The audacity of the PPP is breathtaking. To imagine, just a few weeks ago, it was the PPP kicking up dust storms demanding free, fair and transparent elections. To contemplate, not too long ago it was the the PPP beseeching the international community not to let the will of the Guyanese people be undermined. To know, it was the PPP urging the ABC&E countries to bring sanctions, the equivalent of fire and brimstone, down upon Guyana if the elections were not credible. And now to see it is the PPP threatening jail time for anyone providing documentation establishing fraudulent voting. The extent to which the PPP is willing to go to protect fraudulent voting is just breathtaking.
The PPP penchant for illegal voting is nothing new. During the Claims and Objection period before the 2006 elections, a member of the PNCR Region 3 Campaign Committee raised concerns about the size of the electoral roll for Nouvelle Flanders/Waller’s Delight. The member contended that the size of the electoral roll did not correlate with the number of dwelling places in the area. The committee decided to mount a house to house exercise to investigate. The residents were very cooperative during the exercise, and provided information on deaths, migration etc. The committee used this information and submitted scores of objections to GECOM.
The PPP reaction to the objections was both surprising and alarming. They threw a hissy fit, claimed all the persons were legitimate voters, and demanded that all the objections be rejected. Mr. Ralph Ramkarran pronounced that the only way to remove someone was with a death certificate or immigration records. Even notorized statements by relatives of dead persons could not move the PPP into agreeing to GECOM holding a hearing on a single objection. It was clear, the PPP desperately wanted the names of the dead to remain on the list. This became even more evident when efforts to obtain death certificates from the GRO were frustrated.
The fact that a list bloated with the names of the dead, migrated and fictitious is central to the PPP electoral fraud was always known in political circles. Now the recount has established this fact for all to see. So far, documentary evidence has been produced establishing that scores of dead and migrated persons were recorded as voting on March 2nd. It is clear evidence of a PPP illegal voting campaign.
The magnitude and extent of this campaign is evident when one examine the numbers. The 2012 census population size of 750,000, and age group extrapolation along with death and migration rates suggest a voting age population of 430,000. The electoral roll for the March 2nd elections was 660,998. To put it simply, only 65.2% of the names on the list are electors who were alive and present in Guyana. GECOM records show that the turn out for the March 2nd Elections was 72.4%. This points to massive voter irregularity.
The 72.92% turnout in the 2011 elections is a relatively good measure of what actual turnout is in Guyana. This is because the elections were held just three years after house to house registration, and the size of the list approximated to the size of the voting age population. However, even though the turnout in 2020 is recorded as 72%, this is misleading. It is misleading because the 2020 list is bloated.
We know the real size of the voters roll is 430,000. A 100% turnout would mean 430,000 votes. A 90% turnout would mean 387,000 votes. An 80% turnout would mean 344,000 votes. A 70% turn out would mean 301,000 votes. However, all records, including recount data, suggest 450,000+ total votes at the March 2nd elections.
What does this mean? Well it depends on how you choose to look at it. If you choose to believe there was 100% turnout, plus some, then 450,000+ votes is OK. If you accept that 90% turnout is reasonable, then there are 43,000 extra votes in the ballot boxes. If the turnout was just 80% then there are 86,000 extra votes in the ballot boxes. Some will argue that overseas based Guyanese returned home to vote. The question is, how many? definitely not 86,000; certainly not 43,000. Remember, turnout in 2011 was approximately72%
Regional voter turnout suggests the illegal voter campaign was concentrated in Regions 2, 3, 5 and 6 and on the East Coast and East Bank Demerara in Region 4. All with the exception of Region 6 recorded turnout over 70%. The fraud in these regions is evident by the steep increase in supposed votes for the PPP.
The big question is, how was this possible? How was the PPP able to put 43 be,000 fraudulent votes into the ballot boxes? Well, contrary to what the PPP controlled Private Sector Commission would have us believe, voter impersonation was not only possible, it was rampant. The hundreds of irregularities involving missing poll books, certificates of employment, counterfoils and oaths of identification point to the desperate efforts to cover up the fraudulent voting.
Some will ask, how did this go unnoticed? Simple, it does not require a mad rush; just three fraudulent votes per hour over 12 hours in 1200 ballot boxes. The exercise is normally so sophisticated that you have to be looking for it to observe it. There were several incidents in Region 3 on Election Day, when APNU-AFC supporters accosted PPP operatives attempting to engage in fraudulent voting.
Are you asking, “but where were the observers?” They were not looking. They were busy being wined and dined by the PPP. They were being driven and flown around the country by PPP operatives. They were guilty of dereliction of duty.
Despite months of APNU-AFC demands for a clean list, observer missions never made possible fraudulent voting their focus. So much so, after the close of polls they declared the process flawless, despite complaints from APNU-AFC. The OAS, which used statistical trends as the basis for declaring the elections in Bolivia flawed, never bother to look at the statistical anomalies in supposed voter turnout. The United States Ambassador, who is from the same country were a congressional election was recently nullified, and McRae Dowless indicted, because of fraud, ignored the indicators of fraud in the Guyana Elections. Instead, they were all focused on certifying the fraudulent process.
The US, OAS, EU and Canadian could, because of whatever self interest, decide to ignore the obvious fraudulent voting, but GECOM and its Chairman, Justice Claudette Singh, cannot afford to. This is not only about the credibility of the elections, it is about the credibility of GECOM itself and the integrity of our democratic process. If we did not have a recount everyone could have shrugged and say maybe we had a freak turnout. However, with evidence of widespread fraudulent voting, and statistical indicators of between 43,000 and 86,000 fraudulent votes, GECOM is duty bound to investigate. Failing to do so would make a mockery of our electoral process.
It will be interesting to see if the ABC&E countries, the OAS, the Carter Center, and the Commonwealth will demand a full and complete investigation by GECOM.
