Skip to main content

Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by cain:
Originally Posted by RiffRaff:

One of the potential problems of AFC merging with APNU is voters might feel that it's back to PNC vs PPP....which I highly doubt that PNC will win...AFC seems more effective as a third choice

 

I am saying this based on historical voting patterns when it was strictly PNC vs PPP...only when AFC came on as a third choice did things finally shake up

 

I guess it depends on which candidate will the newly merged AFC/APNU put up...

Dats De Key.

 

At this point the AFC has the key. Will the PNC turn the ignition on with the AFC key ?

 

 

Whatever it takes to rid Guyana of a pestilence that has invaded Guyana...called PPP.

cain
Originally Posted by RiffRaff:

One of the potential problems of AFC merging with APNU is voters might feel that it's back to PNC vs PPP....which I highly doubt that PNC will win...AFC seems more effective as a third choice

 

I am saying this based on historical voting patterns when it was strictly PNC vs PPP...only when AFC came on as a third choice did things finally shake up

 

I guess it depends on which candidate will the newly merged AFC/APNU put up...

Times have changed, Riff. Objective and subjective conditions have changed.

The Indo voting bloc is no longer a hindrance to the PNC/opposition. There's a good reason why the final 2012 Census result is still official secret.

Voters under 30 years old will make up a large voting bloc. They don't carry any baggage about Burnham, Jagan, D'Aguiar etc.

The Amerindian voting bloc is not pro-PPP basically, especially after Aishalton Stupid Slap.

The PNC will go agressively after the South Georgetown voters which it neglected in 2011.

The AFC will go agressively after West Demerara-Essequibo voters and not concentrate their resources in Berbice.

There will be a calculated division of labour within the new alliance, with each component sharing the campaign field geographically.

 

FM
Originally Posted by yuji22:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

AFC will

 

- be "devoured" if it merges with the PNC.

- lose considerable votes as a single party.

 

See what I said folks. Here is DG performing the task as a racial huckster.

 

TK this is an unfair attack on DG.

Attack? how is this an attack? you of all people are all of a sudden hurt by honest commentary?

 

Your racist filth you spew daily and now you are offended? please enough with your bullshit.

FM

Speaking of TK, upcoming political developments will show how prescient Tarron Khemraj and Gerhard Ramsaroop were last summer when they jointly advocated a working partnership with APNU and David Granger. These two gentlemen were the objects of some ridicule and naysaying, but their vindication is imminent. Wait and see.

FM
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

FM
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Correct on the formation of alliances plus the specific section of the Constitution.

Why thank you Captain clarity, you notice how dem chaps here can backup their assertions with quotes and specific documents...unlike you know who...........

FM
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well crafted to make Burnham president for life,

in that era.

Django
Originally Posted by Django:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well crafted to make Burnham president for life,

in that era.

Point of note this portion of the constitution was modified and inserted by Jagan and Hubcap himself.

 

But den again Jagan was Burnham........so no difference.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Correct on the formation of alliances plus the specific section of the Constitution.

Why thank you Captain clarity, you notice how dem chaps here can backup their assertions with quotes and specific documents...unlike you know who...........

Your statements continue to provide much laughter on your lack of knowledge.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Correct on the formation of alliances plus the specific section of the Constitution.

Why thank you Captain clarity, you notice how dem chaps here can backup their assertions with quotes and specific documents...unlike you know who...........

Your statements continue to provide much laughter on your lack of knowledge.

Hey If I can provide laughter to you that would mek me feel good because you need it.

FM
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:
Originally Posted by Django:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well crafted to make Burnham president for life,

in that era.

Point of note this portion of the constitution was modified and inserted by Jagan and Hubcap himself.

 

But den again Jagan was Burnham........so no difference.

Section 177 is a fundamental part of the constitution crafted under the Burnham's administration.

FM
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

Provide evidence to support your assertions DG, if you can't do that I suggest you place your head nicely where it usually is up your u know what.

It might be best that you get a copy of the Guyana constitution which was approved in 1980 with appurtenant amendments and view specifically section 177.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:
Originally Posted by Django:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well crafted to make Burnham president for life,

in that era.

Point of note this portion of the constitution was modified and inserted by Jagan and Hubcap himself.

 

But den again Jagan was Burnham........so no difference.

Section 177 is a fundamental part of the constitution crafted under the Burnham's administration.

 

It is amazing to see how you old time hucksters find refuge in Burnham's pernicious constitution, a constitution created by a talk man of a President and his two smooth tongue advisors. You are in the good company of Lincoln Lewis and a few others in the PNC.

FM
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:
Originally Posted by Django:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well crafted to make Burnham president for life,

in that era.

Point of note this portion of the constitution was modified and inserted by Jagan and Hubcap himself.

 

But den again Jagan was Burnham........so no difference.

Section 177 is a fundamental part of the constitution crafted under the Burnham's administration.

