Form 34A or 34B, Which is Final?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Nowhere have I read anything from any judge ruling against verification. Nowhere! Chebukati had a duty to verify. What you are or should be asking is what is verification in this case.

Verification is NOT and can never be ALTERATION of the forms of results! It is limited to:
1. Ensuring that the forms / results come from the polling station and Constituency
2. The results / forms are not tampered with based on the security features embedded
3. The results declared at the polling stations are in agreement with or are reflected accurately on the Form 34B
4. The results / forms are legal in that they meet all the statutory requirements and conform to the rules and regulations of the IEBC such as signatures of the POs and ROs
5. etc

What is next?
6. What happens if the above is absent or not complied with?
The IEBC has several options:
A. Discard the results and treat the results a nullity (possibly call a new election in that area)
B. Seek consensus with the parties and if they agree on an option such as allow the forms, then go ahead if they don't revert to A (above)

There is No room for him to alter or purport to correct the forms. It is simply NOT Logical for him to do so. He lacks the basic knowledge to amend.

Is there any specific law or regulation that covers the bolded part?  To me, it seems like discarding is as good as changing the result from that constituency to 0.  That is a form of alteration.

[vooke]

It reconciles the requirement for NTC to tally and verify only when all Form 34As are in and the fact that 34Bs are final.

Yes it would.  But it would provide less checks and balances.  If NTC uses 34As instead, it could discover that some 34B's may not have incorporated all the relevant 34As.  In addition, I doubt any court would strike out such a declaration based on the primary document, all the confusion notwithstanding.

My point is because it's literally their job description.  There is no excuse for them to not figure this out.  It's not straighforward, but it's hardly the puzzle IEBC makes it out to be.

IEBC did not play confused; they followed one of the possible reading which was buttressed by Kiai Case and stuck with 34Bs. This is the natural and most sensible  reading. Yes 34As were required at NTC but not necessary for generating 34C.

34Bs are useful in some contexts.  They can give IEBC useful insight about their operations at the constituency levels.  Maybe some areas are more efficient and more accurate than others.  This is useful information.  Without NTC's own tally, there is nothing to measure them against.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

It reconciles the requirement for NTC to tally and verify only when all Form 34As are in and the fact that 34Bs are final.

Except there is no such requirement. Again you have willfully ignored Kiai case which said verification is only of constitutional threshold. Was there a better chance for the judges to express themselves on verification?

There is a requirement for all 34As to be present. Counting 34As and not changing 34Bs is not forbidden by the Kiai case.

You can verify the other way without carrying out any mischief.

Yes it would.  But it would provide less checks and balances.  If NTC uses 34As instead, it could discover that some 34B's may not have incorporated all the relevant 34As.  In addition, I doubt any court would strike out such a declaration based on the primary document, all the confusion notwithstanding.

I am saying that by using all 34As, NTC can carry out comparative analysis with results from the constituencies.  Additionally, because they have the benefit of both 34Bs and 34As, they can catch and fix errors in the 34B, without changing the original 34B.

My point is because it's literally their job description.  There is no excuse for them to not figure this out.  It's not straighforward, but it's hardly the puzzle IEBC makes it out to be.

IEBC did not play confused; they followed one of the possible reading which was buttressed by Kiai Case and stuck with 34Bs. This is the natural and most sensible  reading. Yes 34As were required at NTC but not necessary for generating 34C.

The sensible reading would have been cognizant of the emphasis placed on 34A as the primary document.  The least legally risky path is to use 34A, if there is confusion(which should not be there IMO).

34Bs are useful in some contexts.  They can give IEBC useful insight about their operations at the constituency levels.  Maybe some areas are more efficient and more accurate than others.  This is useful information.  Without NTC's own tally, there is nothing to measure them against.

They have been tallying and declaring at constituency just to repeat the same at NTC in addition to changing the constituency results for years.  This approach simply forces them to make the changes they want, on their own separate tally without changing constituency results.

[vooke]

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The way I understand it.  Previous, CTC results could be used at NTC, and altered for various reasons, from legit ones to illegitimate ones to come up with the final result which was ultimately matched perfectly with CTC results altered and all.  The effect was, the original constituency results as initially tallied disappeared, hence the term provisional results.

Now?  The final result at NTC can be generated with the benefit of 34Bs and 34As.  But they cannot be changed, even if the final result reflects differences(from human error).  Ergo, they remain part of the record as constituency results, and are thus final, not provisional.

