None of the arguments for IWV stands up to much scrutiny

I describe this campaign for IWV as disturbing because its adherents have predicated their argument on three principal assumptions, only one of which even begins to stand up to thorough scrutiny. I am doubly concerned because I have yet to hear or read much scrutiny being applied to these dodgy assumptions, even by those who oppose the imposition of IWV. Instead, the latter seem to base their opposition purely on the practical difficulties of making IWV work rather than on the flawed principle at the heart of the concept.

To me, that is tantamount to telling the lemmings that a mass tumble down the cliff face is a great idea but that we cannot figure out how to get them to the edge in sufficient numbers.

So what about the three broad assumptions of which the requerants are so confident but I am so doubtful? They are as follows: that IWV is in popular demand; that it will be more democratic than the current system based on electoral districts; and that it will raise the quality of those elected by it. Let's scrutinise each of these in turn.

The first of them may be correct for all I know, although anecdotal accounts from some door-stepping candidates at the last general election, seemingly reinforced by a few random (I hope not selective) soundings and a tiny straw poll in the media, hardly amount to evidence that convinces me.

Still, if you hear something said often enough, and it goes unchallenged, it is not long before you come to accept it as fact, which may explain the editorial opinion of the Guernsey Press, which seems to be that, good or bad, IWV is inevitable. Which describes the position in which I found myself until I conducted my own straw poll of 52 friends, acquaintances and sundry others who looked as if they wouldn't object to being asked a question by a stranger.

I posed the question with no prompting as to what answer I hoped to receive, and I phrased it along the lines 'would you to prefer all deputies to be elected island wide or by the current electoral districts?' The response was 69% (36) against IWV and indicated clearly that I am far from alone in my concerns about a reckless rush towards IWV under the banner of 'It's what the people want'.

Indeed, it was the vehemence with which some expressed their opposition to IWV that has prompted me to make this contribution to the debate. Interestingly, many of the 36 opponents of IWV favoured a hybrid system whereby all but 10 deputies were elected by their parishes, with 10 being elected island-wide, as conseillers once were. I have no trouble with that – indeed, I advocate it – but that is not the IWV the requerants have in mind.

I count those whom I asked for an opinion as being broadly representative of the wider community, but let's consider, for the sake of argument, that in the matter of IWV, they are all mavericks, and that the majority of would-be voters would prefer to elect all deputies by IWV. Would that make IWV right? In choosing something as fundamental as our electoral system, do we want the most popular or the most democratic and effective? In the 21st century, do we really wish our legislators to measure issues by their transient popularity rather than by their enduring merits? We would probably still have corporal punishment if that issue had been decided on its popularity.

IWV would be right and would deserve popular support if it were democratic. It isn't. Where is the democracy in a system which gives each voter a stark choice between two inherently undemocratic options? Let me explain via a picture of the scene on voting day in 2016. There stands the voter in the privacy of the booth, pencil poised above a list of 80 to 100 candidates (78 in 2012 but we are told IWV will encourage more to stand). Three of the candidates are named Le Page, there are two Smiths and one each of Macé, Mahé, Mahy and Mahon. The voter has 45 votes but knows only 15 of the candidates well enough to make a considered, informed decision whether or not to vote for them. The rest of the candidates are around 70 in number. Twenty of them have names which are vaguely familiar to the voter, the remaining 50 or so are totally unknown to him. So the voter has an unenviable choice to make between two options: either use 15 votes and throw away the remaining 30, or cast all 45 votes, of which 30 will be as random as the throw of a dice.

It is not the voter's fault that he is placed in this difficult position, because he has conscientiously followed the advice of the IWV requerants. He has read assiduously all 80-100 manifestos but found that by the end of a heroic effort spread over several days, he had forgotten who had promised what. Undeterred, the voter has also heeded the advice of one of the IWV requerants to attend a mass meeting with a view to getting to know all the candidates through face-to-face engagement with each of them. This, apparently, would replace the traditional hustings which had served such a useful purpose under the previous system. The mass meeting, it was said, would enable the voter to make a fair assessment of each candidate's suitability. Unfortunately, most of the 21,000 strong electorate (20,450 in 2012 but we are told that IWV will reduce voter apathy) had heeded the same advice, and by the time this voter had queued his way into Beau Sejour, only five seconds per candidate had been possible.

The voter had then pinned his hopes on receiving a personal visit at home from each of the candidates. The voter had found this a most valuable feature of the previous system of voting by electoral districts, not only because it enabled face to face contact but also because it demonstrated the level of the candidates' dedication to the democratic process. The voter was therefore disappointed to receive no visits at home from any of the island-wide candidates. It was explained to the voter that the 80-100 candidates had concluded, perhaps not unreasonably, that it was a bit much to expect them to visit all 26,000 of Guernsey's households in the time available for canvassing. When it was suggested that they did as candidates had always done and visit the households in the local area covering their former electoral districts, they pointed out that would defeat the whole purpose of going island-wide, wouldn't it?

