One man-one vote denied

| 18/11/2011

(CNS): The government voted unanimously on Thursday against the democratic principle of one man-one vote. All seven government MLAs present in the parliament voted ‘no’ on a private members motion to amend the election law to come in line with the country’s constitution. Ezzard Miller, who brought the motion, said the new constitution states that every person eligible can vote for “an” elected "member" and not multiple members. Telling his parliamentary colleagues that he felt so strongly about the inequality of multi-member constituencies, which allow some voters to influence government four times more than others, he said that if they did not support it he would challenge the issue in the Grand Court.

The motion wasseconded by Arden McLean, the PPM member for East End, and despite having the support of each of the opposition members present, the motion was defeated by the government.

Although the premier has stated on numerous occasions that he does not support the principle of one man-one vote, this was the first time that his party colleagues were given an opportunity to vote on the matter. With the exception of Cline Glidden and Dwayne Seymour who were not present, all the UDP members voted against what Miller described as the basic principle of democracy.

Presenting his motion to the assembly, Miller said the inequality in the country’s voting system based on where people lived had to be addressed, not just from a common sense perspective but because it was unconstitutional. He said that as legislators they had an obligation to ensure all laws complied with the constitution and therefore the elections law needed to be amended before the 2013 national ballot.

The North Side member also noted that the current elections law was likely to fall foul of the bill of rights as it was inequitable that one person could influence who would be elected to government four times more than another based purely on their address.

He said the constitution sets out clearly in section 92 that eligible persons can vote for “an elected member” showing the intent of one man-one vote.

“I cannot find any dictionary that defines ‘an’ as four,” Miller stated. “No other country in the modern day has such a convoluted  system as what we have.” He noted that, depending on where voters live, they may have four, three or two votes, while those living in East End and North Side have just one vote. “It has to be wrong that we go into the 2013 election under this multiple choice system when the constitution calls for a single member vote,” he added.

Miller said he felt so strongly about the inequality of the current system that he was prepared to take the matter to the Grand Court and challenge government’s refusal to address the issue there. He said he could not stand by when his constituents faced such direct inequality. But his urging fell not only on deaf ears but also faced complete silence in the chamber.  Not a single member of the government benches spoke to justify why they did not support the basic democratic system of one man-one vote or to defend the current multi-vote system. 

Following the silent response to his proposal, Miller said he was exceptionally disappointed that not one of the government representatives was prepared to say why they did not support his motion and why they were not willing to do the right thing for the people of the Cayman Islands.

He also questioned how the members in West Bay would deal with the inequality that their own constituents would be facing in the next election without a change to the law.  It is anticipated that George Town voters will be given six opportunities to influence government against the  four in West Bay if government opts to increase the legislative body by simply adding the three seats to two of the existing six constituencies – two to George Town and one to Bodden Town.

Accepting the fate of his motion, Miller said, “I expect I shall meet with the government on this issue in the courtroom.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Comments (81)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Section 92 of the Constitution (Right to Vote at Elections) states as follows:

    "Any person who is registered as an elector in an electoral district shall, while so registered, be entitled to vote at any election in that district for AN elected member of the Legislative Assembly…".

    The provision for electoral districts is silent on whether there may be multiple representatives.

    Accordingly, there is no constitutional right to vote for more than one candidate, i.e. one man, one vote, and if certain electors are granted multiple voting rights then that is both unlawful and discriminatory.

    Go for it, Ezzard! 

  2. Anonymous says:

    To be honest, there is little real need for district-based representation here.  Yes, the Eastern communities need a way to oppose the dirty, industrial projects that Mac is trying to put as far away from his district as possible, and the Sister Islands do need somebody appointed to speak for them.  Otherwise weall have the same colossal issues regardless of where we live and having district representatives only encourages and feeds patronage, crony-capitalism and corruption.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Could somebody please explain "One man On vote"to me.. is it to choose one canidate in your district, or one nationally?

    IF it were ever passed – that  is.

    I'd appreciate the info!


    • Anonymous says:

      "One Person, One Vote" means just what it says. Right now if there is an election, a person will be able to vote for more than one candidate. For instance, I would be able to vote for McKeeva, Alden, and Ezzard if I wanted to. "One Person, One Vote" means I wouldn't be able to do that. I would only have one vote for a candidate. The electoral districts, WB, GT, BT, EE, NS, CB, LC, will remain the same. So if you are for the district of NS let's say, you won't be able to vote any candidate you are not a district for. The issue is – candidates for GT and WB would get more votes than candidates for NS and EE, and this means that "Premier" will only come from the larger districts GT and WB. To many people, that is not a fair electoral system.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not really….you’d only be able to vot for McKeeva, Alden and Ezzard if they were all running in the same district (which they don’t) and you were also registered to vote in that same district.

