For whom the pundits poll

AMIDST THE CACOPHONY of the latest “innovation” in political campaigning in our country, the maddening sound of “horns”, the campaigning for the November 27, 2025 general elections continues its way to the zenith of the next two weeks. True to recent trends in the Caribbean, we are witnessing the not unexpected intervention of pre-election polling.

Last week there came the circulation of the results of a poll predicting a neck-and-neck finish, (we shouldn’t need a poll for that), and a narrow victory for the governing Unity Labour Party (ULP). Some, especially on social media, have scoffed at its accuracy claiming that it is being circulated mainly by ULP-linked sources.

It is reasonable to expect many such polls over the next fortnight, whether from politically biased sources or from the expected influx of regional and international reporters, observers and election pundits. In response, the contending parties and their supporters will respond according to their perceptions of how those predictions serve their interests and who are the authors.

It is difficult to ascertain how, and to what extent, in the immediate run-up to elections, the published results of such polls influence actual voting on election day. But in today’s world, there can hardly be any national elections held without such scrutiny both from the international media as well as the growing army of pollsters, pundits and academic and intellectual sources. The pity is that they come at a time when the published results are not used by the contending parties to analyse accurately their standing, but more as tools for mass influence.

What is an even greater pity is that election after election, poll after poll, there is little focus on the factors which should assist our people in making the decisions which influence both the outcome of elections as well as their own future.

There will always be the “vote with the crowd” factor, but we should always be aiming to minimize it and enable our citizens to make independent decisions based on their own interests. The procedures and regulations for the holding of elections themselves may need revising and updating as we go along. Take the situation with voting day procedures for instance.Voting hours are by law from 7:00 a.m, to 5:00 p.m. These were instituted when life in SVG was very different from what it is today.

For instance, places of employment vis a vis the abode of voters, and the public transportation system were vastly different from today. By and large in the 20th century voters walked, in the rural areas sometimes not inconsiderable distances, to polling stations. It must have been a challenge which called for great personal commitment to meet voting requirements and fulfil work and domestic obligations. Shouldn’t we revisit such arrangements?

Again, the heightened expectations are such that the official announcements of the tallying of votes are long outdated in this era of electronic communication. Even as recent as our last elections in 2020, we had the voting night embarrassment of the official announcements of votes being long behind what has been communicated to the parties and public by official observers. This can lead to dangerous situations.We must ask ourselves why should it take hours to count a few hundred ballot papers from a polling station?

We are fortunate to have had largely peaceful processes, though we came close to post-election violence on some occasions.

In the steady march to the November 27, general elections the predictions of the pollster on the likely outcome is sure to be generating much attention internally by the political parties.

We hope for smooth and peaceful elections, but once more we stress the need for procedures to be in line with today’s reality so that justice is not only done but is “perceived to be done”.