So the voter's plight in the voting booth is not of his making, but he still has to choose between two options. Let us have a close look at them.

Option 1. This option requires the voter to cast only one third of his entitled votes because he knows only 15 of the candidates well enough to cast an informed vote. So the following thoughts come to this voter's mind: 'this option will waste two thirds of my entitled votes. What's more, it will mean that 30 good candidates among the remainder will not receive the votes they deserve from me simply because they are not known to me. Still, better that than give a blind vote to 30 weak candidates. And just think, if all 21,000 voters each cast 30 blind votes, how many weak candidates will get voted in by the equivalent of a mass game of blind man's bluff. Where would the democracy be in that, let alone the sense in it?'

Option 2. Alternatively, this voter can use all 45 votes, or as many as possible before the pencil breaks. Of course, only 15 of them will be given to candidates known to him as good candidates who will make effective deputies. As for the 30 candidates who will receive this voter's blind votes, it will be pure luck if he chooses wisely. Despite that, the voter concludes, 'better that than use only one third of my democratic entitlement; where would be the democracy in not exercising to the full the new-found democratic rights given me by IWV?'

The voter in question would in fact have a further option, which brings me to the matter of the third assumption made by the IWV supporters, namely that the introduction of IWV would improve the quality of the deputies elected by it. I suggest it would be quite the reverse. In the commercial world, marketing gurus know the necessity of getting your name out there and keeping it there. By such means, the makers of Whizzo Pops know that if they get their name out there, their sales will be strong, not because they need to advertise to those already converted to them, nor to those who think they are rubbish and will not be seduced by any advertising. Their target is the uncommitted shopper who scans the bewildering array of breakfast cereals in the supermarket and whose hand is guided subliminally to the brand whose name has become somehow familiar. Never mind that Whizzo Pops contains so much sugar, salt and fat that it will rot your teeth, clog up your arteries and make you obese – at least you know the name, and better the devil you know.

So it can be in politics. I am of course making a general point and would not wish to impugn any Guernsey politicians, either actual or would-be. For all I know, there are no Whizzo Pops deputies in the current States, but since the requerants have made IWV a purely local issue by invoking to their cause the principle that IWV will lead to a more competent Assembly of Guernsey deputies, and since this bold, some might say rash, experiment would be carried out in Guernsey, it is only right to examine it in the local context of the States of Guernsey and put ourselves in the position of the Guernsey voter in the voting booth. This voter, having concluded on the one hand that it would be undemocratic to use only one third of his entitled votes, and on the other hand that it would be equally undemocratic to cast 30 blind votes, now decides, out of desperation, to cast all 45 votes, around 20 of which will be to candidates whose names happen to be most familiar because they have cultivated the rich fields provided by the media. The voter thinks aloud: 'that will be less undemocratic than the other two options. Surely that will be one step below blind man's bluff. Or will it? Compared with the candidates whose names are not familiar, are the Whizzo Pops candidates more or less likely to make good or poor deputies?'

I do not know what this voter decided in the end for the simple reason that I do not know what I will do when I find myself in that booth in 2016, pencil hovering above 80-100 names. I disagree with the reported suggestion of one of the IWV requerants that we should be relaxed about not using many of our votes, as if the votes that we are privileged to hold in a democracy are no more precious than our right to choose items from a wide range of consumer goods or our favourite couples on Strictly Come Dancing.

The very idea that the casting of our votes is so inconsequential is an unintended confession as to the inherent lack of democracy in the IWV concept.

While on the subject of confessions, one requerant admits that IWV will work best if the voters withhold most of their full entitlement of votes for fear of undermining the support of their most favoured candidates. In other words, some of the requerants are relying on us, even urging us, not to use all our votes. What a negative view of democracy.

So, bad luck all you would-be first timers with low profiles: IWV will make sure there won't be any island-wide hustings through which to make yourself known; it will prevent you from achieving recognition by island-wide canvassing; nor will it enable you to compete for a media profile on an equal footing with sitting, career deputies. It would be uncharitable to suggest that some candidates who already enjoy a high media profile might welcome that, but there is no denying they risk the perception that they do.

A balanced argument must include at this point an acknowledgement that voting by electoral districts does not itself result in full use of the six or seven votes to which the voter is entitled. In the 2012 general election, an average of 4.6 votes were cast per voter in the constituencies with six candidates. Bearing in mind that this average of 77% of available votes was cast for candidates well known to the local electorate, how much more difficult will it be to achieve 77% of votes (35 out of 45) being cast under IWV when so many of the candidates will be relatively unknown?

