Why reduce the number of polling places when there will be more voters?

Dear Editor,
The GECOM has decided to reduce the number of polling stations in certain areas of our country in what they would now flaunt as “security reasons”. They have decided that they will only use public buildings for places of poll, cutting out the use of private residences.
At face value, this reasoning sounds good, judging from the fact that public buildings and not private ones are for public use and this should eliminate the incidence of fraud or tampering of any kind. It also lends credence to the idea that all elections should be free, fair and transparent, so stop the use of private residences for voting, but are the foregoing factors the real reason?
I would, therefore, ask the question whether this is the real agenda of GECOM. Is this the motive of the commission, that is, to conduct a free, fair and transparent system of election on March 2nd and the answer comes back with a resounding no! It cannot be that this is their real motive, for the simple fact that this election will see a massive turnout of voters and a massive turnout of voters means that there should have been an increase rather than a decrease in the number of polling areas. Common sense dictates that on an anticipated increase at least there should have been an enhancement of that which exist, rather than a reduction.
This tells anyone, even if you had half a brain, that GECOM is on a course to disenfranchise voters or cause massive confusion on Election Day. This hideous decision by GECOM to arbitrarily reduce the number of polling stations bears all the hallmark of a commission that is conjoined with a desperate government to disenfranchise voters of The Opposition. The plan is as clear as the noonday sun.
So, this is the situation that confronts us:
1. Persons are going to turn up at their usual places of poll only to find that their names are not on the polling register there.
2. The old and physically challenged persons would have the most nightmarish of experiences come voting day.
3. In the rush to find polling places many would become disillusioned and afraid and decide to call it a day
4. There would be no extension to the polling hours after the royal runaround to locate the place to cast your ballot, hence a large number of persons would be left out of the voting process.
5. Riverain and other far-flung interior communities who have to travel long distances (some of these taking an entire day) to get to their usual places of poll would be turned away and told to go someplace else. Those persons will find it difficult to do so hence missing their God-given opportunity to vote.
6. The Government controlled GECOM would have fulfilled its agenda in siphoning off a huge chunk of Opposition voters while, as it were, strengthening those in the incumbent’s strongholds.
7. Thus, the hidden agenda of engineering a so-called close election would have been achieved, which means that the Granger Government remains in office.
As common-sense dictates that those persons fired by The PNC Controlled Government would not, and I repeat, would not vote for them so it is that with a massive turnout of voters a reduction of polling places will spell doom for the electors on election day. It is also clear that with the reduction of polling stations means that many will be disenfranchised. I call on The International Community to so intervene and stop this violation of our constitutional right to vote.

Respectfully,
Neil Adams