June 30 2019 by
The House to House Registration in 2008 was bitter medicine for the PPP: it knocked them off their altar of electoral invincibility. Consequently, they loss both elections held thereafter. In 2011 PPP received 48.6% of the votes, and in 2015, 49.2% – a significant drop from the 54.67% they received in 2006.
The size of the voters list for the 2006 elections was 492,365. After the House to House Registration in 2008, the list comprised 430,000 eligible voters, a reduction of more than 62,000. Between 2008 and 2011 the list increased by approximately 15,000 per year, to reach 475,496 for the 2011 elections. This growth rate was the highest since the 1992-1997 period, which had a rate of 15,657 per year. The list grew from 384,195 in 1992 to 462,481 in 1997.
GECOM claimed that total votes in 1997 was 408,057, more than 100,000 greater than the total votes cast in 1992. This was an astronomical increase which, undoubtedly, resulted from a bloated list and fraudulent voting.
Between 2011 and 2015 the list grew by 27,000 per year and reached a whopping 583,444. The size of the 2015 list was 23% greater than the 475,495-person 2011 list. 2015 was 1997 all over again, a bloated list with fraudulent voting by the PPP. Total votes in 2015 was 70,000 greater than 2011. However, the PPP’s fraudulent efforts were not enough to overcome the coalition’s popularity, but it did reduce their margin of victory to one seat. There is a significant relationship between the size of the list and the PPP’s performance at the polls.
Between 1992 and 1997, the list increased from 384,195 to 462,481, and PPP’s proportion increased from 53.45% to 55.26%. Between 1997 and 2001, the list decreased from 462,481 to 440,185, and, as if by magic, the PPP’s proportion decreased from 55.26% to 52.96%. Between 2001 and 2006, the size of the list increased from 440,185 to 492,365, and PPP proportion increased from 52.96% to 54.67%. Certainly, these occurrences cannot simply be dismissed as mere coincidence.
This is a pattern that cannot be ignored, especially when other political parties consistently accused the PPP of fraudulent voting. This pattern continued after House to House Registration in 2008. PPP proportion was 48.6% in 2011, and this increased to 49.2% in 2015 when the list was bloated with the addition of a whopping 108,000 names. The 2019 list is even more bloated, with the addition of a further 57,000 names, it has reached an astronomical size of 640,000. This is the PPP final push to erase the deficit created by the 2008 House to House Registration.
It has been suggested that the current list contains at least 40,000 dead persons, and a combined total of 200,000 dead, missing and nonexistent persons. This is the cover the PPP needs for corrupt voting. Normally, fraudulent voting is suspected when voter turnout is exceptionally high at a polling station. However, with this degree of padding it cannot be known when the supposed voter turnout passes 100%. In fact, voter turnout over 90% at any station would require scrutiny. Just imagine that in 1997 Doodnauth Singh said the turnout for the entire country was 91%, and ask yourself, what was the level of fraudulent voting in those elections.
Like Guyana, Jamaica has continuous registration, and were removing the names of 5,000 dead persons each year. Yet the names of 260,000 dead persons accumulated unobserved. The exercise in Jamaica took approximately 6 months-November 2018 to April 2019. This exercise was ongoing while antidemocracy forces in Guyana were mouthing off that House to House Registration was not needed to remove the significant amount of suspected dead from our list.
It is well established that a prerequisite for credible elections is a clean list. You cannot make bread with cold yeast. You cannot make pepperpot with spoilt meat. You cannot guarantee free and fair elections with a rotten list.
ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, a collaborative effort between Elections Canada, UNDP, UNEA, the Carter, and four other organizations, focuses on promoting credible and transparent electoral processes worldwide. ACE identifies two conditions for credible elections. Firstly, the list must be at least 85% accurate. Secondly, the margin of victory must be greater that the number of inaccurate entries on the list. In the last elections in Guyana, the margin of victory was 5,000 votes. The number of dead on the present list is over 40,000. The number of missing and nonexistent persons on the list is over 150,000. This list has over 40 times the level of suggested acceptable inaccuracies.
It is understandable that the PPP would argue to keep this corrupt list. It is their bread and butter. However, one cannot but wonder as to why new political parties, the private sector commission, and some members of civil society champion this list, and by extension, support the perpetuation of a corrupt and undemocratic act against the Guyanese people. Whose agenda do they serve?
