Voter equality

| 20/06/2012

Right now all voters are able to cast votes for all of their district representatives. This situation pertains in every district and is therefore consistent throughout these Cayman Islands. This is a form of equality. One man, one vote is also a form of voter equality. Single member voting areas as proposed will, however, mean that the only true district representatives will be from East End and North Side.

Are all the people of George Town, West Bay, Bodden Town, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman somehow being unfair or selfish for wanting to have a say in all their district representatives? This is the case that now pertains in every district. We are all now equal in this respect.

Is it fair for the MLAs for East End and North Side to be the only politicians to be able to say they alone represent their entire district? This will be the case if we go to single member constituencies and one man, one vote. The politicians for North Side and East End will still be able to get up and say, “I represent the district of North Side/East End.” Will the voice of the man or woman who gets elected for the neighborhoods of Scranton or Eastern Avenue carry the same weight?

If North Side and East End were large enough to have multiple representatives, how would their current MLA’s feel about representing say only half of their district? I am sure that the people in Cayman Kai and Rum Point may have different concerns than the people of say Frank Sound and Old Man Bay. If the numbers were large enough to justify two representatives in North Side, for example, what would that do to the social fabric of the district? Lets not be shortsighted, this day will come too for North Side and East End.

As the population grows we will constantly have to further divide this small country and elect politicians in accordance with what small neighborhood you happen to live in. My overriding concern is that this will cause increasing division. It will also create greater insular thinking and less national perspective.

I have lived in this community for many years and I have friends and family in all the districts. I have never heard any of them claim they are second class because they live in East End and North Side and only have one representative. Quite the contrary, some of the proudest people in these islands are from these districts. I would love to live there myself and my decision would not in any way be affected by having one politician in charge.

After much thought, I have had to ask myself why all the fuss now about this situation that has been in effect from the time we started electing our politicians. Bearing in mind who has been doing the pushing and the most vocal (past, current and would-be politicians), I have come to the conclusion that they must think it is in their own interest. Surely they would not be campaigning so heavily because they feel so sorry for us and just want to give everybody the same great “benefits” that their constituents enjoy.  If that is their primary motive then they should all be declared saints. But have we ever heard of a politician being canonized?

No there must be another reason. And I think I have the answer. But it may be too sensational to disclose here at this time.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

About the Author ()

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    I support OMOV on the simple principal of equity in voting.

    Right now we have no voter equality.

    No one who stands against omov can convincingly explain why a george town voter should have more representation, 6 votes, and every other voter should have fewer votes.

    We need run off elections and term limits for all representatives.

    • Anonymous says:

      Just remember if you vote for OMOV you are also voting to ADD 3 new MLA's and all the associated costs that go along with that.

      The politicians have the people fooled once again. Everything they do grows the size of the government.


      CNS: This is rubbish. The three additional MLAs will be added to the LA regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Under the new constitution the number of MLAs will increase to 18. The issue is how they are to be elected.

      • Anonymous says:

        Thanks for correcting this nonsense, CNS. Some people still stoop to any dishonesty to oppose OMOV.

  2. Anonymous says:

    It's amazing to me that so many in Cayman think it's system of voting is better than anywhere else.  How is voting for five people who ignore you better than voting for one person who can't ignore you.

    • Anonymous says:

      That should be the offical slogan of the OMOV campaign.  Short, sweet, and very much to the point.

  3. Simpleton / says:

    Anyways, why are we fighting for a complicated system. Why not just line up all those who want power and just have a national vote for the top 18. Enough of districts and divides. The 18 top candidates from all island wide with the most votes get in the LA house. Simple

    • old timer says:

      We can even have lotto included. Everyone just put down cash on the best candidate on election day. I bet everyone will vote.

  4. Whodatis says:

    Something else just occurred to me …

    Reflecting on what was perhaps one of the most divisive and emotive issues in recent times, how would the matter surrounding the proposed East End Sea Port have been affected by OMOV?

    Would that decision, which was crucial to the future of the entire country, have been left in the hands of the designated SMC electoral district?

    Furthermore, is there a policy that determines the "size" or scale of a project which automatically renders it as one of national concern i.e. to be considered beyond the parameters of the directly concerned electoral district?

    Am I now referring to a "national development plan"?

    Isthere one, and where can I find a copy?

    If there is none in place, then pray tell – why should I vote for either the PPM or UDP come next election?

    Regardless of who is in power we will remain prone to the same old problems and failings if other issues are not addressed.

    Are we sure we have our priorities in order?


    • Anonymous says:

      Whodatis, either you really do not understand what OMOV SMCs are all about or you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue. Clearly, East End (as the location of the proposed mega quarry/seaport) is already an SMC with OMOV so the question does not even arise. The mega quarry/seaport WAS properly treated as a national issue and it was only because it was opposed by a majority of public across the Island that the objectors succeeded. Having SMCs does not mean that there is any devolution of power or autonomy vested in the SMC. It does not create some sort of federal system with each district becoming the equivalent of a state. There is no question of having a decision "crucial to the future of the entire country left in the hands of the designated SMC electoral district". That is a red herring. All it does is to change electoral boundaries so that there are 18 constituencies and each constituency has only one representative. Plain and simple.  

      This whole argument seems to be constructed on the basis that OMOV SMC does not solve every conceivable issue then it is not worth having or it is somehow low priority. No one has suggested that it is a panacea for all ills or that no other issues should be addressed. That is a straw man argument.  

      Not that we needed a national development plan to determine that a seaport in EE was a national issue – that was plainly obvious –  but by all means call for a national development plan. That should be a part of any party's campaign platform. But that is a completely separate issue from OMOV.         

      • Whodatis says:

        Hi poster,

        Thanks for the feedback.

        I was not trying to be mischievous or facetious – I assure you.

        It was subsequent to listening to a few of the presentations by the OMOV committee (of which I presume you are a part) that the issue of the EESP occured to me.

        A selling point of the OMOV appears to be greater representation and an enhancement of every individual's democratic power. However, that can actually be a negative development, e.g. within the absence of a national development plan.

        I do realize that East End is already a SMC, however, my concerns seem to be reinforced when we recall the amount of pressure that was on the shoulders of the respective MLA at that time.

        My general point was, if we enter into the arena of OMOV SMC's and fully embrace many of the ideals being paraded on the various forums, we could find ourselves in a bit of a tricky situation.

        (E.g. What if the overwhelming majority of the respective constituents shared the mindset of Mr. Imparato? To deny them their wishes could be viewed as a failure of the supposed newly improved ideals being promised to us by the OMOV committee.)

        I completely appreciate the advantages of OMOV in regard to the equal voting power of every individual, however, we could still find ourselves facing the same old problems AFTER election day – have we OMOV or not.

        Unless other supplements are made to our current political and national system we will not be enjoying the significant changes that many falsely believe.

        Re: "Not that we needed a national development plan to determine that a seaport in EE was a national issue – that was plainly obvious"

        I find that line of reasoning extremely worrying.

        The fact that an individual supports OMOV yet holds such a position in regards to the fundamental importance of a documented, legal, and secure plan for national development does not speak very well of his or her perspective beyond getting into office.

        My greatest concern of this push for OMOV is that it is increasingly sounding like a tactic for a few newcomers to get their foot in the door of the legislative assembly – some on the "coat-tail" of a political party that has already, and quite recently, proven themselves as rather dangerous for our country and economy.

        Re: "but by all means call for a national development plan. That should be a part of any party's campaign platform"

        Yes, it should – but clearly it has not.

        In my humble opinion, a national development plan is in the top 3 of issues facing Cayman today that require immediate attention.

        To conclude, I do realize that these may appear to be separate issues, however I think we can all see how there is the potential for significant overlap.

        If anything, my perspective should be viewed as an extension of the ideals promised by OMOV as opposed to an objection to the actual concept.

