|
Post by kasiaya on Sept 23, 2017 1:50:44 GMT 3
I have read Mungai Kihanya's twisted theory as to why there was lack of randomness in the numbers as they were being anounced. Actually, the reasons he gave can be used to explain why there should be randomness and not the other way round - talk of twisted logic.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 17:15:17 GMT 3
Advancement of this regression plot argument presumes that the plot was first developed, and then used to produce results which would then be announced. The ethical expectation is that, if such a plot was developed anywhere, it was developed upon reported results. There is only one way of testing which case rules: recount the votes, or use forms 34A or B.
The court did not even attempt a basic test of whether the plot actually fitted the announced results. If we have a chronological capture of the announcements, we could reproduce the plot at various times and see if it is real. We can at least check whether the plot fits with the final result, although that would not be confirmation. It is inexcusable of a court to accept such an argument into evidence and care not to inspect its validity. The one with the wilder imagination wins in such a court.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 23, 2017 20:27:33 GMT 3
Advancement of this regression plot argument presumes that the plot was first developed, and then used to produce results which would then be announced. The ethical expectation is that, if such a plot was developed anywhere, it was developed upon reported results. There is only one way of testing which case rules: recount the votes, or use forms 34A or B. The court did not even attempt a basic test of whether the plot actually fitted the announced results. If we have a chronological capture of the announcements, we could reproduce the plot at various times and see if it is real. We can at least check whether the plot fits with the final result, although that would not be confirmation. It is inexcusable of a court to accept such an argument into evidence and care not to inspect its validity. The one with the wilder imagination wins in such a court. This fixated and prolonged attack on the SCOK is about the forthcoming 26th October election repeat. www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/Expect-the-same-consequences-if-IEBC-does-not-reform-/440808-4108228-12hndu2/index.htmlWe need to focus more on IEBC and the process, if different, it plans to use. Otherwise with the same team they will use a simple formula UHuruto votes= factor greater than one multiplied by RAo votes plus a constant i.e. y=mx+c. This will reproduce the regression plot.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 20:58:32 GMT 3
Podp, nothing in this discussion stops you from focusing on IEBC.
By the way, after the rerun of elections new data will emerge to fit a similar regression plot. That plot will be:
Winner's count = a + b*looser's count + model error, where a,b are each > 0.
So we could preemptively invalidate the rerun and every election there after on the basis of the regression plot theory, except if we could show that the speculation that such a model is used to generate data is factually founded, and rather the model is not fitted on the data from polls.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 23, 2017 21:59:26 GMT 3
Podp, nothing in this discussion stops you from focusing on IEBC.
By the way, after the rerun of elections new data will emerge to fit a similar regression plot. That plot will be: Winner's count = a + b*looser's count + model error, where a,b are each > 0. So we could preemptively invalidate the rerun and every election there after on the basis of the regression plot theory, except if we could show that the speculation that such a model is used to generate data is factually founded, and rather the model is not fitted on the data from polls. Wrong my good friend. If a and b are greater than zero but less than 1 the winner's count cannot be greater than the looser's count. For the graph to be maintained a,b > 1 IEBC as the blue high light shows makes more interesting focus. SCOK detailed rulings, for 2013 and now for 2017 is for law practioners and scholars, not necessarily in that order. Incidentally any dissent as of both Ojwang and Njoki will never be quoted in any future court ruling in any jurisdiction. Curiously one can tell Njoki never advanced beyond LLB. She never practiced law and never had experience as a magistrate before climbing to be a judge! Hence her 400 plus page versus the 4 judges less than 200 pages and also less than 100 pages Ojwang submission has been having Masters and PhD students hilariously asking why is no university giving her a honorary doctorate for submitting a 400 plus page thesis in less than one month. Jokers waiting for Mugabe quotes on Njoki
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 22:04:29 GMT 3
Podp, nothing in this discussion stops you from focusing on IEBC.
