If we use 47% of the voters as Indian and 5% of the voters as Amerindian, that was where the PPP won votes. Almost none from blacks, and few from mixed voters, and this is very obvious in who shows up at your PPP meetings.
OK Carib!
* So you are assuming the East Indian turnout in the 2011 election was 47% and the Amerindian turnout was 5%
* We know that the PPP received 48.6% of the total votes.
* Let's now work with these assumptions regarding the ethnic make up of the votes:
47% = East Indians
34% = Blacks
14% = Mixed
5% = Amerindians
* Now carib --with the PPP getting 48.6%---here is the likely breakdown by ethnicity:
83% of Indos voted for the PPP =(0.83 x 47%) = 39.01%
70% of Amerindians voted for the PPP =(0.7 x 5%) = 3.5%
27% of Mixed voted for the PPP =(0.27 x 14%) = 3.78%
7% of blacks voted for the PPP =(0.07 x 34%) = 2.38%
ADD ALL THAT TOGETHER
39.01% + 3.5% + 3.78% + 2.38% = 48.67%
* That's what the PPP received in 2011---48.6%
* And therefore the likely breakdown by ethnicity was:
83% of East Indians voted for the PPP
70% of Amerindians voted for the PPP
27% of Mixed voted for the PPP
7% of Blacks voted for the PPP
* THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE CARIB!
* The PPP did well among Mixed(27%) and managed to get 7% of the black votes.
Rev
BASEMAN: Build on that for 2015 using the same turn-out ratio but with the AFC de-fanged:
PPP scores
95% Indos = (0.95 x 47%) = 44.6%
Leaving all other assumption the same, means PPP (48.6% + 5.5%) = 54%, baseman's projections.
Taking another helicopter view, 48.6% in 2011, plus most of the 6% regained from the AFC, where do we stand, PPP 54%, conservatively.
The Region 11 voters who will travel down (giving most to the opposition) will hardly have an impact.
Baseman:
* I like your REASONING AND LOGIC.
* By the way, did you get permission from caribny to use that avatar ?
Rev
We needed an "Indian Burnham" and history would be different.