        I fully support* OMOV as it relates to election day – however OMOV alone will not be the saviour of the Cayman Islands as being suggested by some individuals.

        *I do have concerns about the potential for an individual being elected to the LA without actually winning a MAJORITY PERCENTAGE of the constituency.

        E.g. in a 3 – person race where; (Canidate A: 20% – Candidate B:35% – Candidate C: 45%)

        Will "Candidate C" win the seat although 55% of his constituency voted for someone else?

        Is that democracy?

        Will there be rounds of elections under OMOV?

        I look foward to your reply in regards to my final concern.


        • Anonymous says:

          First, let me say that I am not a member of the OMOV Committee or an aspiring politician so you are barking up the wrong tree.

          In your previous post your main point seemed to be that if we introduce OMOV SMCs then matters like the EE mega-quarry/seaport would fall to be determined by those constituencies rather than the country as a whole. I have already explained why that is clearly not correct. Therefore the pressure the MLA from an SMC was under from his constituents would not be determinative so I do not understand your point.  

          I have clearly supported having a national development plan and said that projects such as the EE mega quarry/seaport are clearly national issues so I am not sure what it is that is "extremely worrying" to you about my stance.  

          I have listened to the promoters of OMOV on a number of occasion and no one has suggested that OMOV will be the saviour of the Cayman Islands. Not one. Quite the opposite: it has been emphatically stated that it is not a panacea. That is a red herring.

          Individuals being elected to the L.A. without actually having the support of a majority of all registered voters in his constituency is exactly what we have now. In the 2009 elections the following candidates achieved such a majority:

          WB – 2

          GT – 0

          BT – 0

          CB/LC – 0

          NS – 0

          EE – 1

          =3 out of 15.

          OMOV will not make that any worse. Obviously, whether a majority of registered voters is obtained by any candidate is largely a function of two factors: (1) the voter turnout on election day; and (2) the number of candidates running in the election. The greater the number of candidates the less likely for any candidate to obtain an overall majority of all registered voters. In light of that it would be unrealistic to require the winning candidate to have the support of the majority of all registered voters since we could end up having no one elected at all in a number of constituencies. Interestingly, one of the few candidates in the 2009 elections to obtain votes from the majority of registered voters was from an existing SMC. The bottom line is that that is not a real objection to OMOV as opposed to the status quo. Maybe I might be forgiven for thinking you are being disingenuous.

          Can there be refinements to improve OMOV? Certainly. Run offs would be one such improvement. But let's take it one step at a time.      

          • Whodatis says:

            The few objections I have to your reply are too minor to be highlighted and would only serve to set us off-track.

            I sincerely appreciated your feedback on this matter.

            The only concern I have with OMOV is, although it reinforces the concept of individual democratic power, this notion inherently carries the risk of further segregation of our community – even if only (initially) psychologically.

            (I guess this is the reason the EESP came to mind earlier, as I recalled the bewilderment I felt when some of the strongest proponents of the EESP were doing so on the basis that it would be advantageous for the EE constituency.)

            Furthermore, I am hesitant to sign on "100%" because this concern is steadfastly tugging on my better mind.

            I guess I would be a lot more comfortable with introducing these changes (OMOV) into our community if proper safeguards and concrete clarification (policies) were in place beforehand.

            Thanks again. Take care.

             – Whodatis

            • Anonymous says:

              Again, EE is already an OMOVSMC so I don't see how the argument can be made that the introduction of OMOV SMCs generally is advantageous to that constituency except in the sense that it levels the playing field and EE voters will be treated equally with voters in all other districts and its MLA will not be seen as having a lesser mandate than MLAs from the larger districts.

              I don't see how voter equality or single member constituencies carries any risk of segregation of our community. I do not know of any examples of other countries where such segregation has occurred merely because some electoral boundaries were changed. Do you? No one is proposing that the Berlin Wall be erected or that district passports be issued. We seem to forget that electoral districts are comprised of a number of communities and are not each a single community. In NS Old Man Bay is seen as a different community fromCayman Kai/Rum Point which is also seen as different from North Side proper. In BT Savannah/Newlands is obviously a different community from BT proper etc etc.  They simply vote for the same slate of candidates at general elections and even then there are separate polling stations depending on the area in which you reside.

