Miller not giving up on vote

| 22/11/2011

miller in LA (219x300).jpg(CNS): The member for North Side is not giving up his fight to persuade government to change the election law to one man-one vote before the country goes to the polls in 2013. Besides seeking redress in the court system, Ezzard Miller said he would be filing another motion in the Legislative Assembly for next month’s meeting, this time calling for amendments to section 44 of the law as another way of achieving his goal. The silence on the government benches last week in response to his previous motion spoke volumes, Miller said, making it clear that government has no viable argument against one man-one vote.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday afternoon at the Legislative Assembly, the independent member said he would continue to file motions right up until the parliamentary dissolution before the general election in 2013 if he had to, as he believed the majority of people in the Cayman Islands now supported the concept of casting one vote for one member to represent them.

Miller believes there is now much wider recognition in the community of the inequity of the current convoluted system than ever before and Cayman wants one man-one vote.

If government persists with plans revealed by the premier earlier this year to simply increase the number of members at the next election by adding two seats to George Town and one to Bodden Town, Miller said, McKeeva Bush and his three fellow West Bay members may have difficulty maintaining support for the multi-member system going into the next election.

For the first time, constituents in West Bay will have less influence over how many people are elected to power than their neighbours in the capital, who will, unless the law is changed, be able to return six people to the country’s seat of power compared to only four in West Bay.

He said that the silence of the government benches in the Legislative Assembly last Thursday, when not a single member of government rose to argue against Miller’s private members motion, shows how indefensible the government’s support of multi-member constituencies is. The silence in response to his motion was not only against all parliamentary protocol and extremely unusual, but Miller said he believed the government benches could do little else if they are not prepared to support the democratic principle of one man-one vote.

“Their silence illustrated that there is no argument of substance against single member constituencies,” Miller said. “It would have been reasonable for them, however, to let the public hear them defend their position and say why they voted against the motion.”

However, he pointed out that they would all get another chance to explain to their constituents why they are not supporting the basic principle of democracy when he brings his next motion and if necessary another one after that as well.

Surprised but undeterred by the silent response, Miller said that as far as he is concerned the legislation governing the country’s elections is now unconstitutional, as section 92 calls for people who are eligible to vote for “an elected member, not four,” he said again on Monday.

Determined to ensure that the election law becomes constitutional, he said, “I intend to keep on bringing this issue before parliament from now until the House is dissolved unless government addresses the issue.”

Well aware that the premier is fundamentally opposed to the principle of single member constituencies, Miller said the McKeeva Bush was not above the constitution and he intended to carry on with his campaign. Despite the likelihood of constant rejection and although he himself is already elected via the principle of one man-one vote as a result of representing a single member constituency, Miller said the fight was not to advance his own chances of winning an election but to do what was right.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Politics

About the Author ()

Comments (36)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. timX says:

    You guys havn't figured out the party system yet?!!!  In public they oppose each other, but behing close doors, they talk like school friends, making deals to remain as the government or opposition for many promising years. Not one of them want to give the people too much power or democracy. If they do that, that would mean too much politicians will have to be rollover and replaced. And don't think that certain folk in the UK is not benefiting from their policies.  

  2. anonymously :o) says:

    At 6:25 – "The constitution states that we should have one man one vote, and the fact that the PPM say they support it but didnt rise to support MR Ezzard shows that they are talking through both sides of their mouth again. We all know one man one vote does not work well for political parties hence PPM and UDP will avoid it at all costs. If this gets to court there will be no stopping it!"  YOUR STATEMENT IS WORTH REPEATING. DUMB FOLKS ARE MISLED BY PARTIES. THEY DON'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

  3. Anonymous says:

    This is a perfect example of a small amount of intelligence against a large amount of fool fool.

     Who will win?  Anyone who is not Caymanian.

  4. I really hope says:

    I really hope Caymanians realise exactly how important this is. With one man one vote big Mac cannot manipulate voters and cannot drag useless "do nothing for 4 years" politicians in with him. Each member will have to contest their own electoral district and the influence of a party over the voters is less likely. 

    The current situation is lopsided, West Bay has 4 seats which means that West Bay has more influence over the formation fo the Government. When George Town increases to 6 seats then George Town has the advantage. Single member states will resolve this inequity but the UDP realises this and will fight tooth and nail against it, despite the fact that it is part of the new constitution.