By the way, after the rerun of elections new data will emerge to fit a similar regression plot. That plot will be: Winner's count = a + b*looser's count + model error, where a,b are each > 0. So we could preemptively invalidate the rerun and every election there after on the basis of the regression plot theory, except if we could show that the speculation that such a model is used to generate data is factually founded, and rather the model is not fitted on the data from polls. Wrong my good friend. If a and b are greater than zero but less than 1 the winner's count cannot be greater than the looser's count. For the graph to be maintained a,b > 1 IEBC as the red high light shows makes more interesting focus. SCOK ruling is for law practioners and scholars, not necessarily in that order. You are right about b being required to be greater than 1 (any a,b pair with a + b > 1 will do). My key point though, is the question that must be answered before this plot theory can count should be: is the model the engine for the reported data as alleged, or is it just a fitment to the reported data (or even non-existent in the particular parameters)?
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 23, 2017 22:44:58 GMT 3
You alre right about b being required to be greater than 1. My key point though, is the question that must be answered before this plot theory can count should be: is the model the engine for the reported data as alleged, or is it just a fitment to the reported data (or even non-existent in the particular parametrization)? Hypothesis in "real" science is either true or null. For the fitment to be null, IEBC, should have copied what mPesa does. Give the supporting evidence i.e. Forms 34a, b to z within the shortest time possible and definitely less than a day i.e. 24 hours after end of voting. Therefore if each polling point had between 1 and 700 voters just start counting 1 to 700 and see if you take an hour. Then assuming each polling station had 24 polling points i.e. A to Z assume after assembling all the results of the polling points simple arithmetic of the 24 polling points took 2 hours. The sum arrived at is then transmitted to the constituency polling center at the speed of light i.e. Assuming it took the time the sun's rays travel from the sun to the earth, give the transmission 8 or so minutes. Then the constituency sits on the results from the polling centre for an hour to re confirm from other sources e.g. Secondary ones like news media people, secret police, agents of the protagonists, etc. Then the constituency relays its form 34 b to z onwards to Chi Robber and Cheb Liar. So the two i.e. Robber and Liar take half a day fidgeting between themselves and their sponsors, say PORK and RAO. They sleep for 6 hours simultaneously and wake up fresh. That is 1+2+1+12+6=20 hours. So as long as Chi Robber and Cheb Liar are unable to utilize technology to do the arithmetic for them it beats logic why they did not announce the winner and looser within 24 hours of the polls closing down. So it must be true they were doing what late Kivuitu told us returning officers did in 2007. Cooking results while the formula y=mx+c fed our screens expecting we would be psychologically as in 2013 when Uhuruto led from start to finish.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 23, 2017 22:58:14 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 23:04:52 GMT 3
Podp, but still this is an argument that reported data might be corrupted (no one knows for sure, but like you stated, it is an allegation). The court asserted that neither voter registration nor voting was tainted. So what argument is advanced that ballots would not be used to check this argument?
If the data was so deliberately corrupted, then that makes for individual criminal cases. I suppose such cases cannot be prosecuted without recounting the ballots or reviewing forms 34, unless there is authentic evidence of data cook room activity. How interesting then, that we could recount or revisit the forms in such cases, yet at this stage a whole election is being rerun on believe that the data was corrupted.
I am not informed of how IEBC is constituted, but I agree with you that at this time it is important that neutrality be assured. It will be a challenge to reconstitute the commission within the time, but if that is the only means to assure neutrality, then there should be no way out of it.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 23, 2017 23:42:50 GMT 3
Hypothesis in "real" science is either true or null. For the fitment to be null, IEBC, should have copied what mPesa does. Give the supporting evidence i.e. Forms 34a, b to z within the shortest time possible and definitely less than a day i.e. 24 hours after end of voting. Therefore if each polling point had between 1 and 700 voters just start counting 1 to 700 and see if you take an hour. Then assuming each polling station had 24 polling points i.e. A to Z assume after assembling all the results of the polling points simple arithmetic of the 24 polling points took 2 hours. The sum arrived at is then transmitted to the constituency polling center at the speed of light i.e. Assuming it took the time the sun's rays travel from the sun to the earth, give the transmission 8 or so minutes. Then