Have your say – but we don't have to listen

YOU could not make it up.

Only the States could give the public a say by having a referendum while at the same time taking away their voice by deciding they don't have to listen and follow the outcome of it.

The poll on whether to move to some form of island-wide voting has enough difficulty surrounding it without tying it up even tighter in a Gordian knot.

Last term's decision to have a referendum on full island-wide voting was taken in rash circumstances to start with.

But underlying it was the fact there had been an endless debate on the issue, with no States able to coalesce around an answer. So it was argued the public should be asked instead to solve the puzzle.

There will be five options on the ballot paper next year – and in the meantime it is expected that official campaign groups will appear to argue the case for each one.

It is an exercise that will cost £159,000 yet one that now, unless there is a rethink, appears to the outside world as nothing more than an overblown consultation exercise.

The States would do well to remember the public scorn that it is met with over consultations before where people have felt it has been nothing more than a token gesture before decisions are taken anyway.

The 19 members who voted against making the referendum politically binding if there was a turnout above 40% no doubt felt their reasoning was perfectly sound.

You can persuade yourself of those things while shut in the chamber.

Some argued that if it was not legally binding, what was the point in even making this gesture?

Others were concerned about how the result would be interpreted given that it will use preferential voting.

Some felt the 40% turnout figure lacked enough evidence, while others no doubt just do not like government being told what to do by the public.

But take a step back away from the sacred grounds of the debating chamber and the States just looks out of touch and contrary.

A statement by the States Assembly and Constitution Committee gives hope that there may yet be some sense brought to all this – that needs to happen.

After hitting the phones this weekend to those who voted down the politically binding element, chairman Deputy Matt Fallaize clearly believes that the antis are beginning to see some sense.

'The committee is going to work with colleagues in the States hopefully to get to a point where the States feel able well in

advance of the referendum to make a clear commitment to the public that if a reasonable number of islanders turn out and vote then their message will be respected, the winning option will be introduced and the will of the people will be carried into effect,' said Deputy Fallaize.

But it is already another dent to this Assembly's reputation.

The argument about it being only politically binding is vapid – deputies would soon find out at the general election what happens to someone who makes a commitment to implement what the public says and then reneges on the deal.

Make no bones about it, having a referendum on this topic is fraught with danger – but the States has accepted that risk.

Any changes to the voting system can dramatically change the type of politician that is elected. In the worst case this would lead to more extreme candidates being successful and less opportunity for talented new blood to get in.

The States could become less representative of society – and it is hardly a model for that now.

An inherent difficulty in the mechanics of running any type of island-wide poll have been well rehearsed.

Island-wide voting is a beacon that attracts a vocal part of the electorate who are keener to vote people out than they are to positively vote people in – how they will respond if the outcome is not to their liking under a new system will be fascinating.

Full island-wide voting could work with a streamlined and more efficient States, but that option is not on the table.

Without party politics or political affiliation, it also does not overcome the shortcoming that Guernsey's general election is a vote on character, not a vote for a policy direction that should be pursued.

That direction all gets churned over in the chamber – that is a slow and laborious process, as evidenced by the fact that it will not be until 2018 Budget time, some year and a half into this term, that we will have a clear indication of where this Assembly is taking us.

This is almost enough time for the UK to unravel its whole relationship with the European Union.

When making a decision on electoral reform, we need to ask ourselves what the goals are.

Ultimately, will it achieve a better States that will drive a successful island economically, socially and environmentally?

Will it also increase public participation and engagement?

So far there has been very little testing of the changes that will be in the referendum – they feel like technical answers to a question that is about so much more.