[vooke]

The way I understand it.  Previous, CTC results could be used at NTC, and altered for various reasons, from legit ones to illegitimate ones to come up with the final result which was ultimately matched perfectly with CTC results altered and all.  The effect was, the original constituency results as initially tallied disappeared, hence the term provisional results.

Now?  The final result at NTC can be generated with the benefit of 34Bs and 34As.  But they cannot be changed, even if the final result reflects differences(from human error).  Ergo, they remain part of the record as constituency results, and are thus final, not provisional.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The way I understand it.  Previous, CTC results could be used at NTC, and altered for various reasons, from legit ones to illegitimate ones to come up with the final result which was ultimately matched perfectly with CTC results altered and all.  The effect was, the original constituency results as initially tallied disappeared, hence the term provisional results.

Now?  The final result at NTC can be generated with the benefit of 34Bs and 34As.  But they cannot be changed, even if the final result reflects differences(from human error).  Ergo, they remain part of the record as constituency results, and are thus final, not provisional.

It makes sense when you use the ordinary unembellished meaning of the words.

Final: coming at the end of a series.
-- last, closing, concluding, finishing, end, terminating, ultimate, eventual

CTC results are final at the constituency level.  You do not get a different set of constituency results after that.

Provisional: arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later.

CTC results will remain unchanged even if you get the final tally from the primary document.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke,

Reading the SCOK ruling on Pg 124.  The impression I am getting is that NTC should verify(not against 34A).  After that they tally 34B.  At the moment they make the declaration, all 34As should be available for any interested observer.

Therefore the drill seems to be to use 34B to generate the final result.  Chebukati's declaration was invalid because not all 34As were available at the time.  If he had all of them, the declaration would have been valid in law.  Regardless of the ramifications(including a wrong outcome on the basis of 34As which could be cured in court).  If the 34Bs were based on all 34As, as IEBC would have us believe, then most likely the outcome was correct; but they could not show that they had all 34As.

More yet, from the ruling on paragraph 290, it looks like 34C would still include 34As like the old ones.  It looks like the NTC should make a tally(or just a list) of 34As that go into 34B.  The 34Bs are not mere data(contrary to what I suggested above), they are the ones to go into the tally that will be declared.  The NTC tally is the mere data.

In a nutshell, they have been told, just tally it the way you used to do it, with one exception; don't change the 34Bs.  I think they used to go through the 34Bs(or their analogue) and make fixes as required.  But now they can't do that.  And they(the commission CTC/NTC/... compendium) must show that all the 34As were there.

Other than the finding of illegality of the declaration, which I agree with, the rest of this is labyrinthine.  If I am having trouble holding this together in my head, I am sure quite a few others are.  It's not so obvious after all.  This stuff needs to be more explicitly spelled out.  Something like The NTC should tally and verify the 34Bs(this should be spelled out).  And don't declare the result without all 34As available to the public. Then declare the tally from the 34Bs.  The value of the 34As is to make it easier for interested parties to be able to make quick decisions on if they have a case to petition or not.

IEBC should be front and center trying to get this simplified before the next election.  But all we see are memos, meeting in fancy hotels in Naivasha, getting ready to self audit their servers ...  And they should incorporate all parties, including seeking advice from the SCOK.  This should be the easiest and least controversial change among all the parties.

In the US, the results of the states are final.  The Electoral College meets and actualizes them.  Nobody in DC tries to tinker with them.  I think that is what they were aiming for with the CTC finality.  But they still held onto the NTC being able to tinker with things.

[vooke]

It makes sense when you use the ordinary unembellished meaning of the words.

Final: coming at the end of a series.
-- last, closing, concluding, finishing, end, terminating, ultimate, eventual

CTC results are final at the constituency level.  You do not get a different set of constituency results after that.

Provisional: arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later.

CTC results will remain unchanged even if you get the final tally from the primary document.

[Globalcitizen12]

Semantics..if revenue is delivered from a contract between seller and buyer..then payment by buyer where there is no contract cannot be called revenue ..it is chicken and egg situation..there is letter, spirit and intention of certain laws ..so logic must be used to interpret these laws, rules and requirements..if form 34 a is deficient then form 34b cannot be without deficiency unless the law provides for it's remediation..the judges could not verity the results ..so the declared the exercise null and void..simple verification would say that I can go to the contract and  know what the buyer and seller terms are ..if I cannot see that find money in the bank and someone claiming it is revenue I would ask for proof

[vooke]

vooke,

Reading the SCOK ruling on Pg 124.  The impression I am getting is that NTC should verify(not against 34A).  After that they tally 34B.  At the moment they make the declaration, all 34As should be available for any interested observer.

