The Vote Tallying Case Simplified

[Kadame5]

Well thanks for the welcome, Pundit, and for the discussion, Omollo.

Pundit here's what I don't get:

Const RO is responsible for MCA & MP election. He tally up, verify and issue the winners with certificate and prepare for any petition. He then becomes a conveyor belt for the other results. He send the governor/senate/women rep results to County RO - who then verify and tally up - and issues the winners with certificate & prepare for any petition. He also send the results to Chebukaiti - who is the presidential RO - whose mandate as const says is to verify and tally up presidential or referendum votes

 It doesnt matter who the R.O is, as long as he announces the result at the constitituency level. We need to know just what each constituency has decided for the President, as well as each county at the same time as we learn who the MP is. If the elections are done at the same polling station, exactly why should they be separated in the tallying process? I cannot imagine that giving all the polling stations to one guy in Nairobi to do the tallying has anything to do with effeciency. Why? So we can wait for one guy to tally up thousands of pollying stations when we could all just tally up 290 results in day 2 of elections like all countries do? How is that less prone to errors?

Elections don't require a mathematical whizz, its plain addition. 1+1. The R.O and agents can easily add up the presidential results as they do the M.Ps. Close enough to the polling stations to detect any monkey business. The idea that these should all be sent to one centre in Nairobi for us to wait for one week, does not come from a desire to avoid chaos but to foster it. How is it more effecient to have one fella verify and tally all the results from the whole country's pollying stations?? That's frankly ridiculous. That process of transfer and the enourmous work involved can only create room for more of the errors you worry about to occur.

It's like devolution: the close enough to the action the counting, verification, tallying, and announcement is, the small enough the area of management, the better it can be, the easier to detect faked forms and results. Creating a huge beauractic monster in Nairobi that claims to verify forms from Mandera polling stations better than the R.Os and agents that oversaw things there is both ineficient and unnecessary piling of work and completely lacks transparency.

And in any case, the R.O still does the verification and tallying, doesnt he? They are just claimed to be "provisional" until Chebukait, holed up in his office in Nairobi, signs off on them after applying special magic to verify their accuracy better than guys at the various constituencies... So there is absolutely no change to the process introduced by the court to warrant fears of chaos. They just say that the constitutency results are final, not provisional. Everything remains the same for IEBC who supposedly are not planning any monkey business.

If there is no monkey business, Chebukait should not care that the court has split the job into two: the polling station forms results are gathered and announced at the constituency, (which is already the case) which announced results chebukait tallies and announces in Nairobi. He just does not get to purport to verify pollying stations results better than people on the ground, which is ridiculous.

After all, if the monkey business has already occurred huko chini--and this is the question IEBC couldnt answer when posed by the High Court's Constitutional Court--what will Chebukait be able to do about it? What special mechanisms does he have in Nairobi to "correct" the monkey business? None. Interfering at that level will therefore be assigning himself vast quasi-judicial powers the constitution does not give him. If it is a simple issue of addition, agreed upon by all party agents, that can be done by anybody with standard 4 maths and a calculator. The agents and IEBC guys are simply there to agree on what the results were for each station, which have all been announcdd, and they do the simple standard 4 math together. Done. Nothing more Chebukait can add. If he claims to do more, he is confessing to interfering in a fraudulent manner or pretending to be a judge.

That he cares so much when he is supposed to be uninterested shows me he is acting on behalf of interested parties and not himself. I have never heard of a country that waits one week to hear simple addition mathematics. The IEBC's plan is a huge bureaucratic mess, ineffient and leaving huge spaces for malpractice.

[Omollo]

I am proposing that each RO be given two calculators and one manual backup in the name of a University double mathematics major

[RV Pundit]

Interesting kadame. So you think results announced by PO should be provisional and Const RO makes the final call but Chebukati as presidential RO cannot audit those results? All I am getting is here is that you don't trust Chebukati. I don't see any problem with Chebukati receiving all results from all polling stations, vet/audit, tally and announce the results.

Well thanks for the welcome, Pundit, and for the discussion, Omollo.

