May God forgives you Rob Allyn. Caused many people won’t.
If somehow there is chaos on the 22nd of July, the blood is in your hand.
You know very well what you are doing, it eludes me if you have a heart, and if the heart is human.
Please tell me how your sympathy can save Indonesia. Do you really think a misunderstood person deserves a vote when clearly his allies all have issues? Do you even know that policies are not only determined by the president, but also his cabinet? Abu Rizal Bakrie! Hatta Rajasa (whom Prabowo indirectly blames for kebocoran, although unintentionally)! Name another person. Not to mention he himself has emotional problem. And now look at what his coalition did: permanent coalition?
I am one of millions of Indonesian who you exploited during this period just for your own profit. You use every dirty trick in the book so that your employer, Prabowo, wins election at all cost, including the lives and welfare of Indonesian people.
Just watching his BBC interview, his gestures, tones, body language and his statements, one can tell that he has no leadership capacity. However, I am sure it does not bother you at all, because “it is not your problem” as long you get paid.
You are the most despicable man alive, worst than any terrorist alive, put millions of lives in danger just for money.
I hope one day you will get what you deserve, to lead a miserable life and rot in hell. I really do.
All these educators seem to pay lip service to Western concepts of democracy, and ideas of democratic education but since they form part of the core of the educated middle class elite of society it is more important for them to maintain the status quo. On the one hand the Bangkok elite can afford education for their children in expensive “foreign” schools such as those run by catholics, whereas the majority of the poor in the countryside have to do with a very poor standard of education.This situation merely perpetuates and entrenches class divisions and prevents the advancement of democratic values in Thai society.
“Inarguably, awarding the election based on quick counts of ┬╜% by Jokowi’s pollsters completely disenfranchises more than 99.5% of Indonesian voters.”
Inarguably, no one would award an election based on quick counts. Everyone knows that is not purpose of quick count.
Mr Connelly has nothing to whine about. He’s part of the incestuous pseudo academic circle who quote eachother to give themselves credibility. Mr Connelly provides a link in one of his Lowy screeds to – surprise surprise – a NM piece, based on laughably old information on Hercules, to show Prabowo knows gangsters who could influence the count. What he didn’t tell his readers is that Hercules is in jail and not in a position to rig anything more than cockroach races and the monthly arisan. Likewise his link to Islamic and Pemuda Pancasila thugs. News for you kiddo, Kalla has links to them too.
Caught with your duds down Aaron.If you manipulate basic stuff like this, how can you be trusted with anything serious, like polls?
Don’t mind you smearing pollies, they deserve it, but please spread the smears around eh?
Yang jelas saya tidak mau negara Indonesia dipimpin oleh orang yang suka marah2 dan seenaknya mengatakan orang lain “brengsek”. Belum jadi presiden aja seperti itu, apalagi kalau udah jadi presiden, apa kata dunia???
Robin raises important issue regarding taxation. Most Thai people tend to feel happy if they receive benefits from the state appropriate (or greater) to the amount they pay and feel unhappy if those benefits seem too little – especially if they feel their tax money is wasted or diverted to politically favored groups. I have not seen any study that reliably and recently analyzes what tax payments come from different classes (however defined) and what benefits go to each class. Much in this kind of study, of course, would depend on how classes are defined and whether reliable data exists that is based on those class definitions. (Please let me know where to find such a study, if one exists.)I have seen one World Bank study (by Hyun Hwa Son) that concluded that Thailand’s “personal income tax is pro-poor and its pro-poorness becomes even higher if more weight is given to income transfers to the poorer segment of income distribution” – and this study was based on data from 2000, before the first Thaksin government began increasing income transfers to the poor.
Unfortunately, most references to this issue tend to be unsupported comments in passing, like Mr. Saxer’s comment that the middle class “bankrolls” the state. Others over-simplify the data to claim that the Bangkok population receives unfair, disproportionate share of government spending. That kind of claim has appearance of truth because such a large amount of state budget is spent on salaries for the bureaucracy centralized in Bangkok. At the same time a similarly disproportionate share of government income seems to come from Bangkok. I don’t have firm figures, but I suspect that many rural areas receive more in government assistance than they pay into government coffers — especially if spending in Bangkok on behalf of those areas is figured in – and that might be difficult to do objectively.
