Francis Nyenze Won with 54%

[Omollo]

• Tweet

Here:

[RV Pundit]

Nonsense.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I hope this 54% argument is not presented in court.  While we already know the outcome(this court is inferior to the 2013 SCOK), I don't think the 54% thing will be a good use of limited time to shine a light on the shortcomings of the electoral system and the things we need to fix.

[Kadame7]

I hope this 54% argument is not presented in court.  While we already know the outcome(this court is inferior to the 2013 SCOK), I don't think the 54% thing will be a good use of limited time to shine a light on the shortcomings of the electoral system and the things we need to fix.

I agree. While it is an interesting coincidence, a pattern by itself does not prove anything.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I hope this 54% argument is not presented in court.  While we already know the outcome(this court is inferior to the 2013 SCOK), I don't think the 54% thing will be a good use of limited time to shine a light on the shortcomings of the electoral system and the things we need to fix.

I agree. While it is an interesting coincidence, a pattern by itself does not prove anything.

Yep.  The one I find intriguing though?  The data in the portal.  I have no specific expectation of how it should look, but I thought maybe some visible variations would be visible even if there was trend. 

Pundit says it's because it's a perfect random sample.  Without seeing a list of the polling stations and the times their data rolls in, this is pure speculation.  In any case, in the early going, Jubilant strongholds especially in RV, Bomet, Kericho... were faster in releasing the data.  So I hope to see that information brought out at some point in this petition.

[Kadame7]

I hope this 54% argument is not presented in court.  While we already know the outcome(this court is inferior to the 2013 SCOK), I don't think the 54% thing will be a good use of limited time to shine a light on the shortcomings of the electoral system and the things we need to fix.

I agree. While it is an interesting coincidence, a pattern by itself does not prove anything.

Yep.  The one I find intriguing though?  The data in the portal.  I have no specific expectation of how it should look, but I thought maybe some visible variations would be visible even if there was trend. 

Pundit says it's because it's a perfect random sample.  Without seeing a list of the polling stations and the times their data rolls in, this is pure speculation.  In any case, in the early going, Jubilant strongholds especially in RV, Bomet, Kericho... were faster in releasing the data.  So I hope to see that information brought out at some point in this petition.

That's different from the 54% though. For one, they are not all exactly 54% (the cited examples) and I don't think they are more than ten of them. Even if one might suspect something, without someone calculating their improbability and presenting that, I don't think if I were judging, I would put stock in that. If it was an exact figure repeated several times? Sure! But there's enough variation in these percentage figures to make me not see it as good evidence for the claim made if not backed by evidence that they were highly improbable.

The stabilized difference, what you're talking about, is another issue. I don't know about statistics though so I don't know about the arguments put forth either for/against an unnatural trend.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I hope this 54% argument is not presented in court.  While we already know the outcome(this court is inferior to the 2013 SCOK), I don't think the 54% thing will be a good use of limited time to shine a light on the shortcomings of the electoral system and the things we need to fix.

I agree. While it is an interesting coincidence, a pattern by itself does not prove anything.

Yep.  The one I find intriguing though?  The data in the portal.  I have no specific expectation of how it should look, but I thought maybe some visible variations would be visible even if there was trend. 

Pundit says it's because it's a perfect random sample.  Without seeing a list of the polling stations and the times their data rolls in, this is pure speculation.  In any case, in the early going, Jubilant strongholds especially in RV, Bomet, Kericho... were faster in releasing the data.  So I hope to see that information brought out at some point in this petition.

That's different from the 54% though. For one, they are not all exactly 54% (the cited examples) and I don't think they are more than ten of them. Even if one might suspect something, without someone calculating their improbability and presenting that, I don't think if I were judging, I would put stock in that. If it was an exact figure repeated several times? Sure! But there's enough variation in these percentage figures to make me not see it as good evidence for the claim made if not backed by evidence that they were highly improbable.

The stabilized difference, what you're talking about, is another issue. I don't know about statistics though so I don't know about the arguments put forth either for/against an unnatural trend.

That's the one I am talking about.  The steady difference.  There might be variations, but the independent variables may be set in such a way as to smooth those over.  You know like only including data points separated by many hours - I never got any answer to this question.  The source and time of the information should clear that up - or potentially raise other questions. 

In a truly random situation, you'd assume the voters are distributed evenly across geographical regions.  A random selection would then almost always come up with that final difference ratio.  In Kenya, the distribution of jubilants and NASA supporters is not random over space.  I think, with a few exceptions, jubilant areas are better placed to release the information faster.  So you would see a jubilant haymaker in the intial rounds and then gradual narrowing of the difference by NASA.

Again, pure speculation on my part.  I hope IEBC releases this data freely.

[RV Pundit]

Bunch of morons.Elog did a sample and came with nearly the same figure.Why would Bomet or Kericho report early.The stations that report early are those with few numbers..prisons..for example with 10 voters will count and by 5:10 should be ready.Each of 41k Polling station reported as soon as they were ready.This time round IEBC began with presidential vote so results came in fast.The polling station reporting would be random national and would reflect the final score...it started with 54 went to 60 then settled at 54.

[RV Pundit]

In fact I was here when you highlighted the first 50 polling stations. The thread is so somewhere

[RV Pundit]

My hunch is polling station that opened early, had few votes, counted as soon as 5pm hit and were soon reporting.. randomly national

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

In fact I was here when you highlighted the first 50 polling stations. The thread is so somewhere

In those early hours I was able to pull up some info into a spreadsheet.  If you look at the derivative of each line on that "controversial" graph, Jubilee had a haymaker in the early moments.  NASA narrowed it down towards the end where it petered out into a constant gap.

This is the link you might have in mind.

