Dear Editor,
WHILE we wait for the CCJ to either make the precedential decision that it has no jurisdiction over Article 177 cases as claimed by our AG, or surprisingly arrogate to itself jurisdiction under some unique judicial principle, my mind continues to be occupied with the mantra-like hue and cry over “valid votes” and the “democratic will of the of the people” regarding the outcome of our March 2 Elections. Surprisingly, many with a self-serving personal or paid-for opinion are talking about “valid votes” and “democratic will of the people” as if these notions have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But while these notions seem to be mutually exclusive, they are in fact an inextricably linked sequence. For in democratic societies, it is only through valid votes that the democratic will of the people can be discerned via elections. If all the votes cast in an election are invalid for whatever reason, the democratic will of the people cannot be said to have been discerned.

Consequently, it makes no sense for GECOM, as is being demanded by many at home and abroad, to presume validity and count every unspoilt vote cast by every voter, without regard for the actual validity of those votes. Why should GECOM confer a presumption of validity on votes that are known to be invalid through fraud and irregularities? And why are these people not constrained by the self-evident truth that the democratic will of the people can be measured only by the counting of valid votes? Look, in my view, only valid votes should be ascertained and counted prior to the declaration of the results of our March 2 elections. No presumption of validity must be given to ballots that are known to be not valid or are included in ballot boxes with fraudulent ballots from which they cannot be distinguished. The presumption of validity of a ballot is reserved for the normal counting process under normal circumstances. But this is neither the normal counting process nor the normal circumstances.

How can these be normal circumstances when the recount has unearthed temporarily-resurrected-but-now-dead-again voters, omnipresent emigrant voters, and ballots with the miraculous ability to self-mark and self-stamp themselves and then appear in ballot boxes, with obviously no evidence of how they got there? We all know that ‘dead men tell no tales’, so we must also accept that they must not be allowed to contribute any votes in determining the democratic will of the people. Emigrants thankfully do contribute to our economy, but their omnipresent votes must not be counted when determining the democratic will of our people. We also have to reject those votes that cannot be verified through statutory documents as having come from eligible voters. And if all of these infected votes cannot be individually identified, then all ballot boxes with them must be rejected, without any regard for the self-serving and self-censoring talk of disenfranchisement of innocent voters. The innocent will always suffer collaterally in wars of all kind. Thus, GECOM’s war against irregularities and fraud will have its collateral victims.

In fact, GECOM’s rules already provide for the disenfranchisement of the innocent, the ignorant, and the illiterate for various reasons. For example, if an exuberant but ignorant voter properly marks his or her ballot for a party but then innocently places his or her name thereon, he or she is automatically disenfranchised. Yes, that ballot will be invalidated! A presiding officer can also eject a voter from a polling station for violating rules the voter may be unaware of, thereby potentially frustrating the voter into not returning to vote. The vote of an illiterate voter will be invalidated if he or she improperly marks a ballot. These types of disenfranchisement of voters I am supposed to accept because the sanctity of secrecy of the ballot, order in the polling place, and ability to clearly determine a voter’s intent demand nothing less. But demonstrable fraud and irregularities must be condoned!? Crock! Utter Crock!!! What is so wrong with disenfranchising “innocent” voters to prevent the triumph of fraud and irregularities?

The road to electoral democracy is littered with many instances of collective responsibility, some may call it collective sacrifice. Yes, it has been a messy road, and will continue to be so. Unintended consequences will always ensue when persons of ill-will inject fraud and irregularities to have things go their way. It is indeed a fact and a problem that GECOM cannot identify every specific vote that has been placed in a ballot box through fraud or irregularities, but it very well knows the specific solution to the problem. For if the specific votes cannot be identified, then GECOM must exclude the ballot boxes in which those votes are commingled. All parties will lose votes when those ballot boxes are excluded, some more than others. But that is okay. To stay on the road to democracy, we all have to share the collective responsibility placed on us. And in this instance, the party that has benefitted the most from fraud and irregularities must of necessity bear the greatest share of responsibility in resolving them.
I also firmly believe that many of the “innocent” voters likely to be disenfranchised were winking and nodding at what was going on right under their noses. When one member of an Olympic gold-medal relay team is found to have cheated, every member of the team is stripped of gold. They get nothing! Innocence is no defense. Years of hard work and sacrifice must come to nothing! The integrity of the sport has to be protected at all costs.

So, unlike many, I have no apprehension whatsoever about disenfranchising “innocent” voters to protect democracy. To be frank, I am completely sanguine about it. Thus, there will be no crocodile tears from me—others should spare me theirs—if GECOM removes those tainted ballot boxes or even annuls the election wholly or in part. For, as I have previously mentioned, GECOM’s rules already allow it to disenfranchise voters. Those rules may have been written for the most frequent and vexing occurrences, but there is nothing that stops GECOM from also using the law to right the fraudulent wrongs that were unearthed during the recount. In fact, GO 60/2020 and our constitution empower GECOM to use only valid votes so that the world will know the true democratic will that was expressed on March 2nd.
GECOM’s CEO Keith Lowenfield has dutifully done his part. It is now up to the six commissioners and the chairman to do theirs.
Regards,
Lionel Lowe