Talk:2020 Guyanese general election

A news item involving 2020 Guyanese general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 August 2020.

Wikipedia

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Guyana Low‑importance

	Guyana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guyana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guyana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuyanaWikipedia:WikiProject GuyanaTemplate:WikiProject GuyanaGuyana
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Provisional results table

What's the source for the results table? I can't find a result table elsewhere for the ten districts added together. On the GECOM site I can find the ten district result sheets, but added up, they do not give the numbers in the table. For district 4 I can find various diverging versions of the official sheet, which doesn't surprise me, because it has been annulled by the judiciary. The results in the table here seem to have been based on the results for district 4 published by Stabroek News[1].----Bancki (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results according to GECOM

	votes tot.	v/Q	seats	n°1	n°2	n°3	n°4	n°5	n°6	n°7	n°8	n°9	n°10
APNU-AFC	236.928	32,38	33	3.905	7.343	23.811	136.057	14.497	20.338	4.817	2.086	4.889	19.185
PPP-C	229.481	31,37	32	8.022	18.788	47.855	77.231	18.317	43.275	3.720	2.041	7.068	3.164
LJP	2.667	0,36	0	170	120		761			879	460	277
ANUG	2.286	0,31	0		86	310	1.387	87	162	78			176
CG	2.030	0,28	0		149	318	919	100	367	67			110
PRP	864	0,12	0	23	55	135	389	50	166				46
TCI	680	0,09	0		18	80	463	22	59				38
URP	393	0,05	0	8	64	43	90	19	42	23	39	27	38
TNM	227	0,03	0			56	128	10	17				16
valid	475.556			12.128	26.623	72.608	217.425	33.102	64.426	9.584	4.626	12.261	22.773
invalid	3.897			333	257	334	1.502	272	539	170	114	200	176
turnout	479.453			12.461	26.880	72.942	218.927	33.374	64.965	9.754	4.740	12.461	22.949
Hare quota	7.316

corrected----Bancki (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results adjusted for district 4 based on Stabroek News

	votes tot.	v/Q	seats	n°1	n°2	n°3	n°4(*)	n°5	n°6	n°7	n°8	n°9	n°10
APNU-AFC	237.329	32,40	33	3.905	7.343	23.811	136.458	14.497	20.338	4.817	2.086	4.889	19.185
PPP-C	229.579	31,35	31	8.022	18.788	47.855	77.329	18.317	43.275	3.720	2.041	7.068	3.164
LJP	2.663	0,36	1	170	120		757			879	460	277
ANUG	2.288	0,31	0		86	310	1.389	87	162	78			176
CG	2.024	0,28	0		149	318	913	100	367	67			110
PRP	858	0,12	0	23	55	135	383	50	166				46
TCI	679	0,09	0		18	80	462	22	59				38
URP	394	0,05	0	8	64	43	91	19	42	23	39	27	38
TNM	230	0,03	0			56	131	10	17				16
valid	476.044			12.128	26.623	72.608	217.913	33.102	64.426	9.584	4.626	12.261	22.773
invalid	4.017			333	257	334	1.622	272	539	170	114	200	176
turnout	480.061			12.461	26.880	72.942	219.535	33.374	64.965	9.754	4.740	12.461	22.949
Hare quota	7.324	source district n°4: https://www.stabroeknews.com/2020/03/15/news/guyana/ppp-moves-for-injunction-to-stop-declaration-without-recount/

corrected----Bancki (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source was the GECOM results as they were at the time (I double checked them after they had been added by an IP and they were correct then). I've just looked at the Excel sheet where I did the calculations and it seems GECOM released a later set of region 4 results. The initial set was APNU/AFC 136,458, PPP 77,329, ANUG 1,389, CG 913, LJP 757, TCI 462, PRP 383, TNM 131, URP 91. All the other constituencies were the same. Number 5 7 13:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the table with the updated figure. BTW, your total for invalid votes is wrong (and therefore your overall total) - presumably because of region 5 – the results sheet has an incorrect total of rejected votes (358); the actual figure is 272 (which you get if you add up the individual lines). 272 is also what you get if you deduct valid votes (33,102) from total votes (33,374). Number 5 7 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bancki: Number 5 7 14:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPS - you've also got an error in your figures for region 8 that affects your totals (probably not helped by the awful quality of the photo; the PPP vote total was 2041 (not 2091) and URP was 39 (not 89). Number 5 7 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Number 57: for the corrections, four eyes see more than two! I will correct the tables here above. Your older version of n°4 results corresponds to the picture of the form in Stabroek News.----Bancki (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating this page

This page needs updates considering it's becoming pretty clear this event was an election scandal, it does not mention yet about the false calling of results that has now came clear that many were faked, I'm sure that there are better wikipedia editors than me to find the sources, I come back to this page and I feel that it could be updated more, I will try with some http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 18:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

New results

There's apparently more shenanigans, and a third table of results [2], [3], [4].--Aréat (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It's such an obviously massaged set of figures that I'm not sure it's even worth adding to the table. Perhaps the new totals for the PPC and PNC should just be mentioned in prose? It looks like the CCJ aren't going to let them get away with it at least. I don't think I've ever seen such an embarrassingly obvious attempt at election fraud in a democratic(!) country. Number 5 7 19:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As for the table, I'm not sure it was a good idea to present both counts in the table. On the french article, I ended up making a hidden table for the first count, for example.--Aréat (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Court of Justice ruling of 8 July

Press release of the court ----Bancki (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have to admit I don't quite get what was the deal with the whole debate about "if more votes are cast in favour…” being interpreted or not as “if more valid votes are cast in favour”. What did it mean exactly? --Aréat (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential candidates

Hello @Number 57: I'm thinking we should add the presidential candidates of each party in the table as it is a similar system as in Uruguay, Bolivia, Angola and so on. I'm however finding it surprinsigly hard to find a list. Do you happen to know of a source that list the nine candidates? Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I eventually found it.
I will implement it, if nobody here disagree.--Aréat (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aréat: Personally I don't think we should include them. The party's presidential candidates don't appear on the ballot paper (see here), so I think this is more similar to the case of Botswana than countries using DSV like Bolivia (where the candidates do appear on the ballot paper e.g.). Cheers, Number 5 7 08:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the appearance on the ballot paper this important, considering the parties does write down as in the source above their official candidate to the electoral commission, and are required to do so? Seem to me it is the same, whereas in Bostwana it's a different process, with the election taking place at a later date, with subsequent indirect round if there's no majority from the ballot nomination, and PM candidates aren't required to nominate a presidential candidate. If you prefer to remove it, though, I won't push it. It's just a plus. --Aréat (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having read the constitutional clause on this, you are correct, it is a direct election of the president. I'll look at sorting out the module code so the seat span works. Number 5 7 14:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it work! --Aréat (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]