Calculation Wahala!

October 14, 2017

For some who are number savvy, making calculations from the numbers being released
from NEC has become their new pastime. These calculations are not just being done to
display their mathematical exuberance or satiate their statistical longings, in some
instances others who dont have the time or agility to perform these calculations, rely on
the simplified presentations done by the Nerds. Beginning with the second
announcement of preliminary results on Friday, October 13, 2017, NEC itself has been
performing several calculations and employing infographics to simplify the results.

Notwithstanding, several issues have been casting murkiness on the reliability of some
of the calculations. One issue is how invalid votes should be treated in the tabulation of
percentages. Article 83 (b) of the 1986 constitution states verbatim: All elections of
public officers shall be determined by an absolute majority of the votes cast. I
should hasten to say that the 2011 referendum amended this provision to the effect that
except for the presidential elections, all other elections, including the representative
elections are determined by simple majority. Now, what is absolute majority? Also, what
does it mean by votes cast? Is it all valid and invalid votes or only valid votes?

Let me turn to the first question which relatively fewer people might have interest in,
what is absolute majority. Absolute majority is a majority over all rivals combined. In
short, it is more than half (at least 50% plus 1). The Collins English Dictionary states: If a
political party wins an absolute majority, [it] obtains more seats or votes than the total
number of seats or votes gained by [its] opponents in an election. Just one vote could
make you obtain or fail to receive an absolute majority and this is also true for
determinations under simple or other types of majority. Therefore, calculation is pivotal.

On the next question, what does it mean by votes cast (is it all valid and invalid votes or
is it only valid votes?); this was a very contentious issue in the referendum of 2011. One
of the four prepositions put out for referendum in Liberia in 2011 survived because of
the Supreme Court of Liberias interpretation of votes cast.

The Global Legal Monitor, United States Library of Congress

(http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/liberia-supreme-court-ratifies-a-
constitutional-amendment/) succinctly presents the story:

At issue was the manner in which the NEC counted the votes cast in the referendum. In
its announcement of the results, the NEC found that a total of 615,703 votes were cast,
of which 364,901 were in favor of Proposition 4, 174,469 were opposed, and 76,333 were

1|Page
invalid. (2011 Referendum Results, NEC website (last visited Sept. 22, 2011).) The
Supreme Court disagreed with the NEC's means of tabulating the vote. The Court held:

the inclusion of the invalid votes by the respondent (NEC) in the final tabulation of
votes to determine the two third votes [sic] required under article 91 of the constitution
of Liberia for the purpose of ratification of the propositions to amend said organic
document was in contravention of the laws applicable to the conduct of votes as
required to general and presidential elections [,] by- elections or election for the
conduct of a referendum. Consisted [sic] therewith, the invalid votes included by the
National Election Commission (NEC) to determine by [sic] the full outcome of the
referendum conducted on August 23, 2011 throughout the country are hereby set aside
and ordered deleted for the full outcome of the referendum. (Binda, supra.) So, my dear
friends, you see that the issue of including invalid votes was laid to rest by the high
court. The National Elections Commission is in admirable obedience of the courts ruling
anyways. Invalid votes are not being added by NEC.

Interestingly, I am observing a twist in the calculation being done by NEC. I think we are
in a season of calculation wahala. As someone who plays with big data also, I am quite
aware of the intricacies involved in handling lots of figures, which may sometimes
produce ostensible computational errors. I was once told by a friend that even the
software or application used for your calculations may inflate or deflate your results
considering how the tool (software, application, and computer etc.) was programmed
or designed. The experts in the field of Information Technology (IT) can weigh in on this.
The popular figures we hear from Todays announcement (October 13, 2017) are 39.6%
and 31.1% representing the shares of votes obtained so far by the CDC and UP
respectively. But how were these percentages derived?

Simple! Total number of votes obtained by a given political party divided by the total
votes obtained by all the parties. By now, we know that invalid votes should not be
considered, and by all available methods of verification, NEC is not including invalid
votes. So, lets get all our data using the results announced by NEC on October 13, 2017.
Total votes (valid) obtained by all the parties is 515,702, total votes obtained by the CDC
is 204,750 and the UP is 160,975. Therefore, 204,750 515,702 should give us 39.6% for
CDC; and 160,975515,702 should give us 31.1% for UP. I have used several calculators
and different versions of Microsoft Excel; I am yet to prove the equality. Is it a machine
calibration or configuration issue? Or is it an error? As shown in the table below, I got
39.703% and 31.215% for CDC and UP respectively. I may be rusty with the rules of
rounding, since it has been several years since I learned that. I do know that when
rounding numbers involving decimals, there are 2 rules to remember:

2|Page
 Rule One Determine what your rounding digit is and look to the right side of it. If that
digit is 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0 simply drop all digits to the right of it. It is clear from NECs
presentation that it has determined the rounding digit to be the digit/number right after
the decimal point (i.e. NEC is rounding to one decimal place). Therefore, for CDCs
percentage 39.703, all the numbers after 7 should be dropped, thus giving 39.7%
(not 39.6 as reported by NEC). And for UPs percentage 31.215, all the numbers after
2 should be dropped, thus giving 31.2% (not 31.1% as reported by NEC).

Rule Two Determine what your rounding digit is and look to the right side of it. If that
digit is 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 add one to the rounding digit and drop all digits to the right of it.
For the two parties under consideration, the digits after the rounding digit are not 5 or
above, so this rule does not apply. This rule would be needed for checking subsequent
releases of information or for results of other parties in the October 13, 2017 results.

Column1 A B C D E F
Percentage
Valid Votes Announced /
Obtained by All Presented by
Votes Obtained Parties A/B NEC C minus D E times B

CDC 204,750 515,702 39.70316190358000% 39.60% 0.10316190357997% 532

UP 160,975 515,702 31.21473253933470% 31.10% 0.11473253933473% 592

Someone may retort that I am making issue out of nothing. But look at the last
column (F) in the above table, it shows that the differential in the percentages (that is
the percentage that Excel gives minus the percentage that NEC presents) translates into
more than 500 votes for each of the two parties. Since just one vote matters, and
calculation matters in deciding the winner, absolute majority, second round etc. I hope
this is a spectacle issue that a prescription from my ophthalmologist would solve,
otherwise welcome to the season of calculation wahala.

My name is Jay G. Brown and I just want to give a logical twist to a riotous discourse.

The summary results from NECs October 13, 2017 announcement is appended below. I
hope that readers can double check the calculation of percentages and draw up their
own conclusion.

3|Page
4|Page