Realities & Rhetoric of One Man, One Vote

| 15/06/2012

The decision to change a country’s voting system has far reaching political consequences that should not be taken lightly; and when we as citizens are asked to make critical decisions like this, it is important to make our choices based on facts, rather than emotion. The one man, one vote (OMOV)has become an emotive issue that is dividing our community.

Lines have been drawn on the basis of political orientation, and as one would expect in any political debate there are two sides – those that are for and those that are against. But behind all of the emotion and political rhetoric, what are the facts?

According to the advocates of OMOV/single-member constituencies, this system will guarantee better “equality, accountability and fairness” and it will introduce “a modern approach to political organization and voting systems to the Cayman Islands”.

These are noble objectives for any country; however, if we accept these ideals as the reason to change our electoral system, then what we are clearly saying is that the current system of voting that we have used to elect successive governments for the past 40 years was flawed, unequal, and unfair.

But is that really the case? Are we saying that the electoral system that elected such stalwarts and statesmen as Mr Cradock, Mr Jim Bodden, Miss Annie, Mr Benson and Captain Mabry is useless and outdated and now needs to be replaced? Are we saying that our current electoral system which required these members to cooperate and get along for the good of the country  — whichever side they were on — is no longer useful and relevant to modern-day Cayman? If we vote 'yes' to the upcoming referendum, then we are clearly saying 'yes' to all of these questions.

While our current electoral system is not without its share of flaws, it can be amended and improved, but the current referendum does not provide us with that option. In fact, there are several different types of electoral systems that we could consider. Before we start tampering with something as important our electoral system, perhaps we should all read and gather our information from objective non-partisan sources, rather than acting on the basis of who shouts the loudest or who we like and don’t like.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “The real safeguard of democracy is education.” Therefore we should educate ourselves before voting on the referendum. There are several good books and research papers that can help guide us to make the right decision.

One such book is Behind the Ballot Box, A Citizen’s Guide to Voting Systems by Douglas J. Amy, (Praeger Publishing, 2000). This book is a useful guide for anyone who wants to learn more about voting systems and their political implications. It gives readers all the information and analytical tools they need to make an intelligent choice among voting systems. It provides a set of political criteria that can be used to judge voting systems. It gives detailed descriptions of all the common voting systems used in the United States and other Western democracies and provides an analysis of the various political advantages and disadvantages associated with each type of system. And most of all, it doesn’t have a viewpoint that is slanted by the PPM, UDP, CNS, Rooster or the OMOV proponents.

On the issue of single-member constituency (SMC), the author, Douglas J. Amy, agrees that SMC is good at ensuring that all local geographical areas have a voice in the legislature. On the other hand he also cautions that it tends to reinforce the two-party system, produce manufactured majorities, encourage gerrymandering, discourage voter turnout, create high levels of wasted votes, and deny fair representation to third parties, racial minorities and women.

If academics like Amy can make these kind statements about the OMOV system, is this really a more “modern approach to political organization and voting"? Would this really represent an improvement in our democracy? How would independent candidates get elected in such a system?

Let’s now examine how the OMOV system would guarantee equality and fairness.

With the OMOV system the winners need not collect a majorityof the votes, only more votes than their opponents. So, if candidate A receives 40% of the vote, candidate B receives 35%, and candidate C gets 25% then candidate A wins the seat. But this would mean that 55% of the electorate would not be represented by the candidate of their choice. How can this be considered “fair and equal?”

According to thefreedictionary.com, one man, one vote is a principle that was enunciated by the US Supreme Court in (Reynolds v. Sims,1964) which stated that all citizens, regardless of where they reside in a state, were entitled to equal legislative representation. The Supreme Court ruled that a state's apportionment plan for seats in both houses of a “bicameral state legislature” must allocate seats on a population basis so that the voting power of each voter be as equal as possible to that of any other voter.

Under our current electoral system we already have equal legislative representation – on the basis of district size; however, we do not yet have a bicameral legislature. Therefore, if the OMOV referendum is successful in July, will the next step be a move to make changes to our current Constitution to introduce a bicameral legislature? Is this the real hidden agenda behind the OMOV movement or is it just an unexpected outcome?

Whenever we make our decisions based on the facts it will reduce the likelihood of unexpected outcomes. So here are some more facts on the origins of the OMOV:

A quick look at Wikipedia reveals that “One Man, One Vote” is a slogan that has been used in many parts of the world in campaigns for “universal suffrage” and it is particularly prevalent in “less developed countries” during the “period of decolonisation and the struggles for national sovereignty”.

