The Editor, Sir:

I served as a presiding officer in three Local Government elections and as a supervisor in the last general election. My involvement started with volunteering to serve as a CAFFE observer. I indicated that I would serve in other capacities of the election, because I felt that it would be more meaningful if I actually take part to ensure that what is done is correct, at a time when there was so much concern about the irregularities affecting the will of the people in the elections. I would have agreed to work anywhere required, were it not for the fact that I would have to be sequestered overnight in a hotel.

For these many years I kept putting off my concerns to bring to public attention some aspects of the election process which I felt needed to be addressed, if we truly mean to protect 'the right to secrecy' of ALL voters, and if we really want to reduce the possibility of voter intimidation, to live up to the slogan 'Free from Fear'.

1. A year ago a Gleaner freelance writer wrote about 'How to Vote Electronically'.

But the Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ) needs to make it its duty to educate the public extensively and publish the established procedures for voting, so that everyone would know what thecorrect things to do ahead of time are. The procedure would then be more effective, transparent and time-saving.

2. In most elections all over the world, we hear the term 'To cast your vote'.

The voter marks his ballot and deposits it into the box provided. In our elections, it is the responsibility of the presiding officer to place the ballot into the box, after ensuring that it is the same ballot he gave to the voter, and that the voter has dipped his finger in the ink.

There had been comments about events in past elections when high-profile persons were allowed to put their ballots into the box for the fun of it. It was considered a mockery of the electoral process, and an insult to the integrity of presiding officer, election workers, and all those witnessing.

And when such photos were published in the newspaper without any correction by the EOJ, people can be misled. We really need to examine the meaning of the things we do.

3. A blind elector

In the case of a blind elector who comes with a friend to assist in marking the ballot, an oath is administered to the friend to maintain secrecy of the poll, as well as not to assist any other blind person in that capacity. Such person is not required to give name nor put anything in writing, and there is no record of who this person is who is not supposed to vote again for another blind elector in that election. The procedure needs to be re-examined.

4. An elector with physical disabilities, other than blindness, who is unable to mark the ballot, is required to ANNOUNCE his VOTE TO BE HEARD BY ALL PERSONS PRESENT. These include presiding officer, poll clerk, scrutineers of the two or more parties, and all independent observers present. The ballot is then marked by the presiding officer and witnessed by all present.

This requirement violates the voter's right to 'secrecy'. There must be many disabled voters who, because they have problems marking their ballots, do not bother to register to vote because they do not want their votes to be made public and expose themselves to harm.

It is ironic that we have just passed a law to punish severely those who expose their votes, but at the same time, we force others to tell us which party they are voting for. On this point number four, I am relieved that the rules have changed since I started this letter many months ago.

Although the chances of these special voters turning up are slim, since most of them might not have registered, will the EOJ make provision to implement the change for the upcoming election, even though the training sessions for election workers already ended months ago?

I am, etc.,

D. Chang

davidcwyja@yahoo.com