PUP’s pointless petition Print E-mail
( 0 Votes )
Written by Administrator   
Thursday, 05 April 2018 00:00

Now that the PUP has filed their election petition in court, certain things won’t be discussed here, regarding the case. However, what we will discuss is what they are trying to achieve through claim number 189 of 2018. Over this weekend we had a chance to speak with a few persons who were in the counting room in San Pedro during the counting process. The persons are from both sides of the political spectrum. According to what we gathered there are no ballots missing. What we do understand is that the ELECTION AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION introduced a new system of reconciliation of ballots for the recent Municipal Elections.

The ballots were to be placed in categories based on how the voters dealt with the ballots. For example there were to be piles of STRAIGHT ballots for each Political Party. Those would be the ballots where the voters voted in the case of a town for all seven candidates of one political party. Then there was to be a pile for SPLIT ballots. Those would be the ballots where the voter voted for some candidates from one side and one or some from the other side, without voting for more candidates than there were seats to be filled, or the voter voted for fewer candidates than seats to be filled. Then there were to be ballots that were totally rejected based on the rules that would cause a ballot to be rejected. For example, if the ballot was left blank, the voter signs his/her name on the ballot, votes for more than one MAYORAL CANDIDATE and more than six Councilor Candidates in the case of a town; then that entire ballot is rejected. The same would apply to the two cities using the numbers of seats being filled in their individual cases. Then there was the category of ballots that would be rejected in part. Examples of ballots that would be classified REJECTED in part would be a ballot where the section for Mayoral Candidate is deemed rejected, because the voter did not vote for a Mayoral Candidate or voted for more than one. Then there is the instance where the section for Councilors is considered as REJECTED in part, because either the voter did not vote for any of the candidates or voted for more candidates than there were seats to be filled.

At the end of the count the number of votes equals the sum of the votes each Mayoral Candidates received along with the totally rejected ballots and the amount where only the mayoral section was rejected. These should add up to the sum of ballots that were issued.

The PUP knows that those ballots where voters only voted for the Councilor Candidates were inadvertently classified as SPLIT BALLOTS rather than ballots where the MAYORAL SECTION WAS REJECTED. Hence, the reason it appears that ballots are missing. Being the dishonest bunch they are, the PUP is now calling for a new election, because they know that they will be exposed on a recount where the ballots would be placed in the correct category. The court could easily order a recount. That recount will show that all the ballots issued were accounted for. Even though the partially rejected ballots were perhaps improperly classified. That did not affect the final vote count since the vote count is determined by the votes that were cast for the candidates and not by what category the ballots were placed under for reconciliation purpose.