The tragedy of tactical voting
While the loudest voices in Cayman are currently calling for a coalition government, the reality is that under the absurd multi-member voting system that we have, which seems only to be welcomed by former premier McKeeva Bush (and with good reason), it’s not going to happen. On Thursday 23 May, Cayman will wake up to a government led by one of the two political parties. With the vote hopelessly split, however, it may not be the PPM, leaving the very real prospect of Mac back at the helm.
Despite the wish of many for a collection of independents, who would then team up with the PPM to form a fantasy-style government, tactical voting under the local system will ensure that unless there is one independent candidate who is incredibly popular with the entire electorate in one of the three multi-member constituencies on Grand Cayman, the only independents that will be returned will be in the single member constituencies.
In the multi-member constituencies the independent candidates, including those running on the Coalition for Cayman ticket, will be looking for tactical voting and will quietly encourage their closest supporters to just vote for them. When they themselves enter the polling booth, the nine independents in George Town, for example, will be casting only one vote and hoping that anyone else voting for them will do the same.
It is, after all, a competition and everyone in it wants to win.
However, candidates in the UDP and PPM camps, and more than likely the PNA camp too, are far less likely to do so. When party candidates enter the privacy of the booth they will very probably vote for their party colleagues as well as themselves, and most are also openly encouraging all their supporters to vote straight.
So, party allegiances give candidates straight votes that they may not get as individuals. And while the concept of getting elected on other people’s coat-tails (an accusation hurled at the West Bay representatives for years) may not account for the majority of votes a candidate gets, it is still a significant amount.
None of the independents have that type of support and there is no front runner emerging among any of the lone candidates for George Town or West Bay (although Charles “Chuckie” Clifford might be the exception in Bodden Town), so it follows that the capital and "the Republic" will both be returning party candidates. The only question is, whichones?
A few short weeks ago, as McKeeva Bush’s criminal matters blazed across the headlines, it was inconceivable that he would be back on the top floor of the government building just across the way from the governor, Duncan Taylor, but this is no longer out of the question.
There is no doubt that the former premier still carries a considerable amount of hard and fast loyal support. Although this may be less than it was in 2009 when he really was 'Mr Popularity', ushered into office by some of the very people now running against his team in George Town, many UDP voters are still blindly loyal to their leader. If he asks them to vote straight in George Town and West Bay and cast only two votes in Bodden Town, that’s what they will do.
In contrast, PPM supporters are more flexible and their loyalty to the party leader considerably less firm. While they will probably give four or five of their votes to the party, they will be far more likely to vote for one or two independents as well – just as they did in 2009. Many votes were cast for independents at the last election, but not one was elected in a multi-member district, and the same thing will happen this time.
While some people find it unpalatable to be told to vote straight, until Cayman has one man, one vote independents are extremely unlikely to be elected. And while true democracy is voting for who you want to get elected, sometimes that is a wasted vote on a candidate that cannot win a seat, which means most people will not get what they want. After all, the late Margaret Thatcher was elected to office the second time with just over a third of the vote, leaving two thirds of voters very disappointed because, as is the case in Cayman now, the opposition to her was hopelessly split.
In George Town there is no front runner among the C4C or the ‘independent-independents’. If you ask five people who they think is the most popular of the independents and the most likely to be elected, they will all give you a different answer. Although four or five names come up more than others, there isn’t one consistent name, which means that the people who are giving their votes partly to the PPM and partly to independents or even all six votes to a collection of these independents will be spreading them across nine names.
That means that even the independent loyalists will have a myriad of combinations on their ballots, in the end cancelling each other out.
While the party’s block vote may not be as large in this election as it has been in the past, it doesn’t necessarily need to be to take all the seats. With the exception of Mike Adam, who will probably still attract a reasonable number of votes from across the board, most of the UDP voters will be voting six straight and the candidates will be less likely to pick up random votes from non-party loyalists or their own supporters.
