A Critical View On Some Election Figures

by Laksiri Fernando
( January 15, 2015, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) The voter registration lists, Mahinda
Rajapaksas majorities in ten districts and supposed high voter turnouts, all are
unfortunately questionable without any prejudice to him or anyone. If I am bias, I am
bias for democracy and for a proper election system.
|

When Sri Lanka went for the controversial presidential elections on 8 January, there
were 15,044,490 registered voters on voting lists. This is quite a high number for a
population of 20.7 million people.
Mahinda Rajapaksa has been in executive power since 2005, and
the UPFA as a political organization since 1994. It is also my
personal knowledge that the election processes were closely
monitored, controlled and to a large extent manipulated through
political and party apparatuses throughout these years.
The Census population figure in 2012 was 20,359,439. The Department of Census gave
an estimated mid-year population figure for 2013 as 20,483,000. This is also the figure
the Central Bank gives. If I add a generous 1 percent increase, then the estimated midyear population in 2014 would be 20,687,830.
Incredibility
If we take the registered voters as a percentage of the above population figure, it stands
as 72.72 percent. This is quite a high figure by all standards.
Under the countrys election laws, only citizens who are 18 years and above can be
registered as voters.
If I go through the same source and take the 2013 estimates, under 14 children are
5,431,000 or 26.3 of the 2014 population. The Department of Census doesnt give an
estimate for 15-17 group, but only for 15-19. When we take the necessary fraction, it
estimates 994,800 as teenagers between 15 and 17. Therefore, the total ineligible under

age group consists around 6,425,800 or 31.1 percent of the population. This also
means the eligible population is 14,262,030 or 68.9 percent.
Therefore, how come that 15,044,490 people or 73 percent of the population are
registered as voters?
On the basis of the above estimates, 782,460 or 5.5 percent are registered in excess of
the eligible age group of population. This may be little less or little more. However,
who are they? Who registered them? And for what purpose? Even these initial
calculations give rise to serious suspicions when considering other factors. Another
country which has this kind of an anomaly is Papua New Guinea.
Although it is a tall figure, let us assume eligible voters are 73 percent of Sri Lankas
population. Even then how can you believe that 100 percent of them are (duly)
registered? Even in a compulsory voting country, the actual registration does not
exceed 75-80 percent. In Australia, it was revealed in a study last year that a quarter of
the eligible voters are not registered.
In recent times a high figure of registration (95%) of eligible voters was recorded in
Scotland. But that was when a referendum was taken on the independence issue last
September. But in the case of Sri Lanka, the figure or even the lists appear in excess of
credibility which should be explained or inquired by the Department of Elections. It is
true that there can be double entry errors. For example, the same name can appear in
two polling or Grama Niladhari areas, after someone moving from one area to the
other. There is also a possibility that a newly dead persons name would still remain in
the electoral list. However, these errors cannot even exceed 0.5 percent.
It is true that the Commissioner of Elections declared strict rules in identification and
voting procedures. Even a finger of the voter is inked after handing over the ballot
paper. However, when large numbers are flocked for voting, the election officers,
might not be able to scrutinize the proper identification. I am not here raising the issue
of possible stuffing of ballot boxes. My main concern is incredibility of the total
number of registered voters.
So-Called Majority?
There are claims that Mahinda Rajapaksa obtained a majority of the majority in ten
districts that he won. These are Hambantota, Moneragala, Matara, Ratnapura, Galle,
Anuradhapura, Kurunegala, Kalutara, Kegalle and Matale, as in Table 1, in the order of
the voter percentages that he received.
Table 1
Table 1

