Dear Editor,
A few weeks ago when I commented on the wrongness of Peeping Tom’s postulations on local government, he/she responded and prefaced that response by declaring that the response was an exceptional act, since directly responding to critiques of his/her columns was against the norm and editorial policy.
A few days ago, on the question of the calculation of the 2011 elections results, I had cause to once again refute Peeping Tom’s postulation. Within one day he/she responded. Apparently my critiques have occasioned a change in policy. I wonder why, and if so, is it a general shift or is it related to Alexander’s critiques?
His second response was equally wrong, in its conclusion, as was the first, although I have not yet penned my critique of his first response. I have noted that Peeping Tom has a penchant for theory but muddles its application in an attempt to arrive at a desired or predetermined outcome.
In his response on the Boodoo debacle, he got the HARE formula right. There is therefore no need for me to rehash the formula, except to note that in the first paragraph of the column he stated the correct number of seats that constitute the National Assembly – 65 seats. In the second paragraph of the second column he stated: “the only factors required are votes cast and seats” and on that basis concluded that Boodoo`s formula had to be right. He therefore conjectured that there must have been an error of calculation rather than the application of a wrong formula as I had indicated in my letter. In doing that Peeping Tom completely ignored my submission that one factor in the formula was replaced by another hence the change in formula and more than that the calculation protocol/procedure differed from that which he/she himself/herself outlined.
He correctly stated the correct number of seats ‒ 65 ‒ comprising the National Assembly and the number of seats ‒ 25 ‒ representative of the constituency/ regional component of the Assembly, and the 40 seats that are national top-up seats. While recognizing that there are three sets of seats to be contended with, he does not recognize that one set may misplace the other in the calculations and that that is exactly what Mr Boodoo did. This non recognition was significant, since the exchange of factors that I referred to was between 65 and 40. A possibility that he seemed to have ruled out a priori. His/her line of argument was that there was no change in formula or any of its factors.
Let me therefore join Peeping Tom in the application of the HARE formula and in so doing show how Mr Boodoo committed the act and how Peeping Tom’s conclusion could have the effect of hoodwinking the reading public.
In the national election the total number of valid votes cast was 342,236. The total number of seats was 65. Hence the value of a seat was, 342,236 votes divided by 65 seats, 5,265 votes.
The APNU accumulated 139,678 votes, the equivalent of, 139,678 votes divided by 5,265 votes, 26.52 seats.
The AFC accumulated 35,333 votes, the equivalent of, 35,333 votes divided by 5,265 votes, 6.71 seats. The PPP/C accumulated 166,340 votes, the equivalent of, 166,340 votes divided by 5,265 votes, 31.59 seats.
The total number of seats allotted at that stage was 26+6+31=63, since fractional seats could not be allotted. There were therefore two remaining seats to be allotted. This was done on the basis of the highest remainder after the 26:6:31 allocations. The AFC with 0.71 remaining was therefore allotted the first of the remaining seats and the PPP/C with 0.59 remaining, the second highest remainder, was allotted the second and last of the remaining seats. The final count was therefore APNU 26, AFC 7 and the PPP/C 32. A total of 65 seats. That was the eventual declared result, however, before the final seat allocation was done the parties had already been allotted 10:2:13 seats respectively based on the constituency count and the application of the HARE formula. It should be noted that the TUF only accumulated 0.2 % of the votes cast and did not qualify, not even for a remainder seat.
However in Boodoo`s original calculation he applied 40, the number of national or top-up seats, to the total number of votes cast and allotted the top up seats thus:
The value of a seat was equal to, 342,236 votes divided by 40 seats, 8,555 votes.
APNU therefore was allocated; 139,678 votes divided by 8,555 votes, 16.3 top-up seats.
AFC, 35,333 votes divided by 8,555 votes, 4.1 top-up seats
PPP/C, 166,340 votes divided by 8,555 votes, 19.4 top-up seats.
When those top-up seats were added to the already distributed 10:2:13 constituency seats, the allotted seats were APNU 26.3; AFC 6.1; and the PPP/C 32.4. A total of 64 allotted seats with one remainder. With the PPP/C`s 0.4 being the highest remainder, it was allotted the remaining seat hence Boodoo`s original result: APNU 26; AFC 6; and PPP/C 33.There was no error of calculation in either of the above calculations. The difference resulted from the use of a non-existent formula by Boodoo rather than the formula that Peeping Tom alluded to and acknowledged in his column.
Boodoo was wrong in what he did. Rather than calculate the overall result and subtract the number of constituency seats, already allotted, from the overall result to determine the allocation of the top-up seats, he excluded 65 from the determination of the value of a seat and attributed a value to a top-up seat which was then used to erroneously determine the distribution of the remaining seats.
He eventually admitted to using the latter formula which could only have been a concoction of his, since as Peeping Tom rightly said: the constituency seats were the first to be calculated; then the total allocation for each party determined; and the forty top-up seats allocated based on the difference between the total seats gained by each party and the constituency seats already allotted to the parties.
Peeping Tom in his/her analysis overlooked the possibility of one category of seats being substituted for another as the Boodoo scenario clearly exemplified. What should also be reiterated is that the calculations were not presented hence this misplacement or replacement of a factor would not have been obvious to anyone.
For those whose major concern seems to be why only now the disclosure, this occurrence was public knowledge since 2011. The breaking of my silence was only an act of reiteration and amplification in the face of recent attempts to revise the facts/truth at a juncture when a critical decision about Mr Boodoo`s future with the Commission is a current agenda item.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
