Not often do the voters of Bermuda get to exercise their responsibilities in the casting of their ballot. So, when the occasion is presented, it has traditionally been met with enthusiasm and a high level of participation on voting day.

Our system even makes provision for those unable to be present at the polls because of poor health, age, travel or other reasonable cause. Polling is open from 8am to 8pm. These accommodations have traditionally resulted in high voter participation in Bermuda. It also involves significant work and costs on behalf of the Parliamentary Registrar’s office through our tax dollars; as well as the numerous volunteers on behalf of the candidates involved.

All in all, not a simple undertaking, leaving us the voters one responsibility, which is to vote. Now the right to vote, unlike in some jurisdictions, is not mandatory, but a choice. In fact, in recent times it is sometimes the only chance for choice we get — more on that later. The recent completion of the by-election in Constituency 10 resulted in what can be described only as an exercise in pronounced voter apathy. We are led to believe through varying reports of the candidates on the hustings that a formidable amount of on-the-door canvassing pre-empted voting day, with canvassing by some going as far back as last October. In fairness, some of the candidates were more recent and one of the known political entities decided not to field a candidate as well.

Some of the reasons being offered as a way of explaining why 55 per cent of the voters chose to stay home were the tried-and-true tropes of “Well, it was a by-election, which always has a lower turnout” or “Well, it was a safe seat, so my vote would not mean much”. As well as a myriad of other excuses. So the decision was left to a minority of the constituency to choose the representative for all of Constituency 10.

Let us look at the results. True, only 574 out of a possible 1,275 voted; amazingly low. Of the 574, the results were virtually split even, with 209, 184 and 181 to the first, second and third respectively. Taking the result at its face value, the winner can conclude that of those who voted, two thirds did not choose them — which was the same for the second and third place as well. Our system of first-past-the-post, in this case, allowed for someone with 36 per cent of the votes cast to be declared a winner. It brings to question whether that policy works well in more than a two-person contest. Surely, you can be disappointed in 55 per cent staying at home, for whatever reason, but what you are really concerned about is that the system allowed for a winner with only 16 per cent of the possible voting constituency.

Do you still think that your voting is not that important?

We are all familiar with the expression “canary in the coalmine”. The by-election results of Constituency 10 have unearthed any number of questions and possibilities as to the successful future of our present system. Given the established two-party system under which the voting tabulation was designed, someone with a majority of the votes cast would have at worst tied. However, with the considerable and encouraging result by the independent candidate, as well as the promised challenge by a full third party, the canary is in full song.

Are we looking at the next government being elected as a minority government? Should we be considering the possibilities of run-off results for those not securing a 50 per cent plus one of votes cast? The days of primaries for candidates within the established parties seem to have gone the way of the do-do bird. There were great accusations about interference by central party figures within constituencies over our past few elections. Is the only choice for party membership at the polls and therefore they vote with their feet as a choice — ie, 55 per cent? Will we be happy with the possibility of a minority-elected government? Sure, they won the required number of seats to form a government but with what mandate?

Maybe the Constituency 10 by-election did not make earth-shattering changes in the House of Assembly; perhaps all elected MPs are like that turkey who would never vote for Thanksgiving. The results of any election have consequences — some intended, some unintended. What it certainly achieved is the need for a review of our system.

As is the case here, every election in a participating democracy is important. Every vote is equally essential. No vote equals no voice. Voting in a democracy at times can be messy, but with careful monitoring and constant improvement, it is still the best system we have for all our people. As always, there is work to be continued to assure all our people equity and fairness in our systems.

• David J. Sullivan was an independent candidate in the 2011 by-election for Devonshire South Central