Congratulations, Portia! Now what?

Pollsters are busy wiping generous amounts of egg from their faces, but we must move on with Jamaica's business.

First, polling science. The use of scientific theories to conduct political polls is reliable only with a subject amenable to that science. Where, as in Jamaica, the subject is highly tribalised, interviewees undereducated, paranoid and Anancy worshippers, scientific pollsters are doomed to baldness from excessive head-scratching after seemingly scientifically pure poll findings differ wildly from election results.

So long as we practise garrison politics, no scientific poll will accurately predict the national vote. Where constituencies include garrisons, no scientific poll will accurately predict a constituency vote. While we honour voter intimidation and political victimisation, interviewees won't be candid with pollsters. Do we know the non-response bias of non-responders vis-a-vis the response bias of persons who respond? If we want accurate political polls, we must fundamentally change our political system.

Furthermore, pollsters are neglecting to explain or properly express their so-called 'margin of error'. We're told that, with a 'margin of error' of +/- 3%, if Party X leads Party Y by five per cent, it's at least two per cent ahead. Wrong! Each party's percentage is subject to the margin of error and so each could be anywhere within a six per cent range (three per cent above or below its poll finding). Party Y could be in front by one per cent. Polls are nice toys, pollsters' sources of livelihood, and sell media advertisements. In Jamaica, they're irrelevant to election results.

Don Anderson essayed the most facetious, self-serving assessment I heard from any pollster during a televised mutual admiration society meeting on election day. He boasted of 40 years' experience in market research and actually asserted there was no difference between political polling and market research. Seriously? Don, do you really believe that the response bias is the same in Jamaica to questions about voting as it is to queries about buying bully beef?

Macro mumbo-jumbo

My analysis of last Thursday's election results is, as usual, simple. No fancy pollsters required. I wrote on Sunday:

"Poor economic management by the JLP resulting in massive job losses and joblessness for the youth ... and the JLP can thank Driva for ... his defence of Dudus."

I hear Labourites screaming, "What you mean by poor economic management? What about Jamaica Debt Exchange (JDX)? What about the macroeconomic indicators?" JDX was a well-executed strategy to deal with a problem created by the JLP itself by ignoring the impending world recession and spending borrowed funds like drunken sailors.

Macroeconomics that doesn't produce jobs doesn't mean diddly to any electorate. As The Old Ball and Chain repeatedly reminded me during the campaigns, the JLP's so-called 'economic management' drove persons with good jobs into poverty. These persons were living in homes without water or light and begging neighbours for food. Neither they nor their neighbours were ever going to vote Labour. And they weren't sending any advance warning of their revenge strategy by answering any highfalutin' pollster truthfully or at all. Old BC's ear was closer to the ground than any 'professional' pollster. Or mine.

To appreciate how badly the Dudus affair affected the JLP begins with the fact that 48 per cent of voters didn't vote. Nobody new voted for anybody. The PNP effectively mobilised its base. The JLP base stayed home. Defending Dudus delivered a savage double whammy to the JLP. Its sheer wrongfulness energised the PNP base. That it was dropped; that Tivoli was invaded; that the Shower Posse was so severely wounded angered the JLP base.

To Peter and Portia, who hugged, kissed and thanked the Jamaican people, I'll only say, "Don't bother." Most Jamaicans didn't vote. So, congratulations and all that. Now what? If you truly have Jamaicans' interests at heart, you'll cease all political rhetoric and commence programmes of fundamental change. For example:

Appoint a significantly reduced Cabinet (combine related sectors) without anybody under any unresolved scrutiny connected to corruption.

Move for fundamental constitutional reform, including fixed election dates; separate elections for prime minister and all parliamentary representatives; and abolition of the monarchy.

Impose a constitutionally entrenched cap on external debt that can't be increased except by a two-thirds majority of both Houses.

Make education the numbers 1, 2 and 3 priorities. Without education, there'll be no growth. Why 'create jobs' with no qualified person to fill those jobs?

Portia, it can't be business as usual. If the system isn't shaken up to make the Establishment uncomfortable, next time, it'll be 55 per cent not voting. Then 60 per cent. It's in your hands now.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.