C4C calls for One Man, One Vote

The Coalition for Cayman on
Monday called for the Members of the Legislative Assembly to implement a one
man, one vote election method in the Cayman Islands, saying the majority of
voters in the July referendum on the issue voted in favour of it.

In the 18 July referendum,
5,631 people voted yes to the question: “Do you support an electoral system of single-member
constituencies with each elector being entitled to cast only one vote?”, while
3,001 voted no.

Despite the majority of those who voted in the referendum supporting a
one man, one vote system, the constitution stipulates that a referendum is decided by 50
per cent, plus one voter, of the entire electorate – not just those who voted –
so for the referendum to pass, it would have needed 7,582 votes out of the total electorate at the time of 15,161
registered voters.

In a press release issued Monday morning, the Coalition for
Cayman, an organisation set up last year to support independent candidates in
the May 2013 election but which insists it is not a political party, said: “Caymanian
voters have done their part by approving One Man, One Vote by an overwhelming
65 per cent. We urge the MLAs to honour our democracy, respect the will of our
citizens and put country first by immediately implementing this mandate by
Caymanian voters.

“We call on each and every MLA to publicly state their
position on One Man, One Vote. The question is clear – will you respect the
overwhelming approval of this measure by Caymanian voters? If not, you have an
obligation to our citizens to come clean and explain your decision.”



  1. I though the explanation was the constitution stipulates that a referendum is decided by 50 per cent, plus one voter, of the entire electorate not just those who voted. Seems clear enough to me Curious as to what more they need to explain. It’s easy for people to support a constitution when it benefits their agendas.

    Also weather these folks like it or not they are a political party. That’s just like a group of thugs getting together and calling themselves the east Side boys and then saying we are not a gang…

  2. What about ONE PERSON 2 VOTES.

    Vote#1 would be what we all have now – the democratic right to vote for our district MLA to represent our district; and,

    Vote#2 would be that EVERYBODY would have a right to VOTE for the Premier of the Cayman Islands, an all island vote.

    I feel C4C should include this because if the people can vote in the Premier directly, the Premier would be more accountable to them because the people would have the right to recall the Premier and oust him themselves.

    That is democracy!

  3. I hear so many arguments about this, but want to ask. What is the more important here that each person get to Vote only one time or that everyone get equal amounts of votes whether it be 1, 2, 3 or 6I’ve read about other options that would mean everyone getting two votes but that apparently wasn’t satisfactory to the OMOV people.

    If you only have one vote who would the vote be for the premier or your local MLA and if that’s the case how will the premier be selected. Are these different elections that in a OMOV situation would mean that each person votes once for the MLA and then once for the premier at different times?

  4. I’ve always wondered how not voting constitutes a NO vote. So the person that doesn’t feel like voting is still counted…doesn’t make any sense to me..but neither does a lot of the other political magic / smoke and mirrors.

  5. NJ2Cay – you’re right that the constitution stipulates that – but only for people-initiated referendums. The trouble is that the govt. said this was a govt. initiated referendum on which the constitution is silent, and the only precedent for a govt.-initiated referendum we have was the referendum to approve the constitution itself which required only a majority of those voting.

    Atticus – why add the unnecessary complication of having multiple votes, and why the arbitrary number of 6?

  6. @letcoolerheadsprevai,

    Imagine the strength of 5 persons are required to push a ‘Trap Door’ open to free themselves from an unfortunate situation. Three of the persons decided to use their muscles to free themselves, one person made it quite clear he was not going to join their efforts, and the remaining individual remain mute on his intentions.

    The majority agreed to push the Trap Door open in contrast to a minority that disagreed, and a minority that made no intentions known (hence remaining neutral)

    The five persons remained trapped!

  7. Got you speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t the intention of the whole OMOV movement to force a People Initiated Referendum which would have meant it would take 50 percent plus 1 to win so the result would have been the same.

    Sounds like Bush just gave the people what they asked for.

  8. NJ2Cay – you’re right, but I think Bush was tripped up by the technical difference between a people-initiated referendum and a govt.-initiated referendum. I think Bush has admitted that he hijacked the process in order to thwart it (e.g. holding it in the middle of summer when many are off Island), so no I don’t his intention was to give the people what they wanted.

  9. NJ2Cay – why have the unnecessary complication of multiple votes? Where else do you find such a system?I think it has only been put forward to confuse the issue. ‘One man, one vote’ is a basic principle of democracy. We should focus on which ONE person will make the best representative, that way no illegal ‘reminder’ cards will be necessary, and there will be no unconsidered votes because we feel the need to use up all the extra votes.

    We don’t have a U.S. style presidential system so there is no need for any separate vote for the premier.

Comments are closed.