the true results of the 2004 philippine presidential elections

The True Results of the 2004 Philippine Presidential Elections

By Roberto Verzola

Author, “The True Results of the Philippine Presidential Election Based

on the NAMFREL Tally”Kasarinlan (Vol. 19 No. 2, 2004)

Comparing Congress, NAMFREL tallies

• Congress tally: • 32.3M votes counted

• GMA lead over FPJ: 3.48% (1.1M)

• Average GMA lead: 5.2 votes per precinct

• Average vote turnout: 149.0 votes per precinct

• NAMFREL tally: • 26.4M votes counted

• GMA lead over FPJ: 2.58% (680,922)

• Average GMA lead: 3.1 votes per precinct

• Average vote turnout: 145.2 votes per precinct

Can we compare the percentages?

● Yes, we can!● Exit polls and surveys have different numbers of

respondents (1,500 to 5,000), but their percentage results can all be compared to the final results.

● The NAMFREL database can be seen as an exit poll with more respondents (26.4 million).

● The Congress canvass of COCs and the NAMFREL tally are based on the same ERs.

ERs nearer the truth than COCs

● 216,500+ election returns (ERs)

● Went thru few hands (precinct level only)

● Open tally by teachers and volunteers more credible

● Unofficial results are less important

● Only 177 Certificates of Canvass

● Went thru precinct, municipal, then provincial canvassers

● COMELEC provincial officials less credible

● Official results are the cheaters’ real targets

Finding #1:

Huge discrepancies exist between the Congress and

NAMFREL tallies

Definition of GMA % Margin

GMA Lead--------------------

Total votes

GMA votes – FPJ votes-----------------------------------------------

GMA + FPJ + Lacson + Roco + V’nueva

Definition of Discrepancy

the percentage of the total votes(GMA+FPJ+Lacson+Roco+Villanueva)

that were not correctly counted

Table 2. Mga probinsiyang grabe ang dayaan, top 10Probinsya Kongreso NAMFREL DiperensyaBasilan 22.8% -52.3% 75.1%Sultan Kudarat 36.3% -29.1% 65.4%Lanao del Sur 46.8% -11.1% 58.0%Sulu 12.0% -29.3% 41.3%Tawi-Tawi -18.5% -54.3% 35.9%Maguindanao 48.3% 29.7% 18.7%Lanao del Norte -2.3% -18.4% 16.2%Sarangani -13.9% -22.6% 8.7%Romblon -4.0% -10.4% 6.4%Zambales -25.3% -29.6% 4.3%Nota: Sa yellow, nabago ang panalo.Ang unang 8 probinsiya ay nasa Mindanao.

Table 1. Lamang ni GMA kay FPJRehiyon Kongreso NAMFREL DiperensyaMindanao 6.9% -1.5% 8.4%ARMM 31.3% -19.2% 50.5%C.Mindanao -7.0% -20.5% 13.5%CAR 13.4% 9.3% 4.1%N.Mindanao 0.8% -3.0% 3.9%W.Mindanao 8.6% 4.9% 3.8%CARAGA 24.0% 22.7% 1.3%S.Mindanao -0.6% -1.2% 0.6%Nota: Sa yellow, nabago ang panaloCongress: GMA won in 9 of 16 regions nationwide

GMA won in 4 of 6 regions in MindanaoNamfrel: FPJ won in 9 of 16 regions nationwide

FPJ won in 4 of 6 regions in MindanaoThe 8.4% total discrepancy means around 600,000 votes.

Table 3. Diperensya sa dami ng boto bawat presinto

Rehiyon Kongreso NAMFREL DiperensyaPilipinas 149.0 145.2 3.9 837,454ARMM 153.4 99.8 53.6 307,484Ilocos 167.7 147.0 20.7 235,563C.Visayas 151.0 136.7 14.3 236,985E.Visayas 146.6 138.2 8.3 88,039C.Minda 140.7 132.9 7.8 70,930Bicol 152.1 147.3 4.8 58,822C.Valley 153.2 156.8 -3.6 -26,064Nota: Sa yellow, 10 boto o higit pa ang nadagdag bawat presinto.

Nadagdag na boto

Conclusion #1:

In Mindanao alone, the discrepancy is at least 600,000

votes in favor of GMA; in Ilocos and C.Visayas alone, the discrepancy in vote turnout

is around 463,000 votes.