Is this the hidden political agenda behind the OMOV movement — to lead us on a fight for national sovereignty and towards decolonisation? While I do not believe that many of the supporters of the OMOV are necessarily advocates of decolonisation, there is a possibility that their enthusiasm is being manipulated by some who seek to achieve a higher agenda. We are opening a Pandora's Box, and I am not sure that enough research has yet been done to fully understand the pros and cons of this issue.

While no system is perfect, we certainly know what we have, but we sure don’t know what the heck we’re getting into!

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (40)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Fed upman says:

    John Maynard Keynes said " The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones." After reading this article and some of the posts, I have much  better apreciation for Mr. Keyne's thoughts.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It is too bad that the 18 MLA thing has been embedded in the constitution.

     

    My 2 cents is to reccommend only 7 to 9 MLAs to elected by the population at large and scrap the geographic divisions. This would save a lot of cost and open up the political area to a larger pool of well qualified Caymanians.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The referendum on OMOV will need quite a bit more than 50% of the vote to carry and this is why:

    CayCompass: "Kearney Gomez has confirmed that the number of votes needed to make next month’s referendum binding is 7,582"
    Elections website: Total Electors by District for April 1, 2012 Official Register of Electors is 15,156 /2 = 7578 + 1 = 7579.

    No explanation as to how Kearney Gomez and Colford Scott's numbers are off by 6 people from the official list on website.  There will be no accounting for electorate mortality since April 1st.  The only voters that will come out are the YES votes to OMOV.  Anyone that doesn't show up is an automatic NO vote.  Any votes that are illegible or missing a declaration of identity will be scrapped becoming an automatic NO vote.  

     

     

     

  4. Dennie Warren Jr. says:

    Mr. Shellbum,

    Firstly, yes, the system created by the above referenced stalwarts must be modified, because it gives more political power to a voter who is living in West Bay than a voter who is living in North Side, for example.

    Secondly, one person one vote is about the equality of voters.  For example, it is about whether a voter who is living in the electoral district of West Bay is politically equal to a voter who is living in the electoral district of North Side.

    Thirdly, our “General Elections” consist of six separate District Elections.  Those six electoral districts are-

    1. George Town, with each registered voter having the right to vote for 4 of the 15 representatives.
    2. West Bay, with each registered voter having the right to vote for 4 of the 15 representatives;
    3. Bodden Town, with each registered voter having the right to vote for 3 of the 15 representatives;
    4. Cayman Brac & Little Cayman, with each registered voter having the right to vote for 2 of the 15 representatives;
    5. North Side, with each registered voter having the right to vote for 1 of the 15 representatives; and,
    6. East End, with each registered voter having the right to vote for 1 of the 15 representatives,

    and so clearly there is no “equal legislative representation”.  

    Of course you certainly know what we have, political inequality, and you also know what you would be getting, political equality.  Why should one voter in George Town have four votes, while a voter in North Side has one vote?

  5. Anonymous says:

    referendum delemna.  i am unsure how to vote.  The principle of one person one vote sounds logical.  In the final analysis i must decide whether  the current voting rights of the people of George Town, West Bay, Bodden Town, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman to vote for ALL their elected  representatives is worth preserving.

    I wonder how the member for North Side would feel if he could only represent Cayman Kai and not Old Man Bay?

    Personally i would move to North Side or East End in a heartbeat and having only one representative would NOT make me feel like a second class citizen.

     

  6. Anonymous says:

    This is a reasoned and balanced article. Thank you for taking the time to explain another point of view. 

  7. Anonymous says:

    Sir, some of what you say is true, and some is misleading, but your current political system is failing because it allows one dominant person to control the MLA simply by having his accolites voted in with him as a block, meaning that he can treat the house with the contempt he has shown over many years. Yes, there are better systems for your community, and more thought needs to be applied, but you must not let the status quo persist, because that will allow this man to continue as he has. Start a series of changes by starting with OMOV, if you dont start this time, then you just get more of the same, and if you are not bankrupt yet, you will be if he gets any more slices of your cake!  

