THE Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), along with the mathematicians from Ateneo de Manila University and the University of the Philippines School of Statistics, did not find any irregularities with the transmitted partial, unofficial results of the May 9 elections.

The study was conducted by the experts following claims circulating on social media that a 68:32 vote ratio between President-elect Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos, Jr., and Leni Robredo was constant as election returns were tallied.

In a statement, Dr. William Yu, of the PPCRV, said there was an issue about the transition pattern: votes from one candidate to another always follow a particular pattern after certain different points in time.

Yu said instead of answering the issue themselves, they invited experts such as statisticians, analytical mathematicians and a few data scientists.

He explained that in the so-called 68:32 ratio, the problem is that no matter what snapshot of time, the ratio between Marcos and Robredo always follows a particular ratio.

In the analysis done by the experts, Yu stated that they followed a general principle called Law of Large Numbers which, according to him, means that the closer one is to the final answer, in terms of population, the more it reflects the final number.

During a presentation at the University of Santo Tomas on Wednesday night (May 11), he explained the findings of the experts through a heat map.

“I guess the conclusion is there is no irregularity in the pattern that you see,” said PCCRV chair Myla Villanueva.

She mentioned that they also invited experts from other schools such as the University of the Philippines (UP) to also analyze the said ratio.

The UP School of Statistics issued a separate statement to debunk the “68:32 ratio issue.”

“Hindi masasabi ng ‘68:32 ratio trend’ kung mayroong pandaraya sa eleksiyon. Ang mga trend sa transmission ng boto tulad ng ’68:32’ ratio ay hindi ebidensiya ng pandaraya sa eleksiyon,” said the UP School of Statistics.

“Ang hindi paggalaw ng’ 68:32 ratio’ base sa cumulative totals ay hindi maituturing na irregularity. Mali ang mga kumakalat na analysis base sa cumulative o pinagsama-samang bilang ng boto ng bawat update. Kung walang malinaw na konseksto, ang ganitong patter sa porsyento ng boto ay hindi maaaring gamiting ebidensiya ng pandaraya,” they added.

“Sa madaling salita, pagkatapos nilang sinuri, wala naman silang nakitang irregularity sa mga pattern na ating nakikita na 68:32,” said Villanueva.

“Hinay-hinay lang. Kasi importante din na walang magduda sa ating demokrasya. So please be careful. There’s so much fake news going around,” Villanueva stressed. By LEE ANN DUCUSIN