Dear Editor,
By now, it is known that there is a change of government following a general election in Grenada – a trend experienced in all Caricom states that held elections over the last couple of years (save in Trinidad where the incumbent survived because the opposition was split into two competing parties dividing the votes).
Although the NACTA poll conducted by me got some findings right, several of the poll’s findings were not borne out by the actual results. Introspection is needed and this is being done by the polling entity – how and why some of its crucial findings were off target.
I spent a considerable time in Grenada with another partner supervising the poll. Several students and teachers were hired to conduct the interviews. The findings we obtained were the ones we released to the media; there were no games as opposition NDC officials alleged. It is almost impossible to nail down exactly why some of the findings have not mirrored the outcome. But an explanation that was offered to me by an official of the victorious party post election was that voters told me what they thought I wanted to hear. He said: “They identified you as an agent of the ruling party and did not tell you the truth they were voting for change. Once you and the other pollsters from the other polling organizations went on TV a month ago and said NNP was winning or had the edge, the voters identified you as agents of the Prime Minister. Grenadians did not tell you the truth.” There may be some truth to that because I found, for example, that in three areas in three different seats the voters told us they were voting NNP but the outcome showed they voted overwhelmingly for NDC. There was no way the NNP could have won those seats unless there was a cross-over of votes, as the voters expressed they were going to do.
Three polls and an analysis by a group from the island’s lone university concluded that the ruling NNP had the edge to win the election. The polls did not give an exact number of seats each party would win. In fact, the NACTA poll said the election was difficult to predict but the NNP had the edge. NACTA reported that the NNP had five safe seats and the NDC one safe seat. It turned out that the NNP won four seats and one seat was defeated by a slim 35 votes; no one, not even NDC activists in my conversation with them, expected the NNP to lose that seat or another one held by the deputy Prime Minister. The NACTA poll reported that some 9 or 10 seats were close and could go either way, with five leaning NNP and four leaning NDC. It turned out that the NDC won all those closely fought contests.
Another reason why the findings were off target was the turnout rate. NACTA estimated a turnout of two-thirds of the registered voters. The NACTA poll also said that if turnout was low, the NNP would lose.
In addition, it said that if the youths did not turn out for the NNP, the party would lose. As it turned out, turnout was low (just about 60% although official figures are not out yet) and the youths seemed to have to do their duty. When I went around and asked about youth participation, I was told that their turnout was low. The youths came to the rallies for the entertainment, but apparently did not show up in their numbers to make a difference in who governed them. Thus, the NNP went down.
It seemed to me that the NNP’s organization broke down on election day. The party got out voters and did a mock-out of the people they were certain voted for them. The party was wrong, as the numbers did not even come close to what they expected when voting closed at 5pm. I asked an NDC organizer at 5pm what he thought their mock station numbers were. He instantly told me the NDC had won 11 seats, which turned out to be the actual outcome. The NNP organizer also felt his party had won the election but could not give the number of seats.
NACTA conducted a professional polling exercise in Grenada. The findings of a poll are only as good as the voters reveal to interviewers and the methodology used in the poll. I believe the methodology was sound and scientific. If voters misled the interviewers, there was nothing we could do to fix that problem. Voters have to be honest when answering questions. It is possible they can change their mind after revealing their choice. But whenever they answer questions, they should be forthright and honest.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
