more than the difference in the number of votes cast for the candidate declared the winner and the candidate who is not declared the winner; (c) that a presiding officer has, under duress, signed ballots and that the number of ballots so signed is sufficient to cast doubt on the majority of votes counted for, the candidate declared elected; (d) that votes have been polled by persons who are not bona fide electors thereby casting doubt on the integrity of the votes . counted for the candidate declared elected. (e) that there is an upsurge in violence or any irregularity during election day in one or more polling stations or polling divisions or in any electoral division or constituency which would lead to a substantial distortion or subversion of the process of free and fair election." First, it must be abundantly clear that the poll in respect of polling divisions Nos. 49,64 :I and 72 was taken in each case in circumstances envisaged by the provisions of section 37 (b). At polling station No. 49 the number of the electors on the list of electors was 3 12; at polling station No. 64 that number was 192; at polling station No. 72 it was 353. These three figures make a total of 857 electors which is more than the difference in the number of votes (154) cast for the candidate declared the winner (Holness) and the candidate who was not declared the winner (Blake). Indeed, taken singly, the number of ( electors at these 3 polling stations exceeded the winning margin of 154 votes. So, on the 'I basis of this evidence alone the poll taken at each of these 3 polling stations should be voided. But as I have already indicated there were other irregularities affecting polling