I see nothing wrong with the proposed changes and the so called "run off" is also a good measure.
The people that did not vote for either leading candidate have an opportunity to hear both of them again and make a choice of which one they want to represent them.
All the political parties have the same chance. The fact that some may have more finances available to them is irrelevant.
Fear of change is worse than change itself.
No not all political parties have the same chance.. the run-off is an american concept that is germane to a two-party system.
All over South America this is normal fo Presidential elections
Fishs, if nutten eh wrong with it why is being rail roaded through Parliament?
Why was there no consultation?
Why of all the things contained in the report coming out of consultations these particular parts of the bill were plucked out, (and mind you, run off was NEVER a part of those consultations eh) and brought to Parliament? Could it be that these parts of the "reform" only need a simple majority to pass?
Let Kamla and she croonies rock so with they shyte!!! They too firetrucking stink and always on firetrucking games!!!!!!
Another view
Who Vex Lorse – Separating news from noise
ANIL GOORAHOO Monday, August 18 2014
The late Dale Kolasingh, one of the finest journalists this country has ever produced, made a point of constantly reminding his newsroom staff that one of their first priorities in reporting was to “separate the news from the noise”. He understood clearly that in any important debate, particularly those involving politicians and moreso during election silly season, “legitimate news is almost always obfuscated and sometimes lost” in the noise of political rhetoric inspired by partisanship and self-self-interests.
With a general election mere months away and with political parties jostling for the minds and votes of the electorate, the on-going debate on Constitutional Reform has featured a lot of noise which has been readily lapped-up by our media and fed as news to an unsuspecting national audience, without the kind of analytical separation which Kolasingh insisted upon. Beginning today and continuing next week, I will make an attempt in my own humble way to provide the lacking but critically needed separation so that citizens understand the issues – each in their individual and collective contexts.
Having attended ALL of the National Consultations on Constitutional Reform and having been witness to the process, it
is necessary for me to point out that almost none of the most vocal commentators against the package of reforms proposed by government in its Constitution Amendment Bill (2014) attended any of the consultations. I say this not to deny their entitlement to comment on the reforms, but merely to establish that much of the “noise” that has been published and given prominence in the public domain, may be uninformed and in ignorance of how the process evolved, what issues are involved and of how the final proposals were arrived at.
Under its Terms of Reference, the Constitution Reform Commission was mandated by Cabinet to host a series of 17 public consultations across Trinidad and Tobago (14 in Trinidad and three in Tobago) as well as a number of private stakeholder consultations. Based on those consultations the Commission was required to produce a report, inclusive of recommendations for Constitutional Reform, and present same to the Cabinet. By virtue of having produced its report dated 27 December, 2013, the Commission fulfilled its mandate and ought to have gone out of existence. However, during the course of the 17 national consultations, participants requested a second round of consultations so they could have the opportunity to consider and comment upon the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission recommended and Cabinet agreed to a second round of public consultations which was held in February, although written comments on the report were accepted until 31 March.
It is important to note that the December 2013 report recommended, among other things, that a fairer system of electing representatives to the parliament should be pursued with proportional representation being the preferred option; that there should be a two-term limit for the Prime Minister; that there should be a right of recall of MPs; that MPs ought not to hold Ministerial portfolios; and that there should be provision for national referendum on important issues. Interestingly, there was no objection to any of these recommendations during the second round of public consultations which citizens themselves requested. In fact, all of these received widespread support
Having received feedback from the population with respect to recommendations contained in its December 2013 report, the Constitution Commission prepared a post-script which included further recommendations on a methodology for achieving some of the governing principles identified in the initial report. Among the further recommendations – which were circulated among and approved by all members including Dr.Merle Hodge – was a runoff system of elections.
Dr Hodge has herself admitted to the media that the justification for a system of runoff elections was well articulated in the post-script and it was upon such justification that she agreed to its inclusion.
As there was no mandate under its Terms of Reference for the Constitution Commission to produce a second or a supplementary report, the post-script to which all Commissioners agreed, was forwarded to the government for its consideration. It was the government which, rightly or wrongly, referred to the Post-script as an “Addendum” to the Report. That Merle Hodge first heard of an Addendum to the Commission’s Report when it was announced in Parliament, is really a play on words as the word “Addendum” simply substitutes for the term “Post-script”.
The Commission’s report and post-script having been forwarded to the Government, as was required, it was for the government to accept in its entirety; reject-in-its-entirety; or accept in part the recommendations contained therein. Having that discretion, the government opted – some argue hastily – to bring immediately to the parliament those recommendations which did not require a special majority to be passed.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the arguments being advanced by some that there wasn’t consultation on the amendments that were brought to the parliament.