coverage or in the alternative, to Constituency Tallying Centres, in order to transmit the results. [222] The 1st and 2nd respondents further urged that even if the electronic transmission of results was not effective as pleaded, the Forms 34A were still physically delivered to the CTC in accordance with the law. They also maintained that the system was not compromised and the results were not in any way manipulated. [223] In conclusion, the respondents urged that the flaws in election transmission of results, if any, cannot be the basis of voiding a presidential election with such a large margin of difference of numbers between the two leading contestants. Counsel for the respondents, the 2nd interested party as well as the 1st amicus curiae, the Attorney-General, submitted that in an election petition, the paramount consideration is to ensure that the will of the majority of the voters carry the day. In their view, flaws in election results transmission cannot be the basis of voiding a presidential election with such a large margin in votes as the one in this case. [224] On our part, having considered the opposing positions, we are of the view that, the contentions by the 1st and 2nd respondents ignore two important factors. One, that elections are not only about numbers as many, surprisingly even prominent lawyers, would like the country to believe. Even in numbers, we used to be told in school that to arrive at a mathematical solution, there is always a computational path one has to take, as proof that the process indeed gives rise to the stated solution. Elections are not events but processes. As Likoti, J.F. opines “[e]lections are not isolated events, but are part of a holistic process of democratic Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            92  |  P a g e