GECOM: Elections Recount: PPP’s lead narrows to 7,073 votes with 88% of boxes tabulated

The APNU+AFC Coalition during yesterday’s tabulation made significant gains, managing to decrease the lead held by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in the General Elections to 7,073 votes. …with 2,063 of 2,339 boxes of ballots counted.

With just over 88% or 2,063 General Statements of Recounts tabulated the Coalition has amassed 188,112 votes compared to 195,185 earned by the PPP/C. This includes the complete tally for all electoral districts with the exception of District Four., which has 276 boxes remaining to be counted.
At close of count on Thursday, June 4, 2020, the PPP’s lead against APNU+AFC narrowed to 7,073 from more than 18,000, announced three days ago,   (see article for June 3, 2020).

PPP/C leads APNU+AFC by 7,073 votes with 88% of boxes tabulated

Table showing votes cast at the General Elections based on GECOM’s tabulation as of June 4, 2020. The Guyana Elections Commission has completely processed General results from 2063 of 2,339 polling stations, just over 88%. All 276 results still to be tabulated originate from Electoral District Four.

Table showing votes cast at the General Elections based on GECOM’s tabulation as of June 4, 2020. The Guyana Elections Commission has completely processed General results from 2063 of 2,339 polling stations, just over 88%. All 276 results still to be tabulated are from Electoral District Four.

It has been predicted that the recount exercise being conducted at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre, Liliendaal, Greater Georgetown , on the remaining 276 boxes of ballots will be recounted by Monday morning.

PPP sources  say that votes from its traditional East Coast Demerara strongholds have not been counted yet and this will almost certainly see the PPP widening the gap between its nearest rival , APNU+AFC.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Rosaliene Bacchus  On 06/05/2020 at 12:42 pm

    My hope is that all parties involved will accept the results of the final count.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 06/05/2020 at 1:33 pm


    By Gary A. Olson | The Chronicle of Higher Education

    At a recent conference of college administrators, several of us had an impromptu discussion over lunch about the meaning of “SHARED GOVERNANCE”.

    The consensus? That term is often invoked but much misunderstood by both faculty members and many administrators.

    “SOME OF MY FACULTY BELIEVE THAT SHARED GOVERNANCE LITERALLY MEANS THAT A COMMITTEE VOTES ON SOME NEW PLAN OR PROPOSAL AND THAT’S IT — IT GETS IMPLEMENTED,” said a seasoned department head. “There is no sense of sharing; of who is sharing what; with whom.”

    A dean chimed in that a faculty leader at her institution actually told her that shared governance means that professors, who are the “heart of the university”, delegate the governance of their universities to administrators, whose role is to provide a support network for the faculty.

    “He said, in all seriousness, that faculty have the primary role of governing the university and that administrators are appointed to spare them from the more distasteful managerial labor,” said the dean with incredulity.


    I know several faculty senators at one institution who regularly refer to faculty as “governance”, as in “YOU ARE ADMINISTRATION, AND WE ARE GOVERNANCE.” That expression reveals a deep misunderstanding of the mechanism of shared governance — and presupposes an inherently adversarial relationship.

    The phrase shared governance is so hackneyed that it is becoming what some linguists call an “empty” or “floating” signifier, a term so devoid of determinate meaning that it takes on whatever significance a particular speaker gives it at the moment. ONCE A TERM ARRIVES AT THAT POINT, IT IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS.

    SHARED GOVERNANCE IS NOT a simple matter of committee consensus, or the faculty’s engaging administrators to take on the dirty work, or any number of other common misconceptions.

    SHARED GOVERNANCE IS MUCH MORE COMPLEX; it is a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and decision-making processes, on the one hand, and administrative accountability on the other.


    Whether it is a private college created by a charter, or a public institution established by law or constitution, the legal right and obligation to exercise authority over an institution is vested in and flows from its board.

    Typically, the board then formally delegates authority over the day-to-day operation of the institution – often in an official “memorandum of delegation” – to the president, who, in turn, may delegate authority over certain parts of university management to other university officials — for example, granting authority over academic personnel and programs to the provost as the chief academic officer, and so on.


    The concept really came of age in the 1960s, when colleges began to liberalize many of their processes. In fact, an often-cited document on the subject, “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities,” was issued jointly by the American Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges in the mid-60s. That statement attempted to affirm the importance of shared governance and state some common principles.

    The fact that the primary organization championing faculty concerns, the body devoted to preparing future academic administrators, and the association promoting best practices in serving on governing boards together endorsed the statement illustrates that university governance is a collaborative venture.

    “Shared” governance has come to connote two complementary and sometimes overlapping concepts: Giving various groups of people a share in key decision-making processes, often through elected representation; and allowing certain groups to exercise primary responsibility for specific areas of decision making.

