The PPP engage blacks by sharing milk, sitting down with a political organization who claim to represent Blacks is not the way to go. They need to go directly to the people, however Blacks are known to vote race and they continue to do so despite 27 years of punishment under the PNc.  Slowly but surely though the PPP are chipping away at the PNC support, it is only because the AFC drew away PPP supporters that we see the problems in parliament today. 

Quote by BGurd-See

"....it is only because the AFC drew away PPP supporters that we see the problems in parliament today"

That dam young party EH?

Sure seems as though that small, new, young party got dem baies and you by the baltz?  HAHAHAHAHA

NO!

There, happy now you sicko?

How can you say that the PPP is making inroads.  In 2006 the PNC won 115k votes.  In 2011 they won 139k votes.  An increase of 24k.

The PPP won 183k votes in 2006, but only 166K in 2011.  A LOSS of 17k votes.

The AFC INCREASED its votes from 28k in 2006 to 35k in 2011.

So please suggest what proof that you have that the PPP is making inroads.

 Note that 342k people voted in 2011 vs 336k in 2006.  So please do not say voter apathy.  MORE people were motivated to vote in 2011 and yet the PPP won FEWER votes.

Given that BOTH the PPP and the PNC derive support from a partiucalr racial group, and that the majority of both races continue to support only one party.

WHY DO YOU INSIST THAT BLACKS VOTE RACE AND NOT INDIANS

THEY BOTH VOTE RACE!!!!

Ha hahahahah, you are a serious joker. hahahahaha

The PNC did win any votes in the last elections, the APNU did. ahahahahaha

Now let us pretend that APNU were PNC even though it is actually a coalition of 4 parties. The Blacks, to the tune of 28K who fled to the AFC in 2006 returned back to the PNC in 2011 and they still netted a loss. If you knew math you would quickly derive that 115k + 28K = 143K which is greater than the 139k you cite, a net loss in 2011. And if we subtract the votes from the other 3 parties of the coalition, the PNC loss would even be greater. 

Now let us turn our attention to the PPP, in 2006 they earned 184k votes then dropped to 166k in 2011, a loss of 17K from 2006 when the Indians fled to the AFC to the tune of 35k. 183k - 35K = 148k is what the PPP should have had, instead it was 166K, an extra 18K.  How do you account for 18K extra votes for the PPP if they lost 35K Indians to the AFC?  Blacks my friend, inroads into the Black community. hahahaha

idiot assumptions powering invincible nonsense from a low IQ klown

      drugabeer

Actually, that does account fro the swing.  Regarding the Inroads, not sure about that.

ahmmm, herr baseman . . . i understand how the +8k (AFC) Indian vote in Region 6 provided the %age that pushed the PPP into minority status

but take a deep breath and point me to the 'analysis' revealing that 35k Indo-Guyanese voted AFC in 2011, and 28k Afro-Guyanese voted AFC in 2006

reports from jackassLand for the low-IQ set via drug_B do not count

AFC was languishing at 1-2% before Naga came on board.  It is clear the PNC regain their loss from 2006 as most Afros will not vote for an Indian.

dude, u co-signed drug_B's magic numbers and, EXPOSED, are now fashioning an escape from your folly via non sequiturLand

i am not interested in your prejudices . . . stay on-topic fool

And you imagine that APNU is not basically the PNC?  What an idiot you are.

Please do not embarrass yourself by giving me a maths lesson when you think that 10% of 43% is 10%.  Indeed all you are showing is that the PPP is not only failing to gain black votes, as indicated by the INCREASE in PNC votes when blacks moved back from the AFC BACK to the PPP, but the Indian support for the PPP CONTINUES to soften.  All one needs to do is to compare PPP support in 1997 with that of 2011.

In your typical simpleton way you assume that every AFC vote in 2006 was from African votes,  Druggie the AFC won many mixed votes, and indeed made some inroads into the middle class iNdian vote in Gtown as well.  And most assuredly not all of their 2011 votes were from Indians.  The bulk of the Indian vote which switched from the PPP to the AFC came from Regions 5 and 6.

