Readers Response

Dear Editor:
Having looked on with great interest at the outcome of this year's Guyana elections, I noted the many concerns and rebuttals about the integrity of the poll.
Without wishing to cast any doubt upon the veracity of the declared outcome I thought that it would be useful to conduct an 'Analytical Review' (AR) of the Election results. I am a Chartered Accountant (FCCA) with twenty five years experience. I am very experienced at preparing statutory accounts and conducting investigations utilising ARs.
An analytical review involves analysing significant ratios and trends for unusual changes and questionable items. To this end I have looked at the 2011 Election results and compared them with the 2006 Election.
I have attached a comparison table (all GECOM figures) of the election results for both the 2006 and 2011 Guyana Elections.
GECOM has declared that the PPP has secured the most votes at this year's poll. I am again stating for the record that I am not challenging the GECOM declaration.
However, I recall that PPPC spokesman, Robert Persaud lamented the failure of its supporters - mostly Guyanese of East Indian descent - to go the polls last Monday [Nov 28].
I noted the surge in support for APNU. I wondered if closer inspection would reveal how/why the 2011 results went the way they did. Bear in mind that most commentators posit the view that since 2006, the demographic make-up has changed and the overall population has shrunk.
Based upon the attached tables, these are some of my main observations:
1. Total votes cast were down in Regions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. This represents 6 out of the 10 regions. Region 9 was virtually unchanged.
2. The only regions showing an increase in votes cast were regions 3, 4 and 10. What must also be borne in mind is the fact that regions 3 and 4 are two of the three biggest regions in terms of the electorate. The other is region 6.
3. In the main wherever the overall vote was down the PPP vote was also down. Please see the comparative results for regions 1,2,5,6 and 8. So in five of the six regions where the vote was down, the PPP vote was down. This would seem to confirm Robert Persaud's conclusions.
4. When compared year on year, the PPP vote suffered a double-digit percentage fall in the following regions: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10. Five of these regions showed falls in overall votes (see point 1 above).
5. The PPP had only one increase in their vote and that was in region 9. I have concluded that unlike in other regions it may have benefited from picking up former ROAR votes. ROAR had its best showing in the 2006 elections in region 9.
6. The PPP's worst performance was in region 6 where it suffered a 23 percent decline in support. In every region where the PPP secured 4,000 or more votes in 2006, they suffered declines of between 14 percent and 23 percent.
Except for regions 3 and 4.
7. Excluding region 9 for the reason given above, and setting aside regions 3 and 4 for the time being, the PPP's average national decline in vote since 2006 was 15 percent. This is not insignificant.
8. Which brings me to regions 3 and 4. The first statistical anomaly I noted was that they were the only regions along with region 10 that showed increases in the overall votes cast.
9. Regions 3 and 4 as already stated are two of the three largest electoral regions in Guyana. I wondered what the explanation for them having increased votes was.
10. Interestingly enough, unlike the rest of the nation, regions 3 and 4 appeared to buck the trend in the PPP's decline in support. Whereas the national average was 15 percent, in region 3 the decline in support was only 4 percent. And in region 4 the corresponding decline was astonishingly only 2 percent.
11. Regions 3 and 4 had the largest absolute increase in voters. Regions 3 and 4 are two of the three largest electoral regions. It would mean therefore that small percentages here and there have major impacts overall.
12. In the 2006 election, the PPP received 97,000 votes combined in regions 3 and 4. In 2011, the PPP received 94,000. This is a miniscule drop in support. Even more so when the national average is 15 percent. This aspect of the election requires closer examination. If the national drop in support was reproduced in regions 3 and 4, the result would be very interesting indeed.
In conclusion, I wish to congratulate GECOM's staff and all those involved in the running of this year's elections. Theirs was not an easy task.
However looking in from the outside the contradictions so evident in regions 3 and 4 leaves one wondering.
Colin Bascom via email

December 7, 2011 issue
Readers' Response
Nation diminished by venom spewed at election campaign
Dear Editor: Ninety percent of the Guyanese electorate that cast their vote chose ethnicity as the main criteria of their choice. Such is their entitlement; however, the result is a defining consequence. History has clearly indicated in every event of national divisiveness, that cataclysmic occurrences are a natural corollary. We as a nation are the poorest in the hemisphere with the exception of Haiti. Our choices are indeed very strange in an attempt to disembark from the grips of poverty. The analyses will follow surely as night follows day as to which ethnic group did what and why they chose to act in the manner that they saw fit. I leave that to my competent and superbly qualified patriotic colleagues. However, a cardinal sin of human behaviour has been endorsed in this campaign and must be addressed by this nation as is required by the norms of decency and human integrity. We must never ever descend to depraved levels of spewing social venom on the good character of citizens where the facts clearly indicate otherwise. In this recent electoral campaign and no doubt in previous campaigns this seems to have been "the modus operandi". Specifically, Mr. Bharat Jagdeo et al in the Peoples Progressive Party sought to tear apart the good character of Mr. Moses Nagamootoo simply because Mr. Nagamootoo exercised his constitutional right to associate with a political party of his choice. The verbal attack was lewd, vulgar and uncalled for and none in any civilized country on the planet deserves this type of verbal ridicule especially from a sitting president of a country. The electorate registered its concern and the statistics confirm the government of the day losing its majority in a clearly defined ethnic showdown. However, there must be laws governing our social conduct and specific punitive consequences in place. This must never ever happen again in Guyana and the nation must act to ensure accordingly. We are a civilized nation and a part of the Free World. Kris Kooblall, Toronto.