    • Caymanian to the bone says:

      One dominant person to control the MLA’S? We would still have this even if we voted in the PPM. We would have had Kurt or, God forbid, Alden as premier in control, even a more freightning scenario. Imagine him as premier for a second, aaahhhhh. And thus the reason why the PPM was voted out in the first place. Also be reminded that the reason why Alden’s constitution came about, with the necessary changes for Implementing a premiership, was because they were expecting to be voted back into office in the hopes of Kurt becoming the Country’s first Primier and then passing it on to Alden. Thanks to the Caymanian voters they saw it for what it was and made the change. Having said that, the OMOV will not change the possibility of one man having control. It is the same in all other countries and will continue to be the same here. One man would always be selected as, the Premier, the Leader of Government, the President, the Pope or the Prime Minister. Whatever you want to call them. So do not be fooled. Your OMOV will change nothing, more so it will seek to solidify Mr. Bushes position in West Bay in whatever constituency he should choose to run in should we go the SMC way. And be not fooled by this whole OMOV being about a fairer process with more accountability. No, this was engineered to get Mr. Bush out of office, and for Ezzard and Arden to take control. The people of Cayman once again see this for what it is. So be careful for what you wish for!

      • Anonymous says:

        You are missing the point, yes, one dominant person is usual, even desirable in difficult times. 

        The problem is the mathematical certainty of being in control in a small house like the MLA if that dominant man gets three extra votes in the house for every vote by the people, this block gives him undue influence. This is in effect what Cayman has, Bush plus three who do as they are told. If Bush was the right man you could ignore the systemic frailties, but the right system should ensure that this can never happen, the house should mirror what the majority want, not just West Bay!

  8. Peanuts says:

    It is worthwhile to take note of the following, the UDP is dead against the change to single member voting blocks. Reason that the UDP want to maintain multimember is that they have a lock on the four West Bay seats.The PPM were not exicited about it either, however the fact that it was getting support they jumped on the bandwagon. 

    Now if the Referendum fails by a small margin my question how will the UDP face the ellection in May? The protest vote will cost them the ellection in BT, GT, and some West Bay seat's. Bottom line the UDP can only loose no matter how the ball bounces. Bye MaC.

  9. Dred says:

    You knwo in my 40 + Years I have not heard more rubbish that what comes from these UDP Cronies.

    So you want to trade someone who wins the MAJORITY of the votes for someone who ONLY GETS IN because he RIDES the coat tail of his leader and hold NO ACCOUNTABILITY to various sectors of the population because YOU DON'T NEED THEM TO GET IN.

    Let's give an example shall we. Let's look at BT. UDP would not want this OMOV to pass because why? Simple. All the people in BT East would NEVER EVER EVER EVER put another UDP person because of the DUMP proposition. The UDP representatives have so disenfranchised these people that they won't even meet with them.

    UDP fears this system because they KNOW, THEY KNOW they will be held accountable at each and every leg and post for the service they deliver. They know they will need to go out of their strongholds to win seats and this might not be possible. They know that PPM can put man on man and challenge directly against their people to eliminate some of their people.

    What else do they know? They know their days would be numbered because they can be challenged by the guy on the street now. No more winning just because you have millions of dollars behind you. The man on the street can now hold a viable campaign and possible take a seat from a party person who only got in because he held a coattail for the last 10-12 years.

    People in the immortal words of a close friend of mine…This is all RUBBISH. Meant to clog the system up with FLUFF to distract people from FACTS long enough to make this fail.

    These people are MENTAL MIDGETS lead by the biggest of them all.

    OMOV is simple and probable too simple for some politicians.

    Let me state this CLEARLY. When your politician votes against something BECAUSE HE CAN LOOSE HIS SEAT AND NOT BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.

                               HE NEEDS TO GO!!! HE NEEDS TO GO!!!

     

    When you as a politician put yourself before your country YOU NEED TO GO.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Anyone that thinks that the so called OMOV is the panacea to rid us of the McKeeva disease is dreaming. Do you think he isn’t wily enough to manipulate that too?
    And if you think that this will rid us of corruption you are dead wrong. It may well produce the opposite result. After all, with smaller electoral districts, its much cheaper for any one politician to pave roads and hand out chrismas turkeys. We may simply end up with a few more corrupt dufuses that we have to pay even more money to to mismanage our country and misrepresent our interests. Maybe what we need is a more sensible electorate. A good start would be to try and educate yourselves on this and everything that may affect your futures, rather than following any one or any party blindly like sheep.
    Besides, why would we not want to approach something as crucial as our electoral system with extreme caution?
    Maybe we need to strive to elect people who we know would do a good job for the country and not just ones that we like because they will look after our own personal interests. Thats the way to get rid of corruption. Why would you think that the solution for the small town politics that is destroying this country is to divide this little country up even further? Think about it. As they say, little things please little minds…

    • Caymanian to the bone says:

      Thank you for this response. Someone has their thinking cap on.