In any case, we should also note that when we are talking about tax and benefits from a political perspective (not just financial or economic) we also need to take into account people’s perceptions of taxes and benefits.
Generally, direct taxes, such as income tax and corporate tax, get people’s attention more than indirect taxation such as excise taxes and VAT that are typically (but not always) hidden in the costs of goods.
In terms of perception, therefore, it seems likely that people take greater note of personal income tax because it is deducted from their salaries and they see the amount every month and have to file an income tax form each year. In this sense the middle class (however defined) tends to perceive a significant amount of taxation — which ranges from 5% to 35% on graduated basis, with those getting a good middle class salary of say 32,000 baht ($1,000) per month taxed at a top rate of 10%. It should be noted that this rate was cut in half in 2013 by the Yingluck government — perhaps in a belated (and unsuccessful) effort to placate the middle classes?
In terms of perception of benefits, I doubt that middle class Bangkokians in the private sector perceive salary payments to bureaucrats, especially those charged with duties related to the provinces, as being their benefits. Even the bureaucrats themselves may not perceive their salaries as benefits, but as fair return for their work.
Income tax payers (at least those I talked to in the anti-government rallies this year) do appear to tend to see government programs such as the rice pledging program, the village funds, the universal health care program, as definite and unearned benefits that disproportionately help the poor, especially those in rural areas. The poor also appear to benefit disproportionately from a wide variety of subsidies and price controls on basic commodities — though this does not seem to be perceived as a big issue by most protesters. While universal health care theoretically helps all, civil servantgs already had this benefit and employed people in middle and upper level positions typically had employer provided health insurance as part of their remuneration. Proportionately, it seems reasonable to surmise that greater use of UC is made in rural areas and by the poor.
Corporate income tax is another area of division. Some surveys indicate that Red Shirt supporters tend to be more involved in the informal economy than those who opposed the Pheua Thai government. Some analysts say that they represent a new middle class recently emerging from poverty through entrepreneurial effort — both informal rural enterprises such as handicrafts, construction, transport, tourism and food processing (often started with small loans from Thaksin’s village fund program or the SME Bank), and urban enterprise such as taxi driving (especially those that own their own vehicle), market work, small manufacturing, mechanical repairs and construction. Informal sector businesses appear less likely to pay corporate income tax than more established companies, including those small companies owned by people who consider themselves as middle class and who supported Suthep.
Conversely, some indirect taxes, especially VAT, seem likely to impact the poor more than the middle class or wealthy, particularly if impact is seen as relative to income. However, since VAT is typically hidden in the price of most goods, it is not noticed so much by either side in this discourse.
Other indirect taxes impact the middle classes and the wealthy more significantly than the porr — specific business tax (such as on banking and insurance), customs payments and excise tax on luxury items. However, I have not seen information on how those taxes are perceived.
My overall point is that the issues of taxes, government benefits, and the perception of those among different elements of the population are important and complex issues on which there has been too little well-documented study. Despite this lack of reliable information, analysts, commenters, politicians and even academics who should know better, often over-simplify these issues and make unsupported comments that tend to show more about their own political opinions than the facts on the ground.
If Jokowi wins, Connelly, Mietzner and the other lion-hearted analysts should consider taking a three year sabbatical to work in the private sector in Indonesia. Something that frequently interfaces with the government, like telcoms, mining, plantations, pharma, energy, choose your bliss. Anyway, once they see how the sausage is made, maybe they will be able to write something other than fan fiction, since they seem to think they are playing some kind of video game where they chose white and Prabowo chose black.
Belum presiden saja sudah licik apalagi sudah,sadar lu pada temannya siwowo..mau dibawa kemana negara ini sama si wowo nantinya,,weleh2 masih dukung yg beginian..jokowi presidenku.
This piece of writing oozes with so many lies that I almost don’t know where to begin with.
Claiming that Jokowi declared his victory based on ‘quick count’; while conveniently forgetting that Prahara did exactly the same, with the added bonus that Bakrie-owned TVOne inserted its choice pollsters when the contracted one was to declare a Jokowi victory.
Allyn also contradicts himself by claiming that their polls (quick “qounts”) were “the most accurate”, thus basically ruining his own argument that quick counts could not be used for predicting election results.
I would not comment on his whitewashing of the Mexico elections, I’ll allow “conspiracy theorists and crackpot website[…]” owners do that!
This article is too “black and white”, demon vs angel–Well, it’s not that simple mind you, there are to many nunaces in the 2014 Indonesian election. This essay by two academics is only add the banal debate,… And fuel already the flaming discourse.
Thank you for your contribution to this debate and for the clarification of your role in Prabowo’s campaign. I am not one of those who vilify campaign consultants and I also believe as you do that candidates should mount campaigns that clearly contrast their record and program with that of their opponent.
I would, however, like to comment on one component of your piece related to quick counts. First of all, it is important to know that the methodology, more formally known as a Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) was originally developed as an to detect and deter fraud in elections and has been used effectively in countries from Chile to Georgia. PVTs, when competently executed,accurately project the election result to within 1%. It is particularly important to have these independent projections because they make it harder to cheat. That is an important feature in Indonesia which has an extremely transparent and high trust election at the polling station level but a complex, manual tabulation system that is highly vulnerable to fraud as has now been documented in numerous cases related to the legislative elections.
While the election law has been revised numerous times since the advent of democracy in 1998, the tabulation system is still based on that which helped to keep Suharto in power for three decades through manipulation of results.
Indonesians can therefore be forgiven for worrying that this very hotly contested election may be subject to shifting goal posts. I believe that the election Commission (KPU) is doing their level best but the archaic tabulation system is mandated by law.
In the Indonesian context, therefore, having an independent verification of the official result is comforting to most Indonesians. In many ways, they perform the same function as independent auditors do for companies and governments, ensuring stakeholders that their books are in order.
In that context, it is important to look at the track record of the auditor. In this case, we are fortunate to have had numerous firms involved, some with a decade long history of accuracy. While it is legitimate to point apparent conflicts of interest among the quick count organizations, it is an exaggeration to say that all of those that project a Joko Widodo win are “on his campaign team”. In fact, several were completely independent of either campaign. They include the state radio, RRI, and Kompas.
In a polarized environment, it is even more important to look at track records as well as glib assertions of partisanship. There are organizations with ties to both campaigns. In this case, the evidence (and yes, quick counts are unofficial evidence) is lopsided in favour of a Jokowi victory. While your point about sample size is interesting, it is irrelevant. I have seen these samples drawn in three national election cycles and they are always sufficient to predict the result to within one percent, if the organization is competent. Not a single entity with a track record of competence has projected a Prabowo victory.
Your point that the only number that counts is the official tally of votes released by the KPU. Both candidates have the right to wait for those results before conceding defeat and both havr the right to challenge the results through the constitutional court. They also have the right to indicate that they believe that they have won based on quick counts or incomplete data as both have done. That is politics. In the world of Twitter, Facebook and Path, noone is willing to wait two weeks for an election result. It is a global phenomenon that I have witnessed in dozens of elections around the world.
Indonesia’s credible quick counts are not only key to having early, accurate information about the election result so that citizens can get on with their lives, they are a crucial component of Indonesia’s electoral integrity safeguards.
Btw, who is Rob Allyn referring to when he repeatedly says “Jokowi’s pollsters”? Does he have evidence that the Jokowi team has paid for these pollsters?
Beware of this deceit!!!! Rob Allyn is basically saying that statics sampling is a load of old baloney – WHICH IT IS NOT. Quick counts do take small samples, but the beauty of statistics is that they are EXTREMELY ACCURATE in predicting outcomes. In fact, the truth is that you only need a small sample size of around 1,500 people and you could accurately determine the percentage of Indonesians who prefer Jokowi or Prawbowo. Quick counts predict election results so accurately that in most countries they are taken as the final result (with a small margin of error). In Indonesia, all the IMPARTIAL quick counts were very similar, which backs this simple truth – JOKOWI circa 52-53%, Prabowo circa 47-48%. If Prabowo were to win the election, this would actually violate the rules of mathematics – a remarkable achievement by anyone. Perhaps Stephen Hawking might get interested!
