McGregor

The amendments to the Representation of the People Act excited a great deal of discussion before they were passed in Parliament. The amendments were considered to be of such grave importance that the Prime Minister said that the election date was set so as to accommodate their enactment. One of the main changes is the provision for the sentencing of persons found guilty of open voting.

Why is the question of open voting so important?

The Representation of the People Act was passed in 1944 and coincided with the acceptance of universal adult suffrage in Jamaica. This paved the way for all adults, who satisfied the criteria, whose names appeared on a current voters' list, to cast their ballots in free and fair elections. The act also sets out how votes are to be cast and counted.

The conduct of elections has come a far way since those which were held in England in the 19th century. It is reported that voters would openly announce the candidate of their choice to the presiding officer, who would then record it. In 1872, the English Parliament passed the Secret Ballot Act, allowing electors to vote by marking their ballot without being seen by anyone else - the secret ballot.

The Secret Ballot

It can be very costly if an elector is found to be voting illegally.

In Jamaica, we are required to vote by secret ballot under Section 35 of the act. In this way, there is a greater likelihood that votes will not be sold, and that people are able to make their choice of candidate or party of their free will. However, it is a "notorious secret" that there have been instances in which persons have sold their votes or have been intimidated and cajoled into voting for one party or the other.

Section 35 of the act did not impose a sanction for failure to observe the secret ballot. This is what the recent amendment addresses. The new provision states that an elector who intentionally displays his or her ballot to make anyone know the candidate for or against whom he or she has voted will first be warned by the presiding officer, who will deface the ballot and deliver a new ballot paper to the elector.

If the elector intentionally displays the ballot for a second time, the ballot paper will be defaced and rendered spoiled. This is an offence under the act, and the elector will be liable to a fine of $80,000 and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years.

The secrecy of the ballot is protected by other means, such as:

Polling booths are often shielded by screens.

At the close of polls, ballot boxes are sealed.

Close-up photographs of ballot papers are not permitted.

At the count, the total number of ballot papers in the ballot boxes are checked against the total number of ballot papers issued at the polling station.

Despite the existence of these measures, it may be easy to determine the voting preference in a polling division, especially the very small ones. Does this militate against the concept behind the secrecy of the ballot? One wonders whether there may be some merit in not making a public announcement regarding the ballot count per polling division.