 

It is amazing to see how you old time hucksters find refuge in Burnham's pernicious constitution, a constitution created by a talk man of a President and his two smooth tongue advisors. You are in the good company of Lincoln Lewis and a few others in the PNC.

The constitution crafted under Burnham's guidance exist today.

 

Your statement, as usual, is laced with irrelevant issues to the topic.

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:

Provide evidence to support your assertions DG, if you can't do that I suggest you place your head nicely where it usually is up your u know what.

It might be best that you get a copy of the Guyana constitution which was approved in 1980 with appurtenant amendments and view specifically section 177.

I have a copy do you?

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by TK:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by HM_Redux:
Originally Posted by Django:
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well crafted to make Burnham president for life,

in that era.

Point of note this portion of the constitution was modified and inserted by Jagan and Hubcap himself.

 

But den again Jagan was Burnham........so no difference.

Section 177 is a fundamental part of the constitution crafted under the Burnham's administration.

 

It is amazing to see how you old time hucksters find refuge in Burnham's pernicious constitution, a constitution created by a talk man of a President and his two smooth tongue advisors. You are in the good company of Lincoln Lewis and a few others in the PNC.

The constitution crafted under Burnham's guidance exist today.

 

Your statement, as usual, is laced with irrelevant issues to the topic.

 

I am glad to hear you say that. Times and regimes do change.

FM
Originally Posted by Gilbakka:
Originally Posted by caribny:
Originally Posted by Mr.T:

Can anybody point me to the exact location in the Constitution where it says that in Guyana a Coalition has to be formed before the election?

I also note that I cannot find any breach of the Constitution if opposition parties combined their gained seats in parliament to form a coalition goverenment. This form of government is quite common around the world. The UK government is a typical example of such a government,a s well as the government in Suriname. From the way I see it, a lot of assumptions have been made about this coalition business.

Well it must be somewhere otherwise APNU and the AFC would have long ago formed a coalition gov't.

To understand why a post-election coalition cannot happen, let's consider what the constitution says in Article 177

"THE PRESIDENT

177.(1)Any list of candidates for an election held pursuant to the provisions of article 60 (2) shall designate not more than one of those candidates as a Presidential candidate. An elector voting as such an election in favour of a list shall be deemed to be also voting in favour of the Presidential candidate named in the list.
 (2)A Presidential candidate shall be deemed to have been elected as President and shall be so declared by the Chairman of the Elections Commission ––
  (a)if he is the only Presidential candidate at the election; or
  (b)where there are two or more Presidential candidates, if more votes are cast in favour of the list in which he is designated as Presidential candidate than in favour of any other list.

According to the above, the presidential candidate of the party securing the most votes becomes President of Guyana.

Naturally, two parties that finished second and third cannot form the government because the President is from the party with the largest votes. In other words, a PPP President with an APNU-AFC cabinet is a fiction.

That's why alliances take place before elections with one designated presidential candidate.

Well it is not stipulated in the above. It is more a case of an assumption. A coalition of several parties is actually free to pick a president from the party with the most votes. 

 

It looks like the AFC and PNC have not been reading the Constitution properly on this. In the days when there were only two parties this question of mine would not have been asked. But now we have a credible third party, the issue is key to the next phase. Both PNC and the PPP have been smoothing over this issue for their convenience, but the chickens are coming home to roost. It turns out that a coalition government can be formed from combining their total of members in parliament, and the president elected from the largest of the parties in the coalition. That would make Granger president by default.

 

 

 

Mr.T
Originally Posted by RiffRaff:

I think it needs to be clear how this works..because if thy don't go in as a coalition and PPP get 40%, PNC 35 and AFC 25%...does PPP still get to choose the President? Guess they do, since they did before

Correct Raymond, as stipulated in the constitution.

 

President and also the ministers of the government.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:
Originally Posted by RiffRaff:

I think it needs to be clear how this works..because if thy don't go in as a coalition and PPP get 40%, PNC 35 and AFC 25%...does PPP still get to choose the President? Guess they do, since they did before

Correct Raymond, as stipulated in the constitution.

you guys forgetting the opposition have more lawyers than you can count,they already have a way to fix this we have to wait after the talk between the AFC and THE APNU 

FM
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

The constitution is abundantly clear on the selection of the President and consequently the Ministers.

 

Currently, the only changes to this specific situation is an amemdment of the constitution, which requires, as a minimum, the approval of about sixty six percent of the MPs.

you figure only the ppp can read the constitution so sad 

FM
Originally Posted by warrior:
Originally Posted by Demerara_Guy:

The constitution is abundantly clear on the selection of the President and consequently the Ministers.

 

Currently, the only changes to this specific situation is an amemdment of the constitution, which requires, as a minimum, the approval of about sixty six percent of the MPs.

you figure only the ppp can read the constitution so sad 


Given that this is the BURNHAM constitution I suspect that APNU is quite competent in understanding what it entails.

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×