But that does not mean that the PPM, whose candidates can attract random votes from people who do not support the party, will benefit. The vote for the PPM will be split significantly and unless there is a massive surge in popularity for one or two independents that take that PPM split vote in the next ten days, the idea of a UDP government is no longer inconceivable.
No doubt many CNS readers will disagree with the writer as they champion the virtues of the C4C candidates. And while the author of this rather ominous prediction wishes it were not so and believes that some of the independents running deserve to be elected, none of them will be voted in.
The awful dilemma that Cayman faces is that if it is the UDP that carries the day because of the split “anti-McKeeva” vote, we will face the prospect of another four years of that party in office – and, of course, Bush in the top job, with the prospect of a very public trial.
And then, because the UDP will never introduce single member constituencies, we will go through exactly the same thing again in 2017.
So, sorry if I put anyone off their supper but that’s the tragedy of tactical voting.
Category: Viewpoint
Lots of interesting analysis.
However, the antithesis to this viewpoint is that "Voting straight will not definitely not yield the desired result."
In our current system the job of the electorate is to assess all candidates and elect the best cadidates to represent the country for the next 4 years. For example, in George Town, we should look at all 21 candidates and elect them based on what skills they bring to the table.
None of the parties or group of independents have a convincing ticket where everyone of their candidates are "head and shoulders' above the competition. In other words, each group has its share of weak candidates. We must ask, why vote for any candidate in any party or otherwise if you do not believe they are the best candidate for the job?
There are some candidates who do stand out and the strength of their skill set should appeal to voters across all parties.
For example, most admit that our economy is suffering and is in urgent need of repair. No matter what party or person you support, one obvious choice would be for everyone in George Town to consider Marco Archer, who happens to be the only qualified Economist contesting the 2013 election. Marco has the skills and experience to repair our ailing economy.
The above viewpoint appears to say that we should not consider what a candidate brings to the table but instead consider which party brought the candidate to the table and simply and blindly vote straight.
The idea that independent candidates have not gotten in and will not get in and a vote for them is a wasted vote is cheap psychology and an effort to create a self fulfilling prophecy.
The fact is, if enough people vote for any candidate, party affiliated or independent, that candidate will be elected.
So on May 22, lets put aside all the over analysis and recognise its ourfranchise in a democratic society for each person to vote their conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
If ppl vote UDP back in we would be sending a message that Caymanians are fools, harsh but true. Say what you want about Mac but he is a brilliant politician but his reign needs to be over now. He has lost his edge and drive he just seems erratic for the most part. PNA waste of space not even worth discussing in my opinion. PPM for the most part primarily got us at the mercy of the UK by their excessive spending and they were pretty much an ineffective opposition. Alden is simply not the right person toget us out of the mess that we find ourselves in because of his arrogance. Alden does not inspire confidence so voting by default straight for PPM is not sensible or best for this country. Please review each candidate on their own merit and give true consideration to the independents. We need an alliance to Country over party our quality of life depends on it!
Splitting your votes as you suggest will result in a UDP govt. which as you acknowledge would send a message that Camanians are fools.
You going to get an Alliance with UDP/PNA/C4C using that strategy so who will look the fool on 23rd May when that Coalition forms the Government…Alden is the right man because he will not be Mac and no matter how they deny it PNA and C4C will support Mac over Alden. A Vote for anyone other than PPM, Ez or Arden is a VOTE for the Mac.
I think some of the C4C maybe would help the PPM form a government if they were ontheir own but the leaders of the group, Roy McTaggart and Jude Scott, are in my opinion pro-UDP and may dissuade other C4C members in voting to help PPM form a government., thereby having to face another four years of UDP tyranny.
"Tactical voting" is enshrined in our constitution and is the natural by-product of "one-man-multiple-votes" and the party system. So what is your beef?
While I wholehearted agree that multi-member voting system that we have is indeed absurd, I disagree with you in that tactical voting was welcomed by far more people than just Makeeva Bush. Have you so soon forgotten what occurred in the election in which the New Constitution was a tag-along issue? You seem to have missed the fact that a quite sizable cadre of morons from all political affiliations showed their stupidity and embraced with open arms the present absurd voting system by voting "YES" for the present Constitution.
Besides placing far too much power in the office of Premiere, and enshrining the party system, one of the myriad of reasons I voted "NO" was because the new Constitution was/is far too vague on the vitally important issue of one-man-one-vote. History has proven me to be correct in my misgivings. Many of the people who votes "YES" are some of the very ones who are the loudest whiners now that the fruits of their mindless folly are breaking the branches. These people who voted "YES" should stop their whining and first admit to their being idiots for accepting a horridly flawed Constitution that has brought untold distress to these island.
The real "tragedy" is that Constitution should have been clear and quite concise in setting out the parameters of such a fundamental issue as voting. The wording certainly seems, kinda/sorta, to vaguely hint in an obscure and tentative manner that "one-man-one-vote" might be….maybe…perhaps…but not surely…what those involved in producing the new Constitution had in mind. Being ostensibly literate and supposedly well-educated people they did a pathetically poor job of clarity in the constitutional reference relating to how many votes one person can or cannot cast. It makes me want to gag and puke every time I hear the Constitutional Committee lauded for their work. Sadly, the bar for excellence and public adulation in the Cayman Islands is usually placed just a tad bit higher than the gutter; the results we get are usually in line with our expectations.
Hey! Good thing that we have such a great constitution that is hailed as the sterling effort of such publicly commended great minds, I would hate to see a bad constitution that is the result of the slovenly efforts of those who embrace mediocrity. I mean in the latter case you could end up with a vengeful uneducated despotic simpleton coalescing a minority of "tactical votes" into an irresistable power and become Premiere and exercise almost unchecked power and do all sorts of dumb and dangerous things. Thank God the framers of our Constitution were brighter and better than that, eh?
It was the minions in cabinet & the backbench that gave the Premier his power. Not the constitution. If only three hand some guts we could have been rid of the Premier a long time ago. Party or no party, you must have representatives who will do the right thing all of the time not just when it is politically expedient.
This is not very mysterious. If you vote for long-shots and dark horses, your vote will be mostly wasted. Same everywhere.
Besides the one-man-one-vote scenario, there is also the option to remain with your (let's say 4 votes), but why can I only give one vote per candidate and not 2 votes to two candidates?
I am voting in BT and I have two candidates I really feel strongly about. I don't know who to give the other two votes to. Yes, PPM is obivously the better option, but there are 2 candidates I don't feel very positive about.
If in GT someone would be able to cast 6 votes for one of the Independents, I can guarantee you, you would have a Independent front runner emerging very quickly!
Very good point and last time votes for Independent Candidates caused UDP to be elected as the Government. Dont make the same mistake again.
Democracy at work.
The one man one vote result of close to 70% of the people going to the polls supported it and it lost.
UDP may get 30% of the people going to the polls supporting them and win.
Mr. Bush will cry the people have clearly spoken as he retakes his seat in the house.
Educate yourself people!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0lQ0UPYFZk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Every democratic country on earth is run on the Party system. Even England has the UKIP – the UK Independent Party! Do you think Cayman will be any different? i wouldn't bet on it. Running a country takes organization and so it is inevitable.
I will not go into the motives of the C4C group and the independent candidates who were formally Party members, as they should be self explanatory.
What i will say however, is that going forward, especially with our new Constitution, the Party system is here to stay and our job is to make it work better for us, the people.
I would have preferred if a THIRD Party had emerged for this Election. This third option should have had a Manifesto outlining their agenda, a party Constitution, and a democratic leadership structure.
Hopefully this will be done in time for the 2017 Election.
Video draws wrong conclusion. While this video does a good job of explaining what can sometimes be a confusing issue, it unfortunately draws the wrong conclusion.
While it might serve to fool people into only using a few of their votes in this election, it misses the point. They missed the opportunity to point out that the voting system needs to be changed not just for this election but for elections to be held for generations to come.
The accurate conclusion is, vote for a government that will pass OMOV and fix the voting system. And in this election, that means vote straight PPM.
