<p align="left">Umm..</p>

<p align="left">1. Where is the outrage over the absolute disaster at issuing the referendum results?</p>

<p align="left">2. Why are there so little opposition forces hitting on this?</p>

<p align="left">3. Why is the Government not talking about this?</p>

<p align="left">4. Why is the media so care free except a few individuals?</p>

<p align="left">5. Why did it seem like Bradley Roberts knew the results before everyone else?</p>

<p align="left">6. Why are there reports saying that the PLP "conceded" defeat?</p>

<p align="left">7. Why was the Parliamentary Commissioner excuse so pathetic, borderline unbelievable?</p>

<p align="left">8. What was the reasoning behind waiting for constituency totals?</p>

<p align="left">9. Why is it that there is no one talking about the 2002 referendum and how it had <b>FIVE</b> questions?</p>

<p align="left">People are pissed.</p>

<p align="left"><b>If all of the Church is not with you, the Church isn’t with you.</b><br>
This is a big problem. Christianity is a key tenet of the Bahamas, and although it might not be practiced, Bahamians consider it important. The Government slipped up big time in the constitutional reform process by not satisfying all of the church.</p>

<p align="left"><b>No confidence or trust in Government.</b><br>
This goes without saying that there is a lack of trust in the Government. Nothing much needs to be said here, because everyone knows.</p>

<p align="left">In watching this process for the last two years, here’s my opinion on why this referendum did not go well.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Insulted the Bahamian People.</b><br>
Homophobic, Xenophobic, Misogynist, Bigot, Alarmist, Sexist, Chauvinist, Racist, “Anti-intellectualism”, “No right thinking Bahamian”, are but a few terms profusely used in this debate. They add nothing to the discussion, break down debate, and only serve to polarize arguments, this is basic psychology. There was a comment here that said Bahamians are not Americans and this is very true.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Didn’t create the proper playing field for debate.</b><br>
The “No” campaign’s arguments were not powerful arguments, but became effective because the Government did not lay a fair playing field for addressing their positions in a debate. In an attempt to alienate the voice of those who were against some of the bills, the Government’s position is made questionable. The perfect underdog is created. This is the public sphere after all.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Underestimated the power of social media.</b><br>
Times are different and mutual trust can obtained through a few facebook accounts. The approaching reality is that many rate social media above the official news media. The persons who command these groups will therefore have great persuasive ability. Unofficial polling results were leaked on social media before the official media could get them. There is a growing mistrust of not only the Government but sadly, the official news media as well.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Politicians too busy orbiting their own spheres and fiefdoms.</b><br>
Some of us have been convinced that our leaders have no connection to the people. They live in a bubble along with the rest of their kind, and seem not to know the Bahamian people at all. The “Yes” campaign's ads were very insulting to some but also had an appeal to a different sense of what Bahamians experience.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Offended the wrong person.</b><br>
Dame Joan Sawyer. This is not the best person to offend because she will defend herself, hard. Public figures are attacked all the the time, but some of us watched interestingly as her words were twisted in so many interesting ways. She definitively played a key role in shifting the view of the Bahamian people because of the way in which she was attacked.</p>

<p align="left"><b>Arguments too narrow, Defense too weak.</b><br>
The “Yes” campaign seemed to be operating off of a script, and could not adapt their arguments fast enough leading to very weak defense, and low persuasive ability. The “No” campaign had multiple arguments that kept the “Yes” campaign in their frame of debate constantly, demonstrating that they had more skill in persuasion and more trust from the public.
</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">I'm also really embarrassed by the attack on Dame Joan..</p></li>
</ul>

You're right. This was not a smart decision, especially against Dame Joan. Attacking others in such a blatant manner on the public stage lends the person being attacked even more credence and strength.

In my ignorance, I'll go out on a limb and say that you have nothing to worry about, the church is losing its power, at least according to the numbers.

It is dying a slow death, The Bahamas is no exception.

<p align="left">I’m surprised that in all of this debate there is hardly any mention of the questions contained in the 2002 referendum, your opinion piece is the closest I’ve seen, so I’ll comment. </p>

<p align="left">There were five questions on the 2002 referendum, and the first one pertained to “gender equality”. I believe it went something like this;</p>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">“Do you agree that all forms of discrimination against women, their children and spouses should he removed from the Constitution and that no person should he discriminated against on the <b>grounds of gender</b>, and do you approve the proposed amendments to Articles <b>3</b>, <b>5</b>, <b>8</b>, <b>9</b>, <b>10</b>, <b>13</b>, .<b>14</b>, <b>26</b> and <b>54</b> of the Constitution as provided for in the Bill for an Act entitled The Bahamas Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2001?”.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">Consequently as I understand it the above question has now been split into four questions, each amendment addressing the necessary articles, and instead of inserting the word “gender”, they chose to insert the word “sex”.</p>

<p align="left">This is why it was first called “gender equality”, because “gender” was the operative word, not “sex”. The “yes” campaign missed a good opportunity of showing what this truly meant, but that would require them to not brand this referendum as “gender equality”.</p>

<p align="left">Nevertheless, the “no” campaign’s fears are not necessarily unfounded, because the Bahamas has international obligations which were clearly evident in the previous referendum. If party politics did not happen in 2002 these obligations may have been met.</p>

Ain't this entertaining? Papers selling good Tribune.

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">It is the same amendment.</p></li>
</ul>

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">It is the same article being amended to include reference to male and female is what I am referring to.</p></li>
</ul>

So we agree that it is a different amendment, but to the same article?

<ul style="list-style-type:none">
<li><p align="justify" style="border-left:1px solid;color:gray;padding-left:10px;">It is the same amendment.</p></li>
</ul>

<p align="left">I would not say that it is the same amendment. If I remember correctly, the 2002 referendum sought to insert the word “gender” into Article 26, while this referendum seeks to insert the word “sex”. Now depending on who you talk to, those are two very different things.</p>

Cool.