the constituency sits on the results from the polling centre for an hour to re confirm from other sources e.g. Secondary ones like news media people, secret police, agents of the protagonists, etc. Then the constituency relays its form 34 b to z onwards to Chi Robber and Cheb Liar. So the two i.e. Robber and Liar take half a day fidgeting between themselves and their sponsors, say PORK and RAO. They sleep for 6 hours simultaneously and wake up fresh. That is 1+2+1+12+6=20 hours. So as long as Chi Robber and Cheb Liar are unable to utilize technology to do the arithmetic for them it beats logic why they did not announce the winner and looser within 24 hours of the polls closing down. So it must be true they were doing what late Kivuitu told us returning officers did in 2007. Cooking results while the formula y=mx+c fed our screens expecting we would be psychologically as in 2013 when Uhuruto led from start to finish. Podp, you really cannot test an hypothesis with another hypothesis (or prove a speculation with further speculation). Elsewhere I see my prayers are being answered (about continuing to expose the laziness of the court in taking questionable assertions as fact without the due scrutiny). See this excerpt: Source: www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/opinion-shows-Njoki-Ndungu-s-ability-to-pen-thriller-/440808-4108238-4sm9ic/index.html
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 24, 2017 8:27:56 GMT 3
Mr Uhuru, Sir,
and all else,
without apology.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 24, 2017 8:33:50 GMT 3
That one is a misdirected letter. It should have been written to the Supreme Court of Kenya. Uhuru has no power to decide the what ifs for the country. He can run his campaign. Just like Raila.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 25, 2017 8:40:25 GMT 3
SCOK detailed rulings, for 2013 and now for 2017 is for law practioners and scholars, not necessarily in that order. Incidentally any dissent as of both Ojwang and Njoki will never be quoted in any future court ruling in any jurisdiction. Curiously one can tell Njoki never advanced beyond LLB. She never practiced law and never had experience as a magistrate before climbing to be a judge! Hence her 400 plus page versus the 4 judges less than 200 pages and also less than 100 pages Ojwang submission has been having Masters and PhD students hilariously asking why is no university giving her a honorary doctorate for submitting a 400 plus page thesis in less than one month. Jokers waiting for Mugabe quotes on Njoki Just as a correction, the Supreme Court in the 2013 case used the Minority Opinion in the Seychelles case to support their decision on the issue of rejected/spoilt votes(remember one of Raila's prayer was a request to reverse that decision which even the Majority decision did not tamper with). Precedents are quotations from a decision of a judge and not of the court. So the decision by Njoki is available as precedent in any case for the future. You may want to dismiss her decision for the number of pages, but you also refuse to go into the details of the decision to see if she makes a cogent argument. As to whether she served as a magistrate or a judge, why not raise the same question on Smokin Wanjala who was never on the bench prior to his appointment. I view your comments a tard sexist and unfortunate!
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 25, 2017 8:46:14 GMT 3
Are you for a moment suggesting that you cannot attack or discredit a decision of a judge? In the process of discrediting that decision should it be deemed an attack on the judge that made that decision? I would have a problem with any attack on a judge whilst the same judge is adjudicating a matter or has not made a decision on a matter - that would be wrong and contemptuous. However, once a decision is rendered it must be open to scrutiny and criticism - in any case people do that all the time when they appeal a decision of a lower court!! I will not say much on the 'regression plot' for it is absolute hogwash and lives in the fertile imagination of those who think that you can plot something like this without the benefit of a voting and reporting pattern being known in advance!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 26, 2017 1:03:44 GMT 3
Try and explain why the curve was not perfect, i.e., why it has any randomness at all, and the actual steps needed to construct it. I think someone constructing such a line for purposes of generating results would have figured that more obvious randomness was necessary to sell it.
|
|
|
Post by jakaswanga on Sept 26, 2017 11:40:49 GMT 3
I am not yet halfway, reading every script of the Judges, both concurring majority and dissenting opinion!
nb: there is no alternative to essay writing! performing written marathons is quite a different competence, as I experienced, listening to some, like Lady Justice Mwilu!
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 26, 2017 20:15:36 GMT 3
I am not yet halfway, reading every script of the Judges, both concurring majority and dissenting opinion! nb: there is no alternative to essay writing! performing written marathons is quite a different competence, as I experienced, listening to some, like Lady Justice Mwilu!
