NB/ Pardon me if you've seen this before. I have been asking over and over again: which of the MPs in our parliament is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament for the "FUTURE" argument to hold? The Attorney General actually made an argument against the future proposition, albeit unwittingly. He argued before the supreme court that parliament, as used in the constitution, refers to only one term, that is the four-year term for which MPs are voted to parliament. That is perfect. But then he went on to make the rather weird and disingenuous argument that a decision made by an MP (in this case going independent) towards a future parliament should therefore not affect the current parliament. But you see, his premise rather supports the argument that article 97 affects the current parliament. Like I stated above, no MP is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament until they win an election organised for entry into that parliament. So, saying the article refers to a future parliament is to assume that the MPs are quaranteed a seat in that future parliament. If someone leaves his party and decides to go independent, how do you tell me he would lose his seat in a future parliament when he's not entering that future parliament on the ticket of his former party? What is even the guarantee that he'd win the election to go into that parliament before article 97 takes effect? His 'punishment' for leaving the party that brought him to parliament is to be served in the parliament he's a member of, not a future parliament he's not guaranteed. As for the argument about the right of representation of their constituents, it's neither here nor there; the constitution provides a remedy for that -- a by-election, except when it's a couple of months to general elections. Now, if we have a problem with the constitution saying a by-election should not be held for a vacant seat if we're so close to general elections, then let's discuss whether that provision should be maintained or scrapped. Forcing a "future" interpretation of article 97 on the basis of the right of representation of the constituents of the beleaguered MPs is dishonest and disingenuous. The constitution which gave them the right of representation is the same constitution that 'curtailed' that right, on the basis that a general election is so close. There are circumstances under which some rights can be curtailed, you know. Also, look at this: Assuming an NPP seat had become vacant through death of an MP, and not the circumstances we're dealing with. And assuming that the death had occurred in same period, where the constitution says a by-election should not be held since a general election is close. Are we saying we would have made a fuss about the right of representation of the dead MP's constituents? Article 97, clause 1, starts with the preamble: "a member of parliament SHALL vacate his seat in parliament ---" So, per his own admission that "parliament", as used in the constitution, refers to only one term, which is the current parliament at any given time, let's ask the Attorney General as to whether "parliament" as used in the preamble to article 97, refers to the current or a future parliament? Anyway, the preamble is then followed by 8 conditions under which an MP shall vacate his seat, starting from (a) to (h). Look at this. Paragraph (a) states: " upon a dissolution of parliament". So, once Parliament is disolved, after the four-year term, all MPs are automatically supposed to vacate their seats. Then (b) states: " if he is elected as speaker of parliament." Now, who's arguing that these two paragraphs and the ones following up to paragraph (f) refer to a future parliament? Why then are we arguing that paragraphs (g) and (h) refer to a future parliament, if we're not a people steeped in corruption, duplicity and lack of integrity? Why are they seeking to bastardise the constitution in this devious manner? What is interesting is that if you look at the paper copy of the 1992 Constitution, every article has a side note, which shows what the article is about. The side note to article 97 states: TENURE OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS. So, you see, the article is about the tenure of office of any given parliament, and like the Attorney General admitted, it's about only one parliament which, in this case, is the soon to be dissolved eighth Parliament of our fourth Republic. Now, those making the future argument, are you telling me that when the person who left his party to stand as an independent candidate wins and goes to the next Parliament, that's when he'd lose his seat for defecting? And you have so-called legal luminaries advancing this incredibly absurd argument? Are we thinking at all? Goodness me 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️ What I see happening is this: they're hiding behind the jurisdictional matter to obfuscate a rather clear-cut provision in the constitution. Granted that the speaker of parliament did not have the right to declare the seats vacant, why should the supreme court, in all honesty, interpret the provision other than what it is? Look, we're creating complications which could come back and bite us in the behind sooner than we expect.
Great work, my fellow statistician! However, there are a few improvements you could make to enhance the reliability of your findings. For instance, there was no mention of a predictive model to forecast the likely Ashanti votes for both parties in the upcoming elections based on the historical data. Additionally, the graph lacks a trend line to illustrate the direction of the trend, which could be further analyzed to determine its statistical significance. This analysis would help establish whether the observed trends are driven by genuine factors or merely occur by chance. Please, come again with an updated version of the graph. Thank you.
