One Man One Vote

| 09/07/2012

To listen to the opponents of the OMOV proposal try to justify their opposition would be considered funny if the outcome did not have such serious implications for the future of the Cayman Islands. Between leaving the system as is or changing to OMOV there is no justifiable reason for not making the change. The only reason is an attempt to cling to political power.

If McKeeva and his cohorts seriously believed the current system was better for the Cayman Islands and genuinely wanted what was best for Cayman, they would be promoting the logical extension of the current system. They would be promoting a single constituency for the Cayman Islands where every eligible Caymanian would be able to vote for 17 representatives. 

This would mean that every Caymanian would have the same number of votes.  However, this is not what McKeeva wants as it would mean George Town (most registered voters) would be able to control all representatives to the Legislative Assembly.  If George Town voters voted for 17 candidates from George Town, because George Town has the majority registered voters this would mean the 17 candidates from George Town would be elected to the LA, therefore depriving all other constituencies of any representation.

This simply illustrates why the current system is unfair. The same thing is happening on a smaller scale wherever there is more than one representative for a constituency. In West Bay, where McKeeva represents a constituency with the largest number of voters in the district, he and his running mates know they only need cater to that base. As long as they keep their base of voters happy, the other constituents in West Bay have no say and their needs are of no importance in the running of the district.  This is what is very unfair to those Caymanians who have no say in the running of their district and ultimately their country simply because of their area of residence.

The change to One Man One Vote will take a large step towards providing better representation for Caymanians, something that is desperately needed at this time. If the best interests of the Cayman Islands are the guiding force in this issue, there is no question that changing our system to One Man One Vote is the best way to move forward.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Viewpoint

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    The very reason why the current infestation of the LA is against this change is because it will eliminate their strangle hold on the current government.  They simply will not be able to get their entire staright vote anymore and get an unfauir advantage over the opposition.  Looking at the recent election results, there were many more who voted for "not Mckeeva," hence they have no representation under the current system.

    There should also be a change requiring a substantial number of nominating signatures iin order to stand for office.  The ability of TWO people to enable the placement on the ballot is simply ludicous! It should be a requirement to have at least 10% of the registered voters in your constituency, so that you are not splitting the vote needlessly on a futile attempt at running for office. If you can't get 10% of the registered voters to nominate you, then you have zero chance of being elected under the best of circumstances.

    There have been numerous candidates in past elections who have gotten less than 10% of the total vote.  Those votes were wasted on non-viable candidates, denying more viable candidates a chance to win office, and possibly unseat some of the career politians who desperately need to go.

    We need new blood and new ideas if we expect to get different results.  The current mindset is not serving anyone but the occupiers of the office. It certainly is not serving the electorate, but only increasing a cycle of dependency and misplaced culture of entitlement.

  2. Anonymous says:

    well said: I support OMOV and am very frustrated by the misinformation and fear-mongering.

    Sterling Dwayne suddenly changed his tune to a very negative one on OMOV and keeps spending his time hypothesysing about a National vote – total red herring

    …atleast i THINK thats what he's mumbling…

    come on Cayman, lets get it right – Vote YES on July 18

    its about time we got some backbone and stop letting these MLAs run all over us


    • Anonymous says:

      Yea, Sterling Dwayne is probably in fear for his job if he were to support single member constituencies. After all, look what just happened to Brian Tomlinson! McKeeva says “it’s my way or the highway”. It really stinks for all UDP.

  3. Anonymous says:

    The various McKeeva governments, as well as the oppositon, have had their chance a couple of times at running this country.It is high time to do away with the existing system that keeps putting them back in control & make a change, so Cayman can move forward. 

  4. Anonymous says:

    At last a succinct argument for OMOV that anyone in Cayman can grasp and understand. Well done.

    Now how do you expose this to the majority of voters who don’t read CNS and don’t listen to Rooster?