  5. Jumbles says:

    One man, one vote, unless that man is a British citizen who has lived here for a decade who is disenfranchised in breach ofguaranteed human rights . . . never forget Ezzard's Caymunian agenda of spiralling self-destruction.

    • Anonymous says:

      A British Citizen who has lived here for a decade can become naturalised as BOTC obtain Caymanian status and vote. There is no breach of human rights, just a lack of commitment to these Islands by the Brit.  

    • Anonymous says:

      Hear Hear! 

      But we should be able to capture 2 or 3 seats next election!

  6. Slowpoke says:

    In 2013, my six inches would like to meet your one inch…. OOOPS, wrong forum!

    Seriously, in the last election I only found three out of four (potential) people I could vote for.  I will take my chances with one person one vote.  I don't often agree with Ezzard, but I do support him on this one.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Miller you are to be commended for your statesmanship in standing for what is right even when so many are against you so many times even when they have no valid reasons to oppose you!  I believe Cayman is ready to back you 100% on the one man one vote issue and those who are not probably simply do not understand fully the concept.  Keep up the good and noble works Mr. Miller.

  8. Independent voter says:

    All the the PPM  is the UDP in reverse Mckeeva's Prolonged Pain not a word from these stiffs as Julie the Pretender to the Throne sits by and in the absence of the great BaBaa Bushka  passes draconian laws in the House of Necroplis and they sit their nodding their bobbing heads like the puppets they are. What a really sad state of affairs that exist on this island the population struggles to make ends meet and the elites and them look on with their glutonous indifference. A simple solution to this problem do not vote for Mr Bull$&!# next time.

  9. Anonymous says:

    The rest of the democratic world defines democracy as one man/person one vote. If ever they need examples of anti democratic regimes they could of course pick their dictatorship, OR come to Cayman.

    Mathematically the flaws are self evident by the small size of your LA versus the variable size of the constituencies. It is a certainty that by controlling two 4 man blocks or even less, you can dominate the assembly. Need proof? Just look how your man has virtually ignored the LA, to the point where he can ignore proper process, fire gatekeepers he doesnt like, threaten others and act as though the assembly doesnt exist.

    I wonder if that was why he was summoned to London? Its good to know that even if your Governor is ineffectual, the FCO might just be saving your lopsided system! 

  10. B.B.L. Brown says:

    Hang in there, Ezzard!  If legislation on this cannot be brought about, let's get the U.K. to look into it!  One man, one vote!  That's the way it must be.

  11. Anonymous says:

    In future photos of Ezzard please use head shots only…

  12. Anonymous says:

    Mr Miller, please confirm that, if I wanted to vote for "My Boy" in George Town, I could not do so under One Man One vote?

    Is that simply because I live in Central and he lives in George Town East?

    So, I can only vote for the person running in my corner of Town, as the district would be divided into 5 zones if this is introduced?

    is that so?

    • Anonymous says:

      "Yup — that's exactly how it will go m'boy…"

      (So, why should I support 'One Man One Vote' then?)

  13. Anonymous says:

    Boy if Ezzard tried to help Franklin Smith with the parrots with as much energy as he has done on this one we would get rid of those parrots for good.

    Parrots don't care if it's one man-one vote they just want it all, both Franklin and Willie's mango's and this has got to stop. Come on Ezzard stand up for your fellow North Siders..

    No, not the parrots, if that is what some of you arre thinking!

    • Anonymous says:

      I often wonder if parrots really have any idea what they are saying when they 'talk'.

    • my my says:

      So your view is that the Cayman Parrot should be killed off in the wild and become virtually extinct?  – and you believe the North Side MLA should support this as a government policy instead of the valuable principled issue he is working on? Really?! I try to refrain from name-calling in this forum, or degenerating into local vs expat bickering – but clearly yours is the uneducated view. There are better ways to handle problems than killing the animals. The humans are smarter – and can out-think the parrots – and I can think of three – no four – Caymanian farmers who have found ways to do this. Don't be an ignorant back-woodsman – killing off the parrots is not a popular idea with anyone anymore. Time to smarten up. 

  14. Well says:

    It is clear that Mr Mille rs correct. The constitution states that we should have one man one vote, and the fact that the PPM say they support it but didnt rise to support MR Ezzard shows that they are talking through both sides of their mouth again. We all know one man one vote does not work well for political parties hence PPM and UDP will avoid it at all costs. If this gets to court there will be no stopping it!



