Guest Writer
Guest Writer's Latest Posts
Now is not the time for One Man, One Vote
Over the past several months there has been much discussion and debate in relation to the One Man, One Vote (OMOV). While writing this article, I had to first understand and figure out why so much emphasis was being focused on the matter now. I concluded that over the past several years, many people of the Cayman Islands have become disgruntled and unsatisfied with politics and the representation of our elected officials, and in some cases I have to agree with them.
Some of our elected officials have not lived up to the expectations that we would have expected. So it is understandable that persons would want a system or some form of change to get better representation.
However, simply looking at OMOV from the view that it promises more accountability, equality and better representation in my opinion is misleading. Personally I do not like guns or use drugs, but I’d like to use two simple illustrations on them. Guns do not kill people, its people that use guns that kill. Drugs don’t destroy people’s lives, its people that manufacture and sell drugs that ruin people lives. Similarly, a system (OMOV) alone cannot promise better accountability or representation; it is the responsibility of an individual, a representative to provide great leadership. Now I am not saying that OMOV could not help facilitate this in some way, what I am saying is, a system alone is not the answer to our desire for better government representation. It is more so an individual mindset and work ethic that will accomplish this.
After doing my own research, I found that some form of Multi-Member Constituent/Districts (MMD) still exist in many democratic countries today. Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man (according to Wikipedia), which all have a slightly larger population than Cayman still use both MMD and Single-Member Constituent (SMC). To me this signifies the system to use is unique to each country/district and we should not merely suggest that SMC works for us just because other countries use it.
After deep thought on the matter, some of the areas that concern me the most about OMOV are as follows:
1. Under SMC I feel we will get less representation. For example, if one constituent has 1,000 voters, let’s say Candidate #1 receives 300 votes, Candidate #2 receives 250 votes, Candidate #3 receives 225 votes and Candidate #4 receives 225 also. Candidate #1 would win by obtaining more votes individually. However, the 700 voters (70%) that did not vote for Candidate #1 are somewhat un-represented. The other concern is 100-200 of those voters that Candidate #1 got could potentially be family and close friends alone. Remember, a representative is supposed to represent the majority, however how can you truly represent the majority if only a handfull of people elected you? MMD promotes a more diverse roster of candidates, you will more than likely have someone within the bunch that can relate to your needs and concerns and therefore represent you. According to this link below, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that women are less likely to be elected under a SMC regime. Why would we want a system that puts women at a disadvantage of being elected? Especially knowing that a group of women in Cayman stood for their right in the 40’s and 50’s and demanded that they be allowed to vote and stand for election in Cayman.
2. Under a SMC regime, boundaries would constantly have to change due to the change in population. We would find Bodden Town for example, the fastest growing district, constantly changing boundary lines each election or census, resulting in voters being moved from one constituent to another and causing confusion over polling locations. I have read several articles within the US where severalstates are having heated debates, even taking matters to court trying to decide how to divide boundary lines. In Hawaii last year, it was proposed to re-implement MMD and although it did not pass, it raised a concern that it has become problematic to constantly shuffle boundary lines. It should also be highlighted that SMC has proved in other parts of the world and potentially in Cayman, to become a political problem, as there will be politicians wanting to influence how the boundaries are divided.
3. According to the Electoral Boundary Commission Report 2010 (EBCR), it stated that “several” attendees to the meetings were concerned about the cost of the 3 additional MLA’s that would be implemented in 2013. On June 15th 2012, The Caymanian Compass also published a survey where persons were not in agreement of the 3 extra seats because of the additional cost. The EBCR and the Caymanian Compass survey showed that our people are concerned about the cost of public spending, which they should be. However, sadly to say the cost of the 3 extra members should not be the only concern. We need to also consider the cost for implementing SMC; will a board or committee overseeing the Electoral boundaries be compensated? What about the cost in having the boundaries redrawn ever so often? Last year, Hawaii spent US$664,000 in redrawing district boundaries. Just recently in Minnesota and Kansas, it cost the respective state governments $628,000 and $614,000 to settle a boundary redrawing dispute in the courts.