        • Anonymous says:

          Thats a big "IF" !

          But I'd luv to see that – perhaps a 3-way national vote for Premier!

      • Anonymous says:

        Sorry – incorrect info!

        Even now you can't vote for "McKeeva, Alden, and Ezzard if you wanted to" = that would mean inational elections, which we dont have!

        Also, the electoral districts, WB, GT, BT, EE, NS, CB, LC, will NOT remain the same with "one man one vote" — Instead, it would mean that each district will be divided into smaller constituencies, but you can only vote for One person who runs in Your Corner of the district! You cant vote for the others who run in other corners of in your district.

        If you are from North Side or East End – with one MLA each – nothing changes.

        The "Premier" can come from ANY district – not just GT and WB, for it is the political party who now chooses the Premier.

        What we need is a Fair system – allowing us to vote for our district MLAs as we do now, but also allow us to vote in national elections for the Cabinet!

        (Ie. – A 2-part election, just as we had the last time for the MLAs and also for the Constitution).

    • Anonymous says:

      One candidate in your voting constiuency/district and one vote for each voter. In order to accomodate the eighteen MLAs, there would be seventeen constituencies/districts. Cayman Brac and Little Cayman would remain as one district with two MLAs but only one vote, so the top two candidates would be returned.

      • Anonymous says:

        Uhh – 17 constituencies for 18 candidates???

        That doesn't add up!

        Plus, the addition of the new MLAs to make 18 is Very Dangerous- as this is an even number which can result in a hung Assembly.

        • Anonymous says:

          Can't you read? CB/LC as one constituency would have two MLAs.

          18 MLAs is not ideal but it is not dangerous. It could mean a coalition govt. in the future.  

          • Anonymous says:

            Ahh can't you add??

            The plan is to increase from the 15 MLAs currently, to add three more — making a total of 18!

            • Anonymous says:

              Huh? I can only assume that you posted this under the wrong post.   

      • Anonymous says:

        So the system does Not change at all on Cayman Brac/Little Cayman?!

        I always knew they had better sence than Grand Cayman!

        • Anonymous says:

          It would change. They would have one vote rather than two. The present system makes no "sence".

    • Anonymous says:

      'One man, one vote' is consistent with either single member constituencies or a national vote.It is generally intended to refer to the former although there are some proponents of the latter.

      • Anonymous says:

        Exactly, and I  prefer the latter also – national elections for Cabinet, at least !!

    • Anonymous says:

      If you live in a district (eg.  George Town) which has more than one MLA, the district will be divided up (borders), and you can ONLY  VOTE for one of the candidates in YOUR CORNER of your district (eg. South Sound only).

      But, you cannot vote for another candidate in your district who runs in a separate section or constituency within that district.

      If only one candidate runs unopposed in your corner of that district, then he/she would automatically win.

      • Anonymous says:

        You seem to have gone out of your way to describe single member constituencies negatively. First, it should be understoodthat multi-member constituencies are an anomaly and are not found in any modern democracies so far as I am aware. They were abolished in the UK in 1950. Single member constituencies are the norm in large and small democracies. For example, Bermuda (an Island 1/3 the size of Grand Cayman) has 36 single member constituencies.

        There is no need to describe a single member constituency as a "corner" of your district. Electoral districts are already made up of a number of different communities. For example, Savannah is a different community from BT proper, and Prospect is a different community from GT. Dividing it up fairly and equitably is the function of an electoral boundaries commission.   

        It is a non-point to say that "if only one candidate runs unopposed in your corner of that district, then he/she would automatically win". It is equally true that if there are four incumbents in WB and no one opposes them they will also win or if they are opposed by only one candidate at least 3 of them will win or if they are opposed by 50 candidates they will split the anti-incumbent vote and the incumbents will win.

        What single member constituencies do is to curtail the coattail effect found in multi-member constituencies where many of the same persons who voted for X will also vote for Y often for no reason other than Y is on X's platform. There will be no need to issue 'reminder' cards about which candidates to vote for on election day. People won't vote their additional votes carelessly. Instead, you must focus on which particular candidate you consider will offer your district the best representation. It means that there is no passing of the buck – there is one single MLA who is responsible for the electoral district.           

        • Anonymous says:

          OK, but in all that you did no refute one single word of the post you replied to!

          All I did was to clarify the facts of the One Man One Vote proposal, as it is never explained properly.

          Your simply calling it 'negative' is great, for this IS a negative change being proposed.

          Now, if you want my Personal opinion: Leave the election process as-is; do not add any more MLAs at this point, and allow for simultaneous national voting for the five people for Cabinet – which will then choose the Premier as they see fit.

          Yes, we have Parties (which is preventing the elected men and women to have to work together, as they did in the past) but Cayman is too small for that. 

          It is too divisive!


        • Anonymous says:

          Using that Bermuda comparison, we would need 78 MLAs – LOL

          All "single-member" district divisions does is:

          1 = Create more politicians (which we dont need)    and

          2 = Divide the people (which is what the politicians like).

          Keep it as is – but allow for national elections for Cabinet!!

          • Anonymous says:

            No, the Constitution prescribes 18 MLAs. That's all we would need. Single-member constituencies cannot increase that number. I don't see how it brings any greater division of the people than we have presently. It is partisan politics that divides the people.

            Ironically your proposal to "keep it as is but allow for national elections for Cabinet" would increase the number of politicians. It also wouldn't work. What happen if those elected to Cabinet simply cannot agree on anything and all have an equal mandate?    

            • Anonymous says:

              Really? – so the 18 MLAS (once the 3 more are added) Could result in the possibility of an equal mandate / or 'hung' assembly?

              That's my point exactly, as the 18 (3 more) total is what is set to be introduced with One Man One Vote!

              But – it IS the politicians who create the partisan politics, and as I see it, the more, 'the NOT merrier' not for us voters as least!

              Plus the 15 we have now are expensive enough – salaries/pensions.offices etc. 

              Has anyone added up the cost of 3 more – and with them receiving MLA pensions after just 4 years!


          • Anonymous says:

            "Using that Bermuda comparison, we would need 78 MLAs – LOL"

            Some of us seem to have problem with math. No matter which way you cut it it could not be 78 MLAs – not be population, not by land mass.   

  4. Anonymous says:

    SHAMEFULL – This sends an important message to all Caymanians that the UDP are NOT interested in promoting democracy in this country and support the suppression and control of their people and our democractic rights.

  5. Libertarian says:

    That's ok if you hate what I say… the truth hurts, doesn't it. PPM's Constitution 2009, has no teeth, no checks and balances; hence, UDP gets away with what they're doing. Alden and crew, you have no one else to blame but yourselves. Now we have UDP defining their own democracy. I say revamp the Constitution!

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes!!  Any when we do it change it, we must ensure that:

      1 – MLAs should not decide on their own salaries/pensions

      2 – MLAs should NOT get a pension for life after just one term in office

      3 – The Legislative Assembly's "Chairman of Business Committee" cannot be the Premier

      4 – The percentage of persons/signatures needed to trigger a referendum must be reduced to a lower number (as Civil Serviants cannot sign such petitions).

      5- IF single-member constituencies are introduced, the MLAs must live in the constituency that votes them in – just as how the voter must live in that same constituency – and cannot vote for other eareas of their district!



      • Anonymous says:

        I agree with all but 5. Let the voters decide who is capable to represent them whether they live in the same electoral district or not.

  6. anonymous says:

    I seriously doubt we are going to see the extra members in place for the 2013 elections. Since maintaining the status quo of multiple votes is clearly the goal of those in power, then adding 2 seats in George Town and 1 in Boddentown is very dangerous for, and thus highly unlikely to be anywhere on, the current elected Government’s agenda. So the only question is whether London (and the Governor) will push the issue. Again, I suspect not, as there are far more pressing items on the UK’s agenda for Cayman.

    I hope I am wrong, as I do not relish the experience of casting 6 votes in 2013! This would be a record, evenby Chicago standards!

    Tim Ridley

    • Anonymous says:

      YEs – and why would we add more MLAs?

      We cant afford their salaries and pensions now!

      Plus, it would result in an EVEN number of MLAs – which can result in a hung Assembly!

      • Anonymous says:

        Why would a hung Assembly be such a bad thing? That might provide a suitable check on the abuse of power by the govt. since it would have to form a coalition govt.  

    • Anonymous says:


      You refer to the status quo of multiple votes but have you considered that the new Constitution came into force after the 2009 elections and, unlike the old Constitution, provides (s.92(1)) for an elector in electoral district to be entitled to vote for AN elected member of the LA? I think we should seek a ruling by the court whether our current Election Law is compatible with the new Constitution in this respect since the latter appears to provide for one person, one vote.  