The last time I witnessed this many badly-concocted string of lies was during a BBC interview with Prabowo Subianto – the human rights violator and the man who wanted to do away with direct elections – Mr. Allyn and his firm represents.
For him to accuse Joko Widodo’s camp of manipulating quick -and real counts is absolutely ridiculous and simply another disgusting attempt at putting his client in a more favorable light by smearing the opponent. These underhanded tactics have Rob Allyn’s paws all over them as they – and other lies spread about Joko Widodo – resemble the same twisted line of attacks the republicans utilized on Obama.
Surveyors, such as CSIS and RRI are neutral, reputable agencies known for their accuracy. And while Jakarta Post may have openly declared its support for Joko Widodo, it did so without the weight of political, financial or family affiliations behind the decision. The same, however, cannot be said about TVOne, RCTI or SCTV, all of which are controlled by Prabowo’s coalition members.
Joko Widodo does not need to manipulate, intimidate or pay for the massive support he has garnered, unlike your client Mr. Allyn. Those who lived through the fear and restrictions of the New Order simply refuse to see the country take massive steps backwards with Prabowo at the helm.
You are toying with the lives of over 200 million people, Mr. Allyn. Once you and your team leave with fat wallets and brimming bank accounts, the Indonesian people will have to live every day with the president who will decide the fate and freedom of the country. Let US choose our leader without your despicable interference.
Mr Allyn’s homeland was indeed the world’s first democracy. And no aristocrats had to be guillotined to create that democracy, as in decadent France.
As for slaves, well they had to wait until the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was passed in December 1865, a mere 89 years after the Declaration of Independence. Like Mr Allyn, they must have been proud to live and work in the world’s first democracy.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Prabowo’s game plan
i assume you haven’t seen the interview when Prabowo’s brother said he’s so pro-US.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
May God forgives you Rob Allyn. Caused many people won’t.
If somehow there is chaos on the 22nd of July, the blood is in your hand.
You know very well what you are doing, it eludes me if you have a heart, and if the heart is human.
Prabowo’s game plan
Please tell me how your sympathy can save Indonesia. Do you really think a misunderstood person deserves a vote when clearly his allies all have issues? Do you even know that policies are not only determined by the president, but also his cabinet? Abu Rizal Bakrie! Hatta Rajasa (whom Prabowo indirectly blames for kebocoran, although unintentionally)! Name another person. Not to mention he himself has emotional problem. And now look at what his coalition did: permanent coalition?
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
I am one of millions of Indonesian who you exploited during this period just for your own profit. You use every dirty trick in the book so that your employer, Prabowo, wins election at all cost, including the lives and welfare of Indonesian people.
Just watching his BBC interview, his gestures, tones, body language and his statements, one can tell that he has no leadership capacity. However, I am sure it does not bother you at all, because “it is not your problem” as long you get paid.
You are the most despicable man alive, worst than any terrorist alive, put millions of lives in danger just for money.
I hope one day you will get what you deserve, to lead a miserable life and rot in hell. I really do.
Confused Thai Educators
All these educators seem to pay lip service to Western concepts of democracy, and ideas of democratic education but since they form part of the core of the educated middle class elite of society it is more important for them to maintain the status quo. On the one hand the Bangkok elite can afford education for their children in expensive “foreign” schools such as those run by catholics, whereas the majority of the poor in the countryside have to do with a very poor standard of education.This situation merely perpetuates and entrenches class divisions and prevents the advancement of democratic values in Thai society.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
“Inarguably, awarding the election based on quick counts of ┬╜% by Jokowi’s pollsters completely disenfranchises more than 99.5% of Indonesian voters.”
Inarguably, no one would award an election based on quick counts. Everyone knows that is not purpose of quick count.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
Mr Connelly has nothing to whine about. He’s part of the incestuous pseudo academic circle who quote eachother to give themselves credibility. Mr Connelly provides a link in one of his Lowy screeds to – surprise surprise – a NM piece, based on laughably old information on Hercules, to show Prabowo knows gangsters who could influence the count. What he didn’t tell his readers is that Hercules is in jail and not in a position to rig anything more than cockroach races and the monthly arisan. Likewise his link to Islamic and Pemuda Pancasila thugs. News for you kiddo, Kalla has links to them too.