    To illustrate the first notion of how shared governance works, I’d like to revisit a 2007 column, “BUT SHE WAS OUR TOP CHOICE,” in which I discussed the search process for academic administrators and attempted to explain why hiring committees are commonly asked to forward an unranked list of “acceptable” candidates.

    I wrote that shared governance, especially in the context of a search for a senior administrator, means that professors, staff members, and sometimes students have an opportunity to participate in the process — unlike the bad old days when a university official often would hire whomever he – and it was invariably a male – wanted, WITHOUT CONSULTING ANYONE.

    “SHARED” MEANS THAT EVERYONE HAS A ROLE: The search committee evaluates applications, selects a shortlist of candidates, conducts preliminary interviews, contacts references, chooses a group of finalists to invite to campus, solicits input about the candidates from appropriate stakeholders, and determines which of the finalists are acceptable.

    Then it is up to the final decision maker, who is responsible for conducting background checks and entering into formal negotiations with the front-runner, and who is ultimately held responsible for the success (or failure) of the appointment.

    “SHARED” DOES NOT MEAN THAT EVERY CONSTITUENCY GETS TO PARTICIPATE AT EVERY STAGE. Nor does it mean that any constituency exercises complete control over the process.

    A search cannot be a simple matter of a popular vote because someone must remain accountable for the final decision, and committees cannot be held accountable. Someone has to exercise due diligence and contact the front-runner’s current and former supervisors to discover if there are any known skeletons that are likely to re-emerge.

    If I am the hiring authority and I appoint someone who embezzled money from a previous institution, I alone am responsible. NO COMMITTEE OR GROUP CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH A LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE.

    That is a good example of shared governance as it daily plays out in many areas of university decision making. No one person is arbitrarily making important decisions absent the advice of key constituents; nor is decision making simply a function of a group vote. The various stakeholders participate in well-defined parts of the process.

    The second common, but overlapping, concept of shared governance is that certain constituencies are given primary responsibility over decision making in certain areas. A student senate, for example, might be given primary (but not total) responsibility for devising policies relevant to student governance.

    The most obvious example is that faculty members traditionally exercise primary responsibility over the curriculum. Because professors are the experts in their disciplines, they are the best equipped to determine degree requirements and all the intricacies of a complex university curriculum. That is fitting and proper.
    But even in this second sense of shared governance — in which faculty members exercise a great deal of latitude over the curriculum — a committee vote is not the final word.

    In most universities, even curricular changes must be approved by an accountable officer: A dean or the university provost, and sometimes even the president. In still other institutions, the final approval rests with the board itself, as it does for many curricular decisions in my own university and state.

    Clearly, when it comes to university governance, “shared” is a much more capacious concept than most people suspect. True shared governance attempts to balance maximum participation in decision making with clear accountability. That is a difficult balance to maintain, which may explain why the concept has become so fraught.


    THE KEY TO GENUINE SHARED GOVERNANCE IS BROAD AND UNENDING COMMUNICATION. When various groups of people are kept in the loop and understand what developments are occurring within the university, and when they are invited to participate as true partners, the institution prospers. That, after all, is our common goal.

    • Bernard  On 06/05/2020 at 5:21 pm

      Didn’t Cyril say no political stuff?

      By the way, you all should send some $$$ to keep the site alive.

      • guyaneseonline  On 06/05/2020 at 9:27 pm

        Bernard and other readers:

        I restarted the site on June 1.
        I should have noted then that I will also restart political entries.
        Of course I would expect that comments would be on the subject matter and be constructive.
        No personal attacks and racially based criticisms will be allowed.

        As for $$$ … persons can email me to offer their donations. I will give them details on how best to get the funds to me.
        I will also be installing a donations button on the blog for Paypal donations.

        Thank you for your support.

  • Jim  On 06/05/2020 at 10:17 pm

    You have to be very careful when sharing the news. I clicked on this heading :”PPP/C leads APNU+AFC by 13,050 with 84% of boxes tabulated”, but this article shows a 7,000 lead with 88% of boxes counted.
    The recent election saga is stymieing investment in the oil blocks. Guyana has over 100 billion barrels of light to medium sweet crude, and the XOM discoveries prove it.

    NYSE companies do not want to invest in countries which have a high risk of getting the boot of Western sanctions. It is bad for the image of the companies.

    • guyaneseonline  On 06/05/2020 at 11:19 pm

      Regarding the Election Updates… Both of the links are correct. They should show the updates for June 3 and June 4 respectively.

      As for oil investment… No one can project the future oil prices due to falling demand as the world enters a recessionary phase due to COVID 19 and other negative trends in the US and EU economies + falling demand from China.
      Right now the issue is overproduction and the shortage of storage capacity for unsold crude oil.
      The oil may be there but it will take $Billions to tap the undersea deposits.
      That will only happen when it becomes profitable to do so and the world economies stabilize.

      As for economic sanctions on Guyana…. that is pure speculation now and may not happen … It all depends on how the political issues unfold.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: