Do 60-30-10 pattern really exist in Dumarao local election polls?
3:04 AM
Disclaimer: This blog never support any of the political parties. I
am just presenting my observation/calculation about the interesting pattern “60-30-10”
also in Dumarao election tally.
Lex Muga revealed last month a
controversial pattern waking the concern of the people, especially voters, all
over the Philippines. The 60-30-10 pattern had opened the insights of the
Filipinos, the same so with the mathematicians and statisticians, if the
automated election last May 2013 had been cheated, or the manchines including
the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS), were pre-programmed to vary or control
the election results.
60-30-10 pattern correlated the
percentage of the senatorial election votes. “60” means that 60% of votes was cast
to Liberal Party (LP) bets, “3”0 means 30% of votes went to the opposition
United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) candidates and “10” means the rest 10% of
votes counted for the independent runners and to those who belong to other
parties.
It was disclosed by Parish
Pastoral Coucil for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) that the pattern has no legal
evidence to prove that the election polls were stained by conspiracy. The New
York University professor, Michael Purugganan,, Ph. D., said that the pattern
was just mathematics considering the Law of Large Numbers (see Wikipedia).
Apparently, the 60-30-10 pattern
had also seen in Dumarao election results.
Take a look:
1. TANCO, VICTOR JR. LP 10,950
2. HACHUELA, MATEO LP 8,714
3. PADERNAL, ABEL JR. LP 8,444
4. DORADO, FERNANDO JR. LP 8,237
5. HALLARDA, ARIEL LP 7,865
6. BASILIANO, ABNER LP 6,491
7. HIÑOLA, ROLANDO LP 6,367
8.HARE, FORTUNATO LP 6,298
9. JUANICO, BOOJIE NUP 5,384
10. SALDO, ALEX NUP 3,942
11. ALTURKI, GING GING NUP 3,633
12. ALVAREZ, INDAY DOLI NUP 3,292
13. GUILLERMO, ABE NUP 3,192
14. CALIMPONG, NOEL NUP 2,929
15. LLAMAS, ROGEL NUP 2,715
16. PELOBELLO, JULE NUP 1,941
Now, I tried to calculate not for
senatorial results this time but with the lower position which is Sangguniang Bayan
of the lone-district of Capiz, Dumarao. The calculation goes with adding all
the votes of the Sangguniang Bayan runners from Victor Tanco, Jr. in the 1st
rank up to Jule Pelobello who is in last rank (results from Comelec data). So
to calculate, there are exactly 90, 394 votes as total.
Next, get the total number of
votes of two parties (LP and NUP). I got the sum of Victor Tanco Jr.'s (LP)
total votes who in the rank 1 up to rank 8 who is Fortunato Hare (LP). There
comes the total of 63, 366 votes for all LP bets. The same with LP, total all of
the votes cast by NUP. That is from Boojie Juanico in rank 9 up to Jule Pelobello
in rank 16. There, a total of 27, 028 votes had been cast to NUP.
Getting their percentage might
more interesting.
Let's start with LP. To get the
percentage, divide the total votes of all LP bets by the general Sangguniang
Bayan counted votes. So 63, 366 (LP votes) is divided by 90, 394 votes (general
total votes) and then multiply the answer to 100 to get the percentage. So, the
answer is equal to 70.09979%.
The same process should be done
in getting the percentage for NUP. 27, 028 (NUP votes) is divided by 90, 394
(general total votes) and multiply the answer to 100. The answer goes with 29.90021%.
It is clear that LP had 70.09979%
votes while the NUP had 29.90021%. Then, round off each of it to the nearest
ones. There we goes that LP had 70% total votes while NUP had exactly 30% total
votes.
Since Dumarao had no independent
runners or bets that belong to other parties, we may not match our calculation
to 60-30-10 pattern, instead 60-30-0 takes place. To complete the 100
percentage, the 10 which belong to independent bets, since Dumarao has no
independent runner, should whether be added to 60 (LP) or 30 (NUP). In our
case, the 10 was added to sixty (LP votes) making it 70% in favor to LP while
30% of NUP votes remain. Wondering why the 10% goes to LP and not with NUP nor
splitted it to two making 65-35-0 pattern? Why 70-30-0 really appeared? Well,
this is an interesting trend.
0 comments