Was also keen on full judgement and gave students tutorial telling them is Njoki could write 400 pages in 21 days surely they can provide 10 highlights from both concurring and dissenting opinions. After they submitted the assignment the following merged. Among the technical issues six matters that were similar are:- 1. A whopping 11,000 polling stations did not have G3 network. Hence who in their right minds would switch off GPS and satellite phones? 2. Security features of forms 34 A not present yet the printer was one! Who in this age would photocopy or forge such forms and why 3. IEBC disobeying SCOK to give access to the servers. What makes them have contempt of court with such impunity? 4. KIEMS devices, especially how the IEBC portal, API, servers etc. were connected assuming the Polling Officers who were meant to key in data both where G3 network and where not available move to where the network was available, gives room for culpability. Are any investigation due? 5. IEBC ICT Director's affidavit said where no G3 network, POs were instructed to go to constituency headquarters or move to areas network is available. Culpability investigations can also be done here! Why disable GPS and satellite phones? 6. Technical Committee (ETAC) better known as Kiraitu-Orengo joint select committee which had Jubilee and NASA experts was disbanded by the high court for being unconstitutional. SCOK only noted this but neither concurring nor dissenting pronounced themselves on the matter! 7. 8. 9. 10. The SCOK Technical Experts. Mmmmmh
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 27, 2017 1:37:43 GMT 3
I am not yet halfway, reading every script of the Judges, both concurring majority and dissenting opinion! nb: there is no alternative to essay writing! performing written marathons is quite a different competence, as I experienced, listening to some, like Lady Justice Mwilu! Was also keen on full judgement and gave students tutorial telling them is Njoki could write 400 pages in 21 days surely they can provide 10 highlights from both concurring and dissenting opinions. After they submitted the assignment the following merged. Among the technical issues six matters that were similar are:- 1. A whopping 11,000 polling stations did not have G3 network. Hence who in their right minds would switch off GPS and satellite phones? 2. Security features of forms 34 A not present yet the printer was one! Who in this age would photocopy or forge such forms and why 3. IEBC disobeying SCOK to give access to the servers. What makes them have contempt of court with such impunity? 4. KIEMS devices, especially how the IEBC portal, API, servers etc. were connected assuming the Polling Officers who were meant to key in data both where G3 network and where not available move to where the network was available, gives room for culpability. Are any investigation due? 5. IEBC ICT Director's affidavit said where no G3 network, POs were instructed to go to constituency headquarters or move to areas network is available. Culpability investigations can also be done here! Why disable GPS and satellite phones? 6. Technical Committee (ETAC) better known as Kiraitu-Orengo joint select committee which had Jubilee and NASA experts was disbanded by the high court for being unconstitutional. SCOK only noted this but neither concurring nor dissenting pronounced themselves on the matter! 7. 8. 9. 10. The SCOK Technical Experts. Mmmmmh There is only one irregularity that stands out in all this elections fiasco. That is the shortchanging of the electorate without good course. The rest, Podp, are mere allegations that those with the authority to validate as fact and consequential remain uninterested to validate. I wonder why. In my view, the first goal of any institution of democracy in this situation should be to safeguard the expression of the electorate, if it can be decoded. Proof of misconduct in the election is necessary, but it makes absolutely no sense that mere suspicion of misconduct is sufficient reason to turn a blind eye to the fact that wananchi voted, and that a repeat is not costless. I am unaware of the details of how things went in the elections, but the above bullets don't rise up to trivial manifestations of irregularity to anyone willing to acknowledge earthly realities. I will make my comments against the first 4 bullets (I am not clear about the rest): #1: Supply of technology is not uniform. I know many places in US where G3 network is unavailable, or too undependable. GPS and satellite phones are also technologies, and their mere unavailability at a time of need is not necessarily a manifestation of electoral malpractice. #2: A water mark is not printer DNA. Whether a water mark will be on all printouts depends on whether the operator sends the same water-marked version of the document to the printer, for every copy printed. So you can say a watermark is a DNA of a particular version of a document. Moreover, absence of a water mark doesn't mean anything if the form is signed by representatives of the opposing parties as a representation of the tally done before them. I understand that some were not signed. SOME. No one has cared to enumerate the possible weight of this SOME. I am unaware of any public discussion of why some were not signed. If this debate was genuinely about improving the electoral process, that's the kind of topic that would be at the top of the discussion. Whether the announced result was the right one would be a secondary objective, i.e., to determine whether when all the alleged irregularities are assessed, the call was valid. #3: I don't know what the laws says, but I think the SC should have no right to call for server access. Where does independence of the IEBC remain then, if another institution will have unabated access to its work? The SC has ways of showing that IEBC announced an incorrect result, if that is the case. It can inquire into the workings of the server, of course, but it should not at any time have control over the server, in my opinion. So, unless we are talking of read-only access in this case, I am glad IEBC did not comply. Whether it should comply in future, should be tabled in a bill by legislators of good faith, if any. Why would anyone be sure that a person sitting at the court was not keen on changing the contents of the server upon being granted access? #4: Are any investigation due? I reiterate that question, but not with respect to this bullet alone, but every one of them. I am now of the impression that all at play have secrets that would not be appealing to the voter, if disclosed. That is why no one wants to dig into the truth of votes. Not NASA, not Jubilee, not Supreme court. Anyone who is in this truly for democracy's interest would be saying, "lets recount the votes even while we have to abide by the SC's order."