  11. So Said So Done says:

    Mr Shellbum  Sir,

    A very simple answer to your question about the former leaders of this country. It worked well because they " for the greater part" were men of honesty and integrity .  What we have today is a party system that is run by a cartel like group with a boss of all bosses and a bunch of lieutenants  who will do whatever he commands. We have to change this corrupt system  of electing and we MUST asap rewrite a lot of our constitution that was accepted by the PPM who should have caught all the idiotic crap like the Premier being the Chief Financial Officer. What stupidity? But one now realizes that this oversight was no accident. They assumed that they would be reelected. It never happened!  So now WE are stuck with it.

     

    What we need more than anything, are Politicians who care  about the peoples welfare  more than they do about lining their own pockets. And more than anything we need a populace that will not sit idly by and watch  them destroy this Island. 

     

     

  12. Anonymous says:

    Rubbish!…There were many whom also said that segregation (by colour, creed and/or sex) and slavery were working fine.

    One Person One Vote is simply a more fair system…not perfect but much better than our current system.

    No voter should have more (or less) votes than the other!…period.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Folks, I hope you see this for what it is, just like the apathy position, this is another attempt to make voters undecided and hence not vote — thereby increasing the chance of the referendum failing — the propoganda machine is in full swing — hold fast lads, just a little over a month to go before we shout a resounding YES!!!!! to that referendum question, don't let anyone mess with your head.

    • Anonymous says:

      George Town, West Bay, Bidden Town, do not give up your vote for the purpose of giving more influence of the shape government to Ezzard and Arden.

      They want to lessen the influence YOUR votes to increase THEIR influence over government.

      Giving up your vote, means less significance you have.  Its really that simple.

    • John says:

      George town has 5911 registered voters with 2 additional seats giving a total of 6 representatives, and without considering the politics of it we could have have each elected person be responsible for 985 souls ,closely approximating the Boundary Commissions divi up. Wouldn’t this be equal representation. As portfolios assignments are run through with the Governors assent so too could this process of distribution be instituted.

  14. Anonymous says:

    With the requirement for the candidates to live in the district of which they run non existant in Cayman you will have carpetbagger candidates seeking out districts with weak candidates running to get into the LA.

    There will also be districts where all the candidates are lack luster and the constituents of that district will be left with a weak representative who they can hold accountable and vote out of office but will still have lousy representation in the mean time.

  15. Anonymous says:

    "While no system is perfect, we certainly know what we have, but we sure don’t know what the heck we’re getting into"

    You got that right, I know what we have, we have a system that produced 2 McKeeva Bush led Administration in 11 years– both of wish have been horrible disasters. That, if for nothing else, is why I will be voting YES on July 18th.

    • Dred says:

      Amen.

      This is the worst Government in the history of Governments. Our only next step would be a dictatorship.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Yes, the system has not been fair and equal in the past. No, none of the problems you are inventing will occur. People with much less than 50% of the vote in their district are currently serving in the assembly. That is the different issue of having run-off elections or not. Please stop lying.

    • Anonymous says:

      I agree it is hard to be charitable in the face of such distortion and misinformed commentary as the article referred to. But I guess there is the slim possibility that the person who wrote that is not dishonest ("lying") but just cannot understand what s/he has read on the subject or even the mathematical fact that many elected representatives under the present system are and have been elected by a minority vote (and all Legislators could be so elected now if enough candidates ran in each District). The level of reasoning or integrity, whichever it is, displayed by many opponents of OMOV is frightening to contemplate while thinking of the future of our country. And supporting OMOV now in 21st Century Cayman does not mean somehow condemning our past, with our (present) system of a mixture of some voters having one vote and some having more. It was never fair but if anyone knows the economy, and sparsity of population, of Cayman when it was instituted it would be clear that trying to institute and administer some electoral boundary system other than the existing Districts would have been fiscally imprudent – in fact, I believe, actually beyond our reach. But the costs are now patently a drop in the bucket of our National Budget. To continue to resist the change on that basis would be tantamount to if we had rejected islandwide electricity and all its benefits because in the 1950's the Islands could not afford a national grid and yet we managed to get through school studying by lamplight, and everything else that had to be done. Having embraced islandwide electricty as soon as the country could afford it, does not mean we condemned those who had had to live without it in the past as inferior.