  7. Anonymous says:

    The Unwanted Demonic Party strikes again!  Go, go go for the Death of Democracy!!

  8. Anonymous says:

    1 man 1 vote,

    why i do that, when i can get almost 1000 votes 4 my team from absentee when the others get less than 20 each.    me smart yah na!!!

  9. Perlina crossover says:

    The law says, an elector, an electoral district, an elected member. All are speaking to "AN" meaning one. A = One, An = One not 4 or 6.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The moral bankruptcy of this administration is breathtaking.  Each new action bythe Premier and his minions is a step deeper into ethical depravity.  Unless these men are all voted out of office, there is no hope for the Cayman Islands.  Even so, by the time of the election it may be too late for us all.  God bless these Cayman Islands!

  11. Anonymous says:

    Mr Miller, it is manifestly unfair also that a tiny district like North Side with a handful of voters can send an MLA to the House. If that handful was divided up equally on one man one vote in all the other districts then the large ones would have a huge number of MLAs. No big deal maybe – at least it would get away from the absurdity of NS EE and the Sister Islands having voting clout that FAR outweighs their numbers and is an affront to democracy but it would lead to a very large parliament and it is a bigenough time and money wasting entity as it is.

    • Anonymous says:

      You've missed the point:  In voting no to one-man-one-vote, the UDP have  acted contrary to the new Constitution.  Do you support the new Constitution?  Bush has  stated on more than one occassion that hehas no time for it, and this vote shows he's not kidding.

    • Anonymous says:

      That is a ridiculous argument. First, the Constitition clearly says the maximum number of MLAs is 18 so there is no question of having a "very large parliament" and "a huge number of MLAs". Second, the point of an electoral boundaries commission is to establish boundaries of electoral districts so the number of voters in each electoral district can be adjusted to some extent. The number of voters and EE and NS could actually increase as a result. Third, you are begrudging NS and EE the one representative they have on the grounds that that is one too many? Would you have that they go unrepresented? Shame on you. Is that because their current representatives are far too outspoken in their criticism of Mr. Bush's govt? Is that the "clout" you are afraid of?

      The only affront to democracy is retaining the current system where some electors have one vote and others have 4 or 6.   

  12. Anonymous says:

    One sign of hope. Looking at the thumbs up and down on these comments make it look like change is inevitable. What that change may be is now the question.

  13. Whodatis says:

    Absolutely disgraceful.

    However, this issue goes beyond the matter of a fair and transparent democratic process. The concernsand powers of big money / big business are also breathing a sigh of relief today as a result of this outcome.

    Even in the biggest democracies in this world politics is generally divided between to main powers. (E.g. USA: Democrats vs. Republicans.)

    "Big money" thrives off of the concept of predictable and identifiable power groups / political parties. It likes to know exactly who are the individuals and organisations to rub up against in order to keep the status quo going.

    If a jurisdiction arrives at a point where there is no certainty as to who will be the shot callers that poses a MAJOR problem for commerce. To whom should I place that telephone call? With whom will I sit in a power lunch meeting next Friday?

    No … safe and predictable political parties simplify these matters quite significantly.

    I see the remarks referring to relief that we are not independent, but if we step back and take a look around we will realize that what is happening in our tiny island nation today is simply a "copy and paste" reality of other jurisdictions.

    Consider for a minute all that is taking place in New York, California, London, Athens, Rome, the wider EU, North Africa etc. … true "democracy" is a hard-to-find (if not impossible) concept today.

    Even the largest democracies are for the most part a mockery of democracy with its two major political parties which in reality are one and the same.

    Big money appears to run the show and call the shots. The modern concepts of "democracy", "voting", and "elections" are not much more than tools to appease the masses and preserve the status quo.

    Honestly, ask yourself – what major event or undertaking have the western masses truly succeeded in either preventing or executing as of late?

    Some say that we need proper leadership and the guidance of others however, the way I see it – we are doing a fine job in following their examples.


    Anyway, this is just my take on the matter.

    I wish you all a pleasant weekend.

    * Good luck with your future plan of action in this regard Mr. Miller.

    • The Spin Cycle says:

      Whodatis, I've always appreciated and understood this comment from Mark Twain:

      Don't vote it just encourages the bastards.

      In other words, as long as we continue to buy into their farce nothing will change. As long as we are given limited options chosen by people without our best interests in mind and with other agendas as our only choices voting is a waste of time and only gives the appearance of democracy.  We can also send a clear message of what we want to see happen by not voting en masse. But only en masse.