This could potentially, be an ongoing cost for the Cayman Islands as the population grows, a cost we simply cannot afford. Despite what others think, people WILL want certain amenities, such as parks, within their own constituents. I have seen signs of this first hand and residents WILL pressure their politicians to cater to them, which in turn will increase the cost of government.
As we can see, our government is currently indebted over $600m and finding it hard to balance our budget each year. Where there is an increase in services there are only two options you have, increase fees (taxes) or make cuts. The additional cost from SMC, whether it is from implementation, court disputes or constituent amenities will only make the cost of living more difficult and bring more pressure and hardship on the many families that are already struggling today. The other option would be to cut jobs or cut services, which would only be more detrimental. I know some persons will feel there is no cost for true democracy. But to say we currently do not have real democracy is again misleading; Thank God we have the freedom to vote and we have seen governments changed in the last 3 elections. To me that shows the people have spoken and will continue to speak under MMD.
I am at the realizationthat time changes and so do things, however, I can confidently say that I do not support OMOV coming into effect for 2013, as I feel it will be a financial strain on the country and will potentially bring a number of issues with it. I would be more open to supporting it when our public finances are in better shape and we are more educated on it. We have to take our time to figure out exactly how it is going to work, be implemented and affect us. I have spoken to quite a bit of young people about OMOV and the sense I get is many are not educated about it. We need to do a proper informative campaign on OMOV and not shove it down people’s throats.
I have said several times before, the party system is not the problem, nor is MMD the problem with our politics. The solution is we must elect better persons, individuals with strong characters, persons who really understand what it is to serve, representatives who understand what accountability is and have high moral and ethical standards, persons who are great rolemodels both publicly and privately, giving our citizens role models to look up to and aspire to follow. Cayman does have such candidates, but many of those persons shy away from politics.
In closing, I truly feel there are genuine supporters of OMOV lobbying for its implementation, however what concerns me and should also concern the people of the Cayman Islands the most, are those out there that are trying to push it through purely for political gain and their dislike for the current government and its leader, not taking into account the effects OMOV will have on the Cayman Islands financially and socially for years to come.
We have several issues in Cayman that we need to address, financially, socially, jobs and educating our people to name a few, but now is Not the Time for One Man, One Vote.
I leave you with a partial statement from a letter that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of Georgia wrote to Members of Congress in 1995:
“My bill would modify a 1967 statute that requires single-member districts in order to allow states to adopt multi-member districts for congressional elections using one of three modified at-large voting systems: limited voting, cumulative voting and preference voting. Modified at-large systems would promote fair representation for voters of all races, increase representation of women and increase voter participation and at the same time, avoid requiring states to face the high costs of drawing single-member district lines and handling legal challenges to plans.”
Richard Christian is President of the Young United Democratic Party
Why a dog is a child’s best friend
(Daily Mail): They have long been thought of as man’s best friend. But it seems dogs could also have benefits for babies. Having a pet dog helps keep under-ones free from breathing problems and infections, studies suggest. Researchers found babies who lived with a dog spent fewer weeks with ear infections, coughs or running noses. They were also less likely to need antibiotics. Dogs are thought to prime children's immune system to attack bacteria and viruses. Living with cats could also be good for babies’ health, but to a lesser extent. The finding knits with the hygiene hypothesis – that a certain amount of exposure to dirt and grime helps the immune system mature.
Anti OMOV campaign – who’s footing the bill?
I was very interested to see an ad against the one man, one vote (OMOV) campaign on TV this weekend – even more interested to see the tag line at the end which read: “Paid for by the Office of the Premier”. As this didn’t say “Paid for personally by the Premier”, I would imagine it’s safe to assume that this ad campaign is funded by government, which of course is funded indirectly by us.
I have a problem with this. Specifically, using “our” money (of which we’re all painfully aware there is a shortage) to fund a campaign under the guise of “informing the public” and then taking the easy way out … Why knock on doors or have volunteers set up stalls in the public domain when you can use the public purse to pop an ad on TV, therefore solving the dilemma of reaching maximum people with minimum effort!
Personally it shows the lack of respect for the public that has been evident throughout the current premier’s term of office. That said, it really does go a long way to show thedifference between those campaigning for OMOV and the dedication and commitment those people have had and continue to demonstrate.
Yes, they have an agenda (to educate and therefore encourage the majority to vote for OMOV). But – if you have not had the chance to meet any of those campaigning for our vote for OMOV, I encourage you to get in touch – they are running an honest and educated campaign funded solely by themselves and their supporters, and despite not having the government coffers to dip in to, have managed to raise considerable funds in order to get the maximum information out to the maximum number of people with considerable effort on their part and that of the numerous volunteers they have enlisted over the course of the past few months.
OMOV may not be the be all and end all but the campaign has been transparent, and although supported by many political figures, is also supported by many with no political aspirations but who have finally had enough and realize that writing to the papers and talking endlessly about what terrible times we’re in is not enough.
I applaud the energy of those who have given up their weekends to educate and those who’ve been raising funds behind the scenes and all those who quite simply just want to find a way to a better tomorrow.
I shall see you at the polls on 18th July!
One Man One Vote
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 sayin 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.
Candidate equality
The push for the proposed one man, one vote (OMOV) electoral system is probably more about candidate equality than voter equality. Nothing wrong with this, but of course this is never mentioned as a motive. In my previous post on “Voter Equality” on CNS readers posted the right question but the answer was not really discussed or debated.
I had alluded to the fact that certain people were doing most of the pushing for OMOV and had concluded thatit must somehow be to their advantage to have OMOV. One poster asked, what does the MLA forEast End and North Side have to gain by OMOV? The question was posted almost rhetorically, as if they thought these MLA’s had nothing to gain. I believe the opposite is true.
There can be no doubt by anyone who has been following politics in Cayman that both the MLA for East End and North Side would have no problem being the political leader of these Islands. Absolutely nothing wrong with that either.
The present system of voting probably makes it more difficult for independent candidates to be elected. Just look at the numbers of independent candidates elected if you have any doubts. The present multi-member system also guarantees that candidates will be elected with a wide margin in the number of votes that each receives. The MLAs for East End and North Side get elected with a relative handful of votes. Less than 200 votes can give a candidate a seat as an MLA in these small districts. The leading candidates for George Town and West Bay, on the other hand, can easily get 3000 votes by comparison. Big difference!
What this means is that it is more difficult for the MLA for East End and North Side to rise to the top of the heap and take the reins of political power. This is clearly evident as you look at history. We have to go back to Jim Bodden to find a political leader that has not come from West Bay or George Town. Charisma and personality gave him the edge. Since formal political parties have emerged, the top vote-getters in George Town and West Bay have always been our leader/premier.
Another example is the most recent competition for the internal leadership of the PPM. The MLA for East End tried vying for this top position, however I suspect it was very difficult to get the votes needed against his George Town colleague. No real surprise there, considering the mathematics.
If we go to OMOV this should help level the playing field for candidates and will make it easier for candidates from the existing smaller districts to emerge as premier. Independent candidates may also have a better chance to get elected as an MLA and subsequently as premier in a coalition situation. No reason to be ashamed of this.
The top position of premier is given to the person who is leader of the party/group commanding the majority of elected MLAs. One thing is for certain, under the OMOV system, the competitiveness for leadership will be more intense, and the likelihood for changes at the top amongst colleagues from the same party, even during a political term, will be increased. Remember the premier can remove his/her ministers at any time.
A vote for OMOV should bring greater numerical equality for both voters and candidates. Whether it will improve the caliber of our representatives, overall good governance, create greater unity, national perspective and our quality of life remains to be seen, but I have my doubts.
I still don’t know how to vote on referendum day. HELP!
Time to stop name calling
As many people know, both my wife and I keep up with the news from Cayman. It was with considerable dismay that I read the story where Mr Bush called the current Auditor General a “hitman”. People with a long memory will remember him accusing me of the same thing.
As far as I can tell, Mr Swarbrick is doing a good job in a difficult position. He understands his job and is doing it to the best of his ability. Without a strong Auditor General, I fear that there would be no real accountability within government. For the premier to attack this Office and the current Auditor General is just politicking at its most base level. I hope that all Caymanians will join me in supporting the Auditor General’s Office and the current AG as he continues to fight for value for money and accountability.
I remember well when I was similarly attacked by Mr Bush with similar comments. At the time, I felt I couldn’t respond and I am sure that the present AG feels the same way. But as a private citizen now, I can say some things that need to be said.
Mr Swarbrick and his Office are not hitmen. Yes, they say things that are difficult on the government of the day but it is not personal. I am sure that people will remember that the Office was often critical of government when the present opposition was in power. In fact, they didn’t always like our reports then either. The simple truth is the Office of the Auditor General is not political but it does report when it finds areas of poor value for money or poor accountability.
The solution for politicians is quite simple. Stop allowing money to be spent without due regard for value for money (such as the Cohen financing and Turtle Farm) and stop allowing money to be wasted (Gasboy et al). I am sure that the AG will be happy to report good behaviour as well as bad. However, if you continue with such behaviour, I hope for the sake of the Cayman Islands that the AG will continue to report it.
One final point. The Premier stated that he plans to sue the AG. I can’t imagine what basis he would feels a lawsuit is warranted. As far as this poor accountant can tell, doing his job well is NOT the basis for a lawsuit! Rest assured that if Mr Bush wants to continue down such a treacherous path, I would be happy to come downto testify (at my own expense) for the current AG and his Office.
As always, I wish the people of the Cayman Islands prosperity and well wishes.
Dan Duguay was the auditor general of the Cayman Islands from February 2004 to May 2010.
Gang mediation team land in Bermuda
(Royal Gazette): A team from Boston has arrived in Bermuda to start a gang mediation programme. Minister of National Security Wayne Perinchief (left) today announced a team from StreetSafe Boston had arrived in Bermuda to facilitate the programme. The programme is being facilitated independent of the Bermuda Police Service so that mediators remain neutral when engaging those involved in gang activity. Perinchief said: “This weekend's tragic events speak to the clear need for this initiative. Solutions to these problems do not achieve results overnight and so we renew our efforts on all fronts; committed to reversing the destructive lifestyle that is the gang culture."
Proctor leaps into Olympic team with record jump
(The Daily Mail): The many athletes probably cursing the British weather for their inadequacies at the Aviva Olympic Trials should have thought like the long jumper from the Caribbean island hotspot of Anguilla. Shara Proctor looked out of her Birmingham hotel room on Sunday morning at grey skies and drizzle and "I said to myself, 'London might be like this so I have to be prepared and do my best no matter what’.” Which is precisely what she did, smashing Bev Kinch’s British record of 6.93metres that had survived a month short of 29 years with a jump of 6.95m. That lands her among the contenders for a medal in London next month.
10 questions for the premier
1. In March you took a plan to Parliament that increased the present year’s expenditures to $550 million. What was your plan to magically reduce it next year to the $498 million you claim you directed in January?
2. When you sent the circular you claimed, can you tell the country what policy directives you gave to reduce cost – or did you just expect the cost would have reduced by itself to a number you pulled from a hat?
3. The budget you took to Parliament showed that this financial year was going to end with the bank account in overdraft. Were you hanging the entire fiscal viability of the country on the gamble that the UK would say yes to borrowing? If not, how were you going to finance the period between July and December when government typically spends more than it earns?
4. If your expenses were $550 million for this financial year, a year when you hired almost 5 dozen new police officers halfway through, when you gave the civil servants a raise half way through, how were you going to absorb the full year effect of just those two decisions while simultaneously reducing costs?
5. When the Civil Servants came back with the spending plan, was it to hire private chefs to cook for them, hire personal chauffeurs, build new walls around their houses or was it a reflection of the cost to implement the policies of your government? You can’t have your cake and eat it too sir, if you want to bring in reception year in public schools, it is going to cost money, if you want to give away solar panels, it is going to cost, if you want to give out more for nation building it is going to cost. Civil servants didn’t give you a plan to buy luxuries for themselves; they just gave you a reality check on the cost of implementing your government’s policy wish list.
6. Who in government makes the decision to build roads, build remand facilities, build schools, build Hurricane Hiltons, etc? Is it the lowly civil servants or is it your own ministers? Therefore, when you claimthey overshot the target for capital, who overshot it, civil servants or your colleagues?
7. When did you first know the cost of your policy wish list was more than you could afford?
8. What actions have you taken since that time to address the fiscal gap?
9. If, as you claim, you and your ministers have spent several weeks and long nights cutting the $130 million overshot but still haven’t been able to cut all of it, is that an admission that the $498 million was never a realistic number? Are you admitting that, as minister of finance you had no clue as to what the true cost of operating government was and so gave a totally unrealistic target with no policy directive on how to achieve it? If not, you should have been able to reach the $498 million target you set now that you and your ministers are personally cutting the budget, shouldn’t you?
10. How do you feel, Sir, how do you feel to have had this situation completely blow up in your face? How does it feel to go down in history as not only the first Minister of Finance but possible the worst Minister of Finance? How does it feel to know that if you had given your country the priority it deserves instead of your jaunts to foreign countries at various social events on our dime, you may have had a chance to avoid this embarrassing situation to our birth country? Finally, Sir,how can you even stand to show your face in public after this?
Voter equality
Right now all voters are able to cast votes for all of their district representatives. This situation pertains in every district and is therefore consistent throughout these Cayman Islands. This is a form of equality. One man, one vote is also a form of voter equality. Single member voting areas as proposed will, however, mean that the only true district representatives will be from East End and North Side.
Are all the people of George Town, West Bay, Bodden Town, Cayman Brac and Little Cayman somehow being unfair or selfish for wanting to have a say in all their district representatives? This is the case that now pertains in every district. We are all now equal in this respect.
Is it fair for the MLAs for East End and North Side to be the only politicians to be able to say they alone represent their entire district? This will be the case if we go to single member constituencies and one man, one vote. The politicians for North Side and East End will still be able to get up and say, “I represent the district of North Side/East End.” Will the voice of the man or woman who gets elected for the neighborhoods of Scranton or Eastern Avenue carry the same weight?
If North Side and East End were large enough to have multiple representatives, how would their current MLA’s feel about representing say only half of their district? I am sure that the people in Cayman Kai and Rum Point may have different concerns than the people of say Frank Sound and Old Man Bay. If the numbers were large enough to justify two representatives in North Side, for example, what would that do to the social fabric of the district? Lets not be shortsighted, this day will come too for North Side and East End.
As the population grows we will constantly have to further divide this small country and elect politicians in accordance with what small neighborhood you happen to live in. My overriding concern is that this will cause increasing division. It will also create greater insular thinking and less national perspective.
I have lived in this community for many years and I have friends and family in all the districts. I have never heard any of them claim they are second class because they live in East End and North Side and only have one representative. Quite the contrary, some of the proudest people in these islands are from these districts. I would love to live there myself and my decision would not in any way be affected by having one politician in charge.
After much thought, I have had to ask myself why all the fuss now about this situation that has been in effect from the time we started electing our politicians. Bearing in mind who has been doing the pushing and the most vocal (past, current and would-be politicians), I have come to the conclusion that they must think it is in their own interest. Surely they would not be campaigning so heavily because they feel so sorry for us and just want to give everybody the same great “benefits” that their constituents enjoy. If that is their primary motive then they should all be declared saints. But have we ever heard of a politician being canonized?
No there must be another reason. And I think I have the answer. But it may be too sensational to disclose here at this time.