Sample Counts - What exactly happened and what is it?

http://www.eld.gov.sg/mediarelease/ELD_SampleCount_1Sep.pdf

From the media, we hear that Sample counts had always been done in previous elections but not announced to the public. Only in this election 2015, that it is announced to the public.

I've the following questions:

1. Sample counts of 100 ballots are done at the polling stations in front of the candidates and counting agents, counted and a weightage given. The candidates are informed. The question here is there are many polling stations in a GRC and from what I know, in previous elections, the counting is done after the ballot boxes are driven to Counting Centers. In this pdf, there is no mention of ballot boxes driven from polling stations to Counting Centers. So, how are the candidates informed of the sample count result? Is this done in previous elections too?

2. Are the counting of the ballots done in the polling stations or at the Counting Centers? If done at the polling stations, then how are the candidates going to know the final result? With the 100 sample counts and if done at the polling stations, does it mean that the boxes are transported to the Counting Centers after the 100 sample counts are done?

3. Is the pdf info incorrect? That the 100 sample counts are done after the boxes are transported to the Counting Centers?

4. While the 100 sample counts are counted and tallied, are the counting for the rest of the ballots started? Or that has to wait until the result of the 100 sample counts are tallied and verified by the candidates and counting agents?

It is read that all counting of the 100 sample counts from all the electoral divisions are done by 10pm and announced by then to the public through the media and election website.

The 100 sample counts has an astonishingly impossibly low margin of error rate of less than 1% for almost all the contested wards. This typically defies statistical logic.

We need to know what sophisticated formula is used by the Election Dept to get such an acute accuracy. This has to be studied by independent mathematicians from renowned universities and statistics companies and research institutes to enlighten us how this is even mathematically possible. The Elections Dept can patent this formula as this can be used for other mission critical systems and gaming, etc.

On a cautionary note, it is of the opinion that the 100 sample counts for this election is very vague on its execution and process and we cannot accept any election result if we are not able to understand how transparent the processes and procedures are.

All parties really need to come clean and explain in details how this sample count is conducted and why it was reported by the media that using that sampling method, it will have an astonishingly low margin of error limited to 4% +-. This is a statistical breakthrough, as its formula application in other commercial and military systems is highly valuable.

It is not too far-fetched for anyone to be inclined to cast obvious doubt and skepticism of the election result until such a detailed disclosure of the 100 sample counts formula and its rationale are made by the Election Dept. That perhaps the 100 sample counts could be potentially a very needed quality-assurance mechanism built into the system, while something else that is time-sensitive may be happening with the technology deployed for the rest of the ballot papers.

The result of this GE15 just simply defies perception, logic and common sense and is so contrary to existing ground sentiments.
Something mysterious is going on here and a full investigation is necessary to appease the electorate, in my honest opinion.

What a sore loser. Go back to school and learn some statistics. Maybe i get ntuc open one class for you.

Sample counts will determine the coup tank can fall out or proceed to launch the coup.

Hey bro, The PAP cheated..so what are you going to do about it?

I can clarify the following because I witnessed them:

• Sample counting was done at the counting centre
• Ballot boxes were not reopened (after they are sealed at 07:45 before the start of polling) at the polling centres.
• When ballot boxes arrived at the counting centre, they were distributed to the counting tables such that each table had boxes from different polling centres.
• Counting agents were asked to witness the opening of the boxes.
• Ballot papers were then poured onto the counting tables in full view.
• CAs were then shown the insides of the boxes and the covers.
• The centre IC then asked the counters to toss up the ballot papers so as to get a more random sampling.
• That done, the counters were told to take out 100 papers from their table at random. Table ICs supervised the process.
• These 100 were then sorted among the parties.
• Each table IC announced their count to the Centre IC in front of the CAs.
• The Centre ICs collated the results and reported them to the constituency IC.
• Counting of all the ballots started after the report was made.