Pundit here's what I don't get:

Const RO is responsible for MCA & MP election. He tally up, verify and issue the winners with certificate and prepare for any petition. He then becomes a conveyor belt for the other results. He send the governor/senate/women rep results to County RO - who then verify and tally up - and issues the winners with certificate & prepare for any petition. He also send the results to Chebukaiti - who is the presidential RO - whose mandate as const says is to verify and tally up presidential or referendum votes

 It doesnt matter who the R.O is, as long as he announces the result at the constitituency level. We need to know just what each constituency has decided for the President, as well as each county at the same time as we learn who the MP is. If the elections are done at the same polling station, exactly why should they be separated in the tallying process? I cannot imagine that giving all the polling stations to one guy in Nairobi to do the tallying has anything to do with effeciency. Why? So we can wait for one guy to tally up thousands of pollying stations when we could all just tally up 290 results in day 2 of elections like all countries do? How is that less prone to errors?

Elections don't require a mathematical whizz, its plain addition. 1+1. The R.O and agents can easily add up the presidential results as they do the M.Ps. Close enough to the polling stations to detect any monkey business. The idea that these should all be sent to one centre in Nairobi for us to wait for one week, does not come from a desire to avoid chaos but to foster it. How is it more effecient to have one fella verify and tally all the results from the whole country's pollying stations?? That's frankly ridiculous. That process of transfer and the enourmous work involved can only create room for more of the errors you worry about to occur.

It's like devolution: the close enough to the action the counting, verification, tallying, and announcement is, the small enough the area of management, the better it can be, the easier to detect faked forms and results. Creating a huge beauractic monster in Nairobi that claims to verify forms from Mandera polling stations better than the R.Os and agents that oversaw things there is both ineficient and unnecessary piling of work and completely lacks transparency.

And in any case, the R.O still does the verification and tallying, doesnt he? They are just claimed to be "provisional" until Chebukait, holed up in his office in Nairobi, signs off on them after applying special magic to verify their accuracy better than guys at the various constituencies... So there is absolutely no change to the process introduced by the court to warrant fears of chaos. They just say that the constitutency results are final, not provisional. Everything remains the same for IEBC who supposedly are not planning any monkey business.

If there is no monkey business, Chebukait should not care that the court has split the job into two: the polling station forms results are gathered and announced at the constituency, (which is already the case) which announced results chebukait tallies and announces in Nairobi. He just does not get to purport to verify pollying stations results better than people on the ground, which is ridiculous.

After all, if the monkey business has already occurred huko chini--and this is the question IEBC couldnt answer when posed by the High Court's Constitutional Court--what will Chebukait be able to do about it? What special mechanisms does he have in Nairobi to "correct" the monkey business? None. Interfering at that level will therefore be assigning himself vast quasi-judicial powers the constitution does not give him. If it is a simple issue of addition, agreed upon by all party agents, that can be done by anybody with standard 4 maths and a calculator. The agents and IEBC guys are simply there to agree on what the results were for each station, which have all been announcdd, and they do the simple standard 4 math together. Done. Nothing more Chebukait can add. If he claims to do more, he is confessing to interfering in a fraudulent manner or pretending to be a judge.

That he cares so much when he is supposed to be uninterested shows me he is acting on behalf of interested parties and not himself. I have never heard of a country that waits one week to hear simple addition mathematics. The IEBC's plan is a huge bureaucratic mess, ineffient and leaving huge spaces for malpractice.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Interesting kadame. So you think results announced by PO should be provisional and Const RO makes the final call but Chebukati as presidential RO cannot audit those results? All I am getting is here is that you don't trust Chebukati. I don't see any problem with Chebukati receiving all results from all polling stations, vet/audit, tally and announce the results.

Apart from the law not allowing him to change the results, the system works better if you have a single source of information for the final result - the certified results publicly announced at the lower levels.  It makes it easy for everyone to keep up with the numbers and trends and know who is going to be announced winner, even if the Chebukati decides to take a week and consult before making the announcement - a ceremonial action really.  The math is not complicated as Kadame points out.

In the 2013 election, it took IEBC months to compile and publicize a final official tally.  The only reason I can think of was some numbers did not look right and had to be made to look right - maybe there is another one, but my brain hurts trying to imagine what it could be.  How they fixed the math remains a mystery, which goes against any claims of transparency.

[Omollo]

That, Termie, is the basic problem.

We need the results read at polling stations and then released by ROs at Constituencies. While the IEBC is still busy grandstanding for TV, we would already know who won.