PPM were the framers of the Constitution where OMOV was not enshrined when thy had the power to do so – wasted opportunity. PPM were the originators of the excessive spending which pushed the UK to reign us in with FFR- wasted resources. PPM was useless and ineffective as an opposition. They we unable to outsmart McKeeva and highlight the serious issues or take any decisive action. Voting straight PPM is voting for mediocrity Alden simply doesn’t have the grit or leadership qualities to take this Country off the ledge, he will more so propel us over!!!!
Allthat is relevant is that to ensure OMOV is passed and fix the voting system forever, we must vote straight PPM in this election.
In the next election, with OMOV voting, everything will be different my friend.
So where is the faith in the Caymanian voters? Arden loves to say how intelligent the voters are so what is the problem?
The UDP have lost their most skilled and effective members, McKeeva is under a criminal cloud.
This real problems with the Progressive leadership are beginning to show unfortunately.
This Chicken Llittle syndrome does no one any good.
This is what I conclude! It will be UDP or PPM and Harden and Hazzard!
Agree agree agree!!! This is exactly what happened in 2005! Well written view point. This is exactly why Bush was against a fair voting system. I too think many of the independents would serve us well, but under this system their chances are slim at best. I’m voting straight PPM so my vote counts, I split mine last time…we can’t afford another four years under Bush!!
You mean 2009
This article deplores the danger of bloc-voting, which favours one or other of the Parties. And, so it does. But it doesn't even mention perhaps the most effective bloc in the Islands – namely, the expat bloc. None of the candidates has respected expats enough to bother even asking their opinions. None of the Parties has had the political sense to run an expat candidate or two. Why is that?
Well, we know why. It's because UDP voters would rather have Alden or Kurt as Premier than see an expat MLA, and because PPM voters would rather have McKeeva as Premier than see an expat MLA. The anti-expat prejudice is so strong among many bloodline Caymanians that they are prepared to risk the economy and good standing of Cayman, rather than allow "paper" Caymanians to share in the governance of the Islands.
Whatever their national origins, expats are acutely aware of their subservient role in elections, and their lack of representation. Local residents who read my blog ("Barlow's Cayman") will be familiar with my views on the whole anti-expat issue, and the harm it does to our governance. The thing is, expats did influence the result of the last election, and will probably influence this one. How silly it is, to ignore their existence!
Shame on all those candidates who don't respect expats enough to address them man to man. Next time? Huh. I won't hold my breath.
Same old, tired rhetoric, Gordon. The UDP are obviously pitching for the Jamaican vote, and isn't Chris Saunders Jamaican?
Mr. Barlow it is enough that expats can vote in Cayman, we respect their views but you really don't want what happened in Fiji or SA to happen here do you? George Speight is imprisioned for life in Fiji and Nelson Mandela spent most of his productive adult life in a prison because in their zeal to appease the expat population of the respective countries they tried to integrate people within their political system. I appreciate the expats who came here and respect our way of live but I draw the line in the sand when it comes to our political system. As the law now stands if you do not have a parent and grandparent born within the Cayman Islands you are not allowed to run for elected office and this is not going to change anytime soon. So I would encourage you and other to participate freely within our electorial system and vote but some things are priceless and the election of "Native Caymanians" to the LA is one of them.
So Mr. Barlow, Let me get this straight. When you arrived in the Cayman Islands you were very un-supported to even give bus drivers a fare. If you could walk or hitch you would walk or hitch. Not to worry CNS, I have a valid point comming up. So after all this years, for one reason or the the other you did not want to return to whence you came. So I guess you also demanded that since you were here long enough that you be given Status or somthing. Now (drum roll please). After having Status and living in Cayman Islands for so long , you still calling yourself an Expat? even that you have the rights more so than a Born Caymanian.? Shame on you. This is why we continue to have the "Them and Us" still going on. You "Assume" that just put an Expat to run for office will be the brain child of politics.? Well old friend, If you still an Expat then stay on the side lines and complain. Cayman Islands is still one of the best places to live on this earth. If you dont belive me, pack up and go to somwhere that you are welcomed with open arms. Bettcha we see you soon mon. The main point is how can you still expect to be one of Us if you saying still that you are one of them? And while you at it, I might as well ask you to throw me a few names of Expats that could run for office, maybe we can encourage them to become part of the system for change.
What a pile of crock! I don't know how else to say this. I am not Caymanian and I am still offended by your constant bashing on this topic. If the expats have integrated themselves well into the Caymanian community, they should have a reasonable relationship or knowledge of the people running for election and vice versa. So what the hell is your point?
XXXX
Really Gordon! I know you think Cayman is to good a place to be left to the natives to run. that's always been your view. But damn, the foreigners are in charge of everything now, from the courts to the banks and law firms. Some are even running in this election. Ever listened to Chris Saunders? What more do you want?
I cannot understand for the life of me why people vote for a candidate simply "because he/she is attainable". I prefer to cast my vote to someone who is a honest and WILL put country before self…..someone who will make the tough decisions required to get this country out of the rut that the "attainable" candidates have put us in. I personally DON'T want any elected member up in my face 24/7 and visiting my home 24/7 or giving me $$$$ 24/7 to make me like him/her for the next 4 years, in essence paying me from the public's hard earned coffers and raping the country of much needed funds to get the job done and keep the economy striving. NO I will vote for candidates that are NOT attainable 24/7 because they will be hard at work doing what I elected them to do in the first place. Frankly I DON'T have to even speak to the person(s) that will get my vote on May 22 as long as he/she is working for me, the elector, who put them there to WORK not to be my friend!!!
Enough of this party foolishness. C4C and PNA all the way !!!
The article should be titled vote for anybody that isn’t UDP and wears a red shirt. What the author fails to highlight is the ppm had 4 years to consolidate the majority support but their own actions, lazy attitude and arrogance has caused them the sleepless nights. You cannot expect people to trust ppm completely when the country still has that bitter taste in its mouth from the excess spending of the 05-09 ppm government. Caymanians have 8 years of proof that both parties are not familiar with the principle of fiscal responsibility so why should either be given the majority in the upcoming election?
Ummm…I think you are missing the point of the article which is that a split in the anti-UDP votes may mean that we end up with a UDP govt.
Well said!
I also would like to vote for a few of the "Independents" but as I have studied the situation and concluded exactly as the writer, I will be voting straight PPM.
I do agree with you. Although UDP's leader is under investigation for corruption he possesses some of the most loyal followers. This is very much unlike the PPM and this is what will see UDP through. The rationale for this is very simple, Mac is attainable. His constitutents will tell you how attainable he is and how he is readily available to listen to their problems along with attempting to find a solution. PPM on the other hand is very much different. Even though they represent honesty, integrity, etc. their leader is unapproachable and their members are unattainable. Then if you do happen by some wayward chance to get in contact with a PPM member to discuss your issue which requires a politicial solution your discussion is held with the member performing 3 other tasks and conversing with 3 other people in front of you which is then followed with their solution of sending you to go pray about it. It is these interactions with the PPM which does not bring about loyalty and as you know Caymanian voting population is small and these interactions are quickly discussed amongst others. This in turns allow those previous PPM diehards to seek solutions elsewhere and turn to independents while UDP loyalists remain because their leader and members are attainable. Until the PPM recognises the basic factors of being attainable and building credibility of accomplishing real tangible solutions they will never maintain loyal supporters.
UDP loyal politicians/followers = under the bus society
Brilliant viewpoint!!!!! I am glad I’m not alone any longer with this type of reasoning.
So it would seem that regardless of intentions to have a "working" government, Bush is really the perfect representative for the Caymanian people.
What is frightening is that there is a man who is charged with so many counts of theft and corruption who stands a good chance of getting his party back in power after May 22nd. what will happen to the Cayman Islands and when the UDP leader is sentenced to a prison term (hopefully a long one) who will lead our country. Hopefully not Foolio.