I hope this helps.

to be accurate sample count must have sample size based on the population ie the total number of votes in hold... cannot be one size fits all at 100 random ballot papers. Which highly paid birdbrain pushed thru this con job??

They don't need that. Fifteen minutes into the count, CAs should be able to get an idea of whether the tanks are needed.

chootchiew said:

Sample counts will determine the coup tank can fall out or proceed to launch the coup.

Click to expand...

Of course, but that would have resulted in massive delays. So they did the next best thing, i.e. have sampling across the various districts and then collating them.

Hans168 said:

to be accurate sample count must have sample size based on the population ie the total number of votes in hold... cannot be one size fits all at 100 random ballot papers. Which highly paid birdbrain pushed thru this con job??

Click to expand...

Uneducated moron. Sample size of 100 doesn't mean 1% accuracy. Once anyone says that they can be classified as retarded.

Btw do they use the ss counting way of writing the chinese character zhen ?

While everyone were engrossed in the sample count process, can PAP sneak in some extra ballot boxes from the back door? Because PAP has track records of sneaking in candidates from the back door!

xpo2015 said:

While everyone were engrossed in the sample count process, can PAP sneak in some extra ballot boxes from the back door? Because PAP has track records of sneaking in candidates from the back door!

Click to expand...

the Opposition are not stupid lah, they would smell something fishy if there were some boxes which overwhelmingly voted for the PAP unlike the rest of the boxes.

HTOLAS said:

Of course, but that would have resulted in massive delays. So they did the next best thing, i.e. have sampling across the various districts and then collating them.

Click to expand...

is it true that any markings inside the candidate's box is considered his vote, even the slightest of pen marking ?

Sideswipe said:

the Opposition are not stupid lah, they would smell something fishy if there were some boxes which overwhelmingly voted for the PAP unlike the rest of the boxes.

Click to expand...

How to dispute? No basis to dispute during counting just because boxes had so MUCH PAP votes.

winnipegjets said:

How to dispute? No basis to dispute during counting just because boxes had so MUCH PAP votes.

Click to expand...

the voting patterns should be quite consistent throughout the counting process. for example. PAP 10 WP 6, PAP 100 WP 60,... something like that. if it suddenly became PAP 100 WP 20 patterns in some boxes, something is clearly wrong. bet the WP will investigate that.

My take for the purpose of sample count is different.

I believe the vote counting and sample counting are accurate and without cheating involved. I also believe sample counting was done in previous GE without releasing the info to public.

The purpose of the releasing the sample count info is to prepare the public for the final results. Imagine if no sample count and I suddenly tell you eg. Fengsan PAP 57, WP 43. You sure suspect cheating involved.

My only questions are how come PAP already so sure of the results before polling until they feel the need to reveal sample count to prepare the public. 2nd question how come they say based on past records sample count is +- 4% but on this GE its like +- 1%. Also how come only Aljunied sample count (52WP to 48PAP) varies greater than the actual result whereas all other areas is almost 100% accuracy. Such coincidence?

The ghostwriters and internet brigade are out in full force and working overtime in the online media and offline too.

The post-election narrative of the ghostwriters and internet brigade is to divide and continue to conquer. The narrative given to them is to blame the new citizens, blame the 'daft' Singaporeans, blame the Pioneer Gen, blame the young voters, blame the Opposition parties, blame the middle ground, blame the silent majority. Then once in a while, praise PAP, because as ghostwriter and internet brigade, you cannot be seen to be so blatantly obvious to be praising your paymaster, right or not?

But as I've said, the national ground sentiments tell a totally different story. We do not see euphoria, we do not see people in celebratory mood, we do not see high-fives going around. We see only resigned faces.

All these clearly point to one reality. The majority did not expect this 69.95 result. Because this result is not what they know they voted for. My initial feedback from the ground tell me they felt cheated and is in grieve, hardly the celebratory mood one would expect from a 69.9% landslide mandate for the PAP.