  5. Whodatis says:


    In what way(s) would the presence of OMOV have affected the results of our last general election and our subsequent makeup of government cabinet ministers?

  6. Anonymous says:

    What a great article and truly representative of how I feel about the matter. One man one vote is not a good fit for,the.Cayman Islands and is only going to fragment our society even more than it already is

  7. Jackson says:

    I personally think the one man one vote will divide the country even more. And then you will have more MLAs in the house, doing what?  To me that is not what Cayman need. We need more accountability, not MLAs, and not garrison politics. Remember in 2009 we voted for a new Constitution and to this day, many of us regretted doing so, because they never took the time to education themselves. Just sharing my two cent. 

    • Anonymous says:

      OMOV has nothing to do with "garrison politics". That is pure McKeeva propaganda. Whether garrison politics emerges will depend on the quality of our politicians and whether they are affiliated with criminal gangs and not on our voting system.

      Can you give me even one example anywhere where the introduction of OMOV has divided the country?

  8. Len Layman says:
    Folks this is REAL important. Please get educated on it. If you are for or against it make sure you understand it. I know I do and I am for it. If you disagree with me because you have educated yourself I respect that, go to the polls on the18th and vote accordingly. If you have not educated yourself and are against it because you are told by your leaders it is no good, I do not respect that. Ask question, probe, make up your own mind. Then vote your conscience. But don't do so on the instruction of others, do it because you have taken the time to care and find out.
    • Anonymous says:

      I know I have educated myself and thought about the subject carefully. I am not following anyone but my self. I am voting NAY for the One Man One Vote. Thanks Layman.

      • anonymous says:

        It is clear you could not have educated yourself.  The only possible argument you could have to reject OMOV is that it gives you 3 or 4 persons to "go to" ( to get favours from) instead of one. That is actually corruption by another word.

        Give up those 3 or 4 votes that do NOT really respond to you for 4 years and get one vote that truly represents you. One fully useful vote that is ACCOUNTABLE to you all 4 years.

        Choose true democracy like so many other countries have before us.

        • Anonymous says:

          We have had this same election system for 180 years. If what yousay is true, then the Cayman islands is BUILT on corruption.  I do not beleive that and you make me sick.

          Give me ONE country that has OMOV and is LESS corrupt than Cayman and I WILL agree to vote OMOV.

          I'm waiting………

          • Anonymous says:

            There are dozens of countries but since you asked for just ONE I will give you New Zealand which has had OMOV since 1890. Now I expect you to follow through and vote for OMOV on 18 July.

            • Anonymous says:

              We also adopted New Zealand’s accounting system and all everyone does is b…tch and complain about that. Now you are suggesting we adopt their political system? What a joke

              • Anonymous says:

                And why do they bitch about it -problem with the transparency and accountability perhaps?

            • Anonymous says:

              The Kiwis have generally accepted  low levels of corruption, but each person has 2 votes.  

              Good effort though.

              • Anonymous says:

                Ok, but the principle that all voters have the same number of votes is enshrined in single member constituencies. Another good example is Canada.

              • Anonymous says:

                Of the top 10 least corrupt countries as listed on the Transparency International  Index, i can only find ONE that has OMOV and SMC.  However I don't think there is anything wrong with the proposed system, especially in larger jurisdictions. The primary benefit will be for independent candidates which might be a good thing condidering that since the introduction of formal party politics there have been very few successful independent candidates at the polls.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I think we are being side tracked by the issue of corruption perceptions and voting systems. There is no necessary correlation between the two.

                  Both Canada and New Zealand have SMCs although in New Zealand you have two votes: one constituency vote (for the lower tier of the House) and one party vote (for the upper tier of the House).   