      • Whodatis says:


        Happy to see that a few of my people are "awake".

        Thank you for the feedback – much appreciated.

  14. Anonymous says:

    One man One vote would mean they would have to work for their wages… of course they wont support it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Only IF we change the constitution to ensure that they actually show up for work…. 🙂

  15. Anonymous says:

    the day will come when caymanians will get sick of the crap that goes on and we will physically take these bastards off the government and you will soon see chaos like in England happening in our little island. Maybe then they do what "WE" WANT!!! It is only fair for One man one vote but of course it does it is not on their convinience to approve such this so ofcourse we leave it to 15 people to decide for the rest!!!

  16. Big Bad Wolf says:

    Thi is not really a shock to the people of Cayman. Did you really think Big Mac and the 7 Dwarfs were gonna vote for this? They see Mac put his hand up in favor, then they put theirs up. They see him keep it down, they keep it down. Should change the kids game 'Simon Says' to 'Mac Says'.

    Of course they will loose next election if this wins in court. What I would like to see is Miller represent himself on poits in court, and Mac represent himself also on his points as to why it should stay 'one man, four votes'. Don't let Mac waste more public spending on this in court. It is simple and straight forward to plead your case and not get technical in court. How complicated can one man one vote be in court? (only because party politics will slowly fail, which is what we need).

  17. PING PONG says:

    It's sheer madness to vote down ONE MAN ONE VOTE dening basic human rights to our people just to save two weaker MLA's in west bay. This is worst then 3rd world leadership.


  18. Anonymous says:

    All those UDP members in the house are a bunch of losers and "yes" men.  They cannot even think for themselves, they are NOT Political leaders, but rather a bunch of low life followers.

    A word of CAUTION…  In voting independent, we have to be very vigiliant and careful who we vote for, as the parties are putting out their feeder independents to block other independents and to block the other party voters.  Everything has to be analyzed and dissected before you cast your votes, especially in West Bay. In West Bay and George Town, I beg all voters to NOT get caught up with the promises, the refridgerators, the free foods, the CUC payoff bills, the cleanups etc etc. These are ONLY promises.  All they want is your votes, so they can finish destroy these Islands.

     Every potential candidate has to come clean and let the public know beforehand who is backing them and who they are affiliated with.  Take for instance in West Bay, a few of those independents that ran last time, were actually connected to the UDP Branch.  It only came to light after the elections when the candidates were put in BIG positions. Sometimes its damn if you vote and damn if you don't. 

    What I can clearly say without regret though, West Bay district needs to come up with NEW, Smart, intelligent, respectable candidates for me to EVER vote in West Bay again and their constituents better not come knocking at my door to support those UDP people EVER again. A bunch of losers.  WEST BAY, I beg you…..Please WAKE UP!!!!!

  19. Anonymous says:

    How can you call this place a democracy if all the opposition and independents are insufficient in number to outvote the larger number of UDP benchers when it comes to matters of the country?  Only if it was one man one vote will we ever get balanced decision making within the LA.  Multi-member voting here is truly an abuse of the democratic process, but then again, this is the most undemocratic democracy I have ever come across in terms of abuse of powers and processes anyway.

    • Anonymous says:

      "How can you call this place a democracy if all the opposition and independents are insufficient in number to outvote the larger number of UDP benchers when it comes to matters of the country?"

      Actually that is how it generally works in democracies – the party in power is in power because it has the majority of seats. The coalition govt. currently in the UK is an exception to the rule.  

  20. Anonymous says:

    UDP members of the LA, you are spineless and this was the last nail in your coffin, you have lost my vote and i cannot wait to get to the polls and throw mac and his band of cowards out the door

  21. Anonymous says:

    And THAT is why this coountry should not be independent.

    It is still growing up and needs guidance.

  22. Anonymous says:

    Once again Elio Solomon shows his true colors. 

    • Anonymous says:

      The article doesn't even mention this gentleman, but I see some posters are still hurting.

      Oh well.

      • Anonymous says:

         Elio voted against one man one vote.    That is a fact.

        • Anonymous says:

          yep – "all the UDP members voted against what Miller described as the basic principle of democracy."

      • Anonymous says:

        Hello… he is one of the seven who voted it down!

        wait a minute! Elio da you?

      • Anonymous says:

        Of course he's a gentleman. That's the only reason Alden refrained from hitting him harder than he did.

