There has certainly been sustained public pressure, in some quarters at least, for IWV. So when, after more twists and turns in the road, the proposal finally came to the States towards the end of last term for a referendum on the matter, I voted in favour, not least because I rather hoped it would settle things once and for all and allow the considerable time spent debating it each and every political term to be used for something much more productive. Referendums should be used sparsely and with great care, but it’s hard to argue against using one for that most basic of democratic functions: how people elect their political representation.
In due course a report was produced and the States agreed to go ahead with a five-option vote on 10 October. It’s worth mentioning at this point that the report was well written and clearly argued and, for anyone wanting to drill down into the detail, it is well worth a read. For those without the time or inclination, which to be fair will be pretty much everyone, it can be summed up in the following sentence: Option A: full IWV with 38 votes; Option B: the status quo; Option C: a revamped conseiller system with 10 island-wide votes and three to five votes in own district, Option D: exactly as now but with four districts instead of seven; Option E: Full IWV but with 12 or 13 votes every two years.
So, let’s take a look at option D – dividing the island into four districts instead of the current seven. In the end, it’s neither fish nor fowl. The report admits as much. It’s inoffensive and, by the same token, unimaginative. It won’t change very much – but maybe that’s not a bad thing. What D will do is allow people to vote for a quarter of their representatives rather than a seventh as at present. Candidates are unlikely to knock on every door and voters will have nearly twice as many manifestos to consider. Hustings may well continue but might be rather interminable affairs with 20 candidates all answering the same question. It could be seen as a stepping stone to IWV in years to come and if, by some unlikely twist of preferential voting, it tops the poll the sky won’t fall in.
What about option E? The first thing to wonder about this option is why it was included in the referendum at all – a question I will come back to shortly. It is totally unlike all of the other options in that it would see deputies elected for six years, with a third being elected or re-elected every two years.
Some critics have said that having an election every two years is too frequent: no sooner has one finished than the next one would be upon us. I struggle with this claim. Life does come at you fast in the 21st century, but not that fast. Indeed, we are just past the mid-term two-year mark in the current political cycle and the last election does seem rather a long time ago.
Coming back to my previous point, I don’t know for certain why E was designed and included in the list of options, but I’ll hazard an educated guess: maybe those tasked with investigating in intricate detail the practicalities of island-wide voting found themselves with very great reservations about the effect of a system that elects 38 deputies on one day out of a potential pool of 90 candidates. There is the risk of simply overwhelming voters with too much information and, stemming from that, the very real risk of voter disengagement and with it decreased political legitimacy.
Option A brings to mind the quote by H L Mencken: ‘For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong’.
Some people are asking why the referendum is not a binary choice between option A – full IWV – and option B, the status quo. My answer would be that option A is a poor system with much more to lose than to gain and therefore a binary choice would, in reality, represent no choice at all.
However, redesign it by electing 13 deputies every two years out of a pool of 30 candidates and it becomes an infinitely more manageable and realistic option.
More importantly however, it is a side effect of option E that, for those who want true island-wide voting, makes it stand head and shoulders above option A. That side effect is continuity. Every four years the States comes to a grinding halt. Committees are dismantled and reassembled and with luck they might end up with one re-elected member from the previous term, but it’s likely that they will be made up of five people who have never sat on that committee before and it takes a considerable time to get going. Under option E the committee could carry on and just replace the member or members who had come to the end of their term. Statistically, it would be one or two on each committee. This change alone could markedly improve efficiency and productivity of the States. Furthermore, while any form of IWV is likely to lend itself to the formation of parties, it is possible that under option E the pressure for this to happen will be less and the rolling elections would also shake up alliances within the States.
I’m still unsure whether I will vote for B or E. But for anyone who definitely wants island-wide voting, make it E-asy – vote for E.
You need to be logged in to comment.