‘More choice the better’ is simply not the case

When considering any method of selecting a system of selecting representatives to govern, there are, in my view, two key considerations between which there will always be tension – on one hand, the system must give the electors the chance to affect the result through the casting of their ballot and, on the other, the system must provide stability and a government that can govern. In the current debate, as in many similar in other countries and jurisdictions, the quest to achieve the former risks missing the critical nature of the latter when it is the latter which provides the stability required to grow, with a too great focus on the former meaning that government cannot function.

On the above basis, Option A therefore becomes completely untenable as a choice. It purports to offer ‘total choice’ when, in reality, it simply offers chaos and confusion. Having spoken to a number of different people over the past weeks, it does not require a keen analysis of the proposal to see the bewildering madness that would ensue when electors are offered the chance to cast 38 votes in respect of 100 candidates – plenty has already been written on this point and there is no need to revisit it here.

It strikes me as perverse that Deputy Peter Ferbrache backs A but does not propose any change to the way the States functions (and there are plenty of things which would make it run better) and the current system has at least provided the electorate with a comprehensible choice (which Option A patently does not). The idea that (somehow) Option A will lead automatically to party politics in Guernsey (with Deputy Ferbrache leading one party) and that this will make this 100 candidate/38 States members approach more palatable also makes little sense. Political parties arise in opposition to something else, they are generally single issue to start with and then grow to adapt to a wider policy approach. I do not currently see how the Islanders Association fits this bill – it is a mishmash of discontent and politicking at best, an insidious attempt by certain factions to undermine government at worst.

Option C, while having a veneer of sense (and I believe it is honourably proposed in good faith), does not really stack up when analysed under the proverbial microscope. As is well known, Option C harks back to a previous time but has, understandably, led to a debate about whether those elected island-wide will have more status/power than those chosen at ‘local’ level. The answer to this, of course, is why should they? There is nothing in any document or constitution which states this. I am reminded of Deputy Trott’s statement during the last election that a deputy who came ‘first’ in his district somehow should have an additional right to assume a top position in the States. This, of course, makes little sense on closer inspection and was dismissed out of hand – there is no system in the world which rewards the winner with additional rights based on the margin of victory – and the same will apply here unless additional rules are brought into place. As I understand there is no intention to do this, then one can assume that this will not be the case and hence once will end up with 38 deputies of equal standing. If this is indeed the case, one might question why anyone would stand as a ‘pan-island’ candidate? For the likes of Deputy Gollop who have an island-wide profile, this would be fine but otherwise, why would a candidate subject themselves to substantially more work to get an identical seat? Therefore my view is that you’d find people unwilling to stand as an island-wide candidate, leaving those who did to potentially stand unopposed. It is for this reason that I have come to the view that Option C would have curious and unhelpful results.

We are then left with Options B and D (on the basis that Option E is effectively Option A but even more extreme). The choice between these two depends on your view of the average voter. To return to my theme of establishing true choice, this can only exist where the electorate understand the choice they are presented with. The simplest, of course, is the ‘us v. them’ debate of a US presidential election. This is scaled up slightly in the UK with the voters having three to five parties to choose from; the French presidential election has around eight initial candidates. As I’ve outlined above, too much choice is no choice – it is chaos. Therefore, the decision over Option B v. Option D comes down to how capable you think the electorate is. Can a voter assess 20-25 candidates for 10 places? I would personally say no. Of course it is great to have a wider selection and those who are willing to attend hustings, review manifestos and discuss with like-minded people will put in the effort and I would be pleased to have greater choice. But this is not for everyone. The world is a busy place, if that’s not too much of a cliche, and few people will have the time. In my view, Option D is essentially a less bad version of Option A – not quite so mad but still, fundamentally, would almost certainly conclude with an electorate which had no real idea whether the poll would choose the best States.

As you can tell, I’m coming to the conclusion that Option B (yes, the boring status quo) is the correct choice. It is not perfect and, I believe, this whole process has ignored the fact that the States lacks any proper executive function, which means ‘getting something done and making things better’ – which must be the purpose of government at the most basic level – is too difficult to achieve. But stability must be preserved and the electorate must understand and feel involved in the process. If an individual voter is presented with too much choice, they will baulk. Island-wide voting (of the type envisioned by the proponents of Option A) was presented as ‘more democratic’ but in reality voters will almost certainly cast substantially fewer than the 38 on offer, thus leading to candidates being potentially elected with very few votes indeed. And that’s before you even get to how candidates will market themselves and their message – it is a leap of faith of the highest order to think that parties will magically emerge overnight to allow for a combined attack.

I would therefore suggest that readers vote for Option B. Not because I believe that further reform is not needed but because this is simply not the way to go about it – the false idol of ‘more choice’ should be disavowed at all costs. NAME AND ADDRESS

WITHHELD