They want Bomas to glue people there on screens weeks after the end of the elections as they cook figures and threaten the media. There is no such thing as provisional results.

Interesting kadame. So you think results announced by PO should be provisional and Const RO makes the final call but Chebukati as presidential RO cannot audit those results? All I am getting is here is that you don't trust Chebukati. I don't see any problem with Chebukati receiving all results from all polling stations, vet/audit, tally and announce the results.

Apart from the law not allowing him to change the results, the system works better if you have a single source of information for the final result - the certified results publicly announced at the lower levels.  It makes it easy for everyone to keep up with the numbers and trends and know who is going to be announced winner, even if the Chebukati decides to take a week and consult before making the announcement - a ceremonial action really.  The math is not complicated as Kadame points out.

In the 2013 election, it took IEBC months to compile and publicize a final official tally.  The only reason I can think of was some numbers did not look right and had to be made to look right - maybe there is another one, but my brain hurts trying to imagine what it could be.  How they fixed the math remains a mystery, which goes against any claims of transparency.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

That, Termie, is the basic problem.

We need the results read at polling stations and then released by ROs at Constituencies. While the IEBC is still busy grandstanding for TV, we would already know who won.

They want Bomas to glue people there on screens weeks after the end of the elections as they cook figures and threaten the media. There is no such thing as provisional results.

Interesting kadame. So you think results announced by PO should be provisional and Const RO makes the final call but Chebukati as presidential RO cannot audit those results? All I am getting is here is that you don't trust Chebukati. I don't see any problem with Chebukati receiving all results from all polling stations, vet/audit, tally and announce the results.

Apart from the law not allowing him to change the results, the system works better if you have a single source of information for the final result - the certified results publicly announced at the lower levels.  It makes it easy for everyone to keep up with the numbers and trends and know who is going to be announced winner, even if the Chebukati decides to take a week and consult before making the announcement - a ceremonial action really.  The math is not complicated as Kadame points out.

In the 2013 election, it took IEBC months to compile and publicize a final official tally.  The only reason I can think of was some numbers did not look right and had to be made to look right - maybe there is another one, but my brain hurts trying to imagine what it could be.  How they fixed the math remains a mystery, which goes against any claims of transparency.

Yep.  His only impactful decision on the result should be whether he has 10 small flags or a massive wall to wall flag behind him, maybe traditional dancers from 42 tribes, when he makes the announcement that is already known.

It also makes disputes easy to solve because you don't have rely on IEBC to make the information available.  If headquarters have a different summary, the authoritative reference should always be the lower certified result.

[RV Pundit]

If provisional electronic transmission works even for 2% of the polling station as it did in 2013 then you already know the winner - because like a survey - those polling station randomly reporting will reflect the overall results unless it very tight poll - but you'll have CORD and Kericho KANU like theory that somebody inject a GEOMTRIC Progression algorithm that keep the margin .

Rigging like happen in 2007 is easy to detect - where someone is leading by 1m - before certainly someone else catches up.

The constitution clearly talk about 1) provisional electronic and 2) final - certified results - Chebukati has to get the final certified election results of every polling station from every Returning Officer. Otherwise nobody want ODM like nomination where every candidate has their own RO announcing final results and issuing certificate. These are serious matters.

Once again rigging can happen in every stage. As of now we are in never ending distrust game where NASA keep shifting the goal post. Trust me if Jubilee say fine (which I think they have by letting NASA fry themselves in their own fat) - final results at const level - NASA will say NO It was we don't trust Hassan - we don't trust Mutunga - now we don't trust Chebukati - we don't trust Chiluba - and we don't even trust Major Oswago from Bondo.

Imagine if Chebukati or Chiluba was Kikiyu from Gatundu or Kalenjin . As it were they are luhyas - 2nd plank of NASA. Jubilee are not questioning their ethnicity.

Now the next game after NASA got this Maina Kiai wish of final result - is to distrust every Const Returning Officer with Kalenjin or Kikuyu name this is hilarious if it was not tragic..

If I was Chebukati I would not even appeal this -  knowing NASA are not coming with clean hands - I would deflect the blame to const ROs - and like Kivuitu say I am just announcing every crap as I receive them. This is what actually happen in 2007 where Kibaki made ROs dissappear (turn of their phones), cook figures again and held Kivuitu neck to announce the results as they came. Now we empowering ROS to do as they wish...and doing away with presidential verification & tallying center - at Bomasa - watched keenly by everyone.

