Not all referenda are equal

| 19/07/2012

The referendum that took place yesterday was clearly inspired by the will of the people. It was also guided by a very hardworking group of people. However,it was NOT a people-initiated referendum within the meaning of section 70 of the Constitution.  That may sound like an obscure point, but it has great significance in understanding what the vote count means.

The Constitution only provides for a threshold of 50% plus one of the registered voters under section 70, and it sets that threshold for a people-initiated referendum that is to be binding on government. All other referenda that are based on section 69 of the Constitution, and in section 69 of the Constitution there is no requirement for 50% plus one of registered voters. If there is anyone who doubts this, they should look at the 2009 Constitution which is available online.

The Constitution specifies that a people-initiated section 70 referendum can only take place after a petition has been submitted. The simple fact that the OMOV petition was never handed in to government prevents yesterday’s election from being a section 70 people-initiated referendum.

The government made a choice. They chose to make yesterday’s referendum a government sponsored section 69 referendum, rather than a people-initiated referendum, when they declared the referendum before any petition could be handed in. The government undoubtedly had their reasons for setting the timing of the referendum prior to the the OMOV initiative submitting their petition.

There is nothing wrong with the government calling a referendum, but it is inappropriate for government to attempt to confuse the public's understanding of the requirements of the Constitution. Any suggestion by the government that a government sponsored referendum requires the support of 50% plus one of registered voters, rather than a simple majority of those casting votes, is simply not based on anything in the Constitution.

There is simply no requirement in section 69 of the Constitution for anything other than a majority of those voting to pass a referendum. It could even be argued that as yesterday’s referendum was a government referendum and the  government was clearly advocating that people vote NO, then the government lost the referendum as a clear majority of those voting rejected the government’s position.

There is also no basis in the Constitution for any suggestion by those seeking to spin the result that the number of people not voting should somehow be counted as invisible votes in favour of the government’s position. Not voting counts for nothing in the Constitution.

The government of the day may choose to say that they will not be bound by a YES vote of less than 50% of those registered to vote, or 50% of those that drive Volvos, or any percentage of anything else they choose. As the elected government and sponsors of a referendum they can choose any threshold they want for whatever purposes they choose. That does not change the fact that government sponsored referenda are to be counted on the basis of those voting, not those on the electoral register. That was what was done in the Constitution referendum of 2009.

It may be that the government’s spin doctors and so-called experts will now try to confuse the issue and the people by suggesting that the OMOV initiative somehow failed. That is simply not the case, according to the Constitution or on any realistic measure of what the people want. Spinning the result is politrix, it does not change what the Constitution says.

Approximately two-thirds of those voting in the referendum were in favour of the concept of one person one vote and single member constituencies. That is very good news. As a Caymanian I would like to thank everyone involved in the OMOV initiative for their efforts on behalf of democracy in this country. It is my sincere hope that they will keep up their efforts. Their selfless work to make Cayman better is a true inspiration.

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (71)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Curiously, for purposes of comparison, the 2009 Cayman Constitution was subject to a referendum with 7,045 votes in favor out of a total 11,244 cast. That is 63.06% of the votes cast.

    But that 7,045 votes was out of an electorate of 15,361, or 45.86% of the overall number of registered voters.

    Now remind me again…  did the Constitutional Referendum pass or fail?

  2. Dreadlock Holmes says:

    The writer of this viewpoint tried to make it very clear that the referendum, as it was presented to the people by government did not follow rules set out in the Constitution. There is therefore no real point in having a Constitution when you have McKeeva Bush as Premier.  This man makes up his own rules, bullies, distorts logic and reason and is a constant embarrassment to the workings of a democracy.

  3. cow itch says:
    Aristophanes Duckpond…… i hope that is not a name for a dinosaurus with duck-like feet, because if it is, I would be very worried. how is caymanian birds es suppose to compete?
    • Anonymous says:

      What a downright stupid comment / joke.  I can understand joking around (if something as serious as this is to be joked about in your small mind), but this is ridiculous – please don't post if you have nothing intelligent to write (or joke) about.   How anybody can find this funny beats me. 