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 27, 2017 8:51:36 GMT 3
#3: I don't know what the laws says, but I think the SC should have no right to call for server access. Where does independence of the IEBC remain then, if another institution will have unabated access to its work? The SC has ways of showing that IEBC announced an incorrect result, if that is the case. It can inquire into the workings of the server, of course, but it should not at any time have control over the server, in my opinion. So, unless we are talking of read-only access in this case, I am glad IEBC did not comply. Whether it should comply in future, should be tabled in a bill by legislators of good faith, if any. Why would anyone be sure that a person sitting at the court was not keen on changing the contents of the server upon being granted access? I have narrowed all you say to this point as it is perhaps the one single indictment of the court that I have. When Raila filed his petition he was to present his reasons on why the election failed and should be nullified. He made allegations that he was to support with business. Was the court right to appoint its own 'experts' to go out and dig evidence from the servers to support the case? I do not think so. When the court appointed 'experts' filed their report, were they interrogated on their alleged expertise by the parties and was their reported tested as all evidence should be by the protagonists?
|
|
kelly
Junior Member
Posts: 99
|
Post by kelly on Sept 27, 2017 8:53:58 GMT 3
Was also keen on full judgement and gave students tutorial telling them is Njoki could write 400 pages in 21 days surely they can provide 10 highlights from both concurring and dissenting opinions. After they submitted the assignment the following merged. Among the technical issues six matters that were similar are:- 1. A whopping 11,000 polling stations did not have G3 network. Hence who in their right minds would switch off GPS and satellite phones? 2. Security features of forms 34 A not present yet the printer was one! Who in this age would photocopy or forge such forms and why 3. IEBC disobeying SCOK to give access to the servers. What makes them have contempt of court with such impunity? 4. KIEMS devices, especially how the IEBC portal, API, servers etc. were connected assuming the Polling Officers who were meant to key in data both where G3 network and where not available move to where the network was available, gives room for culpability. Are any investigation due? 5. IEBC ICT Director's affidavit said where no G3 network, POs were instructed to go to constituency headquarters or move to areas network is available. Culpability investigations can also be done here! Why disable GPS and satellite phones? 6. Technical Committee (ETAC) better known as Kiraitu-Orengo joint select committee which had Jubilee and NASA experts was disbanded by the high court for being unconstitutional. SCOK only noted this but neither concurring nor dissenting pronounced themselves on the matter! 7. 8. 9. 10. The SCOK Technical Experts. Mmmmmh There is only one irregularity that stands out in all this elections fiasco. That is the shortchanging of the electorate without good course. The rest, Podp, are mere allegations that those with the authority to validate as fact and consequential remain uninterested to validate. I wonder why. In my view, the first goal of any institution of democracy in this situation should be to safeguard the expression of the electorate, if it can be decoded. Proof of misconduct in the election is necessary, but it makes absolutely no sense that mere suspicion of misconduct is sufficient reason to turn a blind eye to the fact that wananchi voted, and that a repeat is not costless. I am unaware of the details of how things went in the elections, but the above bullets don't rise up to trivial manifestations of irregularity to anyone willing to acknowledge earthly realities. I will make my comments against the first 4 bullets (I am not clear about the rest): #1: Supply of technology is not uniform. I know many places in US where G3 network is unavailable, or too undependable. GPS and satellite phones are also technologies, and their mere unavailability at a time of need