Dear Editor,
I do not know which party won the March 2 election but when one group is acting as if it didn’t, the odds are it didn’t. When one group is looking for a speedy resolution and the other is engaged in mischief and obstruction that is probably a good indicator too. Pardon the improvisation, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, you probably got duck doo-doo on your truck.
Since the election, one group called for and supported a recount while the other resisted and frustrated the process. For the latter, the way forward looks like a continuation of the same strategy on steroids: More mischief, more obstruction and more delay with a few more wrinkles thrown in for good measure. Their desire it seems, is to slow walk the process to make it as painful as possible for the people who voted in the elections and the observers who got in the way. To what end is the million dollar question.
A career politician recently called for what appears to be a forensic audit of the election. Some at Gecom appear to be of the same mindset. On the surface that sounds fair except that none of these truth seekers called for the original SOPs held by the Chief Election Officer to be included in their comprehensive review. Not even for the disputed SOPs in Region 4 to be submitted for examination by the Commission or audit by a reputable agency. That begs the question: Is it that they don’t want to know what happened in Region 4 or they already know and don’t want the rest of the country to know. They have shown a clear preference for a tedious time consuming process when much simpler common sense solutions are available.
For instance, what is the objection to starting the recount in Region 4 at the point where the process was derailed by the Returning Officer? That seems like the logical place to start since if Mr Granger’s party is still ahead when that small portion is completed they can declare him the winner and go home. Wouldn’t that be game over for the opposition since their only argument is about the votes in those boxes?
I can go on to list other options but the answer will be the same. It will be too simple; it will reveal the truth and it will resolve the issue quickly. That evidently is not the goal for some. In that context the 156-day proposal though laughable, was not altogether surprising.
And so the country waits and the world watches as Gecom stumbles, the Chairman fumbles and the CEO bungles. The inmates are running the asylum.
Yours faithfully,
Milton Jagannath
Toronto, Ontario
Canada