Tuesday evening debate, mazematics edishen

Aviator

Aviator

Elder Lister
Our constitution requires a presidential candidate to get 50%+1 of all valid votes cast in the country.
Let us take a hypothetical case where 51 valid votes are cast. Candidate A gets 25 and candidate B gets 26.
That is 49.0196078431372% and 50.9803921568627% respectively.

Applying the principle of 50%+1, the winning candidate needed 25.5 votes +1=26.5 votes, but since votes can't be halves, then 27.

Question: Would candidate B be considered duly elected as per the 4 dissenting commissioners?
 
Aviator said:
Our constitution requires a presidential candidate to get 50%+1 of all valid votes cast in the country.
Let us take a hypothetical case where 51 valid votes are cast. Candidate A gets 25 and candidate B gets 26.
That is 49.0196078431372% and 50.9803921568627% respectively.

Applying the principle of 50%+1, the winning candidate needed 25.5 votes +1=26.5 votes, but since votes can't be halves, then 27.

Question: Would candidate B be considered duly elected as per the 4 dissenting commissioners?
Click to expand...
wewe na Juliana cherera ni same wozapp group.
 
Good point.

No, candidate B does not qualify as being duly elected.

However, your 0.98 essentially is more of a vote than a none-vote. It can qualify but cannot be disqualified.

The spirit/idea is essentially for any vote, even a percentage point, to tip the scales in favour of whoever's above 50%.
 
kijanamrefu said:
Good point.

No, candidate B does not qualify as being duly elected.

However, your 0.98 essentially is more of a vote than a none-vote. It can qualify but cannot be disqualified.

The spirit/idea is essentially for any vote, even a percentage point, to tip the scales in favour of whoever's above 50%.
Click to expand...
That's why we need to stop saying "50%+1" and instead say "more than half".
 
Aviator said:
Our constitution requires a presidential candidate to get 50%+1 of all valid votes cast in the country.
Let us take a hypothetical case where 51 valid votes are cast. Candidate A gets 25 and candidate B gets 26.
That is 49.0196078431372% and 50.9803921568627% respectively.

Applying the principle of 50%+1, the winning candidate needed 25.5 votes +1=26.5 votes, but since votes can't be halves, then 27.

Question: Would candidate B be considered duly elected as per the 4 dissenting commissioners?
Click to expand...
Why not make the 25.5 to be 25 since votes can't be halved? Then you get 25+1
 
Aviator said:
That's why we need to stop saying "50%+1" and instead say "more than half".
Click to expand...
Actually, this is the language in the constitution...

Article 138
(4) A candidate shall be declared elected as President if the candidate receives--
(a) more than half of all the votes cast in the election; and
(b) at least twenty-five per cent of the votes cast in each of more than half of the counties.
 
Last edited:
Aviator said:
That would be a mathematical absurdity.
We round off to the nearest whole vote.
Click to expand...
Legally, that increases the threshold... So it's no longer 50%+1

26 represents the minimum possible number of viotes you need to exceed 50%.. which is the legal philosophy behind 50%+1

It's a logical and legal question, not a Mathematical question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top