Troubling Electoral Reform Survey
FrontPage Letter to Editor
There's a troubling aspect of the online public consultation on electoral reform that must be highlighted, if for no other reason but its potential implication. The electoral commission says in its introduction to the survey that it's "intended to measure the level of satisfaction and opinions of all stakeholders in the electoral process on matters related to electoral process and reform in Dominica." Therefore, as a Dominican interested in the development of my country I decided to complete the survey (the entire process took about ten minutes). After I submitted my response, imagine my surprise when a message came up on the screen inviting me to take the survey again! After my initial shock, I decided to try taking it again to satisfy myself that this would not be permitted. Lo and behold, I was able to – and this time I entered a different age group and a different constituency, but similar responses. Upon completing the survey, a second time, I was prompted to do it again. The truth is, I'm tempted to complete it a hundred times, not because I wish to be unfair, but deep down inside, there's something in me that wants to make a mockery of a process that is itself a mockery and a farce.
I'm not sure if the commission is aware of this glitch. If it is, I won't assign a motive. If it's not, then it's totally inept. Either way, this does not instill confidence in the process and it damages the credibility of any recommendations made by the eminent jurist, Sir Dennis Byron. After all, what prevents one party from assigning an army of paid minions to push thousands of a particular view so, in the end, the sole commissioner will recommend the legalization of treating or the importation of votes? What can stop the Labour Party from manipulating the process such that it ensures any recommendations made by Sir Dennis will ensure it remains in power forever? How can this be a true reflection of the will of the people? How can people trust a process that is so wide open to corruption? It's frightening that a process set up to look at electoral reform could end up legitimizing grossly unfair elections for years to come. Anonymous