ST. GEORGE’S, GRENADA, APRIL 18-A leaked statistical report predicting an opposition New National Party (NNP) victory if elections were held now has triggered a public dispute between Grenadian statistician Dr. Justine Pierre and veteran journalist Hamlet Mark.

Dr. Pierre, a self-described psephologist, has stood firmly by his analysis, insisting that the projections are grounded in “science” rather than speculation.

The leaked draft, which had been circulated to stakeholders for review before publication, suggests the NNP could secure as many as nine seats under current conditions.

“This is serious business… we base our data on statistics and modeling,” Pierre said in a social media response after the leak, adding, “We have conducted 15 out of the 16 polls in the region successfully… and with regard to Grenada, we have never been wrong.”

Pierre argued that in Grenada’s highly contested constituencies, where some seats have been decided by margins as low as six votes, small shifts can produce major outcomes.

“A swing of 100 to 150 votes in three to four constituencies can produce a majority outcome,” he explained, defending the plausibility of an NNP pathway to government.

However, Hamlet Mark, in a widely circulated opinion piece titled “Of Bonkers Theory and Political Malpractice,” dismissed Pierre’s projections as flawed and possibly misleading.

“Pierre’s methods are not scientifically sound, at best, and questionable at worst,” Mark wrote, adding that some in the regional polling community describe the work as “colorful data analysis laundering.”

Mark’s central argument is that current, real-world polling and political intelligence do not support any clear path to an NNP majority, nor any party reaching the eight-seat threshold required to form government if elections were called now.

“Based on the real polling we have seen… nobody is winning eight,” he stated, pointing instead to high levels of “won’t say” and “don’t know” voters, which he argues signal volatility and opportunity for challengers.

He also highlighted what he described as a “third force factor” that could split votes and reshape outcomes, along with significant constituency-level uncertainty and campaign-dependent variables such as financing, messaging, and ground operations.

“There are three or four different scenarios that can play out,” Mark noted, warning against premature conclusions and adding, “Anyone suggesting someone is winning handsomely is trying to sell you a bridge. Don’t buy it.”

Mark estimates that the NNP currently holds a realistic base of three to five seats, citing constituencies such as St. George’s North West and St. Mark’s as strongholds, while disputing Pierre’s projections in key battlegrounds like St. Andrew’s North West, which he described as one of the incumbent National Democratic Congress’s strongest seats.

He also argued that wider national dynamics, including voter indecision and emerging political actors, make any decisive projection unreliable at this stage.

Both men cite past experience to support their positions.

Pierre points to a track record of correctly predicting 15 of 16 regional elections, including Grenada’s 2022 results, and references work across Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, St Lucia, and Guyana, including a published report in the Trinidad Guardian showing a successful forecast.

Mark, however, counters with examples where Pierre’s projections allegedly failed, most notably in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, where he claims Pierre’s analysis inaccurately suggested a breakthrough victory in the Southern Grenadines. “All his proper pollsters were telling him… it would be one seat. Then came the Pierre ‘poll’,” Mark wrote.

Despite their sharply different conclusions, both agree that the electoral environment is still fluid.

Pierre acknowledges multiple scenarios within his modeling, while Mark emphasizes the volatility of voter behavior and campaign dynamics.