How are you gonna hold 290 const ROs accountable for presidential vote? What if violence erupts and there is no count done there.

If I want to rig say Kiambu vote - I buy or intimidate the RO to announce 99% voted for Uhuru - he announced and it becomes final. If you disagree - you appeal later - all the fake parties agents and fake presidential agents will duly sign off those results - NASA doesn't have to sign it. There is actually no worry for RO when he reaches Nairobi with cooked certified final results. As gok - RO in opposition zone can also be made to announce any results - coz he has police protection - and can kick anybody out of the tallying center anytime.

we are not solving the problem - we are exacerbating it - instead of another extra level of scrutiny = where parties can complain to chebukati that results are cooked - we are tying his hands.kibaki had to threaten kivuitu. Now Uhuru if he wants doesn't have to. He has incumbency - prov admin, police, NIS and lots of money - to streamroll most of ROS - and to block any opposition leaning RO from playing games.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

If provisional electronic transmission works even for 2% of the polling station as it did in 2013 then you already know the winner - because like a survey - those polling station randomly reporting will reflect the overall results unless it very tight poll - but you'll have CORD and Kericho KANU like theory that somebody inject a GEOMTRIC Progression algorithm that keep the margin .


Rigging like happen in 2007 is easy to detect - where someone is leading by 1m - before certainly someone else catches up.


The constitution clearly talk about 1) provisional electronic and 2) final - certified results - Chebukati has to get the final certified election results of every polling station from every Returning Officer. Otherwise nobody want ODM like nomination where every candidate has their own RO announcing final results and issuing certificate. These are serious matters.


Once again rigging can happen in every stage. As of now we are in never ending distrust game where NASA keep shifting the goal post. Trust me if Jubilee say fine (which I think they have by letting NASA fry themselves in their own fat) - final results at const level - NASA will say NO It was we don't trust Hassan - we don't trust Mutunga - now we don't trust Chebukati - we don't trust Chiluba - and we don't even trust Major Oswago from Bondo.


Imagine if Chebukati or Chiluba was Kikiyu from Gatundu or Kalenjin . As it were they are luhyas - 2nd plank of NASA. Jubilee are not questioning their ethnicity.


Now the next game after NASA got this Maina Kiai wish of final result - is to distrust every Const Returning Officer with Kalenjin or Kikuyu name this is hilarious if it was not tragic..


If I was Chebukati I would not even appeal this -  knowing NASA are not coming with clean hands - I would deflect the blame to const ROs - and like Kivuitu say I am just announcing every crap as I receive them. This is what actually happen in 2007 where Kibaki made ROs dissappear (turn of their phones), cook figures again and held Kivuitu neck to announce the results as they came. Now we empowering ROS to do as they wish...and doing away with presidential verification & tallying center - at Bomasa - watched keenly by everyone.


How are you gonna hold 290 const ROs accountable for presidential vote? What if violence erupts and there is no count done there.


If I want to rig say Kiambu vote - I buy or intimidate the RO to announce 99% voted for Uhuru - he announced and it becomes final. If you disagree - you appeal later - all the fake parties agents and fake presidential agents will duly sign off those results - NASA doesn't have to sign it. There is actually no worry for RO when he reaches Nairobi with cooked certified final results. As gok - RO in opposition zone can also be made to announce any results - coz he has police protection - and can kick anybody out of the tallying center anytime.


we are not solving the problem - we are exacerbating it - instead of another extra level of scrutiny = where parties can complain to chebukati that results are cooked - we are tying his hands.kibaki had to threaten kivuitu. Now Uhuru if he wants doesn't have to. He has incumbency - prov admin, police, NIS and lots of money - to streamroll most of ROS - and to block any opposition leaning RO from playing games.

I agree NASA or whoever loses will probably complain anyway.  And they should if it is founded.  This approach also makes it easy for them(NASA or Jubilee) to point out their beef instead of arguing with a guy who made a decision in an opaque manner.  It also saves Chebukati the trouble of having to deploy GSU just to make the announcement.  Just trust the ROs.  Accountability rests not with individual RO's but IEBC - mistakes happen; if they are big enough, the courts are there to fix that.

