Dissenting Opinions of Njoki and Ojwang

[Kadame7]

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. 

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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. 

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.

[vooke]

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?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

[vooke]

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?

[Kadame7]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

[Kadame7]

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

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.

[Kichwa]

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.

[bryan275]

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.

[vooke]

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.

[bryan275]

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]

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

[bryan275]

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]

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.

[MOON Ki]

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?   

[bryan275]

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.

[vooke]

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

[MOON Ki]

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.