  17. Anonymous says:

    after reading that….i'm definitly voting in favour omov

  18. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for this commentary. Helps to put me more into propective on this extremely important issue. I do not think that the Caymanians electoral system is yet ready to be changed. I think that we should keep it as it is until be an better educate ourselves on this very important issue.

    • Anonymous says:

      This, ladies and gentlemen is the intended result of this article, to cause people to become undecided and stay home, which as we know, will be an automatic "no" vote. Please don't fall for it, we have suffered for too long and West Bay will continue to give us the shaft every 4 years by sending back these clowns unless we change the system.

      • John says:

        The commentary is very powerful, for it provides historical facts and not blinded opinion. There is a large degree of opinion and by its makers on Going OMOV that smacks of propaganda bush marketing to elect a few others with them and form a new PPM government.

        Folks you needto understand that this is all about politics, with some fearing the vote while others look at it as a means of securing their party, while we the people are caught in between. No side has given us a complete picture of how the process passed would work and what hidden costs there are. The reason for this is that they have not in usual style thought it through and at the end of the day we will be faced with the now a fixture cayman kinda confusion which we have had to contend with for some years now.

        Anyone can spin a yarn, and there are many who can sell it, make sure good people that the yarn is strong and long lasting before you buy in.

    • Anonymous says:

      There is a referendum coming – you need to figure this out NOW!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Given that the phrase has been used for centuries in the context of universal suffrage, it is a disappointingly myopic inference that it all stems from Reynolds v. Sims.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Under the guise of being objective and impartial this article is just another attempt to confuse the minds of voters and undermine the success of the OMOV referendum. OMOV is opposed by die-hard UDP supporters and some PPM supporters because their party feels less secure under it.

    The articles raises a number of red herrings in its divide and conquer strategy:

    1. With OMOV the successful candidate does not need a majority of the votes only more votes than their opponents. Of course this is really a function of the number of candidates vying for the seat than the electoral system. It is actually less likely to be true under single member constituencies than under the present system. Note that the two MLAs who were elected in SMCs were elected by a majority of the votes cast, while a number in MMCs were elected by less than the majority of votes cast.

    2. OMOV requires a bicameral legislature because the US Supreme Court mentioned bicameral legislatures in its ruling. That is of course the purest nonsense. OMOV works either with or without a bicameral legislature. It just so happens that the US does have a bicameral legislature.

    3. OMOV is usually found in less developed countries. Absolute nonsense. OMOV is found in most developed countries including the US, the UK and Canada.

    4. OMOV is associated with struggles for national sovereignty so there is likely to be a hidden agenda for independence. I am absolutely amazed at the mischievous dishonesty of the writer. OMOV is associated with struggles for national sovereignty, freedom and independence because the vote would have been denied to subjugated peoples, for example Blacks in apartheid era South Africa. Is the writer really suggesting that that is a bad thing?

    5. OMOV is Pandora’s Box full of hidden evilsthat will be unleashed if the referendum is successful. This is just plain old style scare mongering designed to overwhelm the weak- minded.OMOV is the standard for democracy around the world. No society has collapsed for having introduced it.

    Yes, we do know what we have and obviously by the quality of representation we are receiving it is just not cutting it. It is a broken system that we must fix if we are to fully enter the 21st century.

    What deeply concerns me is that this article was clearly an attempt to deceive and manipulate voters rather to educate and inform them as it claims.

  21. Danonymouse Man says:

    XXXXX

    Having said that, this article is about OMOV or SMC. Rudy S: quotes Douglas Amy, but Douglas A has updated his position numerous times since he first wrote his book, 12 years ago. Douglas A, has to be seriously questioned as to how he can make a statement that smc is skewed against minorities and women, yet the record shows Obama is the President of the USA, and there are numerous women in congress and in other elected places. Would you not say this proves Douglas A’s 2000 quote out dated? Why are you trying to mislead the public? Furthermore Douglas A: has stated on numerous occasions that low voter turnout is due to the fact that elections are held on work days and he recommends that elections be held on holidays or Sundays.