So make a vow today druggie.  Druggie tell yourself not to use your limited intellectual capacity because when ytou do I will show you what an idiot you are.

Now run along and tell yourself that 10% of 43% is 10%.

Show us your numbers as I broke it down for you. Let us pretend that 1k black voted for the AFC then how do you reconcile against your claim?

Now let us turn our attention to the PPP, in 2006 they earned 184k votes then dropped to 166k in 2011, a loss of 17K from 2006 when the Indians fled to the AFC to the tune of 35k. 183k - 35K = 148k is what the PPP should have had, instead it was 166K, an extra 18K.  How do you account for 18K extra votes for the PPP if they lost 35K Indians to the AFC?  Blacks my friend, inroads into the Black community. hahahaha

I never met Walter Rodney.  I met Pat Rodney in 1978.  I found her to be a very nice and charming woman.  A very respectful woman also.

You broke NOTHING down.  Like the idiot that you are you make the simplistic assumption that only Indians voted for the AFC in 2011.  So you subtract 35k from the PPP and then assume that no African or mixed voters supported them in 2011.

You are indeed such an idiot that in one breathe you scream that blacks are racists because they refuse to support the PPP, but then you scream that the PPP is making massive inroads into the black vote.

Listen druggie you do not understand basic arithmetic.  Neither do you have the intellectual capacity to analyze data.  Do yourself a favor and stop trying as you reveal that its most likely that you dropped out of school at 14 years old.

I wonder whats your excuse for the fact that the PPP won 209k votes in 2001.  This means that in 10 years they have lost almost 45k votes!

It is common knowledge that the Blacks voted for AFC in 2006 due to Trotman being the Black leader then and then fled back into the arms of the PNC when Ramjattan an Indian took over the leadership for the 2011 elections, in true form of racist voting patterns in Guyana. This is the main reason that Baseman jumped ship from AFC to PPP when he realized that the blacks were being disingenuous.  Only you are in denial, now claiming that Blacks voted for AFC in 2011 for an cockeyed Indian leader. 

I will break it down again for you:

 

Now let us turn our attention to the PPP, in 2006 they earned 184k votes then dropped to 166k in 2011, a loss of 17K from 2006 when the Indians fled to the AFC to the tune of 35k. 183k - 35K = 148k is what the PPP should have had, instead it was 166K, an extra 18K.  How do you account for 18K extra votes for the PPP if they lost 35K Indians to the AFC?  Blacks my friend, inroads into the Black community. hahahaha

 I will let Caribj deal with you. You need remedial math if you think that scenario corresponds to reality of what happened.

CaribJ already run away from his statistics and now resort to urban legend and bottom house debating tactics. He quoted some numbers and now I counter quote. 

It is common knowledge that you are an idiot.

In Region 4 in 2011 the PNC won 84K (16k more than 2006).  The PPP won 60k, or 2k fewer.  The AFC won 10k, or 4k fewer.

So druggie in the region where 60% of the black votes are  the PNC GAINED votes.  Indeed they gained 12k MORE votes than the AFC lost. 

Region 3, which now has a large black vote, as more people have moved over to West Dem, the PNC GAINED 3k votes.  The PPP and the AFC wining the same number of votes.

The AFC won almost as many votes in Region 4 (most likely from mixed voters and some blacks) as they did in Region 6.  The AFC increased its vote by 10k in regions 5 and 6, most from Indians, this offsetting a loss of 3k from the rest of Guyana.

Druggie I do  not see where you can scream about PPP inroads into the black vote.  Indeed features of the last election were;

1.  HIGHER African/mixed voter turnout which benefitted the PNC which won more votes than the AFC lost in those areas.

2.  LOWER Indian turnout throughout rural Guyana, with many in regions 2,3, and 4 opting not to vote.

3.  Nagamootoo's influence was restricted o regions 5 and 6 as it is only here that the AFC saw higher votes in coastal areas.