      • cow itch says:

        awww , give dadda a kiss  (:))>

        • LMAO says:

          cow itch do not worry about that poster comments,it's not your fault that they don't have a sense of humour,by the way cow itch thanks for the laugh,right now I AM LMAO………….LOL

  4. Citizen says:

    For ALL OMOV supporters, when election come next year just use one of your votes if having one vote is so important. There is nothing that states you have to use all your votes. Tick once and you done. TA-DA. Not rocket science.

    • Anonymous says:

      Doesn't really help if idiots continue to use all of theirs to elect Mac and crew.  

    • Anonymous says:

      To  Citizen (not verified) on Thu, 07/19/2012 – 19:00. Next year when election day comes  JUST STAY HOME AND YOUR VOTE WILL COUNT FOR UDP.

       
       
    • Reality Check says:

      Spoken like a true moron.

      One should educate oneself about the issue before posting asinine comments. 

    • Anonymous says:

      You are an example of the saying; "some people raise some foolish children"!

  5. Libertarian says:

    When there is a vote, it should include everyone no matter what that vote is about. 50% plus one of the entire registered electorate for referendums and elections. I wish I could make a list of the things that need to be change and removed from our Constitution. There is too many. The entire document need to be revamped.

    • Anonymous says:

      Lib, you are also over the map. Obviously only about 3 MLAs would have been elected in 2009 if you required the vote of 50% +1 of all registered voters to elect them. Why hold the country hostage to apathetic voters for elections or referendums? You make no sense.   

      • Libertarian says:

        I think everyone who is a part of the electorate is part of the equation. That is democracy.  You can't rule them out to support a majority count. All registered voters are apart of the equation.

        • Anonymous says:

          You need to think Bobo. Under your system if the vote is split three or more ways NO ONE might be elected!. The only way that could work would be to have run offs which would be costly.  You said you are for participation of the people in government yet you are proposing a system that locks them out by putting the bar too high. Obviously you cannot count people who don't care to involve themselves in the process and are not really expressing an opinion. Apathetic people could hold the country hostage. To make matters worse there are dead people on our electoral register – some 68 at last count.

          You seem to blow with the wind.    

          • Anonymous says:

            The same with the majority. They could hold the people hostage as well.

          • Anonymous says:

            There are a lot lot more than 68!! Remember that many people on the voters list have moved away and do not reside here anymore and you are supposed to reside here in order to vote. Pleaseeeee, who is keeping track of updating our voters list??

          • Libertarian says:

            I am a thinker. There are two important reasons to setting a goal to be reached in a referendum – in this case the bar was set at 7583 out of a 15000 registered electorate: 

            1) To avoid referendums from being passed that are inconsequential and unimportant to the country as a whole; and,

            Secondly, to aid the government in the legislation of a law that has significant following and support from the electorate.

            These are two very important reasons to avoid a small majority from having its way over a 15000 electorate. That is why you need 9 MLAs out of the 15 MLAs to declare NO-CONFIDENCE against the Premier. There is a reason for that. You want an overwhelming majority to make a very important decision, so you set the target at 9, more than half of the 15 MLAs. Imagine the amount of times a Premier would be removed if we allowed any majority to remove the Premier. 

            • Anonymous says:

              Lib, you are not showing any evidence of serious thought. It takes 10 MLAs to remove the premier but that bar is also set too high. It will rise to 12 when the number of MLAs increases to 18 which means that at least one member of Cabinet (comprising 7 Ministers) would have to agree to a no confidence motion being brought against the government of which he is a part. It should not need more than 50% plus 1 MLAs. If a govt. cannot command majority support in the House it has no business being the govt. To demand too high a bar means that it is not an effective check on the government who can do as they please knowing that the opposition will never be able to musterthe votes against them. You seem to have forgotten your often repeated claim that the constitution was made to suit the politicians rather than the people. Now you appear to be on the side of the politicians.

