Th e steady 11% difference does not prove fraud

There is a very simple explanation of why the initial presidential election results showed Uhuru Kenyatta with a lead of around 11 percent which remained more or less constant, with some minor fluctuations, until the final figures were released.

In fact it would have been abnormal if the initial results had deviated from the final result. It is statistically probable, not improbable, that the initial results mirrored the final results.

There were 40,833 polling stations, each with a maximum of 700 voters, distributed across the country according to the population density. Those polling stations started sending their results to the National Tallying Centre at Bomas as soon as the Form 34As had been completed and signed by party agents and IEBC officials.

The first polling stations to report their results were randomly distributed across Kenya and not bunched into one area that favoured Uhuru Kenyatta or another area that favoured Raila Odinga.

The IEBC released results in one hour intervals so let us assume that 1,000 polling stations submitted their Form 34As in the first hour. These 1,000 polling stations would represent 2.5 percent of all polling stations and Kenyans who voted.

Opinion polls typically interview around 3,000 to 5,000 people from across Kenya to predict the result of an election. These first 1,000 polling stations would have revealed the actual votes of around 700,000 Kenyans. Obviously this would give a far superior prediction to any opinion poll. These first 1,000 polling stations in effect provided a massive and comprehensive exit poll.

Those who challenge the result of the August 8 election assume that a computer algorithm must have been at work because the gap between Uhuru and Raila remained relatively steady after the first hour.

But this steady gap was natural and not artificial. It was natural because the polling stations were randomly distributed across Kenya.

The steady gap between Uhuru and Raila proves nothing about fraud in the election. What NASA needs to do is to find Form 34As or Form 34Bs that are forged or altered so that they are different from the Form 34As that were given to their party agents in every polling station in the country. That would be proof of fraud. The persistent 11 percent difference between Uhuru and Raila is not proof of fraud and would not stand up in any court of law.

Sakaja is Nairobi Senator-elect

Nasa to challenge Uhuru’s poll victory at the Supreme Court

Lobby wants Parliament to pass gender rule in first sitting