    The anti-OMOV campaign is doing a very persuasive job of fear mongering. In their current pitch OMOV is tied together with the evils of a pending Human Rights threat that will support Gay Marriages and even gives status rights to a terrorist who can claim the need to support his dog, and of course the UK’s heavy hand of interference in Cayman. All of these are evils have apparently only been held at bay over the last 3 years by Big Mac’s charging forth to battle for the rights, freedoms and traditions of Caymanians.

    I’ve heard this speech and it was delivered passionately, persuasively and with a certain well-crafted appeal that I had to admire. It works well for the less informed.

    Politics is virtually a religion in Cayman and in the minds of many ardent believers both CNS and Rooster have horns. Its amazing how many people tell me that they will never listen to Rooster and will never visit the CNS website.

    Find some other way to get this message into their hands. There is an army of religious zealots making the rounds.

    • duncang says:

      I wish I could "like" 10 times — this is right on target and will be the deciding factor in the upcoming vote if it isn't addressed.

  5. anonymous says:

    The simple question that no opponent of OMOV can answer is:

    How could it be correct and fair that someone on one side of the street can vote 4 or 6 times and their neighbour across the road, 50 feet away, can only vote 1 time? Just because they live on the left side they have more votes than their neighbour??—this simply cannot be right, fair, democratic or otherwise.

    This question cannot be answered. Forget all other arguments.

  6. Helena says:

    I am glad the Cayman Islanders are thinking about their system. 

    At the moment the Crown and the Senior Judges in the Privy Council of England have ultimate jurisdiction on everything that happens in the Cayman Islands. 

    Maybe you should vote to start paying tax and repeal the consession granted by William III?

    That would solve a lot of the global problems that eminate from the funds based in your country. 

    Also, can you vote that only environmentally friendly and ethical funds that can be based there.

    Please remember that your votes and thinking impact the world in a massive way.  xxxx h

    • Anonymous says:

      But you don't need tax nor some concession to balance our budget

    • Anonymous says:

      There were never any tax concessions granted. That story of the rescue of a "prince" from the Convert in 1794, and the reward of perpetual freedom from taxation, is pure myth.

  7. Libertarian says:

    "They would be promoting a single constituency for the Cayman Islands where every eligible Caymanian would be able to vote for 17 representatives."

    Mmmmm… Kmansense, that would NOT be a good system, because the majority will rule, and most naturally most (if not all of the majority) will consist of George Towners and West Bayers excluding the Sister Islands and Outer districts. Such a system would really segregate the MINORITY.

    If you want a fairer democracy, the MINORITY has to be REPRESENTED. That is very important  in order to avoid MOB RULE! So having 18 electoral districts where the majority rule would be broken up into parts within each of those districts is the better systematic option.That way the "minority" would have a voice as well in the democratic processes of the country. Just food for thought. Regards

    • Anonymous says:

      Agreed. I don't that Kmansense was arguing that it would be a good system.   

    • Anonymous says:

      Kmansense agrees with you and points to the current government's position making no sense as if the current system is expanded on, "They would be promoting a single constituency for the Cayman Islands where every eligible Caymanian would be able to vote for 17 representatives."

  8. Anonymous says:

    Completely accurate and very well written. Thank you.

    While you did not suggest it, my assessment is that the current system facilitates corruption. That may be another reason that at least a few oppose any change. 

  9. Anonymous says:

    Hear Hear!

    You hit the nail on the head: OMOV means more accountability and that is exactly why McKeeva does not want it – he does not like to be challenged or held responsible for anything

    And his cronies/ puppets know they cant get in on their own merit so they ride McKeeva's coattails into a cushy 4 year job, its ridiculous


    • Anonymous says:

      If you are voting for OMOV because it will mean less corruption then you are living in a dream world.  Of the top 10 LEAST corrupt places in the world as determined by Transparency International, only ONE has OMOV.

      Most of them use an election system based on PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

      • duncang says:

        Which is not what we have here either.  I guarantee you none of the western democracies have a voting system/lack of representation by population that we have.