MR
Majority
63.02
61.45
57.81
55.74
55.64
53.59

Turnout

Hambantota
84.13
Moneragala
83.75
Matara
83.36
Ratnapura
84.90
Galle
83.49
Anuradhapur
83.10
a
Kurunegala
53.46
82.98
Kalutara
52.65
84.73
Kegalle
51.82
83.60
Matale
51.41
82.35
The majority percentages are between 51.41 and 63.02. As the Table more clearly
shows these are by and large the districts where a large percentage of voters happen to
turnout. The turnout percentages are between 82.35 and 84.90. There is a clear or high
correlation between the two, although it cannot be claimed 100%. I have not attempted
a correlation coefficient calculation as my undergraduate statistics knowledge has gone
rusty.
There are of course six other districts where voter turnouts were fairly high, but
Mahinda Rajapaksa failed to win a majority because, in my opinion, of the tough
competition from the opposition, irrespective of fraud/malpractices. These are
Polonnaruwa, Colombo, Gampaha, Badulla, Kandy and Nuwaraeliya.
Argument
My present argument about the correlation derives from my main argument that
registered voters are incredibly or suspiciously high. There is reason to believe that
there were substantial numbers of ghost voters. One may ask, if almost all the adults
are ostensibly registered, then from where does the ghost voters come? Although I
dont have a clear answer, the following are some possibilities. (1) Those who cast the
postal vote, can easily impersonate for others, if the time or opportunity permits. (2)
The underage also can impersonate like in PNG (if they look older or on the margin)
and obviously Nil Balakaya comes to my mind. (3) If the finger ink can be washed, a
crook can vote not once but even several times.
There is always a substantial percentage of voters not wanting to take the trouble of
voting. I would reckon that this group to be around 20 to 25 percent in Sri Lanka based
on the past figures (2005 and 2010). If one wants to impersonate this group, without

creating suspicion, the best policy might be to inflate the registered voter numbers or
ghost voters. Given the procedures of voter registration, this is not a difficult task. But
in the present case, it appears the effort has been gone overboard creating suspicion as
I and others have raised. So much so it is worse than PNG. In PNG, some years back,
around 4 million were registered out of a 6.1 million population although with a high
young population like Sri Lanka.
In 2005, the voter turnout was 73.73 percent, largely due to LTTE induced boycott. In
2010, the voter turnout was 74.49. At the recent election, it could have reasonably gone
up by around 3 percent due to higher turnout in the North and the East. However
instead, the voter turnout has shot up to 81.52.
In my article titled In Predicting Presidential Elections (Colombo Telegraph, 6
January 2015) I estimated 2 percent being fraudulently casted or counted for
Mahinda Rajapaksa at the 2010 elections. This time my estimate is 5 percent. On the
Election Day morning, responding to Uvindu Kurukulasuriyas provocative article Are
We Too Late? (Colombo Telegraph, 8 January 2015) I more concretely predicted
saying I would count the overall political swing to be around 10 percent and this
means something like 52 percent for MS, 47 for MR and 1 percent for others.
What I did not count without available election data at that time is the degree of
possible systematic election fraud in 2015. Therefore, I wish to submit that if not for
around 5 percent manipulation this time, Maithripala Sirisena would have won not
only the 12 districts that he already has, but also the districts of Kurunegala,
Anuradhapura, Kalutara, Kegalle and Matale. This is clear from the data in Table 1.
Therefore, the claim that President Maithripala Sirisena has not won the majority of
the majority is not correct. There are some obvious distortions in the election results.
Conclusion
Much has been said about the coercion and violence; and the misuse of state resources,
personnel and the state media for the former presidents election campaign. However,
the long term subversion of the election processes through controlling of voter
registration lists and schemes for impersonation and voter manipulation have not
taken our enough attention irrespective of the good work carried out by election
monitoring organizations.
Mahinda Rajapaksa has been in executive power since 2005, and the UPFA as a
political organization since 1994. It is also my personal knowledge that the election
processes were closely monitored, controlled and to a large extent manipulated
through political and party apparatuses throughout these years. Therefore, there are
major distortions within the electoral processes as a result. This is apart from the
distortions in the electoral system in general.

To rebuild democracy in the country these matters have to be looked into in a careful
and a systematic manner.
Posted by Thavam