  23. Kent McTaggart says:

    Independant candidates are the answer! 

    Vote for those who make sense! On their individual strengths, not on party lines!

    Don't forget the past, as we have repeated it far to many times!

    We the people have the power to change our stars, understand that you really only have one time every 4 years to voice you opinion, after that history shows it falls on deaf ears. 

    Vote the corruption and secrecy, out and put those who actually give a crap in, you have one chance, use it!

  24. Anonymous says:

    And THAT is why this country is a colony.  It is simply not capable of governing itself.

    Just imagine what will happen if this country ever gets independent . . . . . .


  25. Ben Franklin says:

    Both parties must be against this. PPM had a chance to make it right when they were there and crafted the Constitution (I know, they said first they did the constitution, then they said they didnt do it).  PPM is now "for" it simply because its politically expedient to do so. UDP is on record against it. 

    One man-one vote would mean that the Parties would have a weaker grip on elections. No more "coat-tail" voting. One strong person taking 2 or 3 shrimps with them. Independents then could have a much better chance. It will be less money to run and a more specific choice by the people. It would be easier for the people to understand who they are really voting for.

    The Cayman people will also benefit because we will have one person who is accountable to his/her neighbourhood. Now we have a situation where 3 or 4 folks are "responsible" for a district so you really can't blame any one person for your problems.

    • Anonymous says:

      PPM voted in favour of the motion and just recently pledged to introduce it if they became the government after the next elections. In fact, PPM have always supported it.

      • Anonymous says:

        Why wasn't it made into law when the PPM were in power in the last government?


        • Anonymous says:

          They did. Read the constitution.

        • Anonymous says:

          The new Constitution did not come into effect until November, 2009, the PPM having demitted office in May, 2009.   

        • Anonymous says:

          Don't you follow the news? It's called negotiation. It was a concession the PPM made during the constitutional talks in London to get Mac to agree to it and he still came back to Cayman and told people not to vote for it. The PPM have said many times since then that it was a regrettable concession because it didn't make a difference to Mac.

          The PPM will make it law if they are given the chance to be the government again.

        • Dred says:

          If I recall correctly they opted to leave it out so as to gain UDP approval for the constitution.

  26. Cunning Linguist says:

    Should have called it “Two men, two votes”. That would have been enough to trick Mac in to buying it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe one man two votes would do the trick, or as they used to say in Chicago ” vote early, vote often”.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Press on Ezzard. Press on Alden. Press on Arden. God almighty is on our side and we WILL see justice done in this country.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Remove all 7. They have just shown they are unfit to lead – none capable of placing the public’s interest above their own. Ezzard, well done again! Governor – as a well educated Englishman are you really going to leave it to a judge toteach you the meaning of the word “an”? We know you struggled with the word “emergency” recently, but “an” is surely much simpler.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Simple put, do not accept anything of intelligence from the united destructive party. The followers cannot be any better than the leader in my opinion.

  30. Anonymous says:

    spineless….. can't wait to see see these cowards dumped out of office in 2013….

  31. Libertarian says:

    One would have thought that this Constitution of ours, would have had enough teeth to at least hinder the MLA's from refusing motions in favor of it. But no… "we" were handed a document that does little to our democracy as a people and for the people. Instead, the Constitution represents local and uk politicians, and guarantees there powers and interests over the people of these islands.  

    • Anonymous says:

      That's right Libertarian. It's all the Constitution's fault. Any spin to distract attention from the fact that the UDP has denied a basic principle of democracy.

      • Libertarian says:

        Of course, my statement is intended to spin and distract.  Because much spinning and distraction is being made from the "crux" of the matter:  the undefined constitution with hardly no check and balances. Regards 😉

        • Anonymous says:

          Yes, we know. The Constitution is the cause of every problem we have so every subject somehow becomes about the Constitution. SMH. 

    • Dick Shaugneary says:

      "[T]here powers"?  tsk, tsk.

      PS: Even libertarians benefit from the appropriate use of commas.

  32. -- says:

    You are correct on this one, Mr. Miller.  Please keep fighting it.

  33. Anonymous says:

    The "gowerment" will pay a very big price at the polls for this atrocious abuse of their  majority position in the LA.  It's a deliberate, wicked and unforgiveable attack on true democracy.

  34. PING PONG says:

    Mr. Miller is so right. If he sues, ask for lawyer fees and cost. This is a basic human right and the political puppets that voted against it should pay the price at the polls as well as court. These politicians are third world stooges and should be voted out of power.