---

Much has been said and written about the results of the December election.

But what I really want to know is this: Are our new MPs any better looking than the last lot?

This was the first time Bermudians ever got to vote with little photos of the candidates right there in front of them on the ballot paper.

I thought at first the idea was to benefit incredibly stupid people who, after all, have as much of a democratic right to vote as anybody else. If they couldn't read a candidate's name, or even figure out the initials PLP or UBP, maybe a photo would help them.

But I only thought that because I am incredibly stupid.

Unless a voter personally knew the candidate, what good would a photo do? How would they know the person in the photo was the person they wanted to vote for?

Even if the candidate had actually been to their doorstep, the voter could easily get them confused with some other candidate who also paid a visit.

The real reason for the photos, of course, was that the Premier (when he proposed the legislative change to make it happen) was convinced the PLP could put together a team that was more physically beautiful than anything the UBP could muster.

He also recognized that vanity is completely non-partisan: The UBP were bound to support the idea of photos on ballots because they thought they were better-looking.

There was, inevitably, a racial element to it too. Candidate photos made it easier for all Bermudians (and especially for people who were stupid as well as bigoted, and needed photos to guide them) to vote for the candidate of their favourite skin colour.

Human beings, though, are entirely unpredictable. Even people who are only half-stupid are prone to do very stupid things.

I spoke to one white voter before the election, for example, who told me he was going to vote for the PLP...not because he wanted the PLP to win (he sincerely hoped they wouldn't) but he did not want to give them the satisfaction of thinking that no white people voted for them.

Which is a reminder (as if we needed one) that, in addition to messing up neighbourhoods, schools, churches, clubs and political parties, our racist legacy also messes up our brains - no matter what colour our skin, and no matter how beautiful we look.

It's a reminder too, that our democratic system leaves its most important decisions to people who don't always know what they're doing or why they're doing it.

These people often cause less harm with their irrational whims, and make wiser choices, than many so-called intelligent people who weigh the issues carefully and vote in what they believe are educated ways.

At any rate, voting for somebody based how good they look is smarter than voting on the basis of race, or family tradition, or in a lot of the other mindless ways that are almost traditional here.

Certainly, both political parties seemed to think it matters what a candidate looks like, and that candidates look better if you dress them up smartly in a conservative and business-like way.

The PLP had their male candidates kitted out in dark jackets and neckties for their official photographs, and their female candidates were dressed like executives, too.

The UBP dressed up their crew in pretty much the same way, though all the women appear to have been told to wear red, and many of the men wore identical neckties with stripes in the UBP colours of blue, green and gold.

Maybe there's an official UBP tie design now. Or maybe the UBP is in worse shape than any of us imagined, and they only have one necktie between them, which they pass around when it's time for a photo.

Did the best-looking candidates win in the end?

You be the judge of that.

Right now, we're just a week away from the Throne Speech, which opens the new parliamentary session.

No matter how beautiful our election winners seemed in December, I guarantee you that all our politicians will look a lot less attractive when the parliamentary session is done.[[In-content Ad]]

---