IT IS with a heavy heart, yet with the utmost respect and enduring camaraderie, that I write to you today.
Our shared history in the struggle against martial law and for the restoration of our nation’s freedom and democracy remains a testament to the values we both hold dear. It is precisely because of these shared principles that I feel compelled to address the recent election results in San Fernando.
I understand and respect your perspective regarding the outcomes, and I acknowledge your deep understanding of local politics. However, as you know, our commitment to democracy extends beyond mere acceptance of results; it demands vigilance and a dedication to ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.
While I appreciate your narrative explanations, I find myself deeply troubled by the statistically improbable uniformity of the election results, particularly the consistent percentage outcomes across multiple positions – from mayoralty, vice-mayoralty and councilorship positions.
This “questionable result,” to my mind, raises questions that I believe, require careful and thorough examination.
The “Elections Are Not Random”
Cong Oca, while it’s true that elections are influenced by various factors, this does not negate the value of statistical analysis. In fact, statistics are crucial for identifying anomalies and potential irregularities. The very fact that the results deviate so significantly from expected patterns raises legitimate concerns.
The consistent percentage outcomes across all positions are not easily explained by “non-randomness.” This level of uniformity suggests a high degree of control or manipulation, which warrants further investigation.
The non-random nature of elections does not preclude the use of statistics to identify anomalies. If there is a non-random reason for the results, let us examine if those reasons are valid, or if those reasons are due to manipulation.
The “Popularity and Unity”
Sir, you cited the popularity of Ms. Caluag and Mr. Gonzales as a key factor.
While popularity undoubtedly plays a role, it rarely results in such a perfect sweep with consistent percentages. Where is the empirical data to support the claim that this popularity was so overwhelming and uniformly distributed across all demographics?
Anecdotal observations are insufficient. We need concrete data, such as precinct-level results, voter turnout by demographic, and independent surveys, to validate these claims.
Even with popular candidates, normal election outcomes exhibit variations. The lack of variation is what is suspicious.
The “Local vs. Outsider”
Sir, you attributed the “sweep” to the “outsider” narrative against Ms. Mylyn Pineda. The “local vs. outsider” narrative may have influenced some voters, but it does not explain the uniformity of the results. Again, with due respect Sir, where is the data to quantify the impact of this narrative?
This narrative, while potentially impactful, does not preclude the possibility of irregularities. We need to examine all factors, including potential manipulation.
This argument is anecdotal, and does not explain the uniform percentages.
The “Class ABC Voter Turnout”
Sir, you cited high turnout among Class ABC voters.
Again, with due respect, where are the official voter turnout statistics broken down by socioeconomic class? We need concrete data to verify this claim.
Granting without conceding, even if true, it’s unlikely to explain the consistent percentage outcomes across all positions.
This is another anecdotal observation, not data.
The “Strategic Campaign and Opposition Missteps”
Sir, you attributed again the “sweep” to the Caluag team’s strategy and the opposition’s missteps.
Yes Sir, campaign strategy can influence results, I agree, but it rarely leads to such a complete and uniform sweep.
This argument does not address the statistical and “questionable results”.
Normal election outcomes exhibit variations, even with effective campaigns and opposition missteps.
Again, and again, this argument is anecdotal.
RESPECTING THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
Sir, respecting the voters’ verdict does not mean ignoring potential irregularities.
Ensuring the integrity of the electoral process is paramount to upholding democratic principles. The idea that we should not question STATISTICALLY IMPROBABLE results is anti-democratic.
The fact that the numbers are so improbable, means that the voice of the people may have been silenced.
To ensure the integrity of the electoral process, we need an independent investigation into the election results. Transparency is crucial for maintaining public trust in our democratic institutions.
Our shared history and commitment to democracy demands that we address these “statistical questionable results” and ensure that the voice of the people is accurately represented.
Our dedication to the principles of fair and just elections is, I believe, a continuation of our shared struggle.
With deepest respect and enduring friendship,
Yours in the service of our people,
Ka Alex
P.S. Koya eba mas masanting busni dala reng balota, Tunggal-tunggal bilangan dala, kayari dalang binilang akit tamu nung nanu talaga ing tutung resulta? Ninu ing minyanbut keng tutung kabilangan. Kanita mipasno nala retang magsalita pabor keng resulta maging retang atin maragul a pamagduda.
Kaybat na nita kaybat mebalu ing katutwan, pwede tanang sabyan – “LETS MOVE ON”
