Thursday (12) evening at The Harquail Theatre was the venue for “Generation Now”, a panel debate on the One Man, One Vote (OMOV) and if it had been a contest, it would have seen an overwhelming win for the OMOV supporters because it was almost a ”No Contest.” One of the supporters for the multi-member present system – wasn’t.

The debate raged and could have gone on for many hours but the two panel opponents of the OMOV system, Education Minister, Rolston Anglin and his UDP back-bench colleague, Ellio Solomon, couldn’t agree on the system they were supporting. Granted they were against the OMOV but whilst Anglin said the present multi-member system was the most suitable voting system he did admit more discussion was needed.

Why is it politicians, when backed into a corner and don’t really believe in what they are supposedly campaigning for, all say, “more discussion is needed”?

Anglin said, there “needs to be a much wider debate and assessment of the possible systems which could suit the Cayman

Islands. We need the right model for our small economy.”

“There has been no debate about how we want to create a voting system,” he added. “We need a continuing dialogue about the appropriate system for Cayman.”

He criticised the OMOV campaigners for not coming to government and suggesting a debate on all the issues.

Doe he really believe that would have come about? Shouldn’t the government have engineered such a debate themselves?

Solomon argued, as he did on television, for a national poll. He said, “In a small country such as Cayman, everyone could

have 18 votes and elect the entire government. ”He said the idea of a national poll was “resonating” with the voters!

He couldn’t have read iNews Cayman’s editorial on this ridiculous and laughable proposal. What was startling – Anglin supported him! He said, “The goal of any election system should be for candidates to attract the broadest possible support from the electorate in order to be returned rather than less.” He claimed this would be the case with single member constituencies.

Panel member David Kirkaldy suggested the national vote idea was merely muddying the waters. Really?

Panelists on the other side of the debate, and 100% united for the OMOV, were local attorney Wayne Panton, North Side MLA Ezzard Miller, and the aforementioned Chamber of Commerce President David Kirkaldy.

Panton optimistically said the Caymanian people would see on Referendum Day the need to vote for OMOV. They would recognise all Caymanians are equal and everyone should have one vote and equal representation. Hmm. That didn’t “resonate” with me unfortunately. How does it make OMOV a better system? I have always believed all Caymanians are equal but when I see how Fred is better off than me, why does it make me feel unequal to him? Will the OMOV make it different?

Ezzard Miller, the man who pioneered the campaign for OMOV, said there was a “historic” failure of governments since the 1990s to ignore the growing support across the country for OMOV. He countered Anglin’s criticsm of there not being enough debate on the subject. He said he had made several attempts to introduce a debate to the Legislative Assembly about the voting system since he was elected in 2009. All attempts had failed.

David Kirkaldy, speaking for the Chamber of Commerce said the ‘OMOV would force members of the LA to state their positions on all issues and lead to greater accountability, as opposed to simply following a party line.

Hmm. I can’t see that point. I don’t see how a OMOV is going to change that. If you campaign under the umbrella of a party whether it is OMOV or multi-member system you are still under the obligation of voting for that party. It makes no difference, or have I missed something here?

Yes, the OMOV  “Yes” debaters won but, in my opinion, only by default. The “No” debaters didn’t turn up as none were really for the present system, even though “it has served us well” over the years. So has my car. They are against the OMOV without really putting up a good enough argument why they are not and what a better system is. They certainly didn’t endorse the present one.

When the question came up of the UDP government using public funds to campaign against their own referendum we heard the extremely infuriating statement that it was NECESSARY to EDUCATE the public on the issues regarding the referendum! So I am being taught to say “No” because that’s what you want? That is NOT education!! And the use of our money for a lesson that smacks of George Orwell’s 1984!! How dare you!

If I was undecided, nothing I heard there would have made the slightest difference, except if I stay at home I will be voting “No”. And that irritates me, Mr. Bush. It irritates me. That alone would make me come out and vote, “Yes.”

Maybe you will do the same? Even if you have been “educated”!