The puzzle of engagement

SOME 20,000 people who are eligible to vote have turned down that chance.

The question has to be why and what can be done to increase political engagement?

Of course, this all puts some more perspective on the turnout figures come election time, which are usually very good – once people are signed up they tend to vote – but how representative is the government of the island at large given the number of the roll?

To some, the answer to this apathy is island-wide voting – it is what the people want, they argue.

And to an extent they are right, some people do want it.

People that are politically engaged, and most deputies themselves, rather like the concept of island-wide voting – what is much less clear is outside of that grouping how much the public at large, particularly those not on the roll, really care about how they vote. Would it be the magic bullet to get people active again?

There may well be other moves that would be much more effective.

We have spent months listening to the message of how important it is to sign up to the roll and have your say, the team behind the campaign have been out with their clipboards, tweeting and generally trying hard to drum up interest.

One of the problems though is showing the apathetic that the message is true, that it really does all make a difference. Every time the States ignores a consultation, for instance, gives more fuel to the fire for those that think it really does not matter and members will just do what they want when voted in anyway.

In terms of getting more people on the roll, there has been some targeting of the districts with the lowest number signed up, but that is too simplistic.

There is not enough understanding of the demographic breakdown of the apathetic to really make a significant difference.

Is it the young, the old or somewhere in between where the main malaise lies? Male or female?

Is it one particular part of society?

Know all that and you will know more how to reach your audience – and be able to do some work to find out why people do not want to vote.

The trouble is the dearth of information collected as part of the roll, meaning there can be no real targeting – people are now deaf to the simple message that you do not have a voice because you have not signed up.

That is repeated every four years with no understanding of the underlying trends, just 'finger in the air' guesswork.

Enrolment on a 'rolling' roll with an opt-out could well be much more of a significant move than playing around with how the voting system works.

As would any move to party politics, candidates standing on clear manifestos so that the public know what they are voting for and can hold people to account for those pledges.

There is another gap in the campaign that serves as a turn-off.

Islanders are asked to sign up to vote but have no idea at that time who they could be voting for.

In a way they know the negative – who they do not fancy from the incumbent – but everyone is blind to what choice will be on the table because no candidates have been confirmed so lack another part of the incentive to get engaged.

Resolve the all-round engagement puzzle and all of a sudden island-wide voting actually becomes much more tenable.

Currently, there is a danger that island-wide voting fails to engage people sufficiently in the campaign for them to be making informed choices and getting anywhere near casting 37 votes.

That could well lead to some trends in the voting that do not create any more of a representative government than the current system does.

Well known candidates, the incumbents or perhaps past members, have an inherent advantage because they have name recognition.

It is very unlikely the majority of the electorate would cast all their votes given the numbers involved, which may well open the door to something of a split States.

There could be big voting blocks behind the known names but the door will open for fringe or more extreme candidates to scrape in with much smaller proportions of the vote than the bottom few candidates get now.

Given the obvious logistical problems with organising an island-wide vote for the whole States, there needs to be very obvious benefits before it is brought in.

A large part of making an island-wide system anything like a success will all be about ensuring there is a wider understanding and engagement in politics than there is now combined with automatic enrolment.

But that said, to really work as the current States intends, a one-off vote for all members, that engagement needs to be combined with either a States that is much smaller, or has some sort of party system.

A party system almost certainly means the end of the consensus model because the party will be able to populate the senior committees and have a majority vote in debate.

There are obvious benefits to that approach – certainly decision-making will be speeded up – but it would be an anathema to those who prefer the steady-as-she-goes Guernsey way.

Off the record...

Last week we ran the latest list of runners and riders from this current States for the forthcoming election. Word reaches us that another name is confirmed – Deputy Paul Le Pelley will be standing. That takes the number up for election to 25, with nine known to be standing down and 11 whose position is unknown.

Ah Twitter, that great social media tool. Amazing, though, how some deputies' accounts that have been inactive for months on end, failing to answer questions when posed, have kicked dramatically back into life.

Well, not so amazing given what date is looming.

Keep a social media eye out for some particularly pointed daily sniping between two members too.