Pseudo-Parties
Even though I believe in the party system I will only vote for Independents in this election. This is because no party has shown me they understand the fundamental nature of what it means to be a party. Theoretically, a political party is great because it has the ability to staff itself with different, but complimentary, types of people. This enables it to better govern the state of affairs.
Numerous organizations have researched this phenomenon of human differentiation. The Johnson O’Connor Research Center is one such organization. Another research organization follows from the work of Dr Meredith Belbin. What these research centres tell us is something we already know: that people are different. Some people are more analytical than others. They might make better scientists or investigators. Some people are more abstract-minded. These might make better poets or other artists. Some are more introspective. These might excel at writing and programming. Some thrive best working with people. These are the social influencers or what we call “people-persons”. No one of these ways is better than the other. In fact, they all exist to compliment one another. This is precisely what the Belbin organization attempts to teach: that organizations should have different but complimentary personality types within them.
The best organizations in the world understand this aspect of human nature. These organizations ensure they are staffed with the right mix of different types of people. If not done properly, the organization will be very inefficient. For example, can you imagine an organization filled completely with abstract thinkers? They would come up with a million great ideas and never start one of them. An organization filled with only people-persons would probably never do the paper work. And an organization full of introspective analysts would probably never open the front door for their customers. But if a company has the right mix of all these sorts of people, it can accomplish the various aspects of its mission efficiently and quite naturally.
In my opinion the UDP and PPM have failed to prove that they have taken the above into consideration. While I am sure they have surmised it, it appears that no concrete actions have been taking to fully implement it. For example, both party’s manifestos show no mention of the above. The manifestos only show they know the issues at hand, but anyone who has been following the news over the last couple of months knows the issues at hand. These parties seem to have not taken into consideration the different “types” of people needed to run a proper organization. And if they have, they have not shown us. Who, and how, are the people in your party fulfilling the various personality types needed in any successful organization? Who are your abstract thinkers needed to come up with creative ideas to solve complicated issues? Who are your analysts that will tackle the economic and financial problems? Who are the people-persons who will interact with society at large? A party filled completely with financial gurus gives me no confidence whatsoever, and neitherdoes a party full of people-persons. Parties must ensure they are staffed with different types of members in the strategic positions.
It is also worth mentioning that the PPM has only one woman running with them, and the UDP only has two. In a world where 50% of people are women, why am I voting for a party that has only 10% women? This again shows an imbalance in the parties.
I do not doubt the intentions of the UDP and PPM candidates. I respect most of what I see and hear from them and I believe that most of the candidates are well intentioned. My problem lies with their theoretical application of the party system. They seem to be forming parties based on the whim of circumstances and without proper reflection on the diverse nature of humanity.
In addition to explaining the issues, the parties should have shown that their members possessed the right amount of diverse but complimentary personalities to enable them to function like a proper organization. But they have not, and both manifestos do not address it. And because I do not respect that, I will vote Independent.
Now people may ask me, will the Independents be able to achieve what I am asking for? Will they able to form a human resource plan consisting of different but compatible individuals? The answer is probably not, because there is not enough time before election date for the Independents to achieve this. However, I see a diverse group of Independents running this year. Some are obviously all heart, some are obviously all brains, and some are obviously people-persons. They are diverse enough, qualified enough, intelligent enough, and genuine enough to put into office. If they were to get a majority foothold in office, I would like to think they would assess each other’s individual skills and assets and strategically form a proper functioning organization.
A further benefit of an Independent coalition will be that they will act more methodical than the previous administrations. This is because as politicians with little or no experience, they will have to go through a natural learning curve. This learning process will allow government to act cautiously and considerately with every move it makes, and this would be widely appreciated. They could pull the reins on the out-of-control galloping horse that is Cayman’s political/financial/social crisis, and slow her down to a trot.
But I dream. I do not seriously believe the Independents have a chance at gaining the majority foothold. I do not believe the Caymanian voter base will take the time to reflect on the disingenuousness of the parties, much less agree with what I have to say. I believe the C4C had a chance to usurp the PPM and UDP if only they endorsed more Independents and officially declared themselves a party. But they did not, and so I believe this election will fall to one of the official parties.
If you agree with me and would like to vote for Independents there is one last thing to be considered. And it has to do with the OMOV referendum. If you vote in WB, GT or BT, and voted YES on the referendum, you should only use one of your votes this election. Exercise your OMOV right! Remember it is a form of power to limit yourself to one vote. This may seem contradictory, but in doing so, you are denying other people your votes, and that is power. In the 2009 election, 95% of voters in GT, WB, and BT used all of their votes. This is absurd especially when over 70% of voters in these districts voted YES on the OMOV referendum. This tells me that people used all of their votes in 2009 only because they had them. That number should not be that high this year. Do not “waste” your votes by giving them to random people. You need only vote once. If you decide you do not want to give one of the parties a greater chance at getting into office, then vote for an Independent and do not vote for anybody else (unless it’s another Independent).
Category: Viewpoint
C4C = UDP clear and simple. These guys are the one and same that financed, support and sat on the various statutory and authority boards. Why would you want to vote back in the same of the old philosophies, XXX and back door deals? Look at the Dart deal, who do you think that deal benefited the most? Clearly not the Caymanian people! So before you try and encourage people to vote independents or C4C, stop smoking the crap you are on and make a coherent decision come May 22. Your future depends on it!
Mr Badir Awe, If you want OMOV and the possibility of more Independents being elected in future elections, your only choice in this election is straight PPM.
One vote? What about my wife and three dead relatives? I have 16 votes and I am using them all.
"Independent C4C canditates" is an oxymoron. Do not fall for their "we are not a party line". They are everything a party is but honest about what they are.
I agree with you, to an extent. Both parties are very immature and have a lot of growing up to do. They both need far more diversity and more firm theoretical grounding. I also agree that the C4C, had they had the balls to just call themselves what they are (a party…) and endorse a full slate of candidates; they would find themselves if not the government or part of the government, the official opposition. This “anti-party” game is total b.s. and whoever advised them otherwise is an idiot. They make, in my opinion, a better balance to the PPM than the UDP is. Unfortunately, and some of the previous posters have pointed this out, in our currently reality we can’t vote the theoretical high ground. A George Towner who wants REAL progress has to ensure he or she places 6 votes…. Not FOR a particular candidate or party, but rather AGAINST one. You’re right about the C4C, and I sincerely hope that we end up with a government that exploits the synergies of the PPM and the C4C. I think the quieter, more reserved, steadier hand that such a government would emulate is the best representation Cayman can have. Unfortunately, again, the only way to ensure we don’t suffer four more years of bombast is to cast my 6 votes firmly against the UDP. And that means favouring the PPM at a rate I’d rather not.
Except, a non-vote is equivelent to someone else’s yes-vote. Four non-aligned people run in Cayman Brac (2 votes), four people vote. A votes AB. B votes AB. C votes C. D votes D. Those whose electors used both their votes get the most votes and get voted in. While the maths gets murkier as you add more people (voters and candidates) the principle remains: a non-vote doesn’t hurt anyone, only a vote does. So if you don’t support someone (as the opinionater says) then you need to not just not vote for them, you need to vote against them. Otherwise they and their supportors win. Thats democracy. (If you don’t care who (else) gets in, then you can non-vote with a clear concience.)
Badir Awe, as much as I love Independents, I have this one thing to say to you – NO MAN IS AN ISLAND TO HIMSELF… And that is why we have parties, coalitions, and alliances. It is good to be independent when standing for principles, such as fairness, integrity, and justice. But a person who is all about being a lone-ranger, has their vision of what unity is- obscured. Not even Jesus appointed a one-man-show to go into the world to fight the legions of darkness. It just makes sense to gather yourselves in groupings and parties because there is strength in number.
So one may ask, Lib, what is Cayman's problem with the party system? I say it is not the party system that is the problem, it is only having 2 parties that is the problem. It is when we have multi-parties (more than 2), is when the ills of a 2-party system will go away.
But let us not jump to the conclusion that a Legislative Assembly divided by Indepedents will carry the country forward in unison. If the assembly is too divided then nothing will get done. It is another evil like if you had an assembly with only 2 parties and one of them dominating the house floor. I am relieved that as our democracy grows, we are forming more and more groupings which means expanding Cayman's representation beyond 2 parties.
West Bay Voters vote as if they have a better understanding of the electoral process than all the rest of the us combined.
Before you give me thumbs down, just read on.
I say that simply because in West Bay they have repeatedly gotten the election results they wanted. The proof of this is that for the last many years all the seats have been filled by the candidates standing with Bush. The West Bay voters clearly voted a certain way and got what they wanted. We might not agree with what they want, but we cant argue that they indeed got the result they voted for. It may be blind loyalty, but Bush's constant admonition "dont send me George Town my myslef" resonates with voters. They know Bush can do nothing for them if he is on his own. I therfore conclude that the West Bay voter is smarter than we think. They are voting in a more strategic fashion than the rest of us. We split our vote based on how we favour individual candidates, rather than with the end result in mind.
Trust me the West Bayers know what they are doing and we better catch up fast.
