Early poll stats reveal lower referendum vote
(CNS): Updated 4:00 pm: The afternoon bi-hourly poll statistics have confirmed the trend that emerged this morning that not all of those who are going to the polls to vote in the General Election today are voting in the Constitutional Referendum. The Election Office figures reveal that at 3pm almost 64% of Cayman’s registered electorate had come out to vote but only 52.5% of the total electorate had cast a ballot in the referendum.
Out of Cayman’s 15,316 voters by mid afternoon 9728 had voted in the general election and 8072 the referendum. More than 76% of registered voters had already gone to the polls by 3’ O’Clock in North Side and close to three quarters in East End but in both districts the vote for the turn out for the referendum was considerably lower. In North Side just over 65% had also made a democratic choice on the constitution and 56.9% in East End.
Voters were out bright and early in the districts this morning and by 9:00am almost a quarter of the electorate had already been out to cast their votes in the General Elections. In North Side over 36% of eligible voters had been to the polls and placed their Xs in the General Election within the first two hours of polling and across all three islands almost 25% of people had voted.
With Cayman’s history of a high turn out the Elections Office said it is hoping that tradition will continue and also carry through to the historic Constitutional Referendum but early indications reveal that voters are not necessarily taking part in both ballots with the first bi-hourly poll statistics for the referendum being on average around 5% less than the showing for the General Election.
The referendum and the elections are taking place side by side but in separate stations where all voters are required to pass through both stations but are not obligated to vote in both. Although the referendum on the constitution will pass with over 50% of voters who turn out saying yes and not as a percentage of the electorate, a low vote in the constitution could cloud the result.
This year the total electorate includes 15,361 people spread through the districts with the largest number concentrated in George Town where 5,968 are registered to vote. In West Bay there are 3762 voters and 3481 in Bodden Town. Over on the Sister Islands some 980 people are eligible to vote and in the two smaller districts of East End and North Side there are 599 and 571 respectively.
Category: Election 2009
I too strongly believe that the UK will ultimately impose a Bill of Rights for the Cayman Islands through Orders in Council if we fail to accept a Bill of Rights in the constitution.
It’ s no secret that the United Kindom suspended the Turks and Caicos constitution. Now why would anyone doubt that the United Kindom who have international obligations to ensure that Cayman complys with certain international accepted standards on Human Rights, will not force these islands to do so?
It is often said that if you live in your father’s house, you have some rules to follow or else you maybe asked to leave.
Caymanians needs to stop living in their comfort zones!
We have to comply with the UK obligations if we want to remain a British Overseas Territory.
They not voting for that cos they didn’t get paid to.
VOTE YES OR NO for the referendum-but just vote!
I found it strange that the sample referendum vote posted inside the booth had a X at the YES!!!
Gee, I can’t imagine why people are not enthusiastically voting on the draft constitution. It’s so clear and easy to understand.
Seriously, this idiotic document should never have made it this far. It’s confusing and fatally weak on fundamental human rights.
The reason why people stay home is because they know that voting has no sense.
This island is ruled by greedy business owners and religious fanatics.
Your vote makes no difference.
The constitution is a joke, a step further to indepence.
There is still no minimum wage and affordable healthcare. Candidates have no interest in these matters, other than their own pocket. Most of them have some sort of business. Do you actually think they care about you ?
What you need is a union, an effective labour law, taxes on the rich and a political system of parties based on policy and not district.
Stay home, don’t vote for more corrupt politicians and religious fanatics.
If you still go and believe in this "democracy" than I am sorry for you. You seem not to have any clue what is going on in your own country.
A well informed expat.
"The reason why people stay at home"
I hope the "well informed expat" (yeah right) will note what our voter turnout percentage turns out to be-and then compares it with his/her own country’s.
It is embaressing that the other 80% of the electorate lacks the will to vote on the most important part of today. The Constitutionaldocument is far more important than which beaurocrat rotates into power. It is the very document that defines who we are and how the world see us.
What is the point of having a democracy where less than 30% of the population is allowed to vote, and where only 20% of those (who feircely defend their right to vote) actually bother to participate in the referendum process?!? This is YOUR Constitution Cayman!!!
As one of the panelists on the ‘Talk Today’ Radio Show on the draft Constitution yesterday I have to say (since I did not get the opportunity to express this) that I certainly disagree with the view expressed by Mr. Mitchell (?) of Anguilla that there is no risk of a Bill of Rights being imposed by the UK should Cayman ultimately (not necessarily today) fail to decide upon adopting a modernized Constitution. Note that I make an important distinction between the Bill of Rights and the rest of the draft Constitution which relates to the exercise of power by the various organs of government (The Governor, Cabinet, etc) and determines the status of our relationship with the UK.
Again, the basis for my views is that the Bill of Rights is intended to fulfil the UK’s international human rights obligations in respect of the territory and the UK has previously demonstrated its readiness to unilaterally implement changes to our laws which impact upon those obligations e.g. the Orders in Council in relation to abolition of capital punishment and laws criminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. Mr. Mitchell based his view on the alleged fact that in the 1999 White Paper the UK had pledged never to make any changes to the constitutions of its Overseas Territories without the consent of the respective people of those territories.
I have now re-visited the White Paper and I am afraid I have searched in vain for evidence of such general pledge being made. However, I was able to find a pledge that Britain will not force independence (or any other change in constitutional status) upon any territory. This is of course entirely consistent with the distinction that I made above.
The White Paper was introduced in the House of Commons with the following statement:
The United Kingdom accepts its responsibility for the defence of the Overseas Territories and for their international representation. In return, we have to insist on the governments of the Overseas Territories fulfilling their obligations to meet the standards of international organisations in which the United Kingdom represents them. There are two issues which are of priority in meeting those obligations.
The first is to match the best international standards in financial regulation….
The second area of priority is in human rights. Those Overseas Territories that choose to remain British must abide by the same standards of human rights and good governance that we demand of ourselves. We require our Overseas Territories to maintain legislation that fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a party.
The areas specifically identified at that time as "priority" were judicial corporal punishment, capital punishment and laws criminalising homosexual acts between adults in private. These were subsequently effected in the Territories by means of Orders in Council. There is nothing in Britain’s statement or the White Paper to suggest that its international human rights concerns are confined to these areas. Like in the arena of financial regulation we may well find that new goals are set as soon as the previous goals are accomplished.
I am afraid that I must therefore respectfully disagree with Mr. Mitchell’s assessment as I do not find it to be founded upon the White Paper as he suggested, and confirm my position (which is founded on the White Paper) that sooner or later we do run the risk of a Bill of Rights being imposed by Order in Council if we cannot agree upon one.
Olivaire Watler, attorney-at-law