Bahraini Elections Math: 2+2 = 8,091

Does anyone have any idea why, and this is the third day after the elections, that the exalted Elections Committee has not released the elections stats? You know, those mundane things that would tell us, the citizens and interested parties around the world how many people actually voted, how many ballots were accepted as good, how many rejected and how many posted without a mark on them at all?

Is it that they’re still massaging the numbers in order for everything “to fall in place” considering the fiasco of Munira Fakhro’s district with Salah Ali where the latter got a windfall 1,191 votes from out-of-constituency voting stations?

intekhabatcom.com has been trying to figure out the numbers, and they’re scary; they just considered the votes received by “loyalist” candidates through the out-of-constituency voting centres only, alluding of course to directed voting by military and police personnel, the vast majority of whom have been bussed to more than one out-of-constituency voting centres, possibly to spread their votes a bit. Unfounded allegations of course, but here are the numbers for your observation:

[TABLE=2]

Does anyone see the acute similarity of what bin Sager has been warning about when he claimed that there are around “8,000 floating votes” which the government can utilise as and when it sees fit? And that warning coming from a candidate who happens to be from the royal family too?

Free and fair?

signature
23 Comments
  • Dibujante
    28 November 2006

    does that mean me and my family are from the 91 ppl above the 8k mark !we (my whole family) voted in babco club as the weather was fine and we were going out to desert for fun. if i knew that my vote in those centres would bring bad name to my choice of candidate, i would’ve voted in my area’s centre… :no:

  • derwi
    28 November 2006

    I realize the numbers given at vote4bahrain are also gone – or am I mistaken?

  • mahmood
    28 November 2006

    they’re back again, they redid the front page and re-instated Xaraya (the full site)

  • Maverick
    28 November 2006

    Something is rotten here M.
    Why would you need to have extra 10 voting centres in such a small country.

    You can hop skip and jump to your enarest voting centre. You got inexpensive transport like CARS buses pool taxies, relatives etc.

    Considering the government did a screwy thing like keeping different times for municipal and parlimentary elections, why did they need 10 extra voting centres when they could not amend the timings to suite the needs of the voting public.

    By the way, another important thing was missing in mention. Did you notice that on the front apge of the GDn, the photo showed the PM putting both colored ballot papers in the same box.

    Was he not told that they have to be in separate boxes.
    Check the GDN archives.

  • amal
    28 November 2006

    what a disgrace..

  • Darth
    28 November 2006

    Mahmood, there are times when you make logical sense – lots of times. But this isn’t one of them. You selected a number of candidates that when added reaches 8,000 – if you were to count any less or more you’d get a higher or lower number!!! … So basically you chose the people you listed and you got 8,000 so no big deal. Second, Salman bin Sager is an Idiot, and obviously hated by the Royal Family so I’m guessing he’s not privy to any kind of secret royal conspiracy to make him lose. So mafeeha inna!! The numbers also from my limited knowledge of sampling seem pretty random there are no weird patterns, some are higher and some are not… and you can make a million conclusions to why certain out of constituency votes were higher than others…that type of people vote in a general center, non-wefaq supporters? higher income people? people with busy local centres? you can draw a million conclusions… Most importantly, there is no real reason to doubt the legitimacy of the elections if Shaikh Ali Salman says he believes they are fine .. then they are fine!! … Wefaq one and thats expected, Menbar lost one and a lot of people saw that one coming! … Abul most likely will wine but the rest of wa3ad probably won’t … Just cause you like Munira Fakhro doesn’t mean in anyway you represent the majority of the people here, I’m sorry your part of a minority of well educated people who happen to be secular…! And frankly your a minority so face it…!!

  • Sadek
    28 November 2006

    Darth
    But don’t you think its interesting that the lady was head to head in her constituency voting centre, but the independent centres produced lop sided results. Statistically, the probability of this happening is very low, not impossible but remote. I am speaking purely mathematically of course. But of course I belong to the well educated minority that in your opinion don’t count! :grinnod:

  • mahmood
    28 November 2006

    Darth, thanks for the outburst. Those were not my numbers, those were calculated from another site to which I provided a link so that you can go and check yourself. That does not prove the legitimacy of the sampling nor the conclusion, and of course, we cannot ascertain that this is a conspiracy too.