is not necessarily a manifestation of electoral malpractice. #2: A water mark is not printer DNA. Whether a water mark will be on all printouts depends on whether the operator sends the same water-marked version of the document to the printer, for every copy printed. So you can say a watermark is a DNA of a particular version of a document. Moreover, absence of a water mark doesn't mean anything if the form is signed by representatives of the opposing parties as a representation of the tally done before them. I understand that some were not signed. SOME. No one has cared to enumerate the possible weight of this SOME. I am unaware of any public discussion of why some were not signed. If this debate was genuinely about improving the electoral process, that's the kind of topic that would be at the top of the discussion. Whether the announced result was the right one would be a secondary objective, i.e., to determine whether when all the alleged irregularities are assessed, the call was valid. #3: I don't know what the laws says, but I think the SC should have no right to call for server access. Where does independence of the IEBC remain then, if another institution will have unabated access to its work? The SC has ways of showing that IEBC announced an incorrect result, if that is the case. It can inquire into the workings of the server, of course, but it should not at any time have control over the server, in my opinion. So, unless we are talking of read-only access in this case, I am glad IEBC did not comply. Whether it should comply in future, should be tabled in a bill by legislators of good faith, if any. Why would anyone be sure that a person sitting at the court was not keen on changing the contents of the server upon being granted access? #4: Are any investigation due? I reiterate that question, but not with respect to this bullet alone, but every one of them. I am now of the impression that all at play have secrets that would not be appealing to the voter, if disclosed. That is why no one wants to dig into the truth of votes. Not NASA, not Jubilee, not Supreme court. Anyone who is in this truly for democracy's interest would be saying, "lets recount the votes even while we have to abide by the SC's order." Opening of servers is not a matter of infringng on independence, but acertaining that the servers did exactly what they were expected to do. That is why we have audits. The auditor general can summon the SC to produce all receipts say of travel expenses of it's staff. Do you want to tell me SC should not comply because it will infringe on its independence. I think the definition of independence of institutions is not premised on absolutness of authority, but on the discharge of their duties as mandated by the law or laws governining them. From time to time, that independence must be verified and seen to be working or still relevant. The second point on printers is premised on common sense. What you feed a printer in terms of what it should print, is what you will get from it. They do not have a mind of their own. So if the contract stated that all ballot papers must have certain security features, they will have, even small mom and pop print shops can gurantee that with 100% certainity. The technology has been with us for 50+ years. Maybe you should try pass an offical document without a letter head, then you will get the point. Security features can be so unique as to pinpoint the exact place, time, batch, machine, operator and many other marks you would need to verify that a certain form came from that and that printer. It is done every single day, check your cell-phone or chicken legs you buy at major suprmarkets etc. Those can be traced to the exact chicken farm and batch of chickens that were slaughtered. Last I have is the question of recount. Would you vouch for a recount of an outcome that has all the inputs unverifiable? As a citizen, my conscious would not allow me. You can talk all day about "only some" were missing, or "the amount is small to affect outcome". I will tell you to go and sing that to the mathematicians or staticians. I am an ordinary citizen and I want to be sure that me and my opponents forms were handled in a way that is indsiputable to both of us.
