“Where the uncertainty as to the voter's intention is such as to cause a reasonable and unprejudiced mind to doubt what the voter intended, the ballot should not be counted.” [170] We can find nothing in the Constitutional Review Commission’s Report or in the Parliamentary Hansard Report giving the basis for the change from “valid votes cast” in Section 5(3)(f) of the old Constitution to “votes cast” in Article 138(4) of the current Constitution. As we have stated, comparative jurisprudence from New Zealand; Canada; the United Kingdom; Ireland; the Netherlands; India and South Africa shows that rejected votes count for nothing. In the circumstances, we cannot see how a rejected vote, a vote which is void, a vote that accords no advantage to any candidate, can be used in the computation of determining the threshold of 50% + 1. In our view, a purposive interpretation of Article 138(4) of the Constitution, in terms of Article 259 of the Constitution, leads to only one logical conclusion: that the phrase votes cast in Article 138(4) means valid votes. Consequently, we maintain this Court’s view in the 2013 Raila Odinga case and accordingly reject the petitioners’ invitation to reverse it. (iv) The Meaning of Section 83 of the Elections Act [171] If we understand it well, and we think we do, Section 83 of the Elections Act is the fulcrum of this petition. Paragraph 17 0f the petition states that “where an election is not conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the written law, then that election must be invalidated notwithstanding the fact that the result may not be affected.” Even though that is the petitioners’ position, they further aver that IEBC conducted the Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            70  |  P a g e