Therefore the drill seems to be to use 34B to generate the final result.  Chebukati's declaration was invalid because not all 34As were available at the time.  If he had all of them, the declaration would have been valid in law.  Regardless of the ramifications(including a wrong outcome on the basis of 34As which could be cured in court).  If the 34Bs were based on all 34As, as IEBC would have us believe, then most likely the outcome was correct; but they could not show that they had all 34As.

More yet, from the ruling on paragraph 290, it looks like 34C would still include 34As like the old ones.  It looks like the NTC should make a tally(or just a list) of 34As that go into 34B.  The 34Bs are not mere data(contrary to what I suggested above), they are the ones to go into the tally that will be declared.  The NTC tally is the mere data.

In a nutshell, they have been told, just tally it the way you used to do it, with one exception; don't change the 34Bs.  I think they used to go through the 34Bs(or their analogue) and make fixes as required.  But now they can't do that.  And they(the commission CTC/NTC/... compendium) must show that all the 34As were there.

Other than the finding of illegality of the declaration, which I agree with, the rest of this is labyrinthine.  If I am having trouble holding this together in my head, I am sure quite a few others are.  It's not so obvious after all.  This stuff needs to be more explicitly spelled out.  Something like The NTC should tally and verify the 34Bs(this should be spelled out).  And don't declare the result without all 34As available to the public. Then declare the tally from the 34Bs.  The value of the 34As is to make it easier for interested parties to be able to make quick decisions on if they have a case to petition or not.

IEBC should be front and center trying to get this simplified before the next election.  But all we see are memos, meeting in fancy hotels in Naivasha, getting ready to self audit their servers ...  And they should incorporate all parties, including seeking advice from the SCOK.  This should be the easiest and least controversial change among all the parties.

In the US, the results of the states are final.  The Electoral College meets and actualizes them.  Nobody in DC tries to tinker with them.  I think that is what they were aiming for with the CTC finality.  But they still held onto the NTC being able to tinker with things.

6. THAT I am aware that the law required the results of the polling stations to be tallied in respect of each candidate; to be recorded on Form 34A, which was to be scanned and together the record of results transmitted electronically to the Constituency Returning Officer and the National Tallying Centre, in order to secure that the results declared at every level are accountable, verifiable and credible.

Kassait

7. THAT in response to Paragraph 6, the correct position is that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai, & 5 Others, ruled that the electronically transmitted image of Form 34B is the final result for the Presidential Election with respect to each Constituency and it is therefore erroneous and incorrect to say, as alleged in the Supporting Affidavit, that Forms 34A from the polling station were the final results.

[Globalcitizen12]

You guys have the time to read the judgement..how much of you waking life do you devote to this nonsense? I got find another life coz it seems you all have loads of free time

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke,

Reading the SCOK ruling on Pg 124.  The impression I am getting is that NTC should verify(not against 34A).  After that they tally 34B.  At the moment they make the declaration, all 34As should be available for any interested observer.

Therefore the drill seems to be to use 34B to generate the final result.  Chebukati's declaration was invalid because not all 34As were available at the time.  If he had all of them, the declaration would have been valid in law.  Regardless of the ramifications(including a wrong outcome on the basis of 34As which could be cured in court).  If the 34Bs were based on all 34As, as IEBC would have us believe, then most likely the outcome was correct; but they could not show that they had all 34As.

More yet, from the ruling on paragraph 290, it looks like 34C would still include 34As like the old ones.  It looks like the NTC should make a tally(or just a list) of 34As that go into 34B.  The 34Bs are not mere data(contrary to what I suggested above), they are the ones to go into the tally that will be declared.  The NTC tally is the mere data.

In a nutshell, they have been told, just tally it the way you used to do it, with one exception; don't change the 34Bs.  I think they used to go through the 34Bs(or their analogue) and make fixes as required.  But now they can't do that.  And they(the commission CTC/NTC/... compendium) must show that all the 34As were there.

Other than the finding of illegality of the declaration, which I agree with, the rest of this is labyrinthine.  If I am having trouble holding this together in my head, I am sure quite a few others are.  It's not so obvious after all.  This stuff needs to be more explicitly spelled out.  Something like The NTC should tally and verify the 34Bs(this should be spelled out).  And don't declare the result without all 34As available to the public. Then declare the tally from the 34Bs.  The value of the 34As is to make it easier for interested parties to be able to make quick decisions on if they have a case to petition or not.