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Sept 27, 2017 9:02:06 GMT 3
Opening of servers is not a matter of infringng on independence, but acertaining that the servers did exactly what they were expected to do. That is why we have audits. The auditor general can summon the SC to produce all receipts say of travel expenses of it's staff. Do you want to tell me SC should not comply because it will infringe on its independence. I think the definition of independence of institutions is not premised on absolutness of authority, but on the discharge of their duties as mandated by the law or laws governining them. From time to time, that independence must be verified and seen to be working or still relevant. The second point on printers is premised on common sense. What you feed a printer in terms of what it should print, is what you will get from it. They do not have a mind of their own. So if the contract stated that all ballot papers must have certain security features, they will have, even small mom and pop print shops can gurantee that with 100% certainity. The technology has been with us for 50+ years. Maybe you should try pass an offical document without a letter head, then you will get the point. Security features can be so unique as to pinpoint the exact place, time, batch, machine, operator and many other marks you would need to verify that a certain form came from that and that printer. It is done every single day, check your cell-phone or chicken legs you buy at major suprmarkets etc. Those can be traced to the exact chicken farm and batch of chickens that were slaughtered. Last I have is the question of recount. Would you vouch for a recount of an outcome that has all the inputs unverifiable? As a citizen, my conscious would not allow me. You can talk all day about "only some" were missing, or "the amount is small to affect outcome". I will tell you to go and sing that to the mathematicians or staticians. I am an ordinary citizen and I want to be sure that me and my opponents forms were handled in a way that is indsiputable to both of us. As one that works in the IT industry, I am constantly fascinated by this obsession with 'opening up of servers' as demanded by NASA. Every IT system that collects, processes and outputs data relies on one thing: DATA INPUT. Any systems will auditor will tell you that the starting point of any audit is the data that is input into the system before starting a trace on the route the data took to the point of OUTPUT. Auditing the processing and output of the IT system is meaningless as without the input data the audit will be meaningless!I say this with the belief that the demand is premised on confirming the accuracy of the votes cast in the election and not the crazy algorithm argument that has been suggested!
|
|
|
Post by mank on Sept 27, 2017 17:24:16 GMT 3
Opening of servers is not a matter of infringng on independence, but acertaining that the servers did exactly what they were expected to do. That is why we have audits. The auditor general can summon the SC to produce all receipts say of travel expenses of it's staff. Do you want to tell me SC should not comply because it will infringe on its independence. I think the definition of independence of institutions is not premised on absolutness of authority, but on the discharge of their duties as mandated by the law or laws governining them. From time to time, that independence must be verified and seen to be working or still relevant. Production of receipts and invoices sound routine audit procedures. Similarly printouts of any form from the servers is fair deal. Demanding access to the server sounds like an intent to corrupt the server. Gaining control of servers can compromise independence of work if the non IEBc people would gain such access have the capacity to input anything into the work of IEBc. Auditing authority doesn't entail absolute right over everything including the vehicles of deriving a result. An audit of the type we here discuss entails scrutiny over data inputs, report outputs, and perhaps accompanying conversations. All these could be captured in extracts from the server and should not call for ceding control of the server. The second point on printers is premised on common sense. What you feed a printer in terms of what it should print, is what you will get from it. They do not have a mind of their own. So if the contract stated that all ballot papers must have certain security features, they will have, even small mom and pop print shops can gurantee that with 100% certainity. The technology has been with us for 50+ years. Maybe you should try pass an offical document without a letter head, then you will get the point. Security features can be so unique as to pinpoint the exact place, time, batch, machine, operator and many other marks you would need to verify that a certain form came from that and that printer. It is done every single day, check your cell-phone or chicken legs you buy at major suprmarkets etc. Those can be traced to the exact chicken farm and batch of chickens that were slaughtered. You didn't add anything on what I had said on this point. A printer prints what it is given, and that was my explanation to Podp as to why some printouts from the same printer may lack a water mark. You however fell short of noticing my point on assessment of the significance of the lack of the watermark on some printouts... It is of no consequence as far as tallying is concerned, as long as opponents in the elections are signature witnesses of the tally on whatever paper the tally may be presented. By the way, given that the presumed thieves at IEBc are not any less aware of the significance of a watermark than you, why would they not have used watermarked forms to cheat? Why would they have used forms without watermarks instead? Last I have is the question of recount. Would you vouch for a recount of an outcome that has all the inputs