What is happening here, folks? Singaporeans are not daft. We can tell the difference between what had been done by the PAP old guards and LKY and the incompetence of the last 10-15 years of GCT and LHL.

Singaporeans are not daft. We are dishonorably defeated. We could very well have been cheated of the victory. The ground is already ignited of this possibility. Like I say, the unhappiness will only grow. The ground knows. Most of the people in Singapore are not that daft. We know what has happened and what is happening. The divide and conquer strategy will never work. This is not a game of cards. So, give it up while you can or karma will return the favor in kind.

Karma works in mysterious ways.

Vigilante911 said:

The ghostwriters and internet brigade are out in full force and working overtime in the online media and offline too.

The post-election narrative of the ghostwriters and internet brigade is to divide and continue to conquer. The narrative given to them is to blame the new citizens, blame the 'daft' Singaporeans, blame the Pioneer Gen, blame the young voters, blame the Opposition parties, blame the middle ground, blame the silent majority. Then once in a while, praise PAP, because as ghostwriter and internet brigade, you cannot be seen to be so blatantly obvious to be praising your paymaster, right or not?

But as I've said, the national ground sentiments tell a totally different story. We do not see euphoria, we do not see people in celebratory mood, we do not see high-fives going around. We see only resigned faces.

All these clearly point to one reality. The majority did not expect this 69.95 result. Because this result is not what they know they voted for. My initial feedback from the ground tell me they felt cheated and is in grieve, hardly the celebratory mood one would expect from a 69.9% landslide mandate for the PAP.

What is happening here, folks? Singaporeans are not daft. We can tell the difference between what had been done by the PAP old guards and LKY and the incompetence of the last 10-15 years of GCT and LHL.

Singaporeans are not daft. We are dishonorably defeated. We could very well have been cheated of the victory. The ground is already ignited of this possibility. Like I say, the unhappiness will only grow. The ground knows. Most of the people in Singapore are not that daft. We know what has happened and what is happening. The divide and conquer strategy will never work. This is not a game of cards. So, give it up while you can or karma will return the favor in kind.

Karma works in mysterious ways.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I hope we can continue to highlight the possibility of cheating. Singapore's future is at stake and we must press on.

Like you said the ground sentiment were so different and everybody expected a big PAP setback. 90% of my household voted for WP. Neighbors openly shared story about voting out PAP. Old folks kept reminding my old parents to vote for WP. These are things that were unheard of in the past and yet they lost with such big margin.

Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian was shot on the eve of presidential election in 2004 and subsequently won the election. It was difficult to prove but anyone with common sense will know that it was outright cheating!

This is exactly my feeling now about this so-called PA landslide victory.

Not likely. The counting tables were in the middle of a huge room, e.g. a school hall. Anything going to and fro the table would have been seen.

And I might as well address the blackout question. There wasn't one where I was, and even if there had been, each counting table was equipped with 2 battery powered lanterns.

xpo2015 said:

While everyone were engrossed in the sample count process, can PAP sneak in some extra ballot boxes from the back door? Because PAP has track records of sneaking in candidates from the back door!

Click to expand...

No. The operative concept is whether 'the intent of the voter' is clear. So, if there is a cross (X) in one box, the intent will be very clear.

But voters also use other markings, perhaps out of habit or ignorance. As such, markings other than a cross (X) are referred to CAs. Ticks (√) and circles (0) marked within boxes are generally accepted as clear demonstration of intent, but only with the consent of the CAs.

Other voters are less intent on showing their intent than expressing their frustration. One ballot paper I saw had the word 'idiots' written in the PAP box. The counting officer proposed that this be rejected. Both the PAP CA and I agreed.

There are also voters who do the opposite: praise the candidate. I've been told but not seen ballot papers which have 'well done' or 'huat ah' in the boxes. I would argue that the intent was to support that candidate but some might disagree. The 3 parties would then argue it out.

Sideswipe said:

is it true that any markings inside the candidate's box is considered his vote, even the slightest of pen marking ?

Click to expand...