Finding #2:

Five million votes were not tallied: four million in pro-FPJ areas, only one

million in pro-GMA areas

NAMFREL Completion Rates of GMA and FPJ Bailiwicks

Rank1 100% 30 87% 4,3722 81% 3,309 73% 7,8623 72% 1,669 52% 4,3364 95% 664 82% 1,3335 100% 0 86% 1,5666 78% 858 80% 4,9387 99% 112 74% 1,5088 82% 1,497 86% 1,4299 86% 1,483

GMA Areas, Total 8,139 FPJ Areas, Total 28,827GMA Areas, % 22% FPJ Areas, % 78%

GMA Area (Lead)Progressof tally

Precinctsnot tallied FPJ Area (Lead)

Progressof tally

Precinctsnot tallied

C.Visayas (1.3M) S.Tagalog (924T)W.Visayas (757T) NCR (290T)CARAGA (144T) C.Minda (129T)Bicol (71T) C.Valley (112T)OAV (47T) Ilocos (98T)CAR (42T) C.Luzon (70T)E.Visayas (42T) ARMM (67T)W.Minda (31T) N.Minda (39T)

S.Minda (16T)

GMA Area(Lead in 000's) % done

Votes not counted

FPJ Area(Lead in 000's) % done

Votes not counted

C.Visayas (1,293) 101% -5,992 S.Tagalog (924) 88% 635,610W.Visayas (757) 83% 490,350 NCR (290) 74% 1,038,329CARAGA (144) 73% 233,300 C.Minda (129) 52% 569,133Bicol (71) 95% 69,318 C.Valley (112) 82% 246,182OAV (47) 100% 0 Ilocos (98) 88% 199,165CAR (42) 79% 121,735 C.Luzon (70) 80% 793,498E.Visayas (42) 104% -50,885 ARMM (68) 75% 109,193W.Minda (31) 85% 171,417 N.Minda (39) 87% 203,611

S.Minda (16) 86% 211,709All GMA Areas 1,029,243 All FPJ Areas 4,006,430

Table 4. Completion of NAMFREL tally, by region

Note: Progress of count was based on the region's average vote per precinct as computed from Report No. 73. Exceeding 100% means that this average went up after Report No. 73. Bicol is Roco's bailiwick but GMA won over FPJ there.

Votes not counted

Conclusion #2

The number of FPJ votes was grossly understated;

GMA’s 681,000 lead over FPJ was overstated

Can we still know the truth?

Yes, we can.

We must reinterpret the NAMFREL database as an exit poll of 26.4 million respondents, and correct the disproportional

representation of regions.

A word about sample sizes

● Pollsters’ rule: a random sample size of 2,500 gives an estimate (of, say, a candidate’s share of the votes) with a 3% error margin at a 99.7% confidence level.

● To reduce the error margin, square the desired reduction to get the required increase in sample size. For example:– To reduce the error margin by 3 (i.e., from 3% to 1%), increase

the sample size 9 times (i.e., from 2,500 to 22,500)

– To reduce the error margin by 100 (i.e., from 3% to 0.03%), increase the sample size 10,000 times (i.e., to 25 million)

● The NAMFREL database is a sample size of 26.4 million

GMA Area(Lead in 000's)

Votes not counted

Add'l Lead

FPJ Area(Lead in 000's)

Votes not counted

Add'l Lead

C.Visayas (1,293) -5,992 -61,362 S.Tagalog (924) 635,610 146,304W.Visayas (757) 490,350 148,215 NCR (290) 1,038,329 159,686CARAGA (144) 233,300 52,083 C.Minda (129) 569,133 306,157Bicol (71) 69,318 1,670 C.Valley (112) 246,182 32,953OAV (47) 0 0 Ilocos (98) 199,165 -10,090CAR (42) 121,735 -24,892 C.Luzon (70) 793,498 130,356E.Visayas (42) -50,885 -2,136 ARMM (68) 109,193 77,644W.Minda (31) 171,417 54,671 N.Minda (39) 203,611 21,690

S.Minda (16) 211,709 68,331All GMA Areas 1,029,243 168,250 All FPJ Areas 4,006,430 933,030

Final Lead, FPJ 83,858

Table 4. Estimated leads in the votes not counted, one end of the range

GMA Area(Lead in 000's)

Votes not counted

Add'l Lead

FPJ Area(Lead in 000's)

Votes not counted

Add'l Lead

C.Visayas (1,293) -5,992 -27,220 S.Tagalog (924) 635,610 146,304W.Visayas (757) 490,350 148,215 NCR (290) 1,038,329 159,686CARAGA (144) 233,300 52,083 C.Minda (129) 569,133 126,958Bicol (71) 69,318 1,670 C.Valley (112) 246,182 32,953OAV (47) 0 0 Ilocos (98) 199,165 -10,090CAR (42) 121,735 -24,892 C.Luzon (70) 793,498 130,356E.Visayas (42) -50,885 -2,136 ARMM (68) 109,193 51,017W.Minda (31) 171,417 54,671 N.Minda (39) 203,611 21,690

S.Minda (16) 211,709 68,331All GMA Areas 1,029,243 202,391 All FPJ Areas 4,006,430 727,203Final Lead, GMA 156,110

Table 4. Estimated leads in the votes not counted, other end of the range

Conclusion #3● It was a very close contest.● Based on NAMFREL's database, either

candidate could have won: GMA by at most 156,000 or FPJ by at most 84,000.

● These results suggest that to give GMA a 1.1 million lead, her party had to cheat by 1 to 1.2 million votes.

Thank you

Roberto VerzolaPhilippine Greens

[email protected]

the true results of the 2004 philippine presidential elections

Documents

gma areas1

votes countedgma lead

fpj areas4

favor of gma

maverage gma lead

minda 12952v9

completion of namfrel

visayas 75783i0