Who said the PPP turns off mix voters. Like you never heard of the goat man?
Who said the PPP turns off mix voters. Like you never heard of the goat man?
The PNC wins 40%. 30% of the population identifies as African. We know few Indians vote PNC which also gets relatively few Amerindian votes.
Clearly therefore the bulk of the mixed votes go to the PNC and many of the remainder to the AFC.
I see that to suggest that IndoCaribbean immigrants in NYC are doing about as well as are AfroCaribbean immigrants in your eyes "denigrates" Indians.
Clearly it must because you think that blacks are an inferior species of subhumans and so any suggestion that they do no worse than IndoCaribbeans must be an insult to the latter.
Daily you reveal that you are as every bit as racist as skeldonman and the others. I know you cant help yourself being an ardent PPP supporter.
Understand something. The PPP uses the SAME methods of ethnic exclusion that the PNC used. The fact that some AfroGuyanese are very successful DESPITE this is of no more relevance than the fact that some IndoGuyanese also succeeded under Burnham despite the widely publicized evidence of anti Indian behavior.
The PPP and the PNC are both creatures of our Ethnic Insecurity Dilemma. They use the insecurities of their rank and file supporters to justify dictatorial behavior to all, INCLUDING THEIR OWN supporters. One will note that the PNC treated AfroGuyanese opponents even worse than they treated Indians. Much as today the PPP does the same to IndoGuyanese opponents.
Now if that is denigrating Indians you have no idea what that word means.
That is your burden to bear, wasting time trying to figure out which race is doing better. As for you foolish PNC comparison, were they ever democratically elected?
You keep complaining about the PPP not having its political appointments comprising of Blacks, I would respond that if more Blacks join the PPP base then you would see their numbers in political appointments increasing. In fact they may even elevate to the leadership of the party. Back in Burnham and Hoyte days, the Indians were complaining that they couldn't get jobs on the lower rungs of ministries and other govt organizations, not political appointments.
Just as the PPP turns off blacks and mixed voters by promoting and printing the notion that blacks are criminals, violent, uneducated, unambitious and exist only to assault Indians.
The PPP don't have to take in action in that regard, just look at incidents Agricola and Linden, not to mention the many years of mo fiah slow fiah that destroyed many buildings in Georgetown and the beatings of Indians at in the city car parks.
If your speculation is true about mixed voters, then the PNC would have been in power a long time ago. 31.2% Afro and 16.7% mixed would sum up to 47%, way more than the 43% of Indians who would possibly vote for the PPP, not discounting the Indians that the aFC took away. Your fuzzy math is sickening.
Druggie I suggest to you that Indians had no more right to complain about racism than do blacks. The PPP wins only because there are more Indians than blacks. If blacks were the largest group then the PNC wopuld have been winning and its the PPP which would have had to rig.
So quit pretending as if we have true democracy in Guyana. We have two tribes, one larger than teh other and the election being just confirmation of that fact.
Druggie you are the one who is suffering from heart failure as you have been completely unable to prove that Indians are better off than blacks.
If the PNC ever wins Guyana, if Indians are completely unable to have influence obver govt policy I do not expect any screams from you. And that even includes any attempts by this PNC govt to ban the importation of Bollywood, and arrest any who attempt to import it illegally.
Do not rule out a potential PNC win because the Indian population is declining.
The PPP don't have to take in action in that regard, just look at incidents Agricola and Linden, not to mention the many years of mo fiah slow fiah that destroyed many buildings in Georgetown and the beatings of Indians at in the city car parks.
If your speculation is true about mixed voters, then the PNC would have been in power a long time ago. 31.2% Afro and 16.7% mixed would sum up to 47%, way more than the 43% of Indians who would possibly vote for the PPP, not discounting the Indians that the aFC took away. Your fuzzy math is sickening.
In 1991 mixed voters were only 11% of the population, so the fact that they are now larger means that more mixed babies have been born. Only the oldest group born after 1991 will eb able to vote. So Indians account for around 45-47% of the votes, vs Africans who are around 32%. It is likely that the African and mixed voting age population is around 45% and the PNC, drawing almost all of its votes from this group, wins 41%.