    What it does provide is another level of non-trust which is applied to the relationship between the normal people (regardless of them being in the minority or majority) and the government at this particular point in time. Why else would people, respected journalists like Abbas Busafwan in this case and his crew, dig so that they would come up with such “explanations”?

    To me, even with Salman attesting that the elections were free and fare as far as his constituency is concerned, I do not see them as such because of:

    1. out-of-constituency voting stations; those I accepted in 2002 due to the boycott and they provided a venue for people who did want to vote to do so without the harassment of the boycotters. There is no reason whatsoever to have them in this election, and as ALL doubtful winning votes came from them, that MUST provide some doubt, and if there is doubt it has got to be investigated and take appropriate action;

    2. no international monitoring

    3. local monitoring recorded several violations

    4. directed security personnel voting

    Give me a rational explanation for the above and I’ll be happy enough to eat my words. Until then, and in the glaring shortcomings, I am uncomfortable with the situation. Even more so if they continue to insist on the out-of-constituency voting for the runoffs, considering they didn’t use them in 2002.

    Above all, the breakdown of trust is directly related to Bandargate which made some serious allegations which the government still did not publicly deal with.

    Sorry my friend. I am uncomfortable.

  • mahmood
    28 November 2006

    Guys, you might also be interested in Fareed Isa’s column about the subject. (arabic)

  • Finlandi
    28 November 2006

    Makes me wonder why i should bother voting next time around….

  • anonymous
    28 November 2006

    hi… i voted in a general station.. reason: i went with my family to watch the races at the track so it was convienent, if i had to go to the actuall station i probably would not have voted. Secondly a freind of mine was travelling from bahrain on the day of the vote, had there not been a general polling station at the airport she would probably not have voted either..thirdly my brother voted at seef mall cause he happened to be having a buisness lunch in the area, again had he not had that option he wouldn’t have voted..thousands of other reasons as to why ppl use the general stations,, and i thank the authorities for making that possible.. so lets stop complaining about general stations cause then we wouldn’t see the high turn out in voters.

  • mahmood
    28 November 2006

    Voting is a national duty.

    It is not a pastime activity that you do while watching a race or conducting business. It is YOUR national duty to STOP whatever you are doing, for an hour at most during a single day every four years.

    Is that too much to ask?

  • Maverick
    29 November 2006

    All said and done Mahmood, we can only wait and see what will unfold. I am sure there are some foolish people out there whoever they may be. However we have to keep faith and hope that sense will come of all this. Frankly you have a point about voting centres. The govenment made a mistake of not annoucing that it is a national duty and should have declared it a public holiday so that all working and non-working Bahrainis in the public and private sector could vote without problem. Then there would be no need for the extra ten voting stations, except at the airport and seaport.

    On the other hand, they also should have declared that no employee can be forbidden from voting or prevented from going to vote. SO there are no excuses to performing you your national duty.

    Another questions comes to mind, why does a saudi man get dual nationality of Bahrain and Saudi when Bahrain does not allow dual nationality? And how come he keep both passports? Further how come other nationals have to give up their passport to Bahraini authorities when they get Bahraini nationality, especially when the passports belong to their respective former governments?

    Is the government giving them temporary nationality to use them and then kick them out if they need too.

    One of things that make you go mmmmmm…..

    As I have said, I repeat it, there is something rotten and yes the silence of the authorities does not help in this matter.

  • Dibujante
    29 November 2006

    Well said Darth…..

    the general centres were big help for getting the 73.6% …
    instead of thanking the goverment for provideing such a service to the ppl and making the national duty easier,we startd bekering … i say we should do what latin americans do …place fines on ppl who dont vote so we get everyone voting and close down the general centres so ppl shut up. thats what we bahrainis deserve

  • TEXAS
    29 November 2006

    BULLSHIT..16 OF THE WEFAQ WON IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS CHEATING IT WOULDNT LET THEM WIN

  • mahmood
    29 November 2006

    Actually, the reason for the very high voter turn-out was because of the Muslim Scholar’s Council’s ordering the faithful to go out and vote (for the ‘list of faithfuls’). Not the out-of-constituency general voting stations. Those were tried the last time around and does anyone remember the turn-out then?

