Voters did not get what they voted for
I AM aware that a survey is being undertaken with regard to the operation of the island-wide voting system, with the undertone that it is not satisfactory. As the chairman of the strategy group which successfully campaigned for ‘Option A – island-wide voting’ in the 2018 referendum, I would like to make it clear that this was always proposed on a particular basis, which has simply not been implemented.
First, though, can I point out that, although there was derision at the prospect of voters having to chose between very many candidates and use up to 38 votes (actually not necessary, but dictated by those who drafted the options for the referendum, and not the island-wide voting campaigners themselves), the change to island-wide voting in fact provoked greater interest in the election and the candidates than before, and a higher voter turn-out than had been achieved under the previous system, surely a good thing in itself.
But second, and the most important point, it was made clear by those promoting island-wide voting for States members that it was also intended that, at the same time, powers with regard to truly local issues, in particular planning and environment, should be given or returned to the douzaines, so that locals would have a real voice on such matters. Although I understand that a deputy from the P&R Committee was delegated to pursue putting this into practice, it simply has not happened. Voters therefore did not get what they voted for.
It is also the case that we offered to assist in the composing of the regulations to put the island-wide voting system into place, but we never received even the courtesy of a reply. Some aspects of the system were just not thought through properly. The obvious example is that no provision was made for the possibility of a vacancy in the office of deputy arising during a States term – so that the filling of any such vacancy would require a complete new election, instead of simply enacting the obvious solution of offering the vacancy to the unsuccessful candidate achieving the next highest vote in the original election, and so on, until accepted.
It is unfortunate that some details of the island-wide voting system have not been enacted or followed through, as was intended. The objective of the system – to enable voters to vote for all the best candidates to get decisions taken in the interests of the island as a whole – surely remains the key point.
HARVEY MARSHALL
St Saviour’s