Caught with your duds down Aaron.If you manipulate basic stuff like this, how can you be trusted with anything serious, like polls?
Don’t mind you smearing pollies, they deserve it, but please spread the smears around eh?
Naughty corner Connelly.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
“You are toying with the lives of over 200 million people, Mr. Allyn.” Yes, exactly! It’s nothing more than a profitable game for him.
Taktik Permainan Prabowo
Yang jelas saya tidak mau negara Indonesia dipimpin oleh orang yang suka marah2 dan seenaknya mengatakan orang lain “brengsek”. Belum jadi presiden aja seperti itu, apalagi kalau udah jadi presiden, apa kata dunia???
Siamese dreams in the time of the junta
Robin raises important issue regarding taxation. Most Thai people tend to feel happy if they receive benefits from the state appropriate (or greater) to the amount they pay and feel unhappy if those benefits seem too little – especially if they feel their tax money is wasted or diverted to politically favored groups. I have not seen any study that reliably and recently analyzes what tax payments come from different classes (however defined) and what benefits go to each class. Much in this kind of study, of course, would depend on how classes are defined and whether reliable data exists that is based on those class definitions. (Please let me know where to find such a study, if one exists.)I have seen one World Bank study (by Hyun Hwa Son) that concluded that Thailand’s “personal income tax is pro-poor and its pro-poorness becomes even higher if more weight is given to income transfers to the poorer segment of income distribution” – and this study was based on data from 2000, before the first Thaksin government began increasing income transfers to the poor.
Unfortunately, most references to this issue tend to be unsupported comments in passing, like Mr. Saxer’s comment that the middle class “bankrolls” the state. Others over-simplify the data to claim that the Bangkok population receives unfair, disproportionate share of government spending. That kind of claim has appearance of truth because such a large amount of state budget is spent on salaries for the bureaucracy centralized in Bangkok. At the same time a similarly disproportionate share of government income seems to come from Bangkok. I don’t have firm figures, but I suspect that many rural areas receive more in government assistance than they pay into government coffers — especially if spending in Bangkok on behalf of those areas is figured in – and that might be difficult to do objectively.
In any case, we should also note that when we are talking about tax and benefits from a political perspective (not just financial or economic) we also need to take into account people’s perceptions of taxes and benefits.
Generally, direct taxes, such as income tax and corporate tax, get people’s attention more than indirect taxation such as excise taxes and VAT that are typically (but not always) hidden in the costs of goods.
In terms of perception, therefore, it seems likely that people take greater note of personal income tax because it is deducted from their salaries and they see the amount every month and have to file an income tax form each year. In this sense the middle class (however defined) tends to perceive a significant amount of taxation — which ranges from 5% to 35% on graduated basis, with those getting a good middle class salary of say 32,000 baht ($1,000) per month taxed at a top rate of 10%. It should be noted that this rate was cut in half in 2013 by the Yingluck government — perhaps in a belated (and unsuccessful) effort to placate the middle classes?
In terms of perception of benefits, I doubt that middle class Bangkokians in the private sector perceive salary payments to bureaucrats, especially those charged with duties related to the provinces, as being their benefits. Even the bureaucrats themselves may not perceive their salaries as benefits, but as fair return for their work.
Income tax payers (at least those I talked to in the anti-government rallies this year) do appear to tend to see government programs such as the rice pledging program, the village funds, the universal health care program, as definite and unearned benefits that disproportionately help the poor, especially those in rural areas. The poor also appear to benefit disproportionately from a wide variety of subsidies and price controls on basic commodities — though this does not seem to be perceived as a big issue by most protesters. While universal health care theoretically helps all, civil servantgs already had this benefit and employed people in middle and upper level positions typically had employer provided health insurance as part of their remuneration. Proportionately, it seems reasonable to surmise that greater use of UC is made in rural areas and by the poor.