Your concerns about 290 ROs going rogue are unfounded - I think the more real concern for those bent on rigging is how to pull it off with so many variables to control.  This kind of scenario happens regularly in the US without a hitch.  That is why CNN can call the election.

[RV Pundit]

Do you have evidence that cooking has been happening at National verification & tallying center or not. I find it hard to believe. Every RO is like chebukati - he has whole company of police officers at his disposal - and can pretty much kick anybody out of the const tallying center.

The good thing with national verification & tallying center - is that parties can complain to Chebukati with evidence from every polling station - if the RO goes rogue and announce his things - and Chebukati can say - how did you add that up? That doesn't add up correctly.

Now we are shifting the rigging game to un-vetted un-known ROs who don't care if they were given 5m to alter the results. At least we have vetted Chebukati. I rather trust him than some faceless RO .

I agree NASA or whoever loses will probably complain anyway.  And they should if it is founded.  This approach also makes it easy for them(NASA or Jubilee) to point out their beef instead of arguing with a guy who made a decision in an opaque manner.  It also saves Chebukati the trouble of having to deploy GSU just to make the announcement.  Just trust the ROs.  Accountability rests not with individual RO's but IEBC - mistakes happen; if they are big enough, the courts are there to fix that.

Your concerns about 290 ROs going rogue are unfounded - I think the more real concern for those bent on rigging is how to pull it off with so many variables to control.  This kind of scenario happens regularly in the US without a hitch.  That is why CNN can call the election.

[RV Pundit]

And it really hilarious comparing US or developed world election with ours. People in those places are not as corrupt as here. That is why election in US are conducted by local folks and results announced quickly. Kenya is set to spend  maybe 40-50Billion kshs because you simply cannot trust the system. Probably the most expensive election in the world....with biometrics, electronic transmission and long drawn process...that end of the day ....most of losers will not accept anyway.

Here you don't one lightening quick election results - you water to build more controls - you want people verifying everything.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Do you have evidence that cooking has been happening at National verification & tallying center or not. I find it hard to believe. Every RO is like chebukati - he has whole company of police officers at his disposal - and can pretty much kick anybody out of the const tallying center.

The good thing with national verification & tallying center - is that parties can complain to Chebukati with evidence from every polling station - if the RO goes rogue and announce his things - and Chebukati can say - how did you add that up? That doesn't add up correctly.

Now we are shifting the rigging game to un-vetted un-known ROs who don't care if they were given 5m to alter the results. At least we have vetted Chebukati. I rather trust him than some faceless RO .

I agree NASA or whoever loses will probably complain anyway.  And they should if it is founded.  This approach also makes it easy for them(NASA or Jubilee) to point out their beef instead of arguing with a guy who made a decision in an opaque manner.  It also saves Chebukati the trouble of having to deploy GSU just to make the announcement.  Just trust the ROs.  Accountability rests not with individual RO's but IEBC - mistakes happen; if they are big enough, the courts are there to fix that.

Your concerns about 290 ROs going rogue are unfounded - I think the more real concern for those bent on rigging is how to pull it off with so many variables to control.  This kind of scenario happens regularly in the US without a hitch.  That is why CNN can call the election.

Right now I don't have evidence for anything.  I am just saying we have to trust those guys.  We have to trust the vetted IEBC do a good job in deciding who to hire for those positions.  They are already entrusted with Senators, Women Reps etc, and they generally do a decent job. 

As you say, they can hypothetically be intimidated to do one thing at any level all the way to Chebukati.  The problem is that when it's done at Chebukati level, it can be done in a manner that permits the theft to go undetected, because he can make "corrections" that only he knows how.  If a rogue RO announces a wrong result, you don't have to depend on anything but the certified results from polling stations to show he was wrong.  It's riskier to rig at that level because it's visible and harder to coordinate a "clean" kill.

[MOON Ki]

According to iebc the supreme court already ruled on this as part of cord petition of 2013.

Yes, IEBC is correct that the Supreme Court already ruled on such matters.   The most recent ruling does in fact refer to that Supreme Court ruling.  Please read it carefully:

The Commission has no power to verify or confirm the results declared by the constituency returning officer.  This is what the Supreme Court statedOnce the returning officer makes a decision regarding the validity of a ballot or a vote, this decision becomes final, and only challengeable in an election petition.