    Rudy S XXXX stated and I quote:

    "With the OMOV system the winners need not collect a majority of the votes, only more votes than their opponents. So, if candidate A receives 40% of the vote, candidate B receives 35%, and candidate C gets 25% then candidate A wins the seat. But this would mean that 55% of the electorate would not be represented by the candidate of their choice. How can this be considered “fair and equal?”"

    Well for the record, MLA Cline G, in 2000, received just 31% of the votes cast in W.Bay, MLA Elio S, received 40.3% of the votes cast in G.Town while Dwayne S.  37% in B.Town in 2009. Do you consider this a much more equitable system than a smc and that those electors were well represented?

    Lastly Rudy, people who need all the facts or just facts to make a decision, is just plain dog losers. The best decision makers, uses a hunch, or uses past experience or just their knowledge and do not rely on facts. Scientist uses experiments that are scientific, but with socio economics we have to use predictions and assessments. From what I can see you have come to a conclusion by making an assumption that the promoters of the OMOV campaign are evil people. You are quite honestly wrong to assume and I quote:”

     “Therefore, if the OMOV referendum is successful in July, will the next step be a move to make changes to our current Constitution to introduce a bicameral legislature? Is this the real hidden agenda behind the OMOV movement or is it just an unexpected outcome?”

    Sorry Rudy, people like you discourage intuition and thought but encourage ignorance and backwardness.

    Yes the system that elected our officials for years, is not just broken it has never been a worthy of our efforts.

  22. Anonymous says:

    you pretend to take out emotion but your parargraph:

    if we accept these ideals as the reason to change our electoral system, then what we are clearly saying is that the current system of voting that we have used to elect successive governments for the past 40 years was flawed, unequal, and unfair.

    clearly shows you are not.

    Cayman has changed much in 40 years we now have 2 political parties, 40 years ago we didn't; the population of Cayman has increased dramaticaly as well as the average wealth and motivations of Caymanians.

    We are clearly a different country than we were

    Saying a "yes vote" to OMOV is effectively degrading Cayman's heros is as emotive as you can get and completely twisting the arguement as well as being completely wrong.

     

  23. Danny Boy says:

    Ahhhh, according to your percentage calculations, I believe you work for the UDP….

  24. The Parliamentarian says:

    Mr. Shellbum:

    With all due respect, what you have said is a lot of political mumbo-jumbo for hanging on to an unfair election system.  You speak of pluralities not being right….  why not?  If more people like one candidate more than the other(s) why isn't this right?  If you aren't satisfied with this why not recommend a run-off between the two leading candidates WITH ONE MAN ONE VOTE!  Allowing each voter equality in voting.  No person should have more votes than another!

  25. Anonymous says:

    I agree with what you say, but to go so far as to say we may open a Pandora's Box, is to me, exaggeration at its best. We have already opened a Pandora's Box by voting for things and people we should have never voted for… there is a lesson for everything

  26. Cassandra says:

    Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “The real safeguard of democracy is education.”  I mimicked these words just prior to us ratifying in the 2009 Constitution, only to be seriously mistakened. If I had only educated myself a bit more on what the Constitution entailed, I would have taken side with Bush and said Nay to it. 

  27. CutThroughTheB.S. says:

    What is divisive is our current district voting system. Instead of looking at ourselves as different districts, we need to look at ourselves as one country that,  for management purposes only, is broken down into the constituencies set out by the Electoral Boundary Commission.

    When a candidate is elected in a single member constituency, he/she is primarily responsible for representing the interests of the voters in his/her constituency. If we were to impement this system here in Cayman, each representative would only have to deal with 800-900 voters in a constituency vs. as much as 5000+ in a district. Each elected representative is then able to devote more attention to the needs of the voters in his/her constituency. The overall effect is that we all get better representation.

    The notion that this type of system is divisive just does not make sense. The basic needs of the voters throughout the different constituencies are all the same. There may be slight variances in some of the constituences(i.e.farmers in East End), but for the most part we all have the same basic needs. Because we all share the same basic needs and have to work within a specified national budget, our representatives will all have to work together on a national level to make sure that the country is run in a manner that will allow for all of our needs to be met as equally as possible. That creates UNITY.   

  28. Anonymous says:

    Thank you! "your eyes are wide open".