Corporate income tax is another area of division. Some surveys indicate that Red Shirt supporters tend to be more involved in the informal economy than those who opposed the Pheua Thai government. Some analysts say that they represent a new middle class recently emerging from poverty through entrepreneurial effort — both informal rural enterprises such as handicrafts, construction, transport, tourism and food processing (often started with small loans from Thaksin’s village fund program or the SME Bank), and urban enterprise such as taxi driving (especially those that own their own vehicle), market work, small manufacturing, mechanical repairs and construction. Informal sector businesses appear less likely to pay corporate income tax than more established companies, including those small companies owned by people who consider themselves as middle class and who supported Suthep.
Conversely, some indirect taxes, especially VAT, seem likely to impact the poor more than the middle class or wealthy, particularly if impact is seen as relative to income. However, since VAT is typically hidden in the price of most goods, it is not noticed so much by either side in this discourse.
Other indirect taxes impact the middle classes and the wealthy more significantly than the porr — specific business tax (such as on banking and insurance), customs payments and excise tax on luxury items. However, I have not seen information on how those taxes are perceived.
My overall point is that the issues of taxes, government benefits, and the perception of those among different elements of the population are important and complex issues on which there has been too little well-documented study. Despite this lack of reliable information, analysts, commenters, politicians and even academics who should know better, often over-simplify these issues and make unsupported comments that tend to show more about their own political opinions than the facts on the ground.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
If Jokowi wins, Connelly, Mietzner and the other lion-hearted analysts should consider taking a three year sabbatical to work in the private sector in Indonesia. Something that frequently interfaces with the government, like telcoms, mining, plantations, pharma, energy, choose your bliss. Anyway, once they see how the sausage is made, maybe they will be able to write something other than fan fiction, since they seem to think they are playing some kind of video game where they chose white and Prabowo chose black.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
Go home yankee! you are nothing but a croc!
Taktik Permainan Prabowo
Belum presiden saja sudah licik apalagi sudah,sadar lu pada temannya siwowo..mau dibawa kemana negara ini sama si wowo nantinya,,weleh2 masih dukung yg beginian..jokowi presidenku.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
This piece of writing oozes with so many lies that I almost don’t know where to begin with.
Claiming that Jokowi declared his victory based on ‘quick count’; while conveniently forgetting that Prahara did exactly the same, with the added bonus that Bakrie-owned TVOne inserted its choice pollsters when the contracted one was to declare a Jokowi victory.
Allyn also contradicts himself by claiming that their polls (quick “qounts”) were “the most accurate”, thus basically ruining his own argument that quick counts could not be used for predicting election results.
I would not comment on his whitewashing of the Mexico elections, I’ll allow “conspiracy theorists and crackpot website[…]” owners do that!
Prabowo’s game plan
This article is too “black and white”, demon vs angel–Well, it’s not that simple mind you, there are to many nunaces in the 2014 Indonesian election. This essay by two academics is only add the banal debate,… And fuel already the flaming discourse.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
Dear Mr. Allyn,
Thank you for your contribution to this debate and for the clarification of your role in Prabowo’s campaign. I am not one of those who vilify campaign consultants and I also believe as you do that candidates should mount campaigns that clearly contrast their record and program with that of their opponent.
I would, however, like to comment on one component of your piece related to quick counts. First of all, it is important to know that the methodology, more formally known as a Parallel Vote Tabulation (PVT) was originally developed as an to detect and deter fraud in elections and has been used effectively in countries from Chile to Georgia. PVTs, when competently executed,accurately project the election result to within 1%. It is particularly important to have these independent projections because they make it harder to cheat. That is an important feature in Indonesia which has an extremely transparent and high trust election at the polling station level but a complex, manual tabulation system that is highly vulnerable to fraud as has now been documented in numerous cases related to the legislative elections.
While the election law has been revised numerous times since the advent of democracy in 1998, the tabulation system is still based on that which helped to keep Suharto in power for three decades through manipulation of results.
Indonesians can therefore be forgiven for worrying that this very hotly contested election may be subject to shifting goal posts. I believe that the election Commission (KPU) is doing their level best but the archaic tabulation system is mandated by law.
In the Indonesian context, therefore, having an independent verification of the official result is comforting to most Indonesians. In many ways, they perform the same function as independent auditors do for companies and governments, ensuring stakeholders that their books are in order.
