Island-wide voting pitfalls ignored by States

Maybe I'm swimming against a strong populist tide. I know the idea of total IWV, all at one go, has many supporters. Not surprising as it's a hugely attractive concept – until you delve into the practical difficulties involved. What disappoints me is that our political leaders, well aware of all of those pitfalls, chose to ignore them in an orgy of shallow populism.

Personally I'm very attracted to IWV. As a voter I want to influence the election of all island deputies. As a potential candidate it would suit me down to the ground. Why then am I left feeling annoyed by last week's debate instead of whooping for joy?

Even worse, many of those proposing this system didn't even believe it would work. Home minister Peter Gillson led the move. A former opponent of IWV, this time he proposed it in its absolutely most impractical format. He thought it would probably prove to be a mess but he wanted to give it a go anyway. HSSD minister Paul Luxon echoed those sentiments.

These two ministers, having studied the idea of having all deputies elected at the same time by IWV, with each elector getting 38 votes, concluded it wouldn't work but effectively said 'Let's do it anyway and if it proves a dog's dinner, that will show them'.

If they regard that as responsible leadership, then perhaps it's just as well they're both calling it a day.

Just as bad were those who supported the amendment because they want party politics in Guernsey and felt this was a stalking horse to that end.

I suspect three other ministers – Le Tocq, Stewart and St Pier – fell into that camp. Their thinking? 'The only way this system could possibly work is with party politics, so if we bring it in candidates will then be almost forced to group themselves into parties.'

How perverse is that? Guernsey currently has no political parties, so why support a system which you think will only work with them? Why not have the courage to first test the island's appetite for party politics by forming a party and seeing how you fare?

I also fear the referendum will leave huge swathes of the population frustrated. It seems likely the binary choice will be 'Yes to a system doomed to be a farce' or 'No, let's keep the status quo'. How on earth should those strongly opposed to both choices actually vote?

The saddest thing is that Friday's vote removed the instruction to SACC to look at better ways to reform our electoral system. There are many.

One compromise would be to split the island into three super-constituencies each electing 10 deputies. Experience tells us that asking voters to choose up to about 10 deputies at a time works but any more and it tends to become a lottery.

If IWV is considered the Holy Grail, then what about electing 10 deputies every two years to serve for a six- year term in a House of 30? Far more manageable. But such practical reform proposals are now well and truly off the table.

How will this pan out? The idea of electing all 38 deputies in one island-wide election will probably be supported in a referendum because people won't have looked deeply enough into the problems.

I also predict such an election will only happen once in 2020 because it will be such a dog's breakfast people will say 'never again'. Just what the false supporters of the system such as deputies Gillson and Luxon wanted.

So my advice to genuine supporters of IWV is not to celebrate too much. 'You've been had, mates.' And as a result real, sustainable electoral reform has probably been delayed by a decade.

PETER ROFFEY,

Herat,

Route de St Andre,

St Andrew's.