    Those voting centres did provide a couple of things:

    1. Convenience for a small number of civilian voters.
    2. Convenience for the government to skew the vote via directing the military to vote for certain candidates.

    Any idea WHY (if you’re still thinking about this) the Southern governate had THREE of those centres, when that governate total registered voters are LESS than the first constituency in the Northern governate?

    Anyone? Anyone?

  • mahmood
    29 November 2006

    TEXAS, actually they will most probably be 17. The only one they didn’t win is in a “mixed” constituency.

    Al-Wefaq’s win in ALL of those areas are purely technical. They chose to run ONLY in those constituencies they were guaranteed to win in.

    How is that? Well, thank the way that the constituencies were created. Hence, even if the government wanted, there is no way that Al-Wefaq wouldn’t win in the 16 constituencies.

    Don’t believe me? Have a look at the percentages.

  • Dibujante
    30 November 2006

    so what are u saying mahmood ? … the army and police personnel should not vote ? ?? ? ?

    as u should know that in the election days “any where in the world” police and army both work for extra hours …. so did bahrainis… dont u want these citizens to vote ? ..talk sense !

  • Maverick
    30 November 2006

    It was stated in the papers that the 10 general voting stations would have separate voting sections for peoples from a particular governorate, emaning if you were from notherrn you could only vote for those from your governorate and probably would be given a specific ballot paper.

    Still any system you establish is exploitable. Remember this is new for the public and the government.

    Even if the police of the military were asked to vote for a person, they could only vote for the person in their governorate. The world is full of favoritism. Vasta is the name of the game.

    If you stood for elections, would not your whole village or family vote for you just because they like you and not because you are the better person or rather because you are the better known of the devils standing.

  • mahmood
    30 November 2006

    Dibujante, as far as I am concerned, the military in all of its branches as well as all other security apparatus should NOT be allowed to vote.

    That is the ONLY way they can maintain their neutrality, as that factor is much more important for the safety of this country or any country for that matter. You politicise them and you ask for trouble, the next thing that could happen is that if a government is elected whom they see as non-military friendly, they could very easily mount a coup and then we get military rule. Or refuse to mobilise for whatever destination because they find it politically incorrect or they simply do not agree with it.

    Do we really want that to happen?

    They should maintain their independence at all costs.

  • Maverick
    30 November 2006

    Mahmood, I am sorry to say that I feel your judgement is clouded in this regard. No offence though buddy.

    Why? Well firstly the King is the Supreme Commander and the military moves on his order only, more over the coup would be Royal and not military.

    It may be true that the military personnel in Bahrain is imported, like the food, the building sand and the police force. However the police and military, if they are citizens then, they have a right of suffrage. This cannot be denied.

    Yes I agree with you that there is a lot of hanky panky going on here. But still no citizen can be denied his/her right of suffrage. Right to vote has nothing to do with their loyalty to the government. If they refuse to go to war as ordered by the King, they can be executed or kick of the island at best. perhaps the American military can help in this for a price per head mmmmmmmm =D
    🙂
    Another Issue:
    People here do not forget important issues.

    This is one of the reasons also Dr. Sahdi Mohamed Abdullah lost his seat to Adel Assoumi. Remember how he met with the immigration Sheikh and was the only one shown the confidential nationality files and said that he was satisfied with the information given to him. There was no parlimentary review or commision to investigate claims by the MPs as to irregular nationalization. =|

    Let us see what crap hits the fan this time.

  • TEXAS
    30 November 2006

    does anyone remember the turn-out then?

    Last time it was aroud 53% to 54%.

  • Maverick
    3 December 2006

    On the GDN front page today was the picture of a Bahraini girl voting. A closer analysis of the photo shows that she seems to be putting 2 different colred ballot papers in the same box.

    Are you not supposed to put different colored papers in different boxes-one for municipality and one for parliment?

Previous
On the Beeb!