4 / 11
CNW
11.5
40.1
‐28.6
CSE
5.3
20
‐14.7
CS
28.5
37
‐8.5
Trelawny
TN
6
21.2
‐15.2
St. Ann
ANNW
4.3
9.8
‐5.5
ANSE
38.7
47
‐8.3
ANSW
1
12.5
‐13.5
Portland
PE
26
15.4
10.6
Hanover
HE
5.8
3.5
‐9.3
HW
21.3
19.6
1.7
Manchester
MAC
11.7
5.1
6.6
MANW
25.6
23.2
2.4
MAS
14.1
26.4
‐12.3
St. James
JC
27.6
1.6
‐29.2
JWC
19.4
11
‐30.4
JS
2
15
‐13
*Unsettled seat shifted to PNP after official count awaiting magisterial recount.
2.
A mini qualitative survey carried out between February 26 and 29, 2016 suggests that the
PNP’s skip of the debate allowed the JLP to erode their solid position – what seemed to be a
certain win – a couple of weeks before the General Election.
Using a data base I had constructed for the 2011 election I set out to find out what went wrong for the
PNP and right for the JLP on February 25, 2016. The data base consisted of 340 persons from across all
14 parishes: 126 persons known to be PNP, 132 JLPs, and 82 known to be uncommitted/ or have never
voted. I asked 2 simple open ended ‘trigger’ questions based on the position taken by many that the
PNP’s skip of the debate and the JLP’s $18,000 tax break were the critical factors. Hence respondents
were asked by telephone:
•
Did you feel insulted/cheated by the PNP’s skipping of the debate?
•
Did you find the JLPs 18,000 tax break attractive?
Women accounted for 57% of the 304 responses, compared to men’s 43% as seen in Table 3. Poor and
near‐poor combined comprised 51%, and the upper middle and middle classes combined 49%. The
mature dominated the responses with 56%, compared to the youth’s (18‐34 years) 44%. Using the
categorical variables of gender, SES and age, we are able to profile the persons who were most likely to
be affected by the skipping of the debate, and the proposed tax break. Note that of the 304 respondents
114 were PNP, 120 JLP and 70 uncommitted.