              But you cannot compare that to the electorate at large. By definition MLAs are engaged in the political process and are highly motivated to vote on such matters yeah or nay. That does not apply to the population at large many of whom choose not to participate in the political process at all. However, what you should acknowledge is that an abstention in the House cannot be counted as either a yes vote or a no vote.  

              A 50%+1 of the electorate bar for a referendum, particularly one which does not ask for Independence or amend the Constitution, is far too high. The normal standard around the world is the majority of those voting although some countries will also require a minimum turnout which is almost never greater than the majority of the electorate. For example, California requires a simple majority of those voting to amend its constitution based on a voter initiated referendum (or proposition, as they call it). The petition calling for the referendum needs signatures equal to 8% of the total votes cast for governor in the previous general election as compare to our 25% of all registered voters here. In Ireland a simple majority is sufficient to carry a constitutional amendment and there is no minimum turn-out required for a constitutional referendum to be considered valid.

            • Anonymous also says:

              So our constitution should not be valid?

        • noname says:

          Lib:

          Do you really expect my elderly father with Alzheimers to vote?  He doesn't even recognize me much less be able to vote.  What about someone in the hospital in a coma?  What about someone who is incompetent in that they don't understand the voting process?

          I agree that there needs to be some chnages to the constitution but McKeever will never allow anything that isn't in his best interests only.

          I think that we should have online voting and very important matters should be decided by a referendum.  I also think that we should be able to boot out our representatives that aren't representing us before the 4 years are over.

          • Libertarian says:

            It depends how you see fairness in a democratic paradigm. For instance in the LA, it takes 9 from the 15 members to have a no confidence vote to remove the Premier from leadership. The bar is set at 9 for this to happen. Not just any majority, not even if one more than half of 15 MLAs voted to have him remove. The set goal is 9. In general elections its a different outcome that determines the positive result. We can debate similarities and differences forever. What I am saying is, if you want change, just don't fight on changing some election law – change the entire Constitution into a more participatory and direct democracy. It you want change, strike at what's below the iceberg! 

            • Anonymous says:

              Lib, you are wrong. It takes 10 MLAs to remove the premier but that bar is also set too high. It should not need more than 50% plus 1. If a govt. cannot command majority support it has no business being the govt. But you cannot compare that to the electorate at large. By definition MLAs are engaged in the political process and are highly motivated to vote on such matters yeah or nay. That does not apply to the population at large many of whom choose not to participate in the political process at all. However, what you should acknowledge is that an abstention in the House cannot be counted as either a yes vote or a no vote.     

              • anonymous says:

                10 or 9, lib is right, every law has a reason for it, maybe you should inquiry why it is like that, i am sure if you knew the reasons behind the law you would be blurping nonsense

                • Anonymous says:

                  Are you familiar with the expression 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs'?

                  The reason behind the 2/3 majority requirement is obvious. It was to entrench a govt. in power even if it could not command majority support. This was probably an overreaction to the 2001 coup. There is no reasonable justification for it. If a govt. does not have majority support it cannot pass laws or approve budgets and so should be removed. Such a threshold is not found in the constitution of any other BOT. 

                  It is not enough to assume that every law has a good reason for it and so must not be questioned. We must examine the reasons to see whether they are good reasons.

                  The irony is that Lib use to argue about empowering the people versus the politicians now he wants to empower the politicians.

              • Libertarian says:

                Don't know why I was using 9 instead of 10.  All I have to say is that the Constitution which originated under PPM's tenure, and strangely was opposed by the UDP at the time in 2009, is the same document which allows for such a referendum. If you and many others who have rated your comments really really really want change and the majority to really really really count, I suggest you don't just talk about it, but do something about it.Your first step would be to dissassociate yourself from a party, because both parties will only change what is conducive to them and not what the people would like to see. So if you don't like something, you have to be like those who started this omov referendum by themselves. I am being straight with you.

  6. Libertarian says:

    Both people-initiated and government-initiated referendums, should have been 50% plus one of all registered voters who took part in the referendums. The 43% apathetic crowd should be included in the referendum's equation. 

    Regarding the Constitution, I just hope the next opposition movement is about CHANGING or ABOLISHING this Constitution, which so many Caymanians blindly ratified in 2009 on the same day of General Elections. Anyone that tells you there is nothing wrong with this document, really need a brain check. PPM will not oppose it because they take credit for it, so I am looking forward for the People to do something about this document that was formulated by ministers of religion, party politics, and the FCO.

    God Help Us.

  7. Anonymous says:

    The truth of the matter is :OMOV urged voters to come out and vote YES; the UDP urged voters to come out and vote NO.The movers of OMOV were able to convince  5631 voters to vote YES,the UDP were only able to convince 3001 to come out and vote NO.In other words the OMOV movers were able to convince 37.14% of the electorate;the UDP with all the meetings, full page ads and huge radio and tv time were able to convince only 19.79%.   THAT'S QUITE A WHIPPING HANDED TO THE UDP.

    • Anonymous says:

      Its no whipping, because it took just THREE DAYS for UDP to campaign against it and that produced 3001 people voting NO. Imagine if they started the same time the Opposition started.

      • Anonymous says:

        It didn't took 3 days. But still, I agree with you, it is not an arss whipping. The ones who really got an arss whipping was opposition because they fell short from reaching that magic number 7582 

      • Anonymous says:

        It just took 3 days you say. What planet have you been living on? You are not doing the UDP any service with total misrepresentation such as this but nonetheless spoken like a true UDP person.

  8. Anonymous says:

    What about public apathy?

    Odd that none of this bile was directed at the people who care so much for the future of the Cayman Islands they couldn't even be bothered to get off their backsides and vote.

    Old saying – "You get the government deserve." Better put – "You reap what you sow," and if people don't bother to get out there spreading the seeds nothing is going to change. 

  9. SKEPTICAL says:

    so if one applies the true Letter of the Law to what formula is applicable under the Constitution to determine what majority was required, then Bush’s statements this morning were not only utterly wrong, they were totally misleading ?

    • Anonymous says:

      Section 69 of the Cayman Constitution does not specify what standard must be used for a government initiated referendum.

      It reads:

      Power to provide for a referendum
      69. A law enacted by the Legislature may make provision to hold a referendum amongst persons registered as electors in accordance with section 90, on a matter or matters of national importance, when so resolved by the majority of the elected members of the Assembly; but the question of whether the Cayman Islands should seek any amendment to this Constitution that may result in their independence shall be deemed to be a matter of national importance.

       

      Section 70 specifies the required margin for a people initiated referendum.

      It reads:

      People-initiated referendums
      70.—(1) Without prejudice to section 69, a law enacted by the Legislature shall make provision to hold a referendum amongst persons registered as electors in accordance with section 90 on a matter or matters of national importance that do not contravene any part of the Bill of Rights or any other part of this Constitution.

              (2) Before a referendum under this section may be held—
                      (a) there shall be presented to the Cabinet a petition signed by not less than 25 per cent of persons registered as electors in accordance with section 90;
                     (b) the Cabinet shall settle the wording of a referendum question or questions within a reasonable time period as prescribed by law; and
                     (c) the Cabinet shall make a determination on the date the referendum shall be held in a manner prescribed by law.
               (3) Subject to this Constitution, a referendum under this section shall be binding on the Government and the Legislature if assented to by more than 50 per cent of persons registered as electors in accordance with section 90.

      • Anonymous says:

        "(3) Subject to this Constitution, a referendum under this section shall be binding on the Government and the Legislature if assented to by more than 50 per cent of persons registered as electors in accordance with section 90."

        So therefore Mr. Duckpond, if your people had been allowed to continue and the "people initiated" referendum had been effected, then it would have been based on the above: "if assented to by more than 50 percent of persons registered as electors.."

        What exactly is your point? I don't get it.

         

        • Anonymous says:

          If UDP had not hijacked the process, the grassroots movement would have had more time to get more signatures in time for November, and more people would have had the chance to register so that they too, could vote.  I had friends who tried to register and were told they could not because UDP called the vote months early (hijacking it), so the deadline for registering was gone, and this disenfranchized these other potential voters from being able to vote.  The UDP thought they were being smart – they must have had some lawyer advising them how best to put obstacles in the path of the growing OMOV movement which was started by the grassroots people.  They had a master plan, alright.  They even held it during summer holidays, when they know vacation plans have been made.  Way to go UDP.  I understand though, that there has been a mass rush to register at the electoral office, since Wednesday's vote.  So guess what, UDP. IT will all backfire on you, and your "arse" will be dark come May 2013.

        • Anonymous says:

          The point is that the referendum process was hijacked by the UDP ignoring the call in the petition for the referendum to be held in November and instead giving it an artificially short tiime period for people to be fully educated on this issue. A majority of 50%+1 of the electorate might have been obtained had the process been completed. A govt initiated referendum means that the government is proposing the question on the referendum. You cannot propose something and at the same time mount a campaign opposing it.  

  10. Bodden Towner says:

    Thank God in all circumstances, not everybody is equal. That is why I didn't vote for the one man one vote, because I wasn't sure that the change they were talking about would have created the democracy change I wanted to see. Talk is cheap. If I am not sure, why am I going to vote for something I can't see?  Caymanians are rational people. They don't take gymnastic leaps without seeing where they are jumping.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Could anyone tell me what the average voter turnout is in a general election?

  12. noname says:

    You are all engaged in a misguided debate leading to a dead end.

    As explained by Mr. Orrett Connor on 7/18/12 on Cayman 2 1 News"There is no referenda law! including monies spent by the UDP to campaign and that also means this is not going to court either! You can't prosecute government even for spending those monies.

    Thank God. I can continue to live where I want to live vote for 4 or 6 good people I like in my district and also my candidates can live where they want to live.

    IF ITS NOT BROKEN DON'T FIX IT!

    OMOV does not make people accountable, its their character and integrity that does.

    Systems are not corrupt, its people that are corrupt.

    PPM have some corrupt people too – alden blames the premier for the status grants when he and Kurt and all PPm had a long list of friends they ask to be granted Cayman Status?!

    I was not born behind a cow behind BO Bo!

    Victory  is mine  MORE POWER TO THE UDP!

    • The Devil's Advocate says:

      Dear 07/19/2012 – 12:01,

       I disagree, the current system is VERY MUCH broken and in serious need of an overhaul.

       The problem is that WE have allowed the Self-serving Politicians to Hijack the issue of OMOV and dissuade us from turning out to exercise our RIGHT to determine how our counrty should be run.

       Instead of EDUCATING the people of the Pros & Cons of both OMOV and our current system, our current Govt campained openly (at the Public's expense) against OMOV because it doesn't suit their (the UDP) party's interests.

      THIS IS THE VERY REASON WHY WE NEED OMOV.

       OMOV will allow for both greater control of and accountability from our Political Representatives.

       It alsoensures EQUALITY for ALL Caymanians in the Political process.

      Sadly, we are missing the boat.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yea, but it is broken. Don’t blame others for trying to fix a broken down voting system.

    • Anonymous says:

      IF IT'S NOT BROKEN Mr. UDP, how come Mac talked about changing it the day after the referendum????????

  13. Anonymous says:

    Correction durrrr sir/madam,  the majority did not say "No".  The majority of the voters that turned up to vote said "YES". The ones that stayed home and did not vote, were probably disgusted with this current Government and decided to abstain or become a maybe, as they did not think it was worth them going out there to waste their time.  That is different from saying "no". Don't twist it any way/how else.

  14. Anonymous says:

    The apathy of many registered voters won the day yesterday. Those of us who support OMOV must now make sure that in the General Election, even if we can't stop West Bayers from again electing broomsticks along with Mr Bush, we do NOT elect UDP candidates in Bodden Town and George Town. East End and North Side are safe and a hydrogen bomb would not move Julianna in Cayman Brac so it is GT and BT we must work on to keep the West Bayers on the backbenches.