          • Anonymous says:

            Your ignorence of how this Island evolved politacally is alarming for someone who choses to express his preception on the subject publicly.

            The present system has NOT been in place for 180 years. Indeed the constitution that allows the system we now have was only put in place in 1972.

            In fact 180 years ago we had NO MAN HAS ANY VOTE. The first Government meeting held at Pedro St James Castle was nothing more than a collection of self interest persons who got together and decided to put a Government system in place as our Mother Country  was Governing us by simply naming an FCO Officer in Jamaica who visited once every few years.

            We then moved to a system of Vestrymen/Councilmen again under NO MAN NO VOTE as they were all appointed. Later they were elected by a small persentage of the population who were allowed to vote on such matters.

            Then we moved to a representative Government with a SOME MEN CAN VOTE system where the merchants not only decided who could put themselves forward for elections but they also decided WHICH MEN COULD VOTE (notice not a ALL men and NO women could vote)

            We then moved to "universal sufferage" where ALL MEN HAVE ONE VOTE (still no women could vote and many men were discouraged from voting because it would "ruin the country")

            We then moved to true universal sufferage when ALL MEN AND WOMEN COULD VOTE

            The merchant and aristrocratic class did not appreciate that everyone from all strata of life had the nerve to vote and try to tell them what they could and could not do, so the system was brought in where George Town, West Bay and Bodden Town (former capital) had multiple votes ( no doubt influenced by the fact that the merchants already had a foothold in those districts and extensive land holdings as well )

            Over the years this evolved into a self fullfilling prophacy in as much as the population continued to grow more in those districts that continued to control more and more of the commerce.

            The polititions then saw the oppurtunity to increase their influence in their districts by buying into the populist sentiment by saying we need even more representation for George Town and West Bay because those districts had the greater population. In George Town we will have ONE MAN/ ONE WOMAN FOUR VOTES.

            This has brought us to today when we are contemplating giving a George Towner, like myself, 6 votes that I can then cast either 1,2,3,4,5 or 6 at my descretion. Of course I can now cast 1 vote for by buddy politition if I chose, throw away the other 5 and in effect CAST 5 votes against all other candidates as they have NO chance to benefit from them.

            Therein lies the crux ofthe matter. Mant polititions like this system as if they can tell their core supporters to cast only one vote it greatly increases their chance to get elected.

            As you can see it has been a slow and painfull evolution of our political system and today the people are asking for OM/WOV SINGLE MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES.

            Just as we can look back and say that some of the systems we had in the past were archaic, they fit the times and thankfully were changed amid similar protests as we see today, against OMOV.

            I predict that 50 years from now when we look back at this historical change to OMOV many will wonder how we got to a system where a person like myself could have 6 votes and my blood father, mother and brother are only worthy of 1 vote.

            In my opinion the time for OMOV has come. I will certainly be one who will make the effort on July 18 to go to the polls and vote YES to OMOV and SINGLE MEMBER CONSTITUENCIES.

  9. Anonymous says:

    OMOV is the only way forward for these islands,everyone in my family (22 votes) will be voting in favour of this wonderful  democratic system. We just cannot wait for the 18th of July to arrive,we also cannot wait for May 2013 to come so that wecan return the UDP to power.Cayman please come out and vote in favour of omov, it's the best way to go for our beloved Cayman Islands.

    • Anonymous says:

      lol… oh please… not my family  :)))

      • Anonymous says:

        well  his family (22 votes) and your family (1 vote) does not equal my family (100 votes) and we say WE NAAAAH CARE!

    • Anonymous says:

      So you are dictating to your family how they should vote? So 21 people are not allowed to vote freely according to their own logic and conscience? How will you know who-voted-what?   Is this UDP "democracy?

      • Anonymous says:

        Cant you read or what?

        The perosn said 22 people intheir family would be voting FOR not against OMOV.  He also said he is UDP. So what. if true at least  it shows that not all UDP will vote against. 

