On the 12 of May 2011, the impasse was resolved with an agreement that sought to use both the quantitative approach, which favoured a high frequency approach, and the qualitative approach be used together, and that none of the two would be superior to the other. Following this agreement, the ward was taken as the unit of measurement. If more than one meeting was held in a ward, the number of times an issue was mentioned in a meeting was subjected to a percentage of the total meetings held in that ward. For example, if five meetings were held in one ward and an issue was mentioned in three of the meetings, the issue would have a score of 3/5. These various percentages would then provide an insight into what the ward preferred. On issues that required scoring, such as on a question on whether to have Death Penalty or not, the superior score would carry the day. Taking the quantitative approach did not go down well with others who felt that the approach would lead to unfairness. The argument was that where a matter for example scored two percent in five provinces and ninety percent in the other five provinces, the overall percentage would lead to a situation favourable to the provinces which had high frequencies, and that outcome is foistered on half of the country where that issue has very little currency. The Select Committee then adopted two approaches, Version One, as depicted in the National Statistical report presented together with this report, and the National Statistical reports Version Two, also presented together with this report. 4.2. National Statistical report Version One This version took a direct quantitative approach, considering an issue superior if it has a high frequency on aggregate. Statistically, the approach was straight forward. In the case of a question which required scoring, the issue which had the highest frequency would carry the day. For questions that did not require scoring, the issues would be ranked for consideration into the Draft Constitution. 4.3. National Statistical report Version Two This version took the approach of provincial analysis. It took into account the shortcomings in the data collection methodology which was not scientific. For starters, there was no voting during outreach. At a meeting, if five people spoke on the same issue and just one person spoke on an opposite matter, the issues raised had the same frequency in the ward. It becomes absurd if the scenario occurs in situations were in one meeting, twenty people attended and two thousand in the other. The frequency on the issues was considered the same despite the fact that one meeting had more people than in another. This version sought to consider what each province was saying without subjecting it to the others. Given the same example as explained in version one above, this approach sought to find out why there was such a spread of opinion on the same matter nationally. It probably meant that there was need to come up with a middle of the road approach rather than a winner takes all approach as appeared to be advocated by version one. 46 The Constitution Select Committee (COPAC) Report to Parliament, February 2013