  15. Anon says:

    I say keep on getting signatures for the petition and force a peoples referendum that would have past yesterday.

    The constitution is there for the will of the people, not for politicians to impede the will of the people.

  16. Melanie Rolyat says:

     

    I agree, and really appreciate the information distinguishing the rules for government-initiated and people-initiated referenda. I would assume that this point had been brought up prior to the vote, but was just not considered…as many logical arguments are not.

     

    Even despite this distinction being written in the Constitution, I don't see how it makes logical sense that we use their magical number for the referendum anyway. We should have had a quorum (set reasonably so as not to sustain the opposers power with a mere refusal to show up to vote) set for voters who turned up and then a simple majority vote would suffice. The way the government set this up was for them to win, no matter what. The rules they are playing with are unfair…but I guess that's the whole point. They are putting the power in the hands of lazy and cowardly people (non-voting registered public)so they don't have to show up to vote at the polls…but again, I guess that's who they target for votes as they are easy to manipulate. The Compass wrote an article stating that they counted dead people in the registrar into the magic number? Wow, where has the logic gone?

    I thought this was a Christian society? Ethics, morals, Christianity, whatever you call it…this is not what our leaders are using to make decisions with. It’s even sadder that so many in the voting (or non-voting registered public) populous are just as un-ethical. With human rights law being front and centre now, perhaps the Courts can assist in giving the people more power on this issue and call the Government into question. What happened in Florida may not have been ideal, but it made Government think twice about assuming they could get away with their rubbish. Realistically they will always have the power to get away with some things that happen behind the curtain, but we the people should have more opportunity to elect persons with integrity who are ethical, moral, and just, into those positions to handle the decision making process as appropriately as possible. In good faith we elect these politicians, and we the people do not really want to know everything that happens behind the curtain, but it is in bad faith that we see the most powerful acting as of late and that is breeding a lot of resentment in our society that will only begin to surge toward the shallow fortress of greed and selfishness.

  17. Anonymous says:

    OH PLEASE. YOU LOST!

    • Anonymous says:

      The Mac cronies generation is a dying breed of people.  That's what yesterday showed you.  Remember that.

  18. Anonymous says:

    OMOV has not been defeated, it has only been delayed. An idea whose time has come can only be kept down for so long and no longer.

     

    I have no problem with McKeeva setting the bar at the level that he did. The higher the bar the sweeter the victory when it is achieved.

     

    Anyone who campaigned against, or refused to support, the principle of one person one vote will never again receive a vote from me. So in May next year I will cast my 6 votes in such a manner that anyone even remotely connected to the UDP will not stand a chance of being elected.

     

    Strong Man Mac is secure in his West Bay holdout, but the results of the referendum must have the UDP candidates in George Town and Bodden Town giving some serious thought as to how they are going to get re-elected.

     

     

  19. Nanoo says:

    But no-one challenged the legality of the approach at the time it was announced by the Government so it is too late to moan about it now.  Why was this point not pursued at the appropriate time?

    • Anonymous says:

      It was challenged by the Leader of the Opposition….the Governor allowed the UDP Government to keep the bar at what they had set it at.

    • Anonymous says:

      I think you are missing two points.

      First the Constitution has been in place all along – it is not like somebody changed something in the middle of the referendum debate. There is nothing wrong in pointing out what the law is at any time, even if the government or its supporters chooses to ignore it.

      Second, the government said that they would only consider themselves bound by the referendum result if more than 50% of the registered electors voted for or against the referendum. They did not say anything about what they would do if the majority of those voting said yes to the referendum.

      What the government or at least its supporters now seem to be trying to say is that everybody who did not bother to show up counts as a no vote and that is total nonsense.

      McKeeva got elected in West Bay with roughly 35% of the total votes of those eligible to vote in West Bay – a smaller percentage than this referendum passed by. Using the logic of some of his supporters he should not be in the LA because 65% either voted for somebody else or did not vote at all. While I wish he was not in the LA, our system works on the basis of which side or person gets the most votes and it is foolishness for anyone to suggest otherwise.

