Dear Editor
From its pronouncements on the recount, the coalition expects two outcomes: (i) confirmation of its electoral victory, and (ii) exposure of PPP rigging in the districts the PPP won. Most recently, the AFC’s David Patterson spoke convincingly on both outcomes.
And while I support his case on (ii) above, I would advise the coalition that nothing must distract it and its election workers from attaining the first objective, i.e., verification of its victory. Its scrutineers at the 10 recount stations, therefore, must not get bogged down in prolonged arguments over, for example, spoilt votes (only 816 observed in Region Four, for example), as these likely affected all parties similarly. Nor should they chase after vague evidence of PPP cheating.
The far more important objective is to confirm its victory. And in that regard, the coalition must focus on a critical aspect of the recount. The process will not identify an election winner until extremely late or only at its very end. The coalition must not wait that long for the truth to be revealed; it must find a way to demonstrate far earlier in the process that GECOM’s previous numbers are credible (especially in Region Four) in terms of who won this election. The lesson learnt during the first attempt to tabulate the SOPs of Region Four at Ashmin’s building should not be ignored. Although 421 SOPs (48% of the total) easily passed muster, the subsequent disruptions of the process cast doubt on the eventual total tally and on the declared winner.
The coalition must not permit any such disruption or derailment of the recount to prevent the legitimisation of its victory. Even should there be no such trouble, it should not allow the opposition parties and critics to out-PR it as regards the trends and evidence in the early recount results. The coalition must proactively substantiate its claim of victory well before the final ballot boxes are opened.
In particular, it has to show that there was no inflation of its votes on the SOPs for Region Four. That the accusation of SOP tampering is a figment of the imagination of conspiracy theorists and the politically paranoid. To pursue this objective effectively, however, would require the release of its own or GECOM’s SOPs. Without a credible basis for comparison, I see no other way for the coalition to make its case early and thus avoid the severe risk of waiting on GECOM to complete the entire recount sometime in June or July. The coalition must know that others will not wait.
Regards
Sherwood Lowe
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_05_05_2020