Weaker candidates should step aside for a clearer victory
Cayman Sentinel writes: In democratic elections, competition is healthy. It fosters debate, challenges the status quo, and offers voters a diverse array of choices. However, when an election is cluttered with too many candidates in a single constituency, the result is often not a fairer fight but a fractured electorate. The simple reality is that the more candidates who remain in the race, the greater the chance that an undesirable candidate secures victory, not because they are the best choice, but because the opposition to them is divided.
In the 2025 Cayman Islands General Election, 59 candidates are vying for 19 seats, some constituencies having as many as five contenders. While every candidate enters the race with the belief that they have a path to victory, the numbers tell a different story. Some candidates, while well-intentioned, stand little chance of winning. Instead of serving their communities, their continued presence in the race could inadvertently harm the very causes they champion.
The mathematics of vote splitting
Vote splitting occurs when multiple candidates with similar ideologies or policy platforms divide the support of a common voter base, allowing a less favorable candidate to win with a plurality rather than a majority. Consider these simple examples:
RACE 1
| Candidate A | 30% of the vote | |
| Candidate B Candidate C Candidate D | 30% of the vote 20% of the vote 10% of the vote | 60% of the vote split across three candidates |
In this scenario, Candidate A wins, even though 60% of the electorate preferred someone else. If Candidate C and Candidate D had exited early and thrown their support behind Candidate B, the result could have been different.
RACE 2
| Candidate A (established incumbent) | 38% | |
| Candidate B (strong challenger) Candidate C (weaker alternative) Candidate D (long-shot independent) Candidate E (newcomer, little traction) | 32% 15% 10% 5% | 62% against the incumbent |
Without Candidates C, D and E in Race 2, Candidate B could have consolidated enough support to win. But because of vote splitting, Candidate A wins with less than 40%, despite 62% of voters wanting someone else.
This is the precise scenario unfolding in several constituencies across the Cayman Islands. While some candidates may insist they are “in it to win it”, the harsh reality is that a crowded field only benefits incumbents or dominant political figures. The fragmented opposition allows these candidates to maintain their grip on power despite the widespread desire for change.
The ego trap: when staying in the race hurts the cause
One of the biggest reasons weaker candidates refuse to step aside is ego. The psychological investment in running a campaign can be immense. After months of canvassing, fundraising, and debating, it is difficult for any candidate to admit that victory is unlikely. Yet, an objective look at the numbers can reveal the truth.
A well-meaning independent, for example, may believe their presence in the race provides voters with an alternative to establishment politics. But if their candidacy siphons votes from a stronger challenger, they are not offering an alternative; they are ensuring the status quo remains. The most strategic move such candidates can make is to exit the race and endorse the most viable contender aligned with their values.
A united front is the path to victory
For change to happen, opposition forces must be consolidated. If candidates with overlapping policy priorities unite behind a single, electable figure in each constituency, they stand a far greater chance of securing a win.
Political parties often engage in what is known as a unity strategy, where factions within a movement rally behind a single candidate to ensure a more streamlined and effective campaign. Independents, on the other hand, rarely coordinate in this way, which weakens their collective impact. This is why political newcomers, independent candidates and smaller parties must recognise the strategic advantage of consolidation.
The constituencies where exits are necessary
While every candidate deserves a fair shot, certain constituencies are clearly overpopulated with hopefuls, leading to an inevitable splitting of the vote.
Take, for example, Red Bay, where Roy Tatum (PPM) and Phillip Ebanks (IND) are the strongest contenders. With three additional candidates, Dawn Thomas (CINP), Natasha Whitelocke (TCCP) and Leon Gould (IND) splitting the opposition, there is a real risk that neither of the stronger candidates will secure enough votes to win decisively.
Similarly, in George Town West, four candidates are competing, with Craig Merren (CINP) and Pearlina McGaw-Lumsden (PPM) being the most viable. The presence of additional independents dilutes the voting base, risking an unexpected outcome. If independents were to rally behind a singular alternative to PPM dominance, the chances of a fresh representative emerging would be far stronger.
This scenario plays out in constituency after constituency. West Bay North, Bodden Town West, and East End are all areas where too many candidates mean votes are being needlessly divided. In such cases, weaker candidates stepping aside would not be an act of surrender but an act of strategy, one that strengthens their movement rather than undermines it.
Why a two-person race benefits voters
Beyond the strategic benefits to candidates themselves, a two-person race also makes for a healthier democracy. When voters are presented with too many options, decision fatigue sets in. They may struggle to determine who among the many candidates is the best fit, leading to disengagement or even voter apathy. Worse, the confusion caused by multiple similar candidates can push some voters toward more recognisable names, often the incumbents.
In contrast, a two-person race sharpens the focus. Voters can more easily compare the strengths, weaknesses and policies of the remaining candidates. Debates become clearer, media coverage is more focused, and the electorate is better informed about their choices.
Top two candidates by constituency
As the race narrows down, the top two candidates in each constituency offer voters a clear choice for their future. This author’s assessments (based on meeting attendance, publicly documented support in comments sections, debate forum performance, public interviews, and in some cases person-to-person engagement) suggest the following breakdown of the strongest contenders in constituencies with multiple candidates. Weaker candidates should rally behind these two for a clear choice in each constituency.
Cayman Brac East
- Juliana O’Connor-Connolly (PPM)
- Dan Scott
Dan Scott (CBE candidate) is the leader of the Cayman Islands National Party. He was EY regional manager until his retirement in June 2023. More (CINP)
East End
- Gueva Richards (CINP)
- Isaac Rankine (IND)
Bodden Town West
- Haymond Rankin (CINP)
- Osbourne Bodden (TCCP)
Newlands
- Wayne Panton (TCCP)
- Alva Suckoo (PPM)
Prospect
- Sabrina Turner (TCCP)
- Michael Myles (CINP)
Red Bay
- Roy Tatum (PPM)
- Phillip Ebanks (IND)
George Town West
- Craig Merren (CINP)
- Pearlina McGaw-Lumsden (PPM)
George Town Central
- Kenneth Bryan
Kenneth Bryan (GTC incumbent) is deputy premier and tourism minister with the UPM while campaigning with the PPM as deputy leader of the party. More (PPM) - Anthony Ramoon (TCCP)
George Town South
- Gary Rutty (CINP)
- Craig Frederick (PPM)
George Town East
- Roy McTaggart (PPM)
- Bud Johnson (CINP)
West Bay North
- Jordan Rivers (CINP)
- Rolston Anglin (IND)
Examples of strategic withdrawals in politics
History is full of examples where candidates stepped down to strengthen the broader movement. In primary elections and coalition governments worldwide, political figures often bow out in favour of a frontrunner to ensure victory for their party or ideology.
In the US presidential primaries, for example, candidates often withdraw and endorse a frontrunner to prevent a fractured party base. Similarly, in parliamentary systems, smaller parties frequently align with larger ones to ensure they don’t waste votes on unwinnable battles.
Even in local Cayman elections, we’ve seen how too many candidates can split votes, leading to unexpected victories for incumbents or underwhelming contenders. Learning from these past mistakes is crucial.
The role of voters: encouraging weaker candidates to step aside
While candidates must take responsibility for assessing their viability, voters also have an important role to play in encouraging weaker candidates to consider stepping aside. Voters should engage in open, respectful conversations with candidates they support, urging them to think about the broader goal of securing the best leadership for their constituency.
It’s essential for voters to recognise that a fractured race only benefits the status quo or undesirable candidates. Voters who believe in a candidate’s vision must speak up, support efforts to unite the electorate, and communicate the importance of strategic withdrawals for the greater good.
This collective responsibility, on the part of both candidates and voters, ensures that the race remains focused on the most viable leaders, ultimately fostering a cleaner, more decisive election outcome. Voters who support change should advocate for a unified front, not just with their votes but through active dialogue, helping to steer the course of the election toward a stronger, more cohesive result.
The courage to step aside
With Election Day fast approaching, it is time for candidates to take a hard look at their numbers, their ground support, and their realistic path to victory. If a candidate cannot make a convincing argument that they can secure at least second place, they should seriously consider stepping aside and endorsing someone who can.
This is not an admission of failure. It is an act of political maturity. The strongest leaders are not always those who win elections but those who know when to put the greater good above their personal ambitions. By stepping aside and endorsing a viable candidate who shares their values, weaker candidates can have a lasting impact on the outcome of the election rather than being a footnote in the results.
The Cayman Islands stands at a political crossroads, and the 2025 election represents an opportunity for real change. But that change will only come if candidates put aside personal pride and act with strategic sensibility. For those who recognise they are unlikely to win, the most powerful thing they can do now is throw their support behind someone who can.
It is time to consolidate, unite, and ensure that every vote cast truly counts for a better future.
Do you have an Election Viewpoint? Send it to news@caymannewsservice.com for consideration.
Check out the CNS Election Section interactive map to see who is running in each constituency.
See the list of candidates and their party affiliations here.
Category: Viewpoint
If all the weak options withdrew, there would be a fair few seats with zero candidates.
Maybe we should appoint that squid option, after all?!?
I will disagree with thos viewpoint.
Caymanians are sick of the old guard and their Politricks.
Only someone with a special interest (usually money/power) would state that ONLY political parties will be viable. That alone tells you all you need to know about these “Political Parties”. They ate in it for themselves and party nembers ONLY. They will not support anybody elses agendas, even if its for the good of regular Caymanians.
With that knowledge, its ckear to see that in FACT, Party Politics is a BAD thing because the regular people LOSE everytime anx only the Party members prosper at everybody elses expense…. Think about it, hard, and you WILL SEE.
Just the thought that DAN or Julianna would be voted in should be enough for real CBE people to feel afraid…. This election will set the future stage for Caymanians…..
The challengers should have come together for a caucus and invited registered voters in the district with an agreement between them to drop out if they didn’t win. (A caucus is the most transparent way to count supporters, no risk of ballot fixing or miscounting).
If they couldn’t win the caucus they weren’t going to win the election so they’d have been trading the risk of elimination for a much better chance of winning the election if they prevailed in the caucus.
Besides, better to step aside early than face the humiliation of a crushing defeat on election night. A chance to save face and help defeat the incumbent at the same time.
My picks for Election:
I’m afraid that PPM will win it 🙁
WBN Anglin, Rolston (IND)
WBW Julie Hunter (CINP) or Bush, McKeeva (IND)
WBC Ebanks-Wilks, Katherine (TCCP)
WBS Ebanks, Andre (TCCP)
GTN Hew, Joey (PPM)
GTC Bryan, Kenneth (PPM)
GTW McGaw-Lumsden, Pearlina (PPM) or Merren, Craig (CINP)
GTS Lindsay, Alric (IND) or Rutty, Gary (CINP)
GTE McTaggart, Roy (PPM)
RED Tatum, Roy (PPM)
PRO Myles, Michael (CINP) or Turner, Sabrina (TCCP)
SAV Bodden, Heather (TCCP)
NWL Panton, Wayne (TCCP) or Suckoo, Alva (PPM)
BTW Bodden, Osbourne (TCCP) or Saunders, Chris (IND)
BTE Seymour, Dwayne (PPM)
NS Ebanks, Jay (IND)
EE Rankine, Isaac (IND)
CBW DaCosta, Nickolas (CINP)
CBE O’Connor-Connolly, Juliana (PPM)
Even if your predictions hold true, no party would have a majority. So the horse trading will begin. With CINP without a leader (by your predictions) there will be no one to advocate on their behalf. PPM seems to have the most financial resources, and by extension the most to offer, will probably win out.
Correct. Most of the independants have already said that they would work with the PPM before any of the other parties.
We need to do whatever is necessary to ensure that the PPM do not form the government.
4.20…”what is necessary” is do NOT vote for any PPM candidates.
That’s the only guarantee to stop us getting into deeper debt adding $450Million for piers, $44Million for Kenny Terminal, $200Million for new Northward resort, as well as unknown $Millions for Kenny park and Kenny beach cost overruns.
The most significant issues we have in this country are national issues. We need a system of national voting to ensure that we get the best candidates to take on our national issues. IMHO national voting would also encourage better candidates as it would eliminate most of the small constituency vote buying and other corrupt practices that many good candidates don’t want to touch.
Well, whoever wrote this is desperately trying to garner support for certain individuals. How does one submit this article for publication and not state top contenders for all constituencies? In particular, West Bay only has one of its constituencies… looks odd in my opinion. There’s 3 others…
I’d say the top two contenders in Red Bay, WBN and GTC are quite incorrect based on observance of support.
For one, one of the WBN candidates has had the majority of his meetings with his entire party so that’s a no brainer, of course his meetings would look “full”.
This looks like a desperate cry for traction, whether from CINP or PPM, but I say CINP.
I was about to make the same point. The OpEd has a great point in theory and I was about to give all thumbs up to the article until I saw the top 2 contenders list:
BTW – Chris Saunders (like him or not he is a top contender)
Red Bay – Philip Ebanks? Really. If the poster was serious he will know that Philip and Leon between the two of them combined will not even get 10% of the Red Bay vote.
GTS – this is a tight race but I think Alric is a stronger contender than Craig.
Did you actually READ the article or just look at the pictures?? Clearly you have entirely missed the point of the article… The other WB constituencies already have TWO candidates – so there is no need to highlight them in this article. Did you notice that GTN, SAV, BTE, NS, CBWLC are all also missing?? I didn’t think I would have to state the obvious, but sadly voters like you require a little extra help understanding, so let me spell it out – the point of the article is to suggest that we consider what will make this election more successful to ensure the right people form our next government. If there are too many people vying for one seat, voters will be putting votes all over the place (splitting the vote) so the incumbent (who has likely spent 4 yrs buying votes with favours) only needs a small percentage of votes to get in again. Whereas if there are only TWO (i.e. reduce the numbers in the above-mentioned constituencies who have 3-5 candidates) THEN the race is simple and the best man/woman will win.
To be clear here the issue you are describing is nothing new, its a known feature of first past the post voting – where a candidate can win with a subsection of the vote due to vote splitting, I do take issue with that system that crowns a person who can hold onto 30-40% of voters rewarding them with a victory despite failing to convince a majority of voters to back them but the solution you suggest doesn’t really seem viable.
In a country with no reliable opinion polling how do you measure which candidates are weaker? I will be the first to admit looking at my predictions for the 2021 election more than a few of the candidates that I thought would do well or win were unseated, and candidates that I did not expect much from ended up performing well or winning. Additionally, your suggestion appears to favour candidates who have money to burn on their campaigns or persons with name recognition, persons who can spend to the legal limit on their campaigns to put on large meetings or pay for advertising are by your metrics more likely to be considered the viable candidates and thus more likely to be the top two. I do not think further exacerbating a system that already favours the wealthy and well off or well-known candidates is the solution to make Cayman’s politics more representative. We already have an issue with the same rotating set of faces having dominated Cayman’s politics for over 30 years 2021 and now 2024 are the first elections with sets of real retirements and new blood at least since I was born. We need to devise a system that encourages participation not one that makes becoming a representative even harder for regular people.
I will also say some of the examples you provided seem a bit silly for instance: in 2021 Alric came just shy of 50 votes away from unseating Barbara in a 2-person race in GTS. Why would he be the weaker candidate in your scenario in 2024, he got 47% of the vote just 4 years ago against an incumbent now it is an open race he could easily say that he is the candidate the voters are most familiar with. Bodden Town West is another example, how do you classify an incumbent who won his race in 2021 by almost 60% and the largest single vote receiver in the entire election as the candidate who should step aside?
The actual solution to the issue you are describing is not expecting ‘egotistical’ candidates to embarrass themselves and step aside prior to the vote even occurring – that is never going to happen. It is not by arbitrarily deciding which candidates are viable or not prior to the vote just based on vibes and best guesses. It’s by using a system that eliminates low performing candidates and then reassigns the votes cast based on voter preference, it’s called ranked choice voting.
Ranked choice voting is relatively simple – Every voter in a constituency has one vote just as under the current system, votes are counted and assigned to the first choice of every voter. The person with the least number of votes is eliminated from the process, votes that candidate received are then reassigned based on the preference of the voter and the process continues in subsequent rounds eliminating the candidate with the least support and reassigning their votes following the intentions of the voters and the pool of remaining candidates until there are either 2 remaining or until 1 person passes 50% of the total vote at which point the election has a clear winner with a majority. The system allows for voters to vote based on their true preference or alignment for candidates without worrying about wasting votes on long shots candidates. It also removes the issue with people being elected on tiny fractions of a constituency’s total number of voters based on vote splitting. Basically the only downsides are that it would be a moderately longer process than the current system but would still be perfectly manageable for Cayman and that you would have to clearly demonstrate to voters especially older voters how the new system works to avoid confusion.
The alternative would be having an initial vote with all candidates who are nominated and then having a runoff between the top two candidates after the initial vote but the reason why I do not favour this option is because it has the same issues as the current first past the post system if the top two candidates in a constituency who move on to the runoff secured less than 50% of the vote together then you still are maintaining a system where the majority of voters do not necessarily get their say on their preferred candidate elected following the runoff.
Fully agree that ranked-choice preferences would help to better represent the majority of constituents’ position, rather than (in many cases) a simple plurality. And let’s be fair, we’re well familiar with ranking things 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. so it fundamentally should not be overly difficult for voters to transition to this type of approach.
You were making so much sense until you, unfortunately, could not hide your PPM agenda any longer. All I can say is Craig “Festa”.. like really? Zzzzz
Yeeeeaahhh, Strongest Contenders? If I’m in Redbay, I wouldn’t vote for either of them, one is PPM FFS!
A couple of these constituency’s you have the strongest candidates wrong. GTS, Prospect and GTW are incorrect.
Prospect is wrong for sure. We protect and value our children.
Surely you can’t think the PPM candidate is getting in, right? Who’s gonna vote for her? Her expat drinking buddies?
If you really plan on wasting your vote for her, you missed the only valuable part of the Viewpoint to begin with: splitting the vote doesn’t help anyone.
The other Prospect options are an incumbent who who done nothing for the last 4 years since being elected or a man I’ve had the unfortunate pleasure of working with in the past in government and know personally to be a nasty piece of work, who also apparently likes to swear at children. That man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and many people who know him will agree on that!
No, you missed the point of somebody not agreeing that Sabrina and Michael are the strongest candidates. And judging by your remarks, I would say your reasoning is more personal that intellectual.
Prospect:
PPM 👎🏻
Turner 👎🏻
Michael Myles is a def 👎🏼👎🏼 if you know what’s good for you. The other two, you make your own decision.
Your points are valid although I would question some of your “strongest” contenders. However, to overcome the issues you highlight, maybe we should simply be looking at adjusting our voting mechanism.
By utilising the “ranked choice voting method” most of the issues go away. Also known as instant run-off voting. Look it up on the internet or You Tube for an explanation. This method is used in many countries.
Everyone’s vote then has a definite impact and the winner is the MOST favoured candidate across the constituency.
This reads kinda like it was written by one of PPM’s disinformation campaign managers. While a lot of what you wrote makes sense, once I got to the suggested candidates it all went downhill fast. Putting Nesta as one of the viable options is absolutely diabolical. Over Alric Lindsay?! Surely you jest.
And Bud over Emily Decou, even though she was reasonably-close to unseating Roy last election with no party backing and very little actual campaigning? I can’t agree with that at all. Roy’s days are numbered (thankfully, after he stood up in front of the PAC and admitted that as finance minister under PPM, he did not keep track of the value of concessions/waivers granted to foreign developers and therefore couldn’t establish whether they were good value or not), and the youth deserves a chance. Especially someone as good as her.
Neither Craig Merren nor Julianna O’Curtains-Conolly even opted to show up to their debates, and they’re amongst the preferred options? I believe the kids would say, “#bffrrn”.
Craig Merren was scared to be found out. He is loud but not very intelligent. Julianna doesn’t need to show. She is winning regardless.
You might be surprised: Julianna almost lost to Elvis last election, and many feel that the only reason she didn’t is because she duped gullible people into thinking she supported cannabis legalization at the last minute. (…and why would she support when her immediate family “allegedly” grow and sell it for maximum profit currently? I bet it wasn’t his nursery they raided.)
Almost lost to ELvis?
She got 266 votes to his 107. A stronger contender may have won or gave her actual competition but to suggest Elvis almost had her is crazy.
Fair enough, however before that election, would you have believed me if I told you that a mushmouth man that is literally only known for saying “no weed, no vote” was going to be that competitive?
If you don’t think there’s a threat to her reign with numbers like that solely based on meme campaigning, that is at least equally as crazy.
Emily Decou won last night’s debate. I don’t know what’s going on with these PPM candidates – must be ego – because it doesn’t seem like they’re really even trying.
Emily was nowhere near close, reasonably or otherwise, to unseating Roy last time out. That doesn’t mean she’s not a viable candidate this time around, but I wouldn’t lump her outcome in with the point made about Alric (which is an accurate position).
Phillip Ebanks is not a strong candidate in Red Bay.
Implement ranked choice voting that specifically solves the issue of vote splitting.
Instead of encouraging people who care about their country to withdraw because the voting system doesn’t work in its current form, advocate for a better voting system.