       

    • Anonymous says:

      LOL  Thank you

    • Sharon Roulstone says:

      The OMOV group pointed this out a number of times however, as another person commented, since when has the government cared about what is in the Constitution?  Unfortunately, our group did not have the financial resources or time to make a legal challenge on the point but it doesn't make it any less valid.  As a proud member of the group, we won the moral victory yesterday for a number of reasons even if we didn't reach the bar set by the government. If you manipulate the game rules to your own advantage you very often determine the outcome of the game.  I for one would much rather lose by having played the game fair and square than win by cheating.

       

       

  20. durrrr says:

    Stop clutching at straws. The majority said no. End of story.

    • Anonymous says:

      True, the majority said "No" either explicitly by voting for implicitly by staying home.

       

      However, The story is not over. Wait until after the next election. There will be a new government. Maybe then the electoral system will be overhaulded.

       

      The OMOV people lost this battle but the war is still on.

    • Anonymous says:

      No durrr! The majority said nothing, and should be ashamed of their apathy. Of those that said something, nearly two to one said Yes, but of course that doesnt count. So a pathetic, some might say corrupt bunch continue to have their stranglehold and will continue to treat the voters with contempt. Those that didnt vote deserve the contempt!

    • Knot S Smart says:

      The majority said YES you moron!

      It was the 'no-brainers' like yourself and the 'brain-washed', 'pocket filled with gifts' clowns who said no…

    • Anonymous says:

      Who's clutching at straws?  The law is the law and McKeeva has circumvented the law yet again.  If he wanted to set the standard at 50% of the electorate he should have left us to present our petition and go to a people-initiated referendum which would have been a section 70 referendum.  But instead he hijacked the process before the petition was presented, thus making it a government initiated referendum, thereby a section 69 referendum, which under the constitution only requires 50% + 1 of those who turned out to vote.

      The majority did not say no.  By law, (had the constitution been followed that is), there was a clear two-thirds majority in favour of OMOV.  You and the UDP idiots can twist it all you want, but you can't pull the wool over our eyes, and most certainly not the UKs – who I understand are taking a very close interest in our issues these days, with particular regard to consitutional issues. 

      I don't think its the end of the story yet – not by any means.

    • Anonymous says:

      The majority did not say 'no'.  65% said 'yes' . This whole issue will go down in Cayman history, in years to come it will still be clear for all to see the blatant disregard that the UDP and Bush had for the democratic process in these islands.  The fact that they initiated a referendum to prevent a public-initiated referendum then fixed it so that it had to be 50% of the entire electorate, then campaigned for people to vote 'no' to the regerendum they themselves had brought, and used the public purse to fund this campaign will all be there to see.    

  21. Knot S Smart says:

    This article sheds a bright light on the issue. It is well written and informative.

    I suggest that those who initiated the People's Referendum take this issue to the Courts and have a ruling and hopefully force the Govt to accept the results of those who voted!

    Thank you to the writer…

  22. Anonymous says:

    Very true but since when has the government been interested in what is in the Constitution?

    • Asterisk says:

      ..since they found out that it can be used as a tool against the will of the people, to help them stay in power and buy more elections with washing machines. [PS – is the Governor EVER going to have that investigated, or is it OK to buy elections in the BOTs?]

    • Anonymous says:

      Am I correct in thinking that Democracy is out the window in Cayman?  The views of the majority that cared enough to vote will be completely ignored! Only in Cayman!

    • Anonymous says:

      Only when it comes to paid security, paid utilities, paid christmas lighting, paid cook, and paid helper do they believe in the Constitution.

    • harold says:

      Excellent point. Why?  Because the Constitution is not respected by them, and should never be respected, because it didn't come from Cayman. It was drafted, but the UK had the final word as to what goes into it.

      • Anonymous says:

        It should not be respected unless of course you can claim it gives you perks. Then you are all for it. 

        What a maroon!

    • anonymous says:

      Or for that matter what the people think!