You are the one with urban legend as you seek to peddle the myth that only Indians voted for the AFC.  You can only assume 10k Indians switching to the AFC, based on their improved performance in regions 5 and 6.  BOTH the AFC and the PPP lost votes in Region 4, which by the way has almost as many Indo voters as black (38% vs 42%).  Indeed the PNC won 55% of the votes, and the PPP won 45%.  This suggests that the bulk of the 20% of the population which identifies as neither African or Indian voted for the PNC.

The PPP, after losing about 9-10% to the AFC, achieved 49%.  Indian are about 45% of the population, and if you add back the AFC votes to the PPP, they gain 55-58%.  Assuming 100% Indians vote PPP, Who do you think the 10-13% represents?

the 'good' thing about GNI, demonstrated here by drugabeer and now baseman . . . discredited fools can lick their wounds one day, take time out, and come back fresh as a daisy to regurgitate the EXACT SAME NONSENSE next day

extreme short term memory is war armor for the flat-out ignorant

Why dont you do the same analysis but from the PNC perspective.  Africans are about 32% of the electorate, yet the PNC gets 41%.  The only exception to this was in 2006 when disappointment with Corbin led to low black turn out and a defection if several to the AFC.

Note that Africans and Indians account for around 77% of the voters.  This means that 23% of the voters identify with neither.  Indeed BOTH the African and Indian populations are shrinking as Guyanese become more mixed, the Amerindian population grows as few migrate, and continued emigration of the two largest groups continues.

So to suggest that the PPP (and the PNC) win more than their share of the votes, based on an assumed 45% of the voters being Indian, and 32% being black, doesnt suggest that either party is making any gains in cross ethnic voting, aside from winning votes from Amerindian and mixed voters, who do not have fixed race based voting to the same degree that Africans and Indians have.

Most of the "excess" votes that the PPP wins come from Amerindians.  There is no evidence to suggest that the PPP wins more than 10% of African/mixed votes...and this hardly constitutes a break through into thic bloc, unless you think that the GOP is wildly popular among African Americans, Hispanics and Jews.

You go into a long rigamarole to avoid a simple question.  We KNOW, the PNC does attract most Afros and many Duglas and others.  You are the one claiming the PPP in only for "Indians".  I asked you then, who is this 10%-15% additional votes the PPP attract, assume 100% of Indian vote PPP.

All the other jibrish is irrelevant to the simple question.  "Who are the 10-15% votes over the 45% which the PPP tend to attracts".  That was my question to you!!

85% of the votes that the PPP gets come from Indians, this down from other years as the AFC increased its support in Regions 5 and 6 by 10k, presumably Indos following Nagamootoo.  The AFC lost support in region 4 and got the same in the remaining coastal regions.  So their Indo vote was confined to Berbice, aside from the upper middle class urban Indo vote that they began to get in 2006.

The PNC won 41% of the vote.  Given that they didnt get all of the African votes then the PNC relied on NON AFRICANS for 25% of their support.

If you scream that the PPP depends on non Indians for 15% of its votes and think that this shows how "multi racial" their support is then you will have to concede that the PNC is a good deal MORE multi racial in its support.  This despite the fact that it lacks the attraction of incumbency and so will not get any soup licker votes.

Baseman the PPP is an Indian party with some Amerindian support and with negligible African/mixed support. 

The PNC is an African party with significant mixed support and negligible Indian and Amerindian support.

And you also need to know that many people who identify as "mixed" are very hostile to being considered black, for reasons embedded in our colonial history which suggests to some self hating people of part African descent that blacks are inferior.  So do not think that their support for the PNC is because they identify with blacks.  Growing up hearing some douglas, red people and others curse out people as being "too black"...as if there is some thing wrong with being black, removes any notion in my head that they wish to be considered "black".

And if these people felt this way in the 70s and early 80s when Guyana was run by blacks, imagine how they now feel given that AfroGuyanese have become a group so marginalized that every foriegner sees this within minutes of arriving in Guyana.

IMHO neither the PNC nor the PPP are multi racial parties, both existing only because of our ethnic paranoia which forces the two largest groups to support these parties, in the hope that this will allow them to gain some ethnically based space in our system of governance..  Both also having virtually mono racial leadership, once we look at who actually has clout.