The bulk of the counties with completed polling stations over 20% are in Bomet(J), Nandi(J), Baringo](J), Tharaka Nithi(J), Kericho(J), West Poko(J), Uasin Gishu(J), Makueni(N), Kisumu(N), Samburu(J), Elgeyo Marakwe(J) in that order.

[GeeMail]

54%is an actual figure that one can base a proper legal argument on considering the persons benefitting from the algorithm. Nyenze, Sonko, Mutua, Ole Dengu... There is a clean pattern. Circumstantial but arguable. It is not the only argument NASA will make. To make the case however you will also need the IEBC server. A good geek should be able to locate the algorithm. Luckily most computers have inbuilt systems that will show if IEBC attempts tovtamper with them. I can almost bet someone will want to do that or even replace the servers.

[bryan275]

54%is an actual figure that one can base a proper legalargument on considerinthe persons benefitting from the algorithm. Nyenze, Sonko, Mutua, Ole Dengu... There is a clean pattern. To make the case however you will also need the IEBC server. A good geek should be able to locate the algorithm. Luckily most computers have inbuilt systems that will show if IEBC attempts tovtamper with them. I can almost bet someone will want to do that or even replace the servers.

I bet you that either a burglary or a massive fire will put those Inc servers beyond a systems auditors' hands.  We're dealing with a serious criminal enterprise

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

54%is an actual figure that one can base a proper legalargument on considerinthe persons benefitting from the algorithm. Nyenze, Sonko, Mutua, Ole Dengu... There is a clean pattern. To make the case however you will also need the IEBC server. A good geek shoukd be able to locatecthe algorithm. Luckily most computers have inbuilt systems that will show if IEBC attempts tovtamper with them.

I am sure there is a pattern; maybe one even stronger than this "54%" thing.  You can always find one, if you look closely at numbers and try.  That is the weakness of the so-called algorithm argument. 

The reason I would want access to their information systems is for the actual data(when, from which KIEMS kit, location etc).  Purely a public audit.  It may or may not result further questions.  Not an algorithm. 

[vooke]

Algorithms,hacking, good for bar talk and rallies but absolutely bullshiet in court. They rank higher than fake moon landing and chemtrails in my bullshiet meter

Termie you're right. Important questions
1. How many KIEMS kits transmitted both keyed in data and scans and when, how many didn't .
2. How those stations which didn't transmit, did actually transmit
3. What took them that long
4. Total voters not identified by KIEMS who voted if at all.

The election was bloody expensive too expensive for these hitches

KPMG did a good job on the register audit, I think they should do another audit.

[bryan275]

Algorithms,hacking, good for bar talk and rallies but absolutely bullshiet in court. They rank higher than fake moon landing and chemtrails in my bullshiet meter

Termie you're right. Important questions
1. How many KIEMS kits transmitted both keyed in data and scans and when, how many didn't .
2. How those stations which didn't transmit, did actually transmit
3. What took them that long
4. Total voters not identified by KIEMS who voted if at all.

The election was bloody expensive too expensive for these hitches

KPMG did a good job on the register audit, I think they should do another audit.

You're deliberately ignoring the criminal intentions of the vote riggers.  I honestly believe that the algorithm produced the desired result before creating the "supporting" documents to fit the crime. 

We cannot be too academic about a process that was deliberately defeated. 

[Kadame7]

54%is an actual figure that one can base a proper legal argument on considering the persons benefitting from the algorithm. Nyenze, Sonko, Mutua, Ole Dengu... There is a clean pattern. Circumstantial but arguable. It is not the only argument NASA will make. To make the case however you will also need the IEBC server. A good geek should be able to locate the algorithm. Luckily most computers have inbuilt systems that will show if IEBC attempts tovtamper with them. I can almost bet someone will want to do that or even replace the servers.

Yes, that's a good point: the beneficiaries don't appear to be perfectly random. Still, at most I might be convinced to inquire further, perhaps to order an audit, get those logs. It's eyebrow raising ie suspicious, but not good enough to establish a fact with reasonable certainty. Good evidence, in my view, should be things that are not easily explained in an innocent way. At the same time, evidence is also cumulative. It's not that every single piece must by itself be bullet proof to be weighed in. If enough probable/improbable things are established, pointing in one direction, they can cumulatively be very good evidence for a claim especially if the threshold is not 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

[Omollo]

The vooke line of argument is typical of Uthamaki. Their tactic is to sow doubt on an obvious and visible fact. They have launched a two pronged attack. On one hand the propaganda casting doubt and making anybody talking about it appear stupid and unreasonable. On the other leading the discussion on the "results" as if there was an election.

You can see Uhuru convening parliament while denying he ever abused state resources in campaigns. The petition just shows we are dealing with infidels who have lost the right to any protections. They should be dealt with mercilessly.

[RV Pundit]

You are true nut case.

You're deliberately ignoring the criminal intentions of the vote riggers.  I honestly believe that the algorithm produced the desired result before creating the "supporting" documents to fit the crime. 

We cannot be too academic about a process that was deliberately defeated. 

[RV Pundit]

Why would an algorithm produce the same results and expose itself; unless it was coded by an idiot. If you analyse 2013 results and 2017 I am sure you'll not see any difference. If you're looking for a pattern; you'll get one. The same way many people have been spoting Jesus on trees, stones, dreams and etc.

The vooke line of argument is typical of Uthamaki. Their tactic is to sow doubt on an obvious and visible fact. They have launched a two pronged attack. On one hand the propaganda casting doubt and making anybody talking about it appear stupid and unreasonable. On the other leading the discussion on the "results" as if there was an election.

You can see Uhuru convening parliament while denying he ever abused state resources in campaigns. The petition just shows we are dealing with infidels who have lost the right to any protections. They should be dealt with mercilessly.