What should be more frightening is that there are a whole tribe of well fed idiots who look at Bush as their paycheck and nothing else. And they are so many that they have the power to make sure it happens. They are voting for their own survival because without him they have nothing that makes them competative in the job market. This is the real tragedy of the Cayman islands of today.
yes that is exactly who it will be. Foolio is actually not quite the fool, why do you think he chose to stick with Mac, because he knows just how many “followers” Mac has and if they get voted back in, Mac will appoint him Deputy Premier and then if Mac is found guilty and kicked out of Govt, he will become the Premier!! Elio knows exactly what he is doing!!
The PPM were idiots for putting forward a full team in West Bay. Anyone with political sense would have only named one or, at most, two candidates with the aim of trying to at least taking one or two seats which would be an effective two or four seat swing from the UDP. But oh no, the party's finests put their heads together and blundered on with the packed slate. Maybe they were getting a bulk discount on light blue shirts and red ties.
Likewise C4C were fools for putting forward their candidates in GT as they will only succeed in splitting the vote and allowing the UDP to regain power. Thanks, C4C.
C4C are not fools, that was their plan from the beginning. Take a close look at the principals behind C4C and you might begin to see the light. XXX
You’re so right cuz C4C is made up of UDP backers
ppm had their chance and failed us . as far as i am concerned they are the vote splitters.
C4C had their chance through pulling the UDP puppet strings and look how well THAT went! No sah!
lol. The PPM are an established party not a bunch of Johnnies come lately looking out for the interests of the merchant class. They will also get more candidates elected than C$C so your argument holds no water.
FAILED???? the UDP has Failed and the C4C have been a big part of that failure sitting on boards and positions of influence during this administration
Well if the C4C candidates in WB had indicated a willingness to work with the PPM they might have done just that. That's what happened in EE and NS. C4C is wanting to have their cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately this is the cold hard truth! If the UDP are returned to power it will be disastrous for the country and ironically it will be the fault of those who claim to be putting Country first. The voters in the country have one decision to make. Either they dont mind a UDP government or there is no way in hell that they will accept that! If the latter is their strong preference then the ONLY safe decision is to vote straight for the PPM. Leave emotion and friendship out of the equation. Vote with your brain. Vote the only mathematical certainty that will protect our country!
Voting for the right candidate can be tricky. They all want your vote so they all make the best promises they can think of. Which one should you pick? How should you choose?
Be sure to understand politics and realize that the reliability of the information you receive depends on the source and why it is being used. Some stories may be made up–spun (twisted) orsimply false–and posted on the internet.Hint Hint Ezzard Miller.
Voting for a coalition govt is what got us the UDP govt in 2009. We simply cannot afford for that to happen again in 2013.
Supper………… I wont sleep until the 23, and then nightmares will keep me awake. Jesus UDP again. Only the Courts cansave Cayman now.
God save the Queen. Then on 23 May, depending on what the event play out, at least we will have a British Army on on shores, along with a new Goverment Administration in charge. But we know that the people will be voting smart. One thing that you can count on is some people remember where they come from and why they came from those places. Those same people dont want Cayman to end up like next door. This is a "drink dem out, eat dem out, and vote dem out" thing.Ohh wait, its going to be hard to eat them out. I just dont understand why I cant be invited to a nice Political Rally with food and drinks galore, no alcohol necessary, after all whyat difference it makes? For some people this is the only treat they get in 4 years from the wanna bees. CAYMAN DONT VOTE STRAIGHT OR CROOKED. VOTE SMART. THATS ALL . VOTE SMART CAYMAN. If voting smart means all canidates from a party or not, use what God gave you to VOTE SMART.
My vote will NOT BE STRAIGHT, I Will vote for 3 PPM, 3 Independents.
A split vote is a vote for the UDP to return to power.
When you get 3 PPM and 3 UDP on 23rd May and those 3 UDP give Mac the 10 he needs remember you didn't VOTR STRAIGHT. Don't blame me I Voted PPM Straight.