Those who call for IWV seek to reinforce their case by making three weak arguments against voting by electoral districts, First, they accuse those who vote under that system of voting purely on their assessment of which candidates will best look after their particular parish at the expense of the greater good of Guernsey. They go on to label deputies elected via a parish-based system as being incapable of exercising their judgement of what that greater good might be, or, even worse, insult them for being too cowardly to be guided by it. I wonder what the evidence is for this assertion.

I thought the recent school closure debate had all the ingredients of healthy democracy at work. Of the six St Sampson's deputies, five voted for the closure of St Sampson's Infants School while one, quite correctly and democratically, reflected the strongly held views of his constituent voters. In the case of St Andrew's Primary School, the south-east deputies split four/two against closure – a thoroughly proportionate representation of how the issue was viewed across the parish most affected. The result was a controversial decision taken in the wider interest of Guernsey but only after the minority view had received a full and proper airing. Where was the harm in that? Are the IWV advocates suggesting that it was poor democracy for two thirds of the south-east deputies to represent the views of the majority of their constituents in St Andrew's? I am angered by the tendency to disparage the parochial genes that are a valuable part of Guernsey's make-up. It reflects a patronising, even arrogant, attitude held by those with little personal attachment to the parish in which they live and who seem hell bent on a rush towards 'big government' of an island that is made for 'small government'.

The second criticism of the current voting system advanced by IWV supporters is that it prevents the best candidates from succeeding and allows the worst candidates to 'get away with it'. One hears claims that unsuccessful candidate A would have been elected had voting been island-wide, while successful candidate B would have had no chance outside the electoral district concerned. Again, I wonder where the evidence of such a claim is. Which of the current deputies would not have been elected by IWV and which unsuccessful candidates would now be sitting in the States had IWV been in place? And where is the logic in asserting that voters are gullible when assessing the strengths and weaknesses of candidates they know well in their parishes, and yet the very same voters under IWV will somehow acquire infinite wisdom when they are assessing candidates they know less well or not at all?

Thirdly, IWV supporters would have it that general elections by electoral district and parish have somehow contributed to an alleged island-wide disenchantment with an out-of-touch government. Again, I ask for evidence of cause and effect. IWV makes sense in Alderney since a small electorate of around 1,200 has to choose only five of their 10 representatives every two years. The States members elected in this way subsequently live cheek by jowl with their electorate. Does their IWV mandate protect them from unpopularity and accusations of being out of touch once the tough decisions of government have to be made? Just ask them. I think I know what their answer would be.

At the top of this letter, I warned of unintended consequences. Here is one more to add to those already identified. IWV will open the doors to political influence for numerically strong interest groups. Interest groups, when suitably encouraged, become pressure groups, which vote in large numbers for candidates sympathetic to their cause. Although not exactly sponsored, deputies who owe their seat in the assembly to the votes of a pressure group are then vulnerable to the whole business of professional lobbying. From there, the next logical step is not far short of party politics. Far fetched? Not at all.

Take, for instance, the case of large States departments. At the next general election, certain candidates could stand on a platform of raising the budget of Department X by 10%. Department X directly employs over 2,000 staff and indirectly provides the income for several hundred more in the private sector. They will all be aware of the identity of these sympathetic candidates. Add the domestic partners of these staff members and that is some 3,000 votes in the bag for their candidates. Is that reprehensible? No. Given the chance, we would all be tempted to vote in our own self-interest and it is part and parcel of the sort of democracy some might welcome. Do we want that sort of democracy in Guernsey? Not for me, thank you.

I began with a metaphor of lemmings and cliffs. Of course, I do not suggest for one moment that those who support IWV (including some friends) are furry little creatures with short tails and small brains, all looking for a cliff to fall over. But try as I might, I cannot get the image out of my mind. For there really is a cliff top ahead in 2016, and we won't see how steep and deep is the drop until we get to the edge, nor how messy it is at the bottom till we fall over it.

In my view, IWV, whether it be popular or not, and leaving aside the considerable difficulties in its practical application, is fundamentally flawed in principle. Its consequences, unintended by some of its advocates, intended by others, are predictable and unwelcome to me. IWV will be anti-democratic, will place the voter at a greater distance from most of the candidates, will lower the quality of the States, will disadvantage good, new candidates while favouring the Whizzo Pops variety, and will open the door to undue influence by pressure groups. So what is the point of it?

Whizzo Pops for breakfast, Sir? No thanks, I will stick with my porridge – at least I know what's in it.

RICHARD GRAHAM.