Libertarian, I believe you miss understand . Badir is not talking the soldiers he's talking about the generals ,He is talking about Jesus not the disciples. Hes talking about the leaders of the district. Jesus is the one man show. We have a third party the independents.
I will only vote independents, I will vote no party person whats so ever. A vote to a party person is a vote to a party. 6 votes in GT, 4 in BT, 1 in EE, 1 in NS, all we need is West Bay people to vote independents. Then we will have a proper Gov't that will represent the people.
Call it what you like Badir but your strategy favours a return of the UDP to power.
Unfortunately we live in a real and not theoretical or ideal world.
If you vote for independents – the non-UDP vote will be split between independents and PPM and the UDP will get the majority of votes and we will have Mac as Premier again come May 23rd.
I would really love to have a Cabinet made up of the independent C4C candidates – I think they are all honest, intelligent, have proven themselves to have business know how and would be fantastic for Cayman.
However, given the unforunate strong possibility of a return of the UDP due to the split votes between PPM and independents – I will be dividing my votes – in George Town – between C4C and PPM (those who will get the most votes) – and I urge other people who do not want the UDP returned to power to do the same.
Perhaps in another 4 years – once the PPM have been in power, introduced one man one vote, the independents and C4C have more time to mature and strengthen their support – then it will be time for a straight independent vote.
Your 4th paragraph contradicts your 2nd. It is a non-sequitur.
no they do not. re-read.
I have. Many times. The contradiction does not lessen with re-reading.
Let me preface the below by saying I am voting against the UDP and am somewhat indifferent to whether we have a C4C-independent coalition or a full PPM government (given how much more preferable either would be to a UDP govt).
I am assuming/hoping/guessing that PPM will get 3 seats in BT, 1 in Sister Islands, none in West Bay – I hope 2 or 3 in GT.
UDP will get 2 to 4 in West Bay – hopefully thats all (unless the GT vote gets catastrophically split between C4C & PPM and the UDP set some, God help us – All – seats in GT)
C4C will get 3 to 4 in GT (or none if the non-UDP vote splits too much), either 0 or 2 in WB
PNA – one in Sister Islands (Juju)
NS – Ezzard (would possibly form coalition with PPM or C4C)
EE – Arden (would possibly form coalition with PPM or C4C)
C4C stated today they would not form a Govt w UDP. But open to PPM (excluding the 'leadership').
Most (sensible and realistic) people I speak to are hoping for a C4C-PPM coalition.
I hope all the egos in C4C and PPM can check themselves and agree to work together!
Based on the above – and to ensure a non-UDP government – I would recommend people in GT – which will be the 'swing state' – use half thier votes for C4C (Roy, Jude, Winston – (Sharon would love you as my GT rep but its not feasible this year) and half for PPM (Alden, Kurt and the third I am not sure).
I think you're overly optimistic about C4C's chances in GT. I doubt that they will get as many as 3 or 4 seats, but will be probably get 2. It seems that the UDP is set to get up to 2 seats in GT mainly due to the Jamaican vote. The obvious third man for the PPM in GT is Marco. My prediction for GT is PPM – 3, C4C -2, UDP -2.
R U saying that C4C candidates are not Independents? What's the difference between splitting your votes between PPM and other Independents versus PPM and C4C Independents? What's your point? A split is a split and it will result in a UDP govt.
You, my dear Mr. Awe, are an unapologetic idealist. You dream in techni-color of the way things ought to be. For the rest of us, however, we have to live in the real world where McKeeva Bush also resides. if we follow your advice he is likely to be back in charge. So, i for one will not be voting for any independents based on some philosophical objection to the PPM not being party enough. What utter rubbish!
Oh Badir- XXXX I listened last night to the C4C and except for Mervin and Tara- it was not even interesting. Even though Mervin and Tara seems to repeat themselves every time they speak whether on radio, Tv or meetings (the same message) I found them to be witty and can hold interest for awhile However I wonder if and when they have said their piece- what then. Mervin took me back to my days at school where I had quite a few West Bayers as class mates. It was refreshing to hear the twang . I really was disappointed in the others; they have education yes, and have held top jobs but their speeches seem a bit shallow. If I was voting in West Bay I would probably vote for Mervin and 3 Progressives, however I vote in Bodden Town, so it will be Progressives all the way. Badir, at this time in our History, with so many charges on the former Premier's head it would be fool-hardy to even cast a vote in a way that would assist the UDP to wiggle in. Right now the only sure way to prevent that is to go Progressive- some how I don't feel so confident about the others.
What are you smoking bro? I am voting all 4 of my BT votes straight Progressive. You seem to want the UDP to come out on top. I wonder if you are a UDP sleeper?