October 12, 2011Dear Sir,I would appreciate the opportunity to respond to the letter submitted by a Polly Sawyer, Southampton appearing in your periodical. It will come as no surprise to your readers that I do not have nor have I ever had a “buddy” by the name of Polly Sawyer. The outlandish assumption of knowing me is at best a liberal application of the truth. It will also come as no surprise to your readers that there is no such person as Polly Sawyer, Southampton. How interesting.Polly Sawyer, like so many of the other sniper oriented non-de-plumes that frequent the Letters to the Editor, believe that writing in anonymity some how gives largesse to their cause. Sadly, it is quite the opposite. Their very public lack of conviction to stand behind their statements relates only their certified ‘party hack' status. As a party operative, the objective is to perpetuate the bogeyman theory of his proposition that “At worst, he splits the vote and the PLP get the seat ...” Surely even Polly or whoever he is can read election results, particularly those of the Devonshire South  Central constituency. I guess it is possible that 80 percent of the electorate would not show up to the bye-election and that would get his desired result. However, with that kind of logic being expressed it is no wonder that neither the Premier nor Mr Francona has called him.Polly would be hard pressed to substantiate that I have advocated a 36-independent seat Parliament. But why allow facts to get in the way of political rhetoric? I guess one would have to appreciate how many ways one can get to 19 seats. After all that is how you become government. Another pesky fact. I am an independent candidate because I would not run for the PLP. If I was a member of the OBA I could only be a candidate under a completely different set of rules than his current candidate is. Howzat! (Check your party's constitution, Polly.)What this independent candidate is providing is a choice for the voters of Devonshire South Central. The choice is between the candidate(s) representing party politics, with business as usual, and a candidate with whom the constituents can relate to. In voting for that candidate, the constituents can express in real terms their dissatisfaction with Party Politics failure to perform their function — to represent the voters who put them in. That cannot be a bad thing in a democracy. Finally, I take great issue with Polly or who ever he is that any vote cast is “wasted”. A vote is the only tool in the arsenal of democracy that a constituent has that is equal to all others. The only wasted vote is the one that is not cast! That is what I guess Polly is hoping will happen to validate the bogeyman.DAVID J SULLIVANPaget