Yes/no referendum would be a pointless exercise

Peter suggests the resolution allows for the referendum to feature this one method of election only. This is incorrect.

Clearly the resolution requires that this method of election must be included in the referendum, but the States did not resolve that the referendum must prevent the people of Guernsey from expressing their views on other methods of election.

In any event, the propositions which the committee will submit shortly will allow the States, if they so wish, to hold a referendum solely on the question of whether all deputies should be elected on an island-wide basis in a single election on one day.

This alone shows how wrong it is to suggest that the committee is failing to adhere to the States' resolution.

However, while superficially attractive, a yes/no referendum on one method of election only would have significant weaknesses.

A 'yes' vote would be clear enough, but a 'no' vote would be as clear as mud. Debate would rage about whether the public had implicitly endorsed the current method of election or simply rejected the only alternative on offer and about whether a different electoral system would have been chosen had it been allowed on the ballot paper.

Some cynics would accuse the States of having tried to manipulate the outcome in favour of the status quo by offering voters only the purest or most extreme (depending on one's view) form of island-wide voting.

Quite unnecessarily, voters would be denied the chance to express their views on other methods of election despite previous research showing that public opinion on the subject is very diverse.

A yes/no referendum on the concept of island-wide voting – rather than on any one particular method of election – would be even worse. A 'no' vote would not necessarily be an endorsement of the status quo and a 'yes' vote would provide no clarity about which of the many forms of island-wide was preferred.

'Yes' voters would inevitably disagree with each other, the decision would have to be passed back to the States, who have already spent decades unable to reach a settled view, and the referendum would leave nobody any the wiser.

A more pointless exercise it is difficult to imagine.

Instead, the committee will recommend offering people a proper and fair choice between five different methods of electing deputies.

The committee will recommend using preferential and transferable voting: voters will rank the options in their order of preference and the 'winning' option will have secured the broad endorsement of the public. Preferential voting is used in many parts of the world and has been used successfully in referendums.

Those who favour the election of all deputies on an island-wide basis in a single election on one day can rest assured that if the committee's recommendations are accepted, and if the people vote for that system in the referendum, it will

be introduced in time for the 2020 general election.

But those deputies who are so insistent that the referendum should be on this system only should explain why they want to deny choice to the people of Guernsey when asking them to determine their future electoral system.

Peter quotes me (probably correctly, but I haven't checked) as having said that if there is to be island-wide voting it should be on the basis of all deputies being elected island-wide. If I did say this, it is entirely consistent with what the committee will recommend to the States.

The committee cannot be criticised for developing its proposals behind closed doors. It is the only committee of the States which holds its meetings in open session. Other deputies attend occasionally and the media are present most of the time.

Organising the referendum is the committee's first priority. Other deputies and members of the public have been welcome to express their views, some have, and these have helped to shape the committee's proposals.

The parish douzaines, which play an essential and valued role in helping to organise elections, have been consulted.

All deputies will have further opportunities not just to express their views but actually to determine the details of the referendum – first when the States debate the committee's policy letter and a second time when the States debate the legislation which will give the referendum legal status.

The five members of the committee cannot be criticised for being unduly biased for or against island-wide voting or dogmatic about referendums generally. Some members have in the past voted in favour of island-wide voting; others have voted against or are new to the States. Some committee members are sceptical about the use of referendums; others proposed, or voted in favour of, holding this referendum. So the members of the committee started from quite different positions but with open minds and through research and debate are now unanimous about the best way forward.

I have asked the presiding officer for permission to make a statement on behalf of the committee at the next States meeting on 26 April. It will set out further details and provide deputies with an opportunity to ask questions of the committee.

MATT FALLAIZE,

President, States Assembly

& Constitution Committee.