Evidence of Senate Vote Cliff Points to Irregularities
Analysis of Senate candidate scores across 20 groups reveals a sharp score drop after the 6th rank, averaging 21.35 points and signaling bloc voting.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
- A sharp score drop was identified right after the 6th rank in 17 out of 20 professional groups.
- The average score for the 6th rank stood at 50.60, dropping significantly to 29.25 for the 7th rank.
- Group 14 showed unique irregularities with 11 ballot papers cast for a candidate who had already been eliminated.
- The gathered data serves as substantial evidence suggesting the Senate selection might not have been fair.
An examination of the score sheets from the Senate selection process across all 20 professional groups has drawn intense public scrutiny. Statistical data and specific figures have been uncovered, highlighting unusual voting patterns that critics argue strongly indicate the selection process may not have been conducted with integrity and fairness.
By analyzing the scores of candidates ranked 1st through 15th across every group, distinct markers and score cliffs emerge. These cliffs predominantly occur between the 6th and 7th ranked candidates. In this structure, those ranking 1st through 6th secure seats as official senators, while ranks 7th through 10 serve as reserve senators, and those from 11th to 15th are unselected.
A detailed comparison between the 6th and 7th ranked scores across all 20 groups reveals a striking disparity. The average score for the 6th rank reached 50.60 points, whereas the 7th rank plummeted to an average of just 29.25 points, representing an immediate average drop of 21.35 points.
This transition gap was particularly severe in several groups, ranging between 16 and 36 points difference. Notable examples include Group 19 where scores dropped from 59 to 23 with a 36-point gap, Groups 3 and 10 with a 32-point difference, and Groups 16 and 20 showing a 30-point gap. Meanwhile, only a few groups, such as Groups 9 and 18, recorded a smaller difference of just 10 points.
Stock photo for illustration only, not from the actual event
In indirect elections or peer-review voting systems, score cliffs are frequently utilized by analysts to detect traces of coordinated bloc voting. When top-tier candidates command exceptionally high scores that abruptly plummet for subsequent ranks, it strongly points toward pre-arranged voting instructions rather than independent voter discretion.
Furthermore, Group 14, representing women's occupations, displayed a special score cliff between the 5th and 6th ranks with a 24-point drop. This occurred because afternoon ballots were cast for number 128, Ms. Sukanya Prachuabmoh, who had failed the morning draw, was excluded from the afternoon session, and had no name in the afternoon candidate profile booklet. Despite this, 11 ballots—deemed spoiled—were still cast for her following a pre-arranged voting list.
Taking into account all score drops and transition points, 18 out of 20 groups clearly exhibited significant score cliffs ranging from 16 to 36 points. These empirical findings are widely viewed as carrying enough weight to constitute reasonable evidence that the Senate selection lacked ballot secrecy and involved actions undermining fairness and integrity.
Source: Matichon Politics
Found something wrong in this article? Report an issue with this article
Comments
Leave a Comment