It's no use hiding under the covers over island-wide voting

IT IS a well-rehearsed complaint, often from the disenfranchised – you just cannot trust a deputy to do what they say.

A little sweeping perhaps, but they just don't help themselves sometimes.

Take the confused mess that is island-wide voting, a fine example that it does not matter what States members' intentions are, when they vote for a proposition after however many hours of debate, or even what the people proposing it think it means, or what the public are told it means, once a committee is safely tucked away back in a boardroom it can ignore it all anyway.

This is what adds to the sense of the yo-yo government we go through, it is what turns the public off and breeds that feeling of distrust.

So take a deep breath as we take ourselves back to the summer of 2015.

In what can still only be described as a rush of blood to the head, the States voted 'that for the 2020 General Election and thereafter, all deputies shall be elected on an island-wide basis and all voters shall have the same number of votes as there are deputies' seats provided that such a system shall first have been approved in an island-wide referendum'.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, that was the decision – full island-wide voting in one election if approved in a referendum.

Clean and simple.

Now the States Assembly & Constitution Committee, the tinker men and women, have taken a liberal approach to that vote – and some, including me, would say wilfully misinterpreted the whole tone and direction of the hours of debate that preceded for their own ends.

They want to put not just that option, but three other variants of island-wide voting and the status quo to the public, and so when they return to the States in June we are set for another rerun of debates on why one system is better than another – which was exactly what the last Assembly, so exasperated with the topic, was trying to avoid.

Now, I like Sacc, I like the way they are the most transparent committee in the States; holding meetings in front of the media so we can all see how the propositions grow and develop.

But that openness does not shield them from criticism.

In the Hansard report are the clues as to why we are where we are with island-wide voting, and also in some columns written for this newspaper.

Sacc chairman Deputy Matt Fallaize, along with his committee, argues they are fulfilling the proposition because that option is included, it's just that there is nothing to expressly rule out proposing others.

Which makes you question what all those hours spent in the chamber are for. It is open season to ignore States' intentions on anything.

Why have we ended up with all these options on the table?

Hansard helps us here, and if only Deputy Fallaize had taken his own advice we could have avoided a costly referendum that will come up with no clearer answers than we have now.

You have to remember that there were two key phases in the 2015 debate – firstly accepting an amendment by former Deputy Peter Gillson for full island-wide voting for 2020, to the Wilkie requete that envisaged seven members elected island-wide, then accepting Deputy Fallaize's amendment to make that Gillson move subject to a referendum.

During that second phase Deputy Fallaize said something he has now chosen to ignore: 'Members cannot somehow snuggle themselves under a duvet and wish that the last two or three or four hours had not happened – (laughter and interjections) although they may wish to.

'But that cannot happen, we cannot go back to the way things were before voting on Deputy Gillson's amendment.

'I know that Deputy Perrot wants to have a referendum on having a portion of the States elected island-wide.

'That is why he signed Deputy Wilkie's amendment, but Deputy Wilkie's amendment has lost, because it has been replaced by Deputy Gillson's propositions.'

He questioned what members would do if Deputy Gillson's model got through.

'They are going to be left with full island-wide voting, for all members of the States, without any referendum inbetween.'

He adds: 'I am seeking to return effectively to the 2014 position, where rightly the States did vote for Deputy Queripel's amendment to have a referendum on exactly this basis on this island-wide voting system.'

To stress the point, Deputy Fallaize, in arguing for the referendum, is talking about applying it only to full island-wide voting system, but has now chosen to snuggle back under the duvet.

In 2014, the discussion was not about a multi-option referendum, just as it was not in 2015. Indeed, a multi-choice referendum concept has never been debated, much less voted for.

It is also clear other members felt it was about putting full island-wide to the public.

This from Deputy Roger Perrot: 'Now, I would expect – actually I am being a little bit disingenuous here – I know that Deputy Fallaize would say of me, if I said to him, 'Why don't we put a wider question as to what sort of island-wide voting you like?'

'He would say, ''You can only put one question to the electorate, because anything else becomes confused''.'

Then look at the view of who seconded the referendum amendment, Deputy Heidi Soulsby, neatly summing up the situation on Twitter last week. 'I seconded the proposition on referendum. I wasn't envisaging multiple options when I did so ...means no option will have majority support.'

But, of course, the multi-choice referendum appears to be what Deputy Fallaize, an agnostic on the island-wide voting issue, wanted all along if you look at his speech on the Gillson amendment: 'If we are going to end up in a place where all members of the States are elected on an island-wide basis I think, probably, there will have to be split terms, so that perhaps half the States are elected every two years.

'Or possibly – and this is perhaps contentious but it would certainly make the system more workable – the States' terms could go to six years, and a third of the States could come up for election every two years.

'Now that would mean only perhaps 12 or 13 seats coming up for election – and that would be eminently workable.'

And those two options are now on the table.

And where has the two and four super district options in the referendum come from?

It is something Deputy Peter Roffey, elected back to the States this term and a member of Sacc, has been arguing for as a columnist for some time.

So consumed with inventing different electoral systems is the States that it appears to be losing sight of why it should change.

It should only change if the new model will lead to a better Assembly with more skilled, representative individuals in it, or increase the numbers of people voting, again making the States more representative of society and giving those in it a stronger franchise.

There was talk in 2015 of the referendum costing £400,000.

It won't, because that was predicated on having a new electoral roll.

But we are looking at a significant six-figure sum of money to fund this exercise – just imagine if that was instead spent on getting more people engaged and signed up to the electoral roll, because we know once on it the island has strong turnout numbers.

That would be good for democracy.