  10. Anonymous says:

    Somebody must be paying to have this crap submitted as a Viewpoint. I hope that it is not us. Which ministry should I send the FOI request to? – the Ministry of All Things??

  11. Anonymous says:

    Biggest load of misinformed hogwash I have read in a long time.  What do Ezzard and Arden have to gain when they already are the only representatives of their own districts, and a dam sight more visible and accountable to their consituents for their actions as a result of being sole practitioners in their own districts.  OMOV can only bring the same improvements to other, larger districts and as a BTer, I really hope we end up with OMOV coz I'd like to see our politicians doing something for their very substantial earnings rather than taking every photo and publicity opportunity and failing their own constituents, not to mention sucking up to the whims of our Premier rather than standing up for their districts too.

    • Anonymous says:

      Well that doesn't say much for the quality of your reading material now then does it! 

  12. Crosses says:

    The 'One Man One Vote' is Democratic like our Constitution is Democratic!  Only mere people will not listen to the righteous Prophets, Alden, Arden, and Ezzard!

  13. Anonymous says:

    What I want to know if whether this fertiliser production is being paid for by the public treasury or whether someone just got an extra portion of Koolaid.

  14. Anonymous says:

    But have we ever heard of a politician being canonized?

    Yes I have, Sir (Saint) Thomas More, cannonised in 1935, and patron saint of politicians

    although he was known for burning protestants

    or was your question rhetorical?


    • Anonymous says:

      Sir Thomas More was beheaded for not recognizing the political progress King Henry VIII made by separating the Church of England from Rome. This move eventually led to the separation of the State from the Church which is recognized by most Western democracies as a good thing to aspire to.

      Our little jurisdiction’s politics are too closely allied to religion and a couple of our politicians ought to lose their heads, at least figuratively.

      • Anonymous says:

        Henry VIII did not separate the State from the Church and it has not happened since in the UK. Instead Henry declared himself the Head of the Catholic Church in England and hence we got the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II is herself head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith. The House of Lords in part comprises Bishops of the Church of England. The Church of England is the established and official church in England. As such it persecuted Roman Catholics and Non-Conformist Protestants which is why the Pilgrim Fathers went to America. There is no separation of church and state in the UK.   

        • Anonymous says:

          The links between church and state in the UK are, nowadays, mostly a formality and the governance of the UK is relatively secular, although the Lords Spiritual have a significant influence when they vote as a bloc on certain issues, notably abortion and assisted dying.

          Regardless of any influence the church may still have over the UK government, you will NEVER catch the UK government giving handouts to churches or constituents as it would be seen as corruption – an attempt to garner votes.

        • hattra says:

          Just a little point of information – the Queen is NOT the head of the Church of England, she is the Supreme Governor – a purely nominal role – Jesus isthe head and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the leader of the Church  

          As for the persecution of Catholics, I would say it was a two-way street – look up Bloody Mary and the Bloody Assizes – both good examples of what Catholic monarchs did to their protestant subjects – and the Pilgrim Fathers left for the Americas during the reign of James I, a Catholic 

          • Anonymous says:

            OK she is the supreme governor not the head. That means that she appoints high ranking officials of the Church of England on the advice of the Prime Minister. The point is that there is no separation between church and state.

            In 1593 the English Parliament outlawed independent congregations and made attendance at Anglican services compulsory.

            James 1 ascended the English throne in 1603 . In 1606 the English Parliament passed another Act requiring citizens to take an oath denying that the Pope had any authority over the King. James commissioned the King James Bible. James was no Catholic.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thomas Moore was not an elected politician in the sense that we are discussing here.  Good try though!

      Moore was beheaded for not supporting the King in separating from the Catholic Church and he was canonized some 400 years after the fact.

  15. Anonymous says:

    More propaganda against OMOV and it is becoming sillier and sillier. This time the people "pushing" must have bad motives and the only "true" district representatives will be from NS and EE. However, we must wait with bated breath to hear what those bad motives are in the next instalment.   