IEBC should be front and center trying to get this simplified before the next election.  But all we see are memos, meeting in fancy hotels in Naivasha, getting ready to self audit their servers ...  And they should incorporate all parties, including seeking advice from the SCOK.  This should be the easiest and least controversial change among all the parties.

In the US, the results of the states are final.  The Electoral College meets and actualizes them.  Nobody in DC tries to tinker with them.  I think that is what they were aiming for with the CTC finality.  But they still held onto the NTC being able to tinker with things.

6. THAT I am aware that the law required the results of the polling stations to be tallied in respect of each candidate; to be recorded on Form 34A, which was to be scanned and together the record of results transmitted electronically to the Constituency Returning Officer and the National Tallying Centre, in order to secure that the results declared at every level are accountable, verifiable and credible.

Kassait

7. THAT in response to Paragraph 6, the correct position is that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017: Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission v. Maina Kiai, & 5 Others, ruled that the electronically transmitted image of Form 34B is the final result for the Presidential Election with respect to each Constituency and it is therefore erroneous and incorrect to say, as alleged in the Supporting Affidavit, that Forms 34A from the polling station were the final results.

Kiai case did not free him from ensuring the availability of all 34As at declaration.  I am sure if there were only scores of them missing, his declaration might have been upheld.

Parliament should be fixing the laws.  The only problem is the jubilant is planning to eliminate electronic transmission at the polling station.  That is problematic on several levels.

[vooke]

Kiai case did not free him from ensuring the availability of all 34As at declaration.  I am sure if there were only scores of them missing, his declaration might have been upheld.

Parliament should be fixing the laws.  The only problem is the jubilant is planning to eliminate electronic transmission at the polling station.  That is problematic on several levels.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Kiai case did not free him from ensuring the availability of all 34As at declaration.  I am sure if there were only scores of them missing, his declaration might have been upheld.

Parliament should be fixing the laws.  The only problem is the jubilant is planning to eliminate electronic transmission at the polling station.  That is problematic on several levels.

I am thinking laws that forbid IEBC from electronic transmission from polling stations and sharing the same on a web portal, are iffy.  They may end up being held up in hearings in an Odunga court(part of same democratic system) to determine their constitutionality, especially if it can be demonstrated that the intention is to make the elections more opaque in order to permit tyranny of numbers to work.  The courts may also be asked to determine the question of how changing laws about a process that is already underway on the basis of older laws affects it.  Can the rules be changed in the middle of the game? kind of question.  It could be something that goes against the spirit of the constitution.

[vooke]

I am thinking laws that forbid IEBC from electronic transmission from polling stations and sharing the same on a web portal, are iffy.  They may end up being held up in hearings in an Odunga court(part of same democratic system) to determine their constitutionality, especially if it can be demonstrated that the intention is to make the elections more opaque in order to permit tyranny of numbers to work.  The courts may also be asked to determine the question of how changing laws about a process that is already underway on the basis of older laws affects it.  Can the rules be changed in the middle of the game? kind of question.  It could be something that goes against the spirit of the constitution.

[bryan275]

I am thinking laws that forbid IEBC from electronic transmission from polling stations and sharing the same on a web portal, are iffy.  They may end up being held up in hearings in an Odunga court(part of same democratic system) to determine their constitutionality, especially if it can be demonstrated that the intention is to make the elections more opaque in order to permit tyranny of numbers to work.  The courts may also be asked to determine the question of how changing laws about a process that is already underway on the basis of older laws affects it.  Can the rules be changed in the middle of the game? kind of question.  It could be something that goes against the spirit of the constitution.

Gents,

Let's not forget the reason why we the people decided that all ballots must be counted in situ, and technology used to transmit in the first instance.   

[vooke]

Termie
Baba during this presser is saying that there should be no verification at Bomas since CTC results are final



Negroes are still confused

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Negroes are still confused

I think the only verification at NTC is ensuring there are enough 34As to support the outcome.  I think that is the purpose of the requirement of 34As.  When things are running smoothly it should be a very brief exercise. 

The African is hopeless at precise communication.  It could explain why particle physics has not found a niche on the continent even as creative arts enjoys a boom.

[vooke]

Mighty glad Chebu has .org moles who guided him on his petition on this very issue
http://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/politics/Guide-me-on-result-form-errors--Chebukati-asks-Supreme-Court-/3126390-4127574-wugsxgz/index.html

Can't wait for the Court's legal circus about it