Druggie there is a difference between the VOTING AGE and the total population. With more mixed babies being born there are more mixed kids than mixed adults..
The PPP don't have to take in action in that regard, just look at incidents Agricola and Linden, not to mention the many years of mo fiah slow fiah that destroyed many buildings in Georgetown and the beatings of Indians at in the city car parks.
If your speculation is true about mixed voters, then the PNC would have been in power a long time ago. 31.2% Afro and 16.7% mixed would sum up to 47%, way more than the 43% of Indians who would possibly vote for the PPP, not discounting the Indians that the aFC took away. Your fuzzy math is sickening.
In 1991 mixed voters were only 11% of the population, so the fact that they are now larger means that more mixed babies have been born. Only the oldest group born after 1991 will eb able to vote. So Indians account for around 45-47% of the votes, vs Africans who are around 32%. It is likely that the African and mixed voting age population is around 45% and the PNC, drawing almost all of its votes from this group, wins 41%.
Druggie there is a difference between the VOTING AGE and the total population. With more mixed babies being born there are more mixed kids than mixed adults..
So now you change your tune? Now you are saying that larger Indian turnout was the difference? Nonsense, the AFC took at least 10% to win 7 seats as we know Blacks ran back to the PNC. Its either Blacks are voting PPP or the Mixed votes are split between PNc and PPP to make up the majority that the PPP gained in 2011.
In 1991 mixed voters were only 11% of the population, so the fact that they are now larger means that more mixed babies have been born. Only the oldest group born after 1991 will eb able to vote. So Indians account for around 45-47% of the votes, vs Africans who are around 32%. It is likely that the African and mixed voting age population is around 45% and the PNC, drawing almost all of its votes from this group, wins 41%.
Druggie there is a difference between the VOTING AGE and the total population. With more mixed babies being born there are more mixed kids than mixed adults..
So now you change your tune? Now you are saying that larger Indian turnout was the difference? Nonsense, the AFC took at least 10% to win 7 seats as we know Blacks ran back to the PNC. Its either Blacks are voting PPP or the Mixed votes are split between PNc and PPP to make up the majority that the PPP gained in 2011.
The mostly Indian cross-over to the AFC, if added back to the PPP, would place the PPP at 59%. Indians are not 59% of the population, so the numbers speak for themselves. Now, lets hear the cuss birds.
So now you change your tune? Now you are saying that larger Indian turnout was the difference? Nonsense, the AFC took at least 10% to win 7 seats as we know Blacks ran back to the PNC. Its either Blacks are voting PPP or the Mixed votes are split between PNc and PPP to make up the majority that the PPP gained in 2011.
Druggie comprehension is your main problem. I assume that you have a complete inability to analyze statistical data and come to some conclusion.
In 1991 the mixed population was 12%. By 2002 it reached 17%. Now while one can argue that the increasing Amerindian population is due to being the only group in Guyana which does not migrate, the same cannot be said for mixed people. So the only way that the mixed population can be increasing is through more mixed births.
This means that the ethnic composition of the ADULT population is different from the overall population. There are more African and Indian adults than kids. So the % of voters who will be Indian and African will be higher than their numbers in the overall population. Which means that Africans are maybe 32% of the voting age population, instead of 30%, and Indians maybe at around 45% instead of 43%.
So clearly the PPP, which wins the most Indian votes, has a head start as they do not need to win as many votes from non Indians, as does the PNC from non blacks. The PPP starts from around 40%, if we omit the Indians who vote for other parties, and the PNC starts with around 30% for similar reasons.
So the PPP gets a head start in terms of being able to win. If the numbers were reversed the PNC would win.
Druggie more than 25% of the PNC votes came from non blacks, and given that we know they perform poorly among Indians and Amerindians, then this support must come from mixed voters. The PPP tops up very heavily from Amerindian voters.
I hope that this is easy enough for you to understand.
Druggie I would think that even you would understand that its not healthy for a country where two ethnic groups, one at 45% of the voting base, and the other at 32%, live in almost complete conflict, with the losing group made to feel alienated. As Indians did under PNC rule, and now blacks under PPP rule.