    Obviously EE and NS are already OMOV SMCs and the MLAs from those districts have nothing to gain from introducing it generally except that their constituents will be treated equally with voters elsewhere and they will not be seen as having a lesser mandate than MLAs from larger districts. There is no mystery.

    Obviously Scranton or Eastern Avenue will not of themselves be electoral districts nor should any MLA be any less proud to have those areas included in his constituency as they are now. Electoral districts are already made up of separate communities which are combined together simply for electoral purposes. Savannah/Newlands is obviously a separate community from Bodden Town proper and Prospect is likewise a separate community from George Town Central. It is easier to argue that the present representation is somewhat artificial as compared to having different MLAs for different communities.      

    When those who oppose OMOV need to resort to ad hominem attacks and contrived arguments you know that they have totally lost the argument.      

    • Anonymous says:

      You say the only true district reps will be from EE and NS. So why haven’t those two districts benefited over the last three years with such ACCOUNTABILITY. See Ezzard and Arden for reference that the OMOV is one big fallacy.

      • Anonymous says:

        Huh? I was obviously summarising the previous poster's argument re true district representatives but I guess that went completely over your head.

        EE and NS obviously do benefit from that accountability. Ezzard and Arden are accountable and therefore responsive to their constituents. They, more than any MLA in any other district, have regular meetings in their constituencies and know their constituents well.  Ezzard in particular was the first one to form a district council from the people who came out to attend the meetings. They know there is no one else to hide behind.

      • Anonymous says:

        To Anonymous Wed.06/20/2012        The reason these districts have not benefitted is due to the fact that the Premier has chosen to punish them because he is opposed to the MLAs from those two districts.Ezzard and Arden have fougt for their people ,but unfortunately they do not have support from the UDP MLAs who do not care about North Side or East End.Of course UDP will be telling voters during the next election that Ezzard and Arden did nothing for them,when in actual fact it is UDP who controll the money and have neglected those people.FYI  under the present multi-member system we have had MLAs complain of having the needs of their district neglected because the members are not part of the ruling team or Party.Just saying.

      • Anonymous says:

        How about the argument that districts with 6 and 4 votes stole all the money that Government has to put it in their districts because GT and WB will collectively have 10 votes which is a majority under the present system. Now the need JuJu but soon she will not be necessary if ant political party can coattail and win WB and GT then Cayman Brac will be in the same position as EE and NS..

        There is NO other justifiable reason why the only piece of road in the Island that services a tourism area i.e "the Rum Point Road" or Ralfh Coltsworth Derive which does NOT have a properly surfaced road. It is certainly not because Ezzard has not repeatedly advocated for it.

        The argument put forward that under the present system a GT voter will have 6 people they can beg to help them up to the trough is a disgusting one.  Common descency should dictate that if 5 polititions turn down your request you should not have the stomoch to ask #6. Perhaps the problem is that if you are Oked to dip from the trough 5 times then why not 6.

        OMOV has my vote.

  16. Anonymous says:

    I can forsee the OMOV will not pass, because there is so much questions about it. They need over 7000 to pass it.Many people I know will stay home and UDP is educating them in radio land.  

    • Anonymous says:

      What the UDP and Chewbacca are doing in radio land is not education it is the distribution of dis-information.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I am sure that the residents of the areas you mention would love to have their community recognized by having their own representative.Certainly residents of Prospect  e.g. will be happy to vote for "The member for Prospect" instead of "members for George Town'.There are other similar communities,including South Sound,Red Bay,Savannah,Newlands,Pedro ,Mount Pleasant, Boatswains Bay,Batabano and so on ,who will be equally proud to have their own representative.Are you totally against change ,or only change that will do away with the coattail effect,that allows a dictatorlike individual  to get elected and pull along a few extension cords whose only responsibility is to carry out the wishes of their leader and not the wishes of the people? In other words they are representatives of their leader and not representatives of the voters in their area.Is this what you are striving to hold on to?

    • Anonymous says:

      how would the current MLA's for North Side ands East End feel about representing a portion of their district?  dont we desrve a public answer?