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/

That seems clear enough.   And it refers to all results: MCA, Governor, MP, Presidential, etc., a point made in  the latest ruling:

a. president;The decisions of the returning officer on the validity or otherwise of a ballot paper or vote under this regulation shall be final except in an election petition

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/

A key point here is to note that the red also obviously includes the blue.   

You ask what happens in the case of questionable results:

and Chebukati is suppose to just accept them?

He may  "raise the alarm".  He may even (for a presidential election) ask the Supreme Court to get involved before any results are announced.    What he does not have the power to do is to reject any results, tinker with any results, etc.  He is like a private citizen who encounters a criminal going about his "work": he may blow a firimbi, effect a citizen's arrest and frogmarch the perp to the police station, etc. .... but he may not confiscate the perp's loot, carry out a trial, etc.    The Supreme Court ruling mentioned above makes things quite clear.

I encourage people to take a break from arguing and go read (carefully) both the relevant law and the latest ruling.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

According to iebc the supreme court already ruled on this as part of cord petition of 2013.

Yes, IEBC is correct that the Supreme Court already ruled on such matters.   The most recent ruling does in fact refer to that Supreme Court ruling.  Please read it carefully:

The Commission has no power to verify or confirm the results declared by the constituency returning officer.  This is what the Supreme Court statedOnce the returning officer makes a decision regarding the validity of a ballot or a vote, this decision becomes final, and only challengeable in an election petition.

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/

That seems clear enough.   And it refers to all results: MCA, Governor, MP, Presidential, etc., a point made in  the latest ruling:

a. president;The decisions of the returning officer on the validity or otherwise of a ballot paper or vote under this regulation shall be final except in an election petition

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/133874/

A key point here is to note that the red also obviously includes the blue.   

You ask what happens in the case of questionable results:

and Chebukati is suppose to just accept them?

He may  "raise the alarm".  He may even (for a presidential election) ask the Supreme Court to get involved before any results are announced.    What he does not have the power to do is to reject any results, tinker with any results, etc.  He is like a private citizen who encounters a criminal going about his "work": he may blow a firimbi, effect a citizen's arrest and frogmarch the perp to the police station, etc. .... but he may not confiscate the perp's loot, carry out a trial, etc.    The Supreme Court ruling mentioned above makes things quite clear.

I encourage people to take a break from arguing and go read (carefully) both the relevant law and the latest ruling.

Not having an adversarial relationship with the facts, I can't argue with the main points.  Your last paragraph actually raises an important bit.  Does that mean, Chebukati's job is not just to defend the outcome in court, but that he can also actually argue against it?  That he can be a party to an election petition on the side of a plaintiff?  Or even be the main plaintiff?

[MOON Ki]

Not having an adversarial relationship with the facts, I can't argue with the main points.  Your last paragraph actually raises an important bit.  Does that mean, Chebukati's job is not just to defend the outcome in court, but that he can also actually argue against it?  That he can be a party to an election petition on the side of a plaintiff?  Or even be the main plaintiff?

Perhaps I phrased that poorly; I'm not sure and I doubt that he could do anything directly.   Basically, the Supreme Court gave an Advisory Opinion in which it stated that it could entertain arguments before  the final results were issued:

It is our unanimous opinion that the validity of the Presidential election is not for determination only after the administrative pronouncement of the final result; at any stage in the critical steps of the electoral process, the Supreme Court should entertain a dispute as to validity.

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/85286

There is a lack of clarity as to who could actually bring forth the matter, but I imagine Chebukati could do it indirectly by getting an appropriate party to get involved.    The key point, though, is that, read together with the other rulings, Chebukati and his IEBC appear to be so constrained that the best they can hope for is the involvement of the courts where they think there is a major problem.  It has been suggested, for example, that if, say, some signed-for constituency results that show 110% of registered voters performing, then the IEBC should reject the results.    That seems reasonable, but what is the legal basis?   

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Not having an adversarial relationship with the facts, I can't argue with the main points.  Your last paragraph actually raises an important bit.  Does that mean, Chebukati's job is not just to defend the outcome in court, but that he can also actually argue against it?  That he can be a party to an election petition on the side of a plaintiff?  Or even be the main plaintiff?

