overall handing of the forms has been inconsistent, lacks integrity, etc.
Look, it seems obvious that you are hurting; but you might want to consider a different way of working through it, instead of working yourself into a lather. Maybe Round 2 will, as you claim "vindicate" Uhuru; and maybe Marage will, as you say, be considered a "another crack judge who wasted Kenya's two months". But that is still some ways off, and, in any case, life will still go on after that ... Maraga will still be CJ, etc. So, it seems best that you try to achieve some internal peace right now. Perhaps something like what Uhuru has done ... get thoroughly drunk and blow off some steam for a few hours. Or perhaps the RV-Pundit approach.
My last on this thread, so best of luck to you!
Both of your examples involve results FYI. You simply can't trust the contents of these documents. The contents are results.
You are the last of people I expected to get personal. You are not patel for heaven sake.
They involve results only to the extent of their meaninglessness. They are unusable results because you can't say what they reflect.
While you may play word games and definitions, half of Kenya believes Babu was rigged out. The other half believes he was thrashed. The former believe SCOK has given Babu another lifeline just as the latter except at the expense of their victory. When he wins they will break into even more wilder cheer,they will say Babu has been vindicated.
What will the former say once Babu is thrashed? 'We can say what the results reflect'?
Half of Kenya did not make the ruling. Forgive me if that point is lost on me. If Babu is trashed in an election with integrity, yes, we can say what the results reflect.
-
Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?
-
Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?
Yes, that would be an election offense. That said, I think it is highly unlikely that they make that finding. Because they already ruled - incorrectly IMO - that kamwana had no hand in the rigging and made no mention of the attempt to influence in the summary ruling.
-
Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?
That is not an election offense
-
Suppose there was actually an attempt to compromise SCOK judges as media reports indicate, who or how should that be presented as an election offence? Is bribery of judges and threats to them in the course of adjudicating a petition considered an election offence?
That is not an election offense
On what basis do you say so? A presidential election petition appears in the constitution as part of the electoral process.
140.
Questions as to validity of presidential election
(1) A person may file a petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the election of the President-elect within seven days after the date of the declaration of the results of the presidential election.
(2) Within fourteen days after the filing of a petition under clause (1), the Supreme Court shall hear and determine the petition and its decision shall be final.
(3) If the Supreme Court determines the election of the President-elect to be invalid, a fresh election shall be held within sixty days after the determination.
If voter bribery is considered an election offence then it beats logic if bribery of judges in an election petition is not equally considered an offence. In fact, bribing petition judges should attract more sanctions.