    • Anonymous says:

      I'm not a "Party" person, but, as I see it, "One man One vote" will not change anything politically.

      Except, to add 3 more expensive MLAs, that is. 

      All the political parties will do, is field one ot two more of their candidatates to take those seats. Which is what is to be expected…

    • Anonymous says:

      The PPM voted WITH Ezzard. They CLEARLY support one man one vote.

      • Well says:

        they didnt do much debating tryig to convice the "gowerment" to vote for it. 

        • Anonymous says:

          Convince! Ha! You are a real joker! When has the UDP ever considered what the PPM had to say?? The UDP have stated and demonstrated time and time again that they WILL NOT listen to ANYTHING the PPM has to say. The UDP members are ALL blindly following McKeeva who is totally opposed to one man one vote.

      • Anon says:

        You mean PAST TENSE:  "The PPM voted WITH Ezzard."

        Or, now PRESENT TENSE:  "The PPM is tight-lipped and has left Ezzard to fend for himself."


        • Anonymous says:

          How stupid are you? This vote just recently took place and just 2 weeks before Ezzard brought the motion they said if they were given the chance to lead the next government that they would implement it. The PPM leaders and members believe in the one man one vote principle and if the leaders strayed from that, you can best believe that the members would not stand for that.

  15. Libertarian says:

    May I say, the same "silence" is being heard from Alden and all members of George Town when over 2200 people and the majority of the South Sound community, have opposed a developer from dredging a canal, and setting a wrong precedent for these islands. I tell you, these politicians quack at their own convenience! Sadly, we have a democracy for the party and by the party, not for the people and by the people! And when it came to setting a good precedent for the country by cutting their salaries by at least 10to 20%, not one member left the house doing so. PPM had a golden opportunity to establish a special account for donations and a bright contrast from UDP, but they were as well too weak. All members left the house cutting the civil service salary by 3.2, undermining the struggle of those civil servants making less than 2200 a month when each one of them makes over 10000. Note:  What provisions do we have in our Constitution that empowers the people over indifferent legislations from their leaders during the course of 4 years tenure? Our mere referendumdoes not cut the cake! 

  16. Anonymous says:

    The 1 person 1 vote law was something I thought the PPM would put in place when they were in power in the previous government.

    I believe in the 1 person 1 vote and am completely baffled that it wasn't locked into place with the new constitution.

    • Anonymous says:

      According to Ezzard it certainly was 'locked into place'. The problem is our current "Gowerment", true to their inherent nature and the way they do absolutely everything, is blatantly and adamantly insistent on ignoring our constitution in their own sick interests and to the very clear and absolute detriment of our country and our people. This HAS to be STOPPED, and it WILL be stopped. Congratulations Ezzard and Congratulations PPM. 

    • Anonymous says:

      There is no need for bafflement. The PPM leader explained that it was not done explicitly as a result of a compromise with the UDP in order to gain their support for the Constitution. Completely ill-advised it seems.  

      • Jon says:

        You see this is what I can't understand from Alden, Mr. weak!  How can you compromise a basic democratic principle?  And this is the same Mr weak that got an MBE for our constitution that has Mac doing whatever he pleases.  It just blows me away!  these guys have no care in the world for us citizens

  17. Ubelievedat says:

    Our Consittution falls to address consequences of when the Premier fails to follow the Consitiution, other than by a no-confidence vote.

    What our Consitution should have called for is for the Premier to be impeached in a matter like this.

    Bush is NOT God!!!   He does not have the right to do as he feels.

    If we allow this man to continue cheating his "game of marbles" and allow him to change or pick the rules as best suits him, then we are up sh^ts creek without a paddle.

    • Anonymous says:

      Impeachment requires votes in the House as much as a vote of No Confidence.

    • noname says:

      If and when the Mac realizes that he is not GOD, he will die of shock!!!

  18. VirginiaLee says:

    This motion by Mr. Ezzard is fair and apparently supports the newly accepted constitution and should be accepted by the other members of the LA without hesitation.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Miller you are increasing in my estimation all the time!

  20. Libertarian says:

    What is it you want?  A democracy – a government rule by the people and for the people. Or, do you want a oligarchy – a government rule by the elite as well as by politicians. I dread the latter and endorse the former; and hence, putting party foolishness aside, I am for "one person, one vote."