The Robredo camp gave an explanation that the reason why Marcos took an early lead is that his bailiwicks where the first that were transmitted.
David Yap and I find this explanation unsatisfactory.
Let us zero in on the 75% transmission when there was a glitch, after which Robredo began to overtake Marcos
If the argument is that prior to 75% transmission, Marcos bailiwicks constituted the bulk of the votes, then shouldn't the increases in his lead have tapered off as the transmission rate neared 75%? In fact, this was not the case. The increases in Marcos lead over Robredo were steady from 1% to 75% transmission levels. Now, if we assume that the Marcos bailiwick size to be at approximately 30% to 35%, then simple logic will dictate that such would have been exhausted long before the 75% mark. And if his bailiwick support tapered then his lead increases should have tapered LONG before the 75% mark.
If the argument that after the 75% that there were no more Marcos bailiwicks were true, then the northern corridor should have had full 100% transmission rates. This is not true given that there were transmission problems in the North.
Furthermore, if the bailiwick support for Marcos only started drying up at the 75% mark then the diminution of Marcos' lead should have been gradually increasing, not steady.
In addition, if they argue that the first 75% would be the bailiwicks of Marcos, it behooves to ask why is it that the increases were steady? Would it not have been more logical that his votes steadily increased and then tapered downwards later? Why are his votes steadily moving up at a constant rate?
And if they keep arguing in this way, then where is the randomness of the transmissions? Are they now saying that there is a duality that the 75 percent mainly came from Marcos bailiwicks while after that, all were now coming from Robredo bailiwicks?
Posted by Antonio Contreras on Facebook: