Published On:Wednesday, February 24, 2010

By LARRY SMITH

Tough Call is no shell-shocked poll worker, but we thought that a look at the overall numbers in last week's bye-election would be instructive.

Taking the official numbers at face value (there were complaints that many registered illegally), there were 4,942 registered voters in the Elizabeth constituency -- an increase of 691 since 2007 -- but more than a third of them stayed home on February 16.

And despite all the talk of a surge in support for new parties, the BDM, NDP and WP won only 209 votes collectively -- about 4 per cent of the total cast. So my first observation is that support for splinter candidates remained low, and is consistent with past experience.

In the 2007 general election, a single splinter candidate (Bernard Rolle) won 72 votes in Elizabeth, or less than 2 per cent of the 3907 cast. And overall in 2007, splinter candidates (the BDM and several independents) received only about 3 per cent of the vote.

In fact, the electoral high point for candidates not drawn from the two major parties was 2002, when they collectively won 7.5 per cent of the vote. But that was due largely to the fact that the PLP refrained from fielding candidates against several independents (all former FNMs).

Elizabeth is clearly a marginal seat for both major parties. Support in the recent bye-election was evenly divided at 1501 for the FNM and 1499 for the PLP. This compares to the 2007 general election, when the PLP won 1940 votes to the FNM's 1895 (in percentage terms roughly 50 to 47).

After all the campaigning by the well-oiled party machines, a low 65 per cent turnout produced a desultory draw. This inconclusive result contrasted sharply with the 92 per cent turnout in the last general election, which was on par with most Bahamian elections, and a clearcut victory for the PLP.

So my second observation is that despite a huge effort (consuming the scarce time, money and resources of ministers and parliamentarians), the two major parties were barely able to energise their bases -- those folks who will vote PLP or FNM no matter what. So the big question is, who stayed home and why? And did they want to reprimand Perry Christie or warn Hubert Ingraham?

Effective

Well, surely the most effective way to do either would have been to vote for the splinter candidates. So was the low turnout simply idleness on the part of voters who knew that this election would not make the slightest difference in the scheme of things? Or were many of them illegally registered?

This brings me to my third observation, which is that both major parties agree that many voters registered illegally. So the big question is -- how did that happen and will the problem be fixed for the next time?

During the chaotic voter registration of 2007 presided over by Perry Christie, only eight days intervened between changing the constituency boundaries and dissolving parliament. This meant that voters' cards were issued in a rush, and numerous mistakes were likely to have been made. But what was the problem this time? We deserve a full explanation of any flaws in the voter registration process so that they can be fixed prior to the next election.

My fourth observation has to do with race. In 2007 the "no-turning-back" PLP sharply criticised the FNM for running Brent Symonette, a wealthy white scion of the old Bay Street power clique who, they said, held the party in his financial clutches. Yet this time around they happily ran Ryan Pinder, the son of a wealthy white lawyer from Spanish Wells whose professional ties lie solely in the United States, and who was nominated due to the willingness of the Pinder family to bankroll his election.

Finally, a review of previous elections may be helpful in the present analysis. There were 150,799 registered voters in the May 2, 2007 general election. The FNM contested all 41 constituencies, the PLP contested 39, the BDM contested 16, and there were 15 Independent candidates, two of whom were incumbents.

Recounts

Although then Prime Minister Christie conceded defeat at about 10.30 pm on election day, there were protracted recounts the day after as strong rumours circulated that the FNMs close victory would be overturned.

But official results eventually gave the FNM 23 seats with about 50 per cent of the vote, while the PLP won 18 seats with almost 47 per cent.

Christie decided to take several cases to the Election Court but lost all of them, ringing up a million dollars in legal costs. And now the PLP wants to take the Elizabeth results to court. Since the outcome will not alter the balance of power in parliament, this can only be seen as (a) false bravado on the part of an embarrassed leadership, or (b) anger arising from a feeling of entitlement to rule.

Speaking of costs it would be interesting to see how the major parties have handled court fees over the years, and to what extent they have met other financial obligations such as travel and media expenses. In fact, it would be useful to know just how much it costs to run a political campaign (both bye-elections and general elections), where the money comes from and how it is accounted for and disbursed by the major parties.

In fact, the issue of campaign financing should be a big part of the debate on broadcasting codes sponsored by the new Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority. Should political parties receive public funds for their campaigns? Should private contributions be fully disclosed? Should campaign expenses be limited by law? These are all critical questions that demand answers.

And just for the record, in the 2002 general election the PLP won almost 52 per cent of the vote compared to the FNMs 41 per cent.

In 1997 the FNM won almost 58 per cent of the vote.

And in 1992 they won 55 per cent.

Before that the PLP comfortably won elections in 1987, 1982, 1977, 1972, 1968 and 1967. The first Bahamian election contested by a political party (the PLP) was in 1956.

What do you think?

Send comments to

larry@tribunemedia.net

Or visit:

www.bahamapundit.com