Dear Editor,
On the Boodoo debacle, I have come to the conclusion that Peeping Tom and I will have to agree to disagree. I remain firm in my knowledge that Mr Boodoo made no mistake, while Peeping Tom remains firm in his contention that it was a mistake.
Those positions answer his question: Why now? I observed that while GECOM was proceeding with its business of determining if there was a future for Boodoo with the Commission; the Peeping Toms were busy promoting Boodoo as a paragon of virtue and arguing the case for his reinstatement. It was against that background of their knowledge of what was happening internally and what had been previously made public that they were pursuing that course of action. My intervention was intended to reiterate the known and to amplify it, given the revisionist campaign that was being waged. That my intervention has gained the rapt attention of Peeping Tom, in particular, vindicates my decision.
In disagreeing with Peeping Tom, I make the following points:
1. There were no miscalculations or mistakes. There was a change in formula and the protocol for working out the allocation of seats.
The correct formula reads thus: the value of a seat is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast divided by the total number of seats.
2. The formula Mr Boodoo used was: the value of a top-up seat is equivalent to the total number of valid votes cast divided by the total number of top-up seats.
That is nothing but a reformulation of the formula. How could the Chief Election Officer of three elections not know that he had to calculate the value of a seat, rather than the value of a top-up seat, and how to do that calculation, which Peeping Tom rightly deemed to be so easy.
3. Having recast the formula, he then proceeded to change the manner in which the total allocation of seats was determined.
Having to use a different method should have alerted him to the error, if there was one. But since, for him, there was none he proceeded. Thus, instead of determining the value of a seat and the allocation of the seats by dividing each party’s number of votes attained by that value, he erroneously determined the allocation of top-up seats by dividing the total number of votes cast by the number of top-up seats. Top-up in itself means that which is allocated at the end to bring proportionality to the results.
This is a fundamental principle of our system. Having done that he then added the top-up and the constituency seats and applied the HARE highest remains quota to those results. At every stage he defied the formula and the manner in which it should be applied but Peeping Tom calls this a simple mistake, a substitution of one value for the other. What about the substitution of one procedure for the other?
4. Peeping Tom completely ignores the fact that none of these calculations were presented to the Commission. What was presented was the spread sheet with the allocation of votes and declaration forms including that of the mangled result. I repeat no document on how he arrived at the result was presented for the approval process. The Commissioners were expected to exercise trust and rubber stamp his already signed declarations. Mr Boodoo acted on the assumption of a fait accompli. He did not present documents for approval. He presented signed documents for ratification. This was the point of cover-up. There was nothing for checking, nothing to be sighted.
5. When on the face of the declarations and the raw results, having reduced the raw figures to percentages, I questioned the results, not based on any known calculations, just based on the simple principle of proportionality, Mr Boodoo stood his ground. He did not reflect and admit to an error. It was through insistence; reference to the law; and forced recalculation that the mischief was undone.
6. The system seemed not to have provided for the Commissioners, who according to Peeping Tom were responsible for determining the correctness of the calculations, to do, or check, any calculations, nor did it provide the material or tools for calculation. I intuitively took my calculator, for the first time, to GECOM, on that occasion.
7. As for Peeping Tom’s contention that any wrongdoing should have been dealt with in the wake of the results, he ignores the reality of GECOM’s configuration, and its decision-making processes, even as exemplified by the approximately four months incomplete process in relation to Boohoo’s future.
In closing, I agree that GECOM needs fixing, but it is like a cancer, the cancerous material has to be excised, even as the scientists battle with what are the causes. That at least provides a lease on life as one hopes for the cause to be eventually determined.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