An analytical review of the Guyana 2011 elections results
Dear Editor: Having looked on with great interest at the outcome of this year's Guyana elections, I noted the many concerns and rebuttals about the integrity of the poll. Without wishing to cast any doubt upon the veracity of the declared outcome I thought that it would be useful to conduct an 'Analytical Review' (AR) of the Election results. I am a Chartered Accountant (FCCA) with twenty five years experience. I am very experienced at preparing statutory accounts and conducting investigations utilising ARs. An analytical review involves analysing significant ratios and trends for unusual changes and questionable items. To this end I have looked at the 2011 Election results and compared them with the 2006 Election. I have attached a comparison table (all GECOM figures) of the election results for both the 2006 and 2011 Guyana Elections. GECOM has declared that the PPP has secured the most votes at this year's poll. I am again stating for the record that I am not challenging the GECOM declaration. However, I recall that PPPC spokesman, Robert Persaud lamented the failure of its supporters - mostly Guyanese of East Indian descent - to go the polls last Monday [Nov 28]. I noted the surge in support for APNU. I wondered if closer inspection would reveal how/why the 2011 results went the way they did. Bear in mind that most commentators posit the view that since 2006, the demographic make-up has changed and the overall population has shrunk. Based upon the attached tables, these are some of my main observations: 1. Total votes cast were down in Regions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. This represents 6 out of the 10 regions. Region 9 was virtually unchanged. 2. The only regions showing an increase in votes cast were regions 3, 4 and 10. What must also be borne in mind is the fact that regions 3 and 4 are two of the three biggest regions in terms of the electorate. The other is region 6. 3. In the main wherever the overall vote was down the PPP vote was also down. Please see the comparative results for regions 1,2,5,6 and 8. So in five of the six regions where the vote was down, the PPP vote was down. This would seem to confirm Robert Persaud's conclusions. 4. When compared year on year, the PPP vote suffered a double-digit percentage fall in the following regions: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 10. Five of these regions showed falls in overall votes (see point 1 above). 5. The PPP had only one increase in their vote and that was in region 9. I have concluded that unlike in other regions it may have benefited from picking up former ROAR votes. ROAR had its best showing in the 2006 elections in region 9. 6. The PPP's worst performance was in region 6 where it suffered a 23 percent decline in support. In every region where the PPP secured 4,000 or more votes in 2006, they suffered declines of between 14 percent and 23 percent. Except for regions 3 and 4. 7. Excluding region 9 for the reason given above, and setting aside regions 3 and 4 for the time being, the PPP's average national decline in vote since 2006 was 15 percent. This is not insignificant. 8. Which brings me to regions 3 and 4. The first statistical anomaly I noted was that they were the only regions along with region 10 that showed increases in the overall votes cast. 9. Regions 3 and 4 as already stated are two of the three largest electoral regions in Guyana. I wondered what the explanation for them having increased votes was. 10. Interestingly enough, unlike the rest of the nation, regions 3 and 4 appeared to buck the trend in the PPP's decline in support. Whereas the national average was 15 percent, in region 3 the decline in support was only 4 percent. And in region 4 the corresponding decline was astonishingly only 2 percent. 11. Regions 3 and 4 had the largest absolute increase in voters. Regions 3 and 4 are two of the three largest electoral regions. It would mean therefore that small percentages here and there have major impacts overall. 12. In the 2006 election, the PPP received 97,000 votes combined in regions 3 and 4. In 2011, the PPP received 94,000. This is a miniscule drop in support. Even more so when the national average is 15 percent. This aspect of the election requires closer examination. If the national drop in support was reproduced in regions 3 and 4, the result would be very interesting indeed. In conclusion, I wish to congratulate GECOM's staff and all those involved in the running of this year's elections. Theirs was not an easy task. However looking in from the outside the contradictions so evident in regions 3 and 4 leaves one wondering. Colin Bascom via email
< Greater Toronto	Editorial & Views >