unverifiable? As a citizen, my conscious would not allow me. You can talk all day about "only some" were missing, or "the amount is small to affect outcome". I will tell you to go and sing that to the mathematicians or staticians. I am an ordinary citizen and I want to be sure that me and my opponents forms were handled in a way that is indsiputable to both of us. I can assure you that there will always be some level of irregularities in any national election here on earth. What must be ensured is that there is no systemic corrupting irregularity, and hence the specialties you are asking me to go sing to (I am not a good singer) have a role to play in assessing and showing the significance of any irregularities in a dispute process. I was clear I wasn't being dismissive of irregularities in using "some", rather I was highlighting the shallowness of interest in discovering the extent of irregularity. The common voter is not the idiot you are trying to caricature - While statistics and math may not be his/her specialization, he or she is not devoid of the capacity to assess reasonable explanation of phenomena, of course except they may pretend when the implications of reason don't align with their selfish interests. A recount is perhaps not the right term for what is needed in the situation. What's needed is a review of the forms that were signed at the poling stations. Certainly, if representatives of contesting parties signed on the same tally form, there is no need for a recount. Where representatives didn't sign, then other options emerge, including repeat voting for those stations only.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 27, 2017 21:56:20 GMT 3
There is only one irregularity that stands out i I am unaware of the details of how things went in the elections, but the above bullets don't rise #4: Are any investigation due? I reiterate that question, but not with respect to this bullet alone, but every one of them. I am now of the impression that all at play have secrets that would not be appealing to the voter, if disclosed. That is why no one wants to dig into the truth of votes. Not NASA, not Jubilee, not Supreme court. Anyone who is in this truly for democracy's interest would be saying, "lets recount the votes even while we have to abide by the SC's order." Your impression is spot on. www.nation.co.ke/news/Okiya-Omtatah-sues-IEBC-over-reuse-of-KIEMs-kits-in-repeat-poll/1056-4114870-1a1pj1z/index.htmlAlready IEBC is in a hurry tof format the kits prompting OO's action. Will share the Meru county story. All the PNU affiliated MCA's ....32 in number all lost in the just concluded election. PNU was associated with former governor Munya. One former MCA in her ward obtained 2,700 votes in the 2013 with total cast votes then below 5,500 against <7,000 registered voters. Come 2017 the registered voters were 16,000 and those who voted 15,700! She still got her 2,700 but the Kiraitu backed incoming MCA has in excess of 8,000 votes and two other had votes slightly above her 2,700! What was even more hilarious were governor Kiraitu's votes....280,000 against 230,000 for former governor Munya. The women representative on Kiraitu's side got 231,000 while the PNU one got 231,000. The inhabitants of Meru clicked their votes did not matter and that the leaders were computer generated. You can do the arithmetic 54% magic margin. So secrets abound. Nairobi, Kirinyanga, Bomet and other counties that reproduced the 54% magic margin would form good investigation pieces rather than the energy used on poor single parent raised child now MP Babu Owino who in the charge sheet compared Bulldogs like late Qadaffi, ICC held Gbabo and dared suggest we have a puppy to deal with in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 27, 2017 22:02:39 GMT 3
There is only one irregularity that stands out i I am unaware of the details of how things went in the elections, but the above bullets don't rise #4: Are any investigation due? I reiterate that question, but not with respect to this bullet alone, but every one of them. I am now of the impression that all at play have secrets that would not be appealing to the voter, if disclosed. That is why no one wants to dig into the truth of votes. Not NASA, not Jubilee, not Supreme court. Anyone who is in this truly for democracy's interest would be saying, "lets recount the votes even while we have to abide by the SC's order." Your impression is spot on. www.nation.co.ke/news/Okiya-Omtatah-sues-IEBC-over-reuse-of-KIEMs-kits-in-repeat-poll/1056-4114870-1a1pj1z/index.htmlAlready IEBC is in a hurry to format the kits prompting OO's action. Will share the Meru county story. All the PNU affiliated MCA's ....32 in number all lost in the just concluded election. PNU was associated with former governor Munya. One former MCA in her ward obtained 1,700 votes in the 2013 with total cast votes then below 5,500 against <7,000 registered voters. Come 2017 the registered voters were 16,000 and those who voted 15,700! She still got her 1,700 but the Kiraitu backed incoming MCA has in excess of 8,000 votes and two other had votes slightly above her 2,000! What was even more hilarious were governor Kiraitu's votes....280,000 against 230,000 for former governor Munya. The women representative on Kiraitu's side got 281,000 while the PNU one got 231,000. The inhabitants of Meru clicked their votes did not matter and that the leaders were computer generated. You can do the arithmetic 54% magic margin. So secrets abound. Nairobi, Kirinyanga, Bomet and other counties that reproduced the 54% magic margin would form good investigation pieces rather than the energy used on poor single parent raised child now MP Babu Owino who in the charge sheet compared Bulldogs like late Qadaffi, ICC held Gbabo and dared suggest we have a puppy to deal with in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by podp on Sept 27, 2017 22:10:06 GMT 3
Corrected
|
|