In that context, it is important to look at the track record of the auditor. In this case, we are fortunate to have had numerous firms involved, some with a decade long history of accuracy. While it is legitimate to point apparent conflicts of interest among the quick count organizations, it is an exaggeration to say that all of those that project a Joko Widodo win are “on his campaign team”. In fact, several were completely independent of either campaign. They include the state radio, RRI, and Kompas.
In a polarized environment, it is even more important to look at track records as well as glib assertions of partisanship. There are organizations with ties to both campaigns. In this case, the evidence (and yes, quick counts are unofficial evidence) is lopsided in favour of a Jokowi victory. While your point about sample size is interesting, it is irrelevant. I have seen these samples drawn in three national election cycles and they are always sufficient to predict the result to within one percent, if the organization is competent. Not a single entity with a track record of competence has projected a Prabowo victory.
Your point that the only number that counts is the official tally of votes released by the KPU. Both candidates have the right to wait for those results before conceding defeat and both havr the right to challenge the results through the constitutional court. They also have the right to indicate that they believe that they have won based on quick counts or incomplete data as both have done. That is politics. In the world of Twitter, Facebook and Path, noone is willing to wait two weeks for an election result. It is a global phenomenon that I have witnessed in dozens of elections around the world.
Indonesia’s credible quick counts are not only key to having early, accurate information about the election result so that citizens can get on with their lives, they are a crucial component of Indonesia’s electoral integrity safeguards.
W. Paul Rowland
Independent Consultant
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
Btw, who is Rob Allyn referring to when he repeatedly says “Jokowi’s pollsters”? Does he have evidence that the Jokowi team has paid for these pollsters?
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
Beware of this deceit!!!! Rob Allyn is basically saying that statics sampling is a load of old baloney – WHICH IT IS NOT. Quick counts do take small samples, but the beauty of statistics is that they are EXTREMELY ACCURATE in predicting outcomes. In fact, the truth is that you only need a small sample size of around 1,500 people and you could accurately determine the percentage of Indonesians who prefer Jokowi or Prawbowo. Quick counts predict election results so accurately that in most countries they are taken as the final result (with a small margin of error). In Indonesia, all the IMPARTIAL quick counts were very similar, which backs this simple truth – JOKOWI circa 52-53%, Prabowo circa 47-48%. If Prabowo were to win the election, this would actually violate the rules of mathematics – a remarkable achievement by anyone. Perhaps Stephen Hawking might get interested!
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
The last time I witnessed this many badly-concocted string of lies was during a BBC interview with Prabowo Subianto – the human rights violator and the man who wanted to do away with direct elections – Mr. Allyn and his firm represents.
For him to accuse Joko Widodo’s camp of manipulating quick -and real counts is absolutely ridiculous and simply another disgusting attempt at putting his client in a more favorable light by smearing the opponent. These underhanded tactics have Rob Allyn’s paws all over them as they – and other lies spread about Joko Widodo – resemble the same twisted line of attacks the republicans utilized on Obama.
Surveyors, such as CSIS and RRI are neutral, reputable agencies known for their accuracy. And while Jakarta Post may have openly declared its support for Joko Widodo, it did so without the weight of political, financial or family affiliations behind the decision. The same, however, cannot be said about TVOne, RCTI or SCTV, all of which are controlled by Prabowo’s coalition members.
Joko Widodo does not need to manipulate, intimidate or pay for the massive support he has garnered, unlike your client Mr. Allyn. Those who lived through the fear and restrictions of the New Order simply refuse to see the country take massive steps backwards with Prabowo at the helm.
You are toying with the lives of over 200 million people, Mr. Allyn. Once you and your team leave with fat wallets and brimming bank accounts, the Indonesian people will have to live every day with the president who will decide the fate and freedom of the country. Let US choose our leader without your despicable interference.
Every vote must be counted, every voice must be heard
Mr Allyn’s homeland was indeed the world’s first democracy. And no aristocrats had to be guillotined to create that democracy, as in decadent France.
As for slaves, well they had to wait until the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery was passed in December 1865, a mere 89 years after the Declaration of Independence. Like Mr Allyn, they must have been proud to live and work in the world’s first democracy.