      • Anonymous says:

        Why? It is a silly, irrelevant and misleading question. Electoral districts are not only made up of what we think of as the district. Instead they are made up of distinct communities which we artificially combine to form an electoral district. E.g. outside of elections no one thinks of Savannah as Bodden Town, and no one thinks of Prospect as George Town.  

        • Anonymous says:

          It is a releveant question.  As the population grows in the outer districts it is a foregone conclusion that eventually under a single member constituencies, North Side and East End will have 2 separate electoral areas each with 2 MLA's each. The only way that will not happen is if they do not grow in population.

          The question was simple but valid.  The reason i suspect why you think it is a silly question may be because you really dont want to go on record answering it truthfully.


          • Anonymous says:

            You are trying to create a distraction by speculating about how the EE And NS could split if they double in size in the next 50 years and apparently the other districts remained unchanged. That is why it is irrelevant. And silly. However if that did occur then obviously the district should split.

            How exactly does one go “on record”with an anonymous post on CNS?

            • Anonymous says:

              the queswtion was posed to the current MLA's for NS and EE. they can answer here in their own name or take the opportunity to answer on radio, press statement etc.  its not that hard.

              • Anonymous says:

                The question was addressed to me apparently thinking that I am an MLA. My point was since the post is anonymous in any event I could not be concerned about going "on record".    

                • Anonymous says:

                  The  question was posed in the original Viewpoint to the two MLA's. Whats your problem?

                  • Anonymous says:

                    The comment was made by the poster at Tue, 06/26/2012 – 14:16 in response to my post:

                    "…The question was simple but valid.  The reason i suspect why you think it is a silly question may be because you really dont want to go on record answering it truthfully".


  18. Caymanian to the bone says:

    I agree, the politicians are only concerned for their own longevity and not the fairness of the voters. They only see this as a means to an end for themselves, and the of the OMOV actually fell for this garbage believing they too can get elected under this scenario. They have been the biggest fools of them all. And please do share you sensational thoughts with us. I too have them as I am certain do many others.

    • Plumbago says:

      I fail to see anything wrong with some of the proponents of the OMOV being politicians or thinking of becoming politicians.  The OMOV movement has always been political in whichever country it has emerged.  It is normally political conscious persons who try to bring about these necessary democratic changes.  In Cayman  as well as the world at large it is very difficult to separate the way of  a country from politics.  Here at home it is in the schools, the market place and in the churches  Any time a group of people gather, be it a small or large group the topics being discussed always include politics. Anyone who disagrees is either much naive  of living under a rock somewhere. We have been sounding the clarion cry for years that we need educated young Caymanians entering politics and now that some are interest some of us are trying to tear them down even before they have declared their intentions.  As I see it every other nationality who comes to reside here try to support each other,  sometimes even to the detriment of the natives, but we continue with our "Crab in a Barrel Mentalilty".  For God sake if some of you do not have the ability to change things please try to support those among us who do. THOSE OF US WHO BELIEVE IN THE OMOV PLEASE TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBOURS, CHILDREN, FRIENDS AND TRY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO TO THE POLES AND CAST THEIR VOTES FOR ONE MAN ONE VOTE.  POSTERITY WILL APPRECIATE IT!!

      • Anonymous says:

        Plumbago, you suggest that the viewpoint writer is somehow anti-caymanian because they dont necessarily support changing the voting system.  How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?

        Based on your response to the viewpoint, i have however concluded that you obviously do not entertain dissimilar views to your own, and based on that, may i suggest that you have all the qualities required for political leadership!

        • Anonymous says:

          omov has become a udp/ppm issue and the fanatics on both sides make it difficult for sensible debate to take place and people are getting desperate as the vote is just around the corner.

          • Anonymous says:

            You want sensible debate, come out to the Cottage Meetings in West Bay. Straight talk from all perspectives. I’m happy to say I’m a McKeeva supporter and I really learnt a lot that night and now will vote YES in July.