Dear Editor,
If the APNU+AFC party mouthpieces’ opinions on what constitutes a credible election are to be taken seriously, Guyana may never have another. The decision by GECOM Chair Claudette Singh to conduct a semi-audit during a recount is causing the electorate to be misled by APNU+AFC activists as to what constitutes credible elections. Let us look at the brouhaha being made of Official Lists of Electors (OLE) as a prime example.
There are adequate identical copies of the OLE to be distributed for GECOM polling day staff and party polling agents. Use of the list is discretionary, some tick names of electors off when their names are announced at the door, some will do it when they are handed a ballot, some will look up from the morning sandwich and do nothing, the Presiding Officer (PO) is trained to tick names to ensure no elector tries to vote twice; but there is the ink-stained finger to prevent that and in my five rounds as a polling agent, I have never seen anyone bold enough to try. Do PO’s tick all the names of those who are given ballots? I cannot give an honest answer; Polling Agents have prescribed functions and powers in a polling station, none of them allow me to ask, ascertain, or examine a PO’s OLE. How can something polling agents are not empowered to scrutinize suddenly pertain to the credibility of the election? I can run through some simple scenarios to show any suggestion of credibility being tied to a ticked list is utter rubbish.
Suppose in a future election a PO does not tick a single name on a list? Do we throw out that Box and disenfranchise those voters. What happens if a PO ticks names and lets agents check his list and then does not pack it in the box? Sometimes PO’s ask party agents to return OLE’s at the end of the day, agents not familiar with the rules may comply, the PO then puts all the user lists in the box, how do we know which list is the PO’s? Suppose a PO does put his name on a list at the top, but I also write his name on the top of my list, and both end up in the box? The point of all these scenarios is to share practical experience of what can/could or does occur in polling stations.
There are other ‘discrepancies’ to deal with, for example, there is a polling station in Sophia where 81 votes were not counted ‘for want of mark’ which means that either the six-digit stamp was not working or some form of fraud occurred in this polling station. Given that there was a problem with the stamp at my station which we managed to get sorted and also of reports from other polling agents of similar issues, it will be interesting to see how GECOM treats with the issue. I do hope a decision is made before the box is opened and those ballots examined to reveal which party would benefit.
Editor, I do not see how the populace will ever trust GECOM in its current form; it has been thoroughly discredited by the actions of rogue employees, partisan commissioners, and an incompetent Chair. Five percent of the recount is done and the numbers match those of the SOP’s released to the public by the PPPC. There is no doubt about who won the election; APNU+AFC is engaged in a campaign to discredit the elections and GECOM. For the thousands of GECOM employees there must be trepidation as the institution faces a certain Commission of Inquiry soon; how an autonomous body could become so compromised is a question that must be answered. With its insistence on the self-audit cum recount, GECOM, much like Frankenstein’s monster seems intent on killing itself as revenge for being created.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Singh
