6 / 18
poor state of the roads. As one man explained, “This area depends on tourist and yet there are no roads,
you lucky is an SUV you drive. I know it needs a lot of money but Hugh needs to start somewhere.”
Only 18 persons commented on Floyd Green’s ability to perform. Of this number only 8 JLPs were
convinced that he could do a better job. They all expressed that his plans were focused on the
infrastructure issue. The majority (including 3 JLPs) were not convinced he could win within the short
time he has to campaign (6) and reach the people, especially the poorest (3).
The data show that Hugh is more mobile and effective than his JLP counterpart. Throughout the study
only 6 persons from Treasure Beach and Parottee did not know about Hugh Buchanan or Danny’s son. In
the study 69(53%) of the 131 had something to say about seeing him or had been affected by him in
some way. Of this number 61 (88%) had seen him mobilizing or had experienced him trying to do
something that was related to getting votes. The research team also saw him mobilizing in a casual and
confident manner. Only 43 persons made any reference to Floyd Green in the area of mobilization – and
24 of them had never seen him. They expressed that they saw his team, but complained that that was
not enough. In summary, the research team did not find the evidence to suggest that he was mobilizing,
or had the resources to mobilize with the level of aggression required to remove Danny Buchanan’s son.
The data show that Floyd Green is more effective in getting persons to vote based on candidacy than
Hugh Buchanan. This is not surprising, given almost two-thirds of PNPs simply vote based on tradition.
Of the 29 persons who interacted with Hugh Buchanan directly 8 reported that the interaction had no
impact on them as they were voting based on tradition. However, 17 were affected positively (with 5
will vote and 12 might vote, treated as half votes in the study). This results a positive impact of 11. Note
that the remaining 4 (all young men) stated that they would never vote for him – all based on his
attitude towards them. All of them rationalized that the PNP could win without their votes. The result of
his mobilization is therefore 11 of 29 or 38%.
Nineteen persons reported that they interacted with Floyd Green directly; and of this number 5
expressed that they would certainly vote for him, while 12 expressed that they just might (making 6
votes). Two JLP persons, however, stated that they would not waste their time to go out and vote as
Floyd cannot win. The result of his mobilization efficacy is 11 of 19 or 58%. As a new candidate Floyd
Green needed time to mobilize much more. His efficacy might be reasonably high but it needs time to
create the numbers needed to challenge the PNPs overwhelming traditional votes. Hugh Buchanan’s
38% efficacy actually has great value when added to the traditional votes.