KB:

I am always glad to see how you are able to politely silence your critics
when it comes to point by point analyses. I do not comprehend how some of
these people will try to raise a RED FLAG about your view points without
thoroughly reading and understanding your solid sense of approach to forum
debate. If they take a few seconds of their time to thoroughly go through
your contributions, they could deduce a succinct opinion from your analyses
without RUSHING to JUDGMENT. May be your brilliant grammatical construction
and sentence structures seem to disorientate them, and as a result, some of
them tend to misrepresent you. Since I have been reading your contributions
on the L, I could not recall any misrepresentation, Intellectual dishonesty
or blurred analysis. For that motive alone, it doubts me how some people
will waste their valuable time to strike a keyboard just to misquote you.

People should have their in court, but it should be based on solid grounds,
rather than sheer criticisms of misrepresentation, that is not what
OBJECTIVE DEBATE is all bout. To put it strictly, what Brother YUSUPHA is
talking about is utterly distinct from the central theme of your
opinion:CONDITIONS of ELECTIONS and TIME ANALYSIS. That is to say, certain
conditions which are INCONSTANT(VOTE BUYING, HARASSMENT & INTIMIDATION,
TRIBALISM, ABILITY TO ORGANIZE & TRANSPORT VOTERS TO THE POLLING STATIONS,
RURAL URBAN DRIFT, EDUCATIONAL LEVELS) tremendously impinge of people's
ability to vote. And these factors(conditions of Elections) mentioned above
are affected with change of time. That is to say, CETERIS PARIBUS(all the
conditions of elections being constant or equal) the OPPOSITIONS will
greatly benefit from every elections, since NONE of the above mentioned
conditions have not affected  or influenced the way people will vote. But,
on the other hand, if these conditions have been influencing the way people
vote, then unfortunately, only the APRC candidates would win in every
elections.

To conclude, Brother Yusupha's arguments in this instance does not hold
water, since no condition is constant. We cannot apply the 1996/1997
conditions to the past by-elections or to the up coming OCTOBER PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS. The oppositions MUST have to be work harder than before in order
to counter these conditions of elections, period, otherwise, the APRC will
continue to DISHONESTLY influence the outcome of every elections.

Ansumana


>From: Dampha Kebba <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: My opinion. - Kebba Dampha
>Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:56:25 -0400
>
>Yusupha, first of all, I did not put you in the same category as Joke. I
>did
>not force you to take the positions you are taking. It was your choice.
>Check the archives for yourself and see whether I am lying that Joke made
>the same arguments you are now making more than one month after the
>elections. But like you said, Joke is not the issue. Let us look at your
>points.
>
>Revisit your point number one in your earlier post. Was this not your
>statement: "1. The number of absentees was roughly equal to the amount
>during the parliamentary elections in 1996. That time around, almost 800
>voters were absent. The opposition won then. Was there voter buyout then
>too? Or does this strengthen the 'voter apathy' theory which others have
>postulated as a reason for low voter turnout?"
>
>Show me where you talked about 1997 bye-election figures? Was this a typo
>on
>your part? Tell me who is 'acting' about what he is reading and writing?
>
>Again, I reiterate my view about analyzing these numbers. It is quite
>legitimate to assume that there was voter-apathy in both 1996/97 and 2001.
>But for crying out loud, show us the EVIDENCE. The figures by themselves do
>not tell the whole story. Tell us WHY people did not feel like going out to
>vote. Don't speculate. Give us FACTS gathered by politicians and political
>pundits.
>
>Granted that there has never been 95% turn-out in Gambian elections. It is
>also a fact that the issues that faced Gambians in Kiang of 2001 have never
>faced them before. You have to look into what energizes people to go out
>and
>vote. That is where the Opposition is at. The mere fact that there was low
>voter turn-out in the past does not prove that that will happen in future.
>
>I am glad you admitted that tribalism was a factor. Initially, you argued
>that it was not a valid reason for the 'defeat'.
>
>On the July 22 Movement, I hope you are not telling me that the threat they
>pose is not real. 'People do not fear them. The thugs can easily be ran out
>of town'. I remind you about what happened in Baddibu. If Gambians are
>lucky
>enough to escape from this thuggery with their lives, they are then faced
>with a corrupt judiciary that ensures APRC thuggery prevails. The Basse
>Ambush and the murder charges pending against Darboe and other UDP leaders
>is also another case in point. People on the ground that experience this
>lawlessness take it seriously. If you want, you can just brush it aside. We
>know better.
>
>I don't know what arguments you are saying are based on 'unsubstantiated
>facts'. If it is the vote-buying, then I don't know what to say to you. If
>APRC stalwarts like Joke can detect the hanky-panky and admit it, I cannot
>see why you are having difficulties detecting it.
>
>Who says the Opposition does not have a strategy to combat low turn-out due
>to voter-apathy? You can make the suggestion to the Opposition without
>saying that no one else is thinking about it. I am not a member of these
>parties, but I give people benefit of the doubt in certain instances. We
>are
>going to embark on a voter-registration drive in Gambia. Do you think the
>Opposition back home is not cognizant of that fact and will try to register
>as many voters as possible? Numerous people on G_L spoke to this topic. But
>they did not start by belittling our leaders for not thinking about the
>obvious and getting the whole picture wrong.
>
>You are right that the Opposition should come up with strategies to win the
>October elections. Kick start the program by bringing up suggestions in a
>respectful manner. Otherwise, people will challenge you.
>KB
>
>
>
>>From: Yusupha C Jow <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: My opinion. - Kebba Dampha
>>Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:13:06 EDT
>>
>>KB:
>>
>>You seem to be desperately grasping for straws now.  Brother, we are one
>>the
>>same side of the fence concerning our opposition to the APRC.  Thus, there
>>is
>>no point in labelling me as a distraction like Joke.  Joke is not the
>>issue
>>here, the next upcoming elections is what should concern us the most.
>>Lets
>>focus on that for now!
>>
>>For you to compare my arguments against the 'vote-buyout' theory with
>>Joke's
>>garbage (as you call it), is utter rubbish.  Show me where we raised the
>>same
>>points?  My ideas were born out of thinking independently and looking at
>>the
>>numbers and not subscribing to hearsay and Radio Kang Kang.
>>
>>Your point on statistical analysis is way off the mark.  These were
>>numbers
>>from the 1997 by-elections and not the 1996 general elections.  For you to
>>act like I do not know the difference is slightly perturbing.  From these
>>numbers, two distinct unmistakable facts remain:
>>1.  Voter turnout has never been great in any region in The Gambia.
>>
>>2.  The number of absentee votes in the by-elections of Kiang is
>>approximately the same as the amount during the 1997 by-elections.
>>
>>These were the facts I used not Radio Kang Kang or 'he said or she said'.
>>Basing my arguments based on these facts is a very legitimate tactic.  The
>>fact remains that these numbers have nothing to do with Serrekunda which
>>was
>>used initially to prove a point.  Now tell me again how these derived
>>statistics weaken my theory?  Should we used unsubstantiated reports as
>>you
>>have instead?
>>
>>On the '100% absentee vote for UDP issue' you miss the point completely.
>>Maybe this is because of your disdain for my fuzzy math.  But the
>>following
>>is true:
>>Tallying all 1000 votes to UDP's count, would be to assume a 100% voter
>>turnout.
>>This fact also remains:
>>Even giving them 801 votes, resulting in a 1 vote victory, would be
>>assuming
>>a 95% turnout.  The numbers show that there has NEVER been a 95% turnout
>>in
>>the history of Gambian elections.
>>Therefore to claim that all 1000 absentees were bought out is again taking
>>the art of speculating to unprecedented heights.  These derivations were
>>not
>>made in a vacuum as you think.
>>
>>On the tribalism issue, this will always be a factor whether we like it or
>>not.  I sincerely hope that the UDP comes up with alternative strategies
>>to
>>combat this horrible tactics.
>>
>>On the 22nd movement, a spattling of thugs armed with machetes and spears
>>cannot ride into Kiang and terrorize the whole population.  They will be
>>run
>>out of town.
>>
>>Dampha, unfortunately your whole argument is based on unsubstantiated
>>facts
>>and this is what really bothers me.  The opposition can do better.
>>
>>The opposition has to come up with strategies to fight low voter turnout
>>due
>>to apathy which has always been a problem throughout the country.
>>
>>The opposition has to come up with a clear and defined campaign message
>>which
>>will counter the tribalism and dirty campaign issue.
>>
>>There should be an additional voter drive to get more votes.
>>
>>
>>Any additional suggestions are welcome.  No more voter-buyout theories,
>>please.  We can do better than this.
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>>You may also send subscription requests to
>>[log in to unmask]
>>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write
>>your
>>full name and e-mail address.
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>You may also send subscription requests to
>[log in to unmask]
>if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your
>full name and e-mail address.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------