They're remaining in opposition forever,, NPP will become like cpp soon,, Ghanaians have seen enough of what they've and still doing,,now Alan is taking Ashanti from the party
@@theblack_phoenix UR Actions shows how stupid u are ,what,s wrong me asking them to show some of us also Volta Region and not always Ashanti Region,,What,s good for goose is Equally good for Gender,so there was absolutely nothing wrong with my question
TV3 so don't you know that Ashanti Region is not inhabited by only Ashanti's? It's a Metropolitan city and people of all walks of life are staying there..... Your analysis seems to suggest it's only Ashantis who dwells in Ashanti region????
@@okristo1345na s3 Moy3 ndwan 🐑 Your modas and fathers Nkurasefo) …you people are Ghana’s biggest problem One sensible person will vote….20 Nkwasiafo) from Ashanti will go and vote trash🗳️
@@kwasisarfoacheampong5385 and the suufer continues. When will Ghanaians 🇬🇭 actually analyze presidential candidates and performance before voting? My goodness. Can’t we vote outside NPP/NDC? These guys are just using Ghanaians for themselves. Nothing more. Hey, I’m not in Ghana but im Ghanaian 🇬🇭 and American 🇺🇸. I just want Ghanaians to think OUTSIDE THE BOX for Christ sake 🤔 funny 😂 and sad 😢
Now the priority is not to explain policies anymore but rather bogus and useless analysis 😢 the hate against Asantes will always expose your ignorance 😢 what has NDC do for voltarians n northerners that you still believe they’ll vote for them? I’m waiting for your next analysis when God willing Bawumia is sworn in as president elect 👌
@@BenedictAsare-d6y The voice of the people is NOT the voice of God! How can you reconcile the idea that "the voice of the people is the voice of God" with the fact that Nazi Germany, a regime supported by significant public approval, led to atrocities that defy any moral or divine justification?
@@BenedictAsare-d6y The voice of the people is NOT the voice of God! How can you reconcile the idea that "the voice of the people is the voice of God" with the fact that Nazi Germany, a regime supported by significant public approval, led to atrocities that defy any moral or divine justification?
Since COMMON NPP T-SHIRTS IS MORE IMPORTANT TO MOST VOTERS FROM THAT REGION (Ashanti Region) THAN DEVELOPMENT, I wouldn't take this statistic serious until the voting result is out after December 7
The NPP will get less than 50% in the Ashanti region because some of their core voters won't vote. And others will vote for Nana Kwame Bediako rather than giving their vote to the NDC. Mark my words!
Leave God out of this. It's about people's choice. That's why we vote. Votes shifts the choice from divine selection to people's choice. The NPP deserves more than shame. Even you, low key (in your hearts of hearts), you're ashamed of the NPP. Wait and see what's coming 7th December. Even the NDC will be disappointed. Ghana will NEVER be the same after 7th December.
Did God tell your president to hire jets for meetings and Cecilia dappaa to keep dollars in her house, you can't eat your cake and still have same portion left. No media house can save you, you going to opposition 😂😂😂
No! Ashantis vote because the NDC is anti-Asante. It is like Black Americans voting against the republicans. They may not like the Dems but they know they Republican platform is anti-black. May be, your NDC should realize they are not angels.
It all because we always kept voting one way. But this time most youth don't follow those logic anymore.
NB/ Pardon me if you've seen this before.
I have been asking over and over again: which of the MPs in our parliament is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament for the "FUTURE" argument to hold?
The Attorney General actually made an argument against the future proposition, albeit unwittingly. He argued before the supreme court that parliament, as used in the constitution, refers to only one term, that is the four-year term for which MPs are voted to parliament. That is perfect.
But then he went on to make the rather weird and disingenuous argument that a decision made by an MP (in this case going independent) towards a future parliament should therefore not affect the current parliament.
But you see, his premise rather supports the argument that article 97 affects the current parliament.
Like I stated above, no MP is guaranteed a seat in a future parliament until they win an election organised for entry into that parliament. So, saying the article refers to a future parliament is to assume that the MPs are quaranteed a seat in that future parliament. If someone leaves his party and decides to go independent, how do you tell me he would lose his seat in a future parliament when he's not entering that future parliament on the ticket of his former party? What is even the guarantee that he'd win the election to go into that parliament before article 97 takes effect?
His 'punishment' for leaving the party that brought him to parliament is to be served in the parliament he's a member of, not a future parliament he's not guaranteed.
As for the argument about the right of representation of their constituents, it's neither here nor there; the constitution provides a remedy for that -- a by-election, except when it's a couple of months to general elections.
Now, if we have a problem with the constitution saying a by-election should not be held for a vacant seat if we're so close to general elections, then let's discuss whether that provision should be maintained or scrapped. Forcing a "future" interpretation of article 97 on the basis of the right of representation of the constituents of the beleaguered MPs is dishonest and disingenuous.
The constitution which gave them the right of representation is the same constitution that 'curtailed' that right, on the basis that a general election is so close. There are circumstances under which some rights can be curtailed, you know.
Also, look at this: Assuming an NPP seat had become vacant through death of an MP, and not the circumstances we're dealing with. And assuming that the death had occurred in same period, where the constitution says a by-election should not be held since a general election is close. Are we saying we would have made a fuss about the right of representation of the dead MP's constituents?
Article 97, clause 1, starts with the preamble: "a member of parliament SHALL vacate his seat in parliament ---"
So, per his own admission that "parliament", as used in the constitution, refers to only one term, which is the current parliament at any given time, let's ask the Attorney General as to whether "parliament" as used in the preamble to article 97, refers to the current or a future parliament?
Anyway, the preamble is then followed by 8 conditions under which an MP shall vacate his seat, starting from (a) to (h).
Look at this.
Paragraph (a) states: " upon a dissolution of parliament".
So, once Parliament is disolved, after the four-year term, all MPs are automatically supposed to vacate their seats.
Then (b) states: " if he is elected as speaker of parliament."
Now, who's arguing that these two paragraphs and the ones following up to paragraph (f) refer to a future parliament?
Why then are we arguing that paragraphs (g) and (h) refer to a future parliament, if we're not a people steeped in corruption, duplicity and lack of integrity?
Why are they seeking to bastardise the constitution in this devious manner?
What is interesting is that if you look at the paper copy of the 1992 Constitution, every article has a side note, which shows what the article is about. The side note to article 97 states: TENURE OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS.
So, you see, the article is about the tenure of office of any given parliament, and like the Attorney General admitted, it's about only one parliament which, in this case, is the soon to be dissolved eighth Parliament of our fourth Republic.
Now, those making the future argument, are you telling me that when the person who left his party to stand as an independent candidate wins and goes to the next Parliament, that's when he'd lose his seat for defecting? And you have so-called legal luminaries advancing this incredibly absurd argument? Are we thinking at all? Goodness me 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
What I see happening is this: they're hiding behind the jurisdictional matter to obfuscate a rather clear-cut provision in the constitution. Granted that the speaker of parliament did not have the right to declare the seats vacant, why should the supreme court, in all honesty, interpret the provision other than what it is?
Look, we're creating complications which could come back and bite us in the behind sooner than we expect.
God bless you. The supreme courts own ruling in this is unconstitutional, it’s going against the 3 months to election no by election rule.
TV3 talk about Volta and Northern Region
Great work, my fellow statistician! However, there are a few improvements you could make to enhance the reliability of your findings. For instance, there was no mention of a predictive model to forecast the likely Ashanti votes for both parties in the upcoming elections based on the historical data. Additionally, the graph lacks a trend line to illustrate the direction of the trend, which could be further analyzed to determine its statistical significance. This analysis would help establish whether the observed trends are driven by genuine factors or merely occur by chance. Please, come again with an updated version of the graph. Thank you.
They're remaining in opposition forever,, NPP will become like cpp soon,, Ghanaians have seen enough of what they've and still doing,,now Alan is taking Ashanti from the party
i'm sure you're typing from another planet. Alan taking over Asante?
Alan😂😂 tickle yourself
@maxwellhilson8008 you're tickling you,you will see it, just wait
Awww NDC
@@AsaniNathan please I'm saving this as preference after Dec 7th. It could be a vice versa you know 😅!
We need same report in Northern regions
you guys always keeps bringing only Ashanti,Ashanti and Ashanti,how about Volta Region
NDC votes in Ashanti is more than the votes in Volta region
What stops u and your paymasters from bringing that of Volta then?
@@theblack_phoenix UR Actions shows how stupid u are ,what,s wrong me asking them to show some of us also Volta Region and not always Ashanti Region,,What,s good for goose is Equally good for Gender,so there was absolutely nothing wrong with my question
Look at this two graduates from free HS. Poor credit score history 😂😂😂😂😂😂
They are bringing it always because it's the ONLY REGION THAT HAS VOTED ONE WAY SINCE INDEPENDENCE.
TV3 so don't you know that Ashanti Region is not inhabited by only Ashanti's? It's a Metropolitan city and people of all walks of life are staying there..... Your analysis seems to suggest it's only Ashantis who dwells in Ashanti region????
Majority of the people are Ashantis
Hmmm
If you say NPP will get between 70%to 75% then you have a serious problem. They won’t even get 65%
Comprehension is ur major setback
You think we'll vote for the NDC?
It won't happen
@@okristo1345na s3 Moy3 ndwan 🐑
Your modas and fathers
Nkurasefo) …you people are Ghana’s biggest problem
One sensible person will vote….20 Nkwasiafo) from Ashanti will go and vote trash🗳️
Keep dreaming we are going to vote 🗳 big for NPP coming election
@@kwasisarfoacheampong5385 and the suufer continues. When will Ghanaians 🇬🇭 actually analyze presidential candidates and performance before voting? My goodness. Can’t we vote outside NPP/NDC? These guys are just using Ghanaians for themselves. Nothing more. Hey, I’m not in Ghana but im Ghanaian 🇬🇭 and American 🇺🇸. I just want Ghanaians to think OUTSIDE THE BOX for Christ sake 🤔 funny 😂 and sad 😢
Now the priority is not to explain policies anymore but rather bogus and useless analysis 😢 the hate against Asantes will always expose your ignorance 😢 what has NDC do for voltarians n northerners that you still believe they’ll vote for them?
I’m waiting for your next analysis when God willing Bawumia is sworn in as president elect 👌
that is the truth, wether Npp like it or not, Their margin will reduce. Ndc will increase, Alan will take some votes, Chardder will also take votes.
But will ndc increase their votes in volta region right??
I give npp 69 percent
The voice of the people is the voice of God
@@BenedictAsare-d6y The voice of the people is NOT the voice of God! How can you reconcile the idea that "the voice of the people is the voice of God" with the fact that Nazi Germany, a regime supported by significant public approval, led to atrocities that defy any moral or divine justification?
@@BenedictAsare-d6y The voice of the people is NOT the voice of God! How can you reconcile the idea that "the voice of the people is the voice of God" with the fact that Nazi Germany, a regime supported by significant public approval, led to atrocities that defy any moral or divine justification?
Since COMMON NPP T-SHIRTS IS MORE IMPORTANT TO MOST VOTERS FROM THAT REGION (Ashanti Region) THAN DEVELOPMENT, I wouldn't take this statistic serious until the voting result is out after December 7
The insults will not develop your region than Ashanti.
Until you start reasoning, you’ll continue to live in envying n pains.
Why will I envy people who A STUPID BOY CALLED NAPO said COMMON NPP RAG or T-shirt is what they need and not development
@@Larrydee-n4lwhen you are campaigning for ur ndc, go naked or with kente clothes wai
They will lose portorrr😂😂😂😂
Bias !
In your dreams
Master, you just don't know what you're talking about do your analysis well. This election would be different altogether.
The NPP will get less than 50% in the Ashanti region because some of their core voters won't vote. And others will vote for Nana Kwame Bediako rather than giving their vote to the NDC. Mark my words!
U must be sleeping on the wrong bed
@worldincredibletv2846 I'm keeping a screenshot to show to you later. You can also do same if you like.
@worldincredibletv2846 Keep a screenshot for reference
@worldincredibletv2846 Keep a screenshot for reference
😂😂😂😂,,he is wide asleep
Not credible. Just shouting
Bald 😮
Boss, in Ashanti Region they dont vote on policies , period! Even if the dollar goes 50 cedis they will vote for NPP so lets not waste time
Are you with your brain 🧠?
You can’t reason, right?
TV3 shame on you! That’s your wish but it will never happen. You guys have made yourselves agents for NDC but God no go shame NPP
😂😂😂wat about Alan? You guys should talk to Alan if not your vote will be divided
Bleeding is allowed... cry more😅😅😅😅
Leave God out of this. It's about people's choice. That's why we vote. Votes shifts the choice from divine selection to people's choice. The NPP deserves more than shame. Even you, low key (in your hearts of hearts), you're ashamed of the NPP. Wait and see what's coming 7th December. Even the NDC will be disappointed. Ghana will NEVER be the same after 7th December.
@@KodzoLebe whan so nie? You’re having delusions or you’re high on drugs? I beg clear from here
Did God tell your president to hire jets for meetings and Cecilia dappaa to keep dollars in her house, you can't eat your cake and still have same portion left. No media house can save you, you going to opposition 😂😂😂
They have always been rigging in the Ashanti region.
No! Ashantis vote because the NDC is anti-Asante. It is like Black Americans voting against the republicans. They may not like the Dems but they know they Republican platform is anti-black. May be, your NDC should realize they are not angels.