« Branville McCartney and the Question of Experience | Main | Cayman's Freedom of Information Law Sets Bahamas Precedent »

November 22, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c3cad53ef0154373ec6f2970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gerrymandering Districts and Questionable Citizenships:

Comments

Rick Lowe

Spot on Larry.
Mr. Dupuch had every opportunity to be a supreme Statesman. With his experience as an MP and a Cabinet Minister he could offer insights into how to improve the system. But unfortunately his whole focus seems to get back at Mr. Ingraham for their personal differences.
This does not help the country for our children and future generations.
So sad.

Roderick Small

He is offering comments on how to improve the system...get rid of Ingraham. OK that's a joke but perhaps Dupuch's personal differences with Ingraham are rooted in his knowledge of the character of the man. It's too easy to dismiss it as personal when it could be much more than that. He may know, what we know not!

larry smith

That's all well and good - he may have deep political as well as personal grievances. But that does not mean that as an experienced opposition fighter, former cabinet minister and independent MP, now retired, he cannot offer a more constructive critique. All he is doing is parroting standard PLP propaganda lines in the most vicious way possible. We don't need that kind of commentary - we get enough vicious propaganda as it is.

Roderick Small

Come now. We are intelligent beings and we can put 2 and 2 together. 1. Keep in mind McCartney's cabinet story of Ingraham's reluctance to act decisively on the immigration problem, combined with this government's remarkable efficiency in granting citizenship. 2. It should be noted that the unsupported claims were that 4,000 new citizens would be created by the next election and the actual number to November 2011 was 3,208. By the time the election is called the number of new citizens could be remarkably close to 4,000.
These things may be coincidences but they should be considered.

Also, we should investigate why it is that the new boundaries diminish the representation of New Providence. Ingraham admitted that 77% of the voting population resides in NP but only 60% of the seats will be in NP. (23/38) So New Providence, with probably the most grievances re: the road works etc., is now underrepresented and the family islands are overrepresented.
If Ingram wanted to reduce the number of seats shouldn't we ask why that wasn't done proportionately? In a proportionate reduction NP would have had at least 28 of the 38 seats, then there would be less cause for concern.

I am not a politician but all of this looks like dirty politics to me and it is no answer to say that the PLP did it (does it) We need better!


larry smith

Using that logic we should not give any citizenships - no matter what the circumstances or what the law says - and no boundary changes should be made either.

The out islands are sparsely populated but require representation, and the geographic distance within constituencies is a major factor in that representation.

Like I said - propaganda points.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

Welcome

  • Bahama Pundit is a group weblog that publishes the work of top Bahamian commentators. We welcome your feedback. You may link to this site but no material may be reproduced without permission.

Email this blog

Global Village

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

Text Ads

Site Meter

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2005

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner