GAMBIA-L Archives

The Gambia and Related Issues Mailing List

GAMBIA-L@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Yusupha C Jow <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Gambia and related-issues mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2001 16:00:38 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
KB:

I surely do not have all the answers but I have already stated low voter 
turnout was a problem.  I never said UDP's message was the sole reason for 
the losses.  In fact, Joke might have said this and you confused me with him 
much to my chagrin.This is from my original post on 'elections and related 
issues':

"They did not adhere to a strategy which was borne out of any type of 
detailed analysis.   When one compares the amount of people who actually 
voted to those who actually voted (registered to vote), it becomes obvious 
the voter turnout was extremely low.  "

Voter turnout was low everywhere during the last  (1997?)  parliamentary 
elections but  interestingly  those  from Kombo and Banjul were the most 
guilty parties.  The numbers were as low as 63% in Banjul.  In Serrekunda 
East alone, almost 14000 out of 40, 000 people did not vote. 

 The same low voter turnout reared its ugly head during the recent 
by-elections.  You think it was due to vote-buying and I think it was due to 
reasons which the UDP is in a position to best explain and deal with since 
they have the resources on the ground to do this. I do suspect apathy played 
a very strong part in the low turnout throughout the country.

 The UDP has not come up with any plausible reasons for low voter turnout.  
Not only this, but they allowed a repeat of the same scenario (low voter 
turn-out) during the by-elections.  Hence my statement about dem not 
strategizing to prevent the same mistakes (low voter turn-out)  from 
happening.  Again, I think in that scenario, a voter registration campaign 
(many probably did not register), serious efforts to sensitize voters (reduce 
apathy) and a stronger message will always help.

You see the 'solid guy vs loser' argument which Saul postulated is a sound 
one to some extent.  But it is based on the premise that the good guy and 
stand-up citizen is expected to win, which is is certainly not always the 
case.  What about the message from both candidates? What about the low voter 
turnout?  What about the way the campaigns a managed and run? What about 
advertising tactics? etc etc  You know better than me that the diference 
between 'good' and 'bad' usually gets lost in the murky and tangled dealings 
of modern day politics.

But again, the 'thinking alike' mentality rears its ugly head again when you 
use this argument to justify your incessant allegations of vote buying when 
other possible plausible reasons are ignored.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2