HERE'S A LOOK AT THE AFC IN THE 2011 ELECTION

* The AFC received 10.3% of the overall votes(35,333 votes)

THE BREAKDOWN BY RACE OF THE 342,236 VOTERS IN 2011

44%---------East Indians

33%---------Blacks

14%---------Mixed

9%----------Amerindians

QUESTION:

* What percentage of each ethnic group voted for the AFC in 2011 ?

Rev

THE ANSWER:

* The AFC received 15% of the East Indian votes

* The AFC received 4% of the Black votes.

* The AFC received 11% of the Mixed votes.

* The AFC received 9% of the Amerindian votes.

============

THE CALCULATION:

(0.15 * 44) + (0.04 * 33) + (0.11 * 14) + (0.09 * 9)

6.6% + 1.32% + 1.54% + 0.81% = 10.27%

* Shockingly the AFC received only 4% of the black votes.

* But they made out like bandits among East Indians---15% of the East Indian vote went to the AFC---the Moses factor was huge.

Rev

You keep regurgitating this dry grass like an old cow.

You would do better adding up your marbles in your bubble bath.

Prove it.  What's your source?

QUESTION REGARDING THE EAST INDIAN VOTES

* Are you folks saying that these percentages are totally inconceivable for the 2011 election:

1. THE PPP RECEIVED 80% OF THE EAST INDIAN VOTES

2. THE AFC RECEIVED 15% OF THE EAST INDIAN VOTES

3. THE PNC RECEIVED 5% OF THE EAST INDIAN VOTES

Rev

Why don;t you shut your clap trap Rev!

Read my lips.

NOW LETS TURN TO THE BLACK VOTES IN 2011

* THE PPP RECEIVED 12% OF THE BLACK VOTES

* THE AFC RECEIVED 4% OF THE BLACK VOTES

* THE PNC RECEIVED 84% OF THE BLACK VOTES

QUESTION:

* Are you folks saying those percentage breakdown for the black votes in 2011 are inconceivable ?

* WHICH NUMBER DO YOU DISAGREE WITH ?

Rev

kishan bai:

* There is no Guyanese with a functioning brain who would dispute the NUMBERS the Rev is sharing with the folks on GNI.

* These are numbers never seen before.

* TELL ME WHICH PERCENTAGE ABOVE IS PATENTLY WRONG IN YOUR EDUCATED OPINION ?

Rev

Your numbers are designed to distort, confuse and confuse, they have no foundation in common sense.  The PPP will get less votes in the next elections but the will win the plurality because the APNU doing deals with the PPP.  Ask Vulga Lawrence how much she got for rolling over?

kishan:

* You are a poster of above average intelligence.

* Let's not talk about the 2016 election.

* Let's go back to the 2011 election.

* We know the PPP received 48.6% of the votes; we know the PNC received 40.8% of the votes and we know the AFC received 10.3% of the votes.

* We also know from the last census that the ethnic make up of Guyana is about 43.4% Indians; 30.2% blacks; 16.7% Mixed and 9% Amerindians.

* An assumption was made regarding the ethnic make up of the 342,236 voters in 2011---the census figures were adjusted to reflect a higher enthusiasm among blacks, for example.

* In the model---the ethnic make up used was: 44% Indians; 33% blacks; 14% Mixed and 9% Amerindians.

* Now the percentages the Rev's model came up with were presented above---there was a breakdown of how the races voted for each party.

* For example, 80% Indians voted for the PPP; 12% blacks voted for the PPP; 23% Mixed voted for the PPP; 69% Amerindians voted for the PPP

* Apply those percentages to the assumed turnout by race---which used the last census figures---and you get an overall percentage of 48.59% for the PPP.

* TELL ME WHICH NUMBER YOU DISAGREE WITH KISHAN.

Rev

It dangerous when one makes conclusions from absurd assumptions.

* I'm in the finance business---derivatives---we model all the time---of course, our models are only as good as the assumptions we make.

* The major assumption that was made in the above calculations was the ethnic make up of the 342,236 voters.

* And I adjusted slightly the last census figures---note blacks in the census is 30.2%---I used 33% in the model because black enthusiasm was higher.

BOTTOM LINE:

* The NUMBERS I presented were not exact----but I dare anyone to challenge me---and tell me which NUMBER---which percentage is blatantly wrong.

Rev

Your numbers and percentages are not wrong basically; your deductions are questionable.

Regardless of how many Indo votes the PPP got last elections, it doesn't mean as many Indos will vote again for the PPP next time.

Indos are increasingly fed up of the corrupt PPP ruling elite.

What I find amusing is his ability to define with precision the statistics for the mixed voters.

FACT.  There is no unanimous understanding of who these mixed voters are.  What we know is that between 1991 and 2002 the % of people self identifying as "mixed" increased significantly, offsetting the deckine in % of those self identifying as Indian, and the smaller decline in those self identifying as black.

So who are these mixed people?  If they aren't people who changed how they self identified in 2002 relative to 1991, then they are the results of increased miscegenation between the three largest racial groups.  If that is the case then 1/3 of the mixed people were born after the 1991 census.  This would suggest that only the OLDEST of this cohort would have reached voting age.

So rev how do you know that the mixed voters were 14%.   Most people sort of combine the African and the mixed and then estimate maybe 45=42-45%.  And this based on the assumption that Indians were 45-48% and Amerindians at around 7%, with a 1% miscellaneous "other".

Given the fact that the turnout in 2011 favored APNU more than the PPP when compared to 2006, and based on lower voter turnout in some rural traditionally PPP areas, and higher turnout in Linden and other APNU areas.  Also the fact that virtually all of the increased voter turn out in region 3 went to APNU, even though this is traditionally a solid PPP bloc suggests that voter turnout in the African/mixed blocs were higher than among Indians.  This explaining the surge in votes for APNU when compared to what the PNC got in 2006.

Now I will assume that 90% of this black/mixed population voted for parties other than the PPP.  I do so based on an assumption that almost all of APNU's votes came from this group, and the AFC definitely also got some of these votes.

But rev you seem much more scientific, yet seem unable to tell us how come.  I make loads of assumptions.  You speak from a position of having an exact number.

Except that you also have to take into account socio political factors.  You just draw numbers out of the air.

So is Trotman mixed, or is he black?  He changes his mind every day.

Benschop said he was mixed when he was drinking PPP soup.  When the soup ran sour he suddenly decided that he was black.

Yet you can wirh great specificity tell us who is mixed and who isn't, and also that mixed people are a monolithic voting bloc, and not a heterogenous group with different ways of connecting to Guyana, and to the other racial groups.

Tell you what.  Its possible that most red people in Guyana hate black people, but they support the PNC as intensely as blacks do.  Speak to a different dougla and you will get different notions as to how they relate.  Some prefer Indians, some blacks, and some hate both, and prefer Portuguese and other mixed people.

THERE IS A 99.9% PROBABILITY THIS MAN WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN 2016

* Rev's a tad busy.

* Will check out carib's post above later.

* And will present a break down of the PNC votes later on.

Rev