Perhaps I phrased that poorly; I'm not sure and I doubt that he could do anything directly.   Basically, the Supreme Court gave an Advisory Opinion in which it stated that it could entertain arguments before  the final results were issued:

It is our unanimous opinion that the validity of the Presidential election is not for determination only after the administrative pronouncement of the final result; at any stage in the critical steps of the electoral process, the Supreme Court should entertain a dispute as to validity.

http://kenyalaw.org/caselaw/cases/view/85286

There is a lack of clarity as to who could actually bring forth the matter, but I imagine Chebukati could do it indirectly by getting an appropriate party to get involved.    The key point, though, is that, read together with the other rulings, Chebukati and his IEBC appear to be so constrained that the best they can hope for is the involvement of the courts where they think there is a major problem.  It has been suggest, for example, that if, say, some signed-for constituency results that show 110% of registered voters performing, then the IEBC should reject the results.    That seems reasonable, but what is the legal basis?   

Got ya.  Makes sense.  I guess if he has 110% turnout(or 95% for that matter) he just has to go with it.  If an aggrieved party comes forward with a petition, he can then choose to support it.

[Kadame5]

How would a 110% turnout be announced without anybody raising an alarm before, no agent anywhere? This is the kind of thing that should lead to an injunction immediately which should then be followed by an order for recount/retally etc. In the Bush vs Gore drama in 2000 I remember a bunch of courts being involved, from Florida to the US Supreme Court. I was too young to understand the nitty gritty but I recall the fiasco. I guess that's what happens in a functioning electoral system when there are disputes re the ballots etc. You don't just have one guy who handles the election decide on his own with his own formula how to sort the mess.

What I'm not clear on: the scenario Pundit presented. Everything is done well on the ground then in transit the certificate is replaced by a new fake one and presented to Chebukati. Is he allowed to insist on the result as announced (assuming there's clear proof) or just go ahead with whatever scrap of paper a returning officer hands over to him?

[MOON Ki]

What I'm not clear on: the scenario Pundit presented. Everything is done well on the ground then in transit the certificate is replaced by a new fake one and presented to Chebukati. Is he allowed to insist on the result as announced (assuming there's clear proof) or just go ahead with whatever scrap of paper a returning officer hands over to him?

Can he tell that it's a fake or not?   If he can, then there is no issue: he must not accept a fake.    The law does not permit him to get into certain issues regarding the numbers, but it does not prevent from authenticating signatures and so forth.  Indeed it is a requirement (explicit or implicit) that he verify the sources of the numbers; he can't just accept anything which says "signed, by returning officer X".

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

How would a 110% turnout be announced without anybody raising an alarm before, no agent anywhere? This is the kind of thing that should lead to an injunction immediately which should then be followed by an order for recount/retally etc. In the Bush vs Gore drama in 2000 I remember a bunch of courts being involved, from Florida to the US Supreme Court. I was too young to understand the nitty gritty but I recall the fiasco. I guess that's what happens in a functioning electoral system when there are disputes re the ballots etc. You don't just have one guy who handles the election decide on his own with his own formula how to sort the mess.

If 110% leads to an injuction, what about 90%?  Granted, one is literally impossible, the other is practically impossible.  Australia, where there is a mandatory voting law, has been able to get upto around 90% turnout.  Yet, that number would not raise hustles in Kenya.  I think if nobody cares, we have to live with it.

There are two types of phony.  The type you can detect right away, and the kind a person interested in rigging can thrive with.  A Chebukati level rigging operation will always make sure the numbers "add up".  But either case, still requires someone with standing to make the right complaint.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The jubilant has waded in by way of the mortician.

He does not put as much stock in the law as in the integrity of Chebukati.  Chebukati is trustworthy, who cares what the law says?, seems to be the thrust of his argument.

IEBC also shies away from any specific laws preferring to highlight the "alarming prospect of 290 petitions" without citing any supporting legal basis.

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/06/07/give-iebc-the-fi-nal-say-on-presidential-results-githu_c1575317

[GeeMail]

absurdity

For some reason I thought the lawyer's argument was the absurdity. Since when (apart from 2013 Mutungaroo) did potential volume of lawsuits determine the legality of an issue?