I have written previously on the failings as I see them of the way the Electoral Commission set about its task, see why-i-have-not-made-submission. A few of those points have been reiterated elsewhere, alongside questions over why 42, and of course why there are effectively 2 votes possible for some options, but only one for others.
Looking at the way the questions and the voting mechanics have been set up for the April 24th vote I wonder if those making the arrangements really understand either referenda or AV/STV voting systems and their merits.
It is normal for a referendum to have one question and a straight yes/ no vote. The aim is to have a clear mandate from the electorate for a decisive and meaningful change in a constitution or major long running international arrangement. Of course you don't need AV/STV for a simple binary choice.
The problem with the questions the EC have given us is that they are necessarily incomplete because there are undefined ramifications to the options, such the issues arising from the mechanics of government and the number of ministers, the right of requete if constables are removed etc.
But I am also perplexed by the decision to use AV for the voting. Why - because if you have AV there is absolutely no reason not to have all the valid options on the paper. We could have options for retaining senators, having all island wide voting, having smaller constituencies etc. The great merit of AV, and more so STV, is that you have a mechanism to allow people to express their real views and preferences, and derive a broadly acceptable (or perhaps least objectionable) result at the end.
So why only three options? It would possibly make sense if people were to have but one vote, first past the post style. The cynical would observe the system has been crafted to give the best prospect for returning a particular desired outcome. The more generous minded might think it is simply that the EC members have not the depth of experience in referenda and AV voting systems to grasp the fundamentals of what they are doing in terms of electoral mechanics. What is for sure is we have missed an opportunity to do this in a meaningful way that would give a very clear steer to the States over the real wishes and priorities of the electorate.
You stood at the same elections' hustings alongside Ph. Bailhache so heard his plans expressed. They are posted on tomgruchy.blogspot.com as videos recorded at the time. That the EC plan now proposes exactly what he wanted cannot surprize anybody but he is to be admired for having the cheek and ability to achieve this.
ReplyDeleteWhy there is a two vote facility is beyond me. Whether it is fairer or simply supports the Bailhache master-plan is not evident to me on any grounds - either ethical or mathematical.
What also puzzles me - and does not seem to be much discussed - is how the large constituencies will be managed (regardless of whether there are 5 or 7 Deputies seats)?
In the absence of a Party system it will be very difficult to organise an election campaign because each seat will be more like a Senatorial contest. But how many "Senatorial" type election campaigns can the Island support -where will all the teams of supporters come from?
In Guernsey - which already has a similar system - Deputy Gollop is an established "liberal" who manages to be elected without much canvassing at all. Yet 22 "new "faces were elected at the most recent Guernsey elections. How? Were they just establishment clones flying a common flag (an undeclared party?) or did they leaflet all the voters and knock on all the doors...
Deputy Baker "the man from Mars" topped the poll in District 1 St Helier without any public political provenance (except his father's) and was hardly seen during the election weeks. Of course, he then sat on the EC alongside Bailhache and is an establishment clone. But does the Jersey establishment really have some magic ability to get their people elected? How precisely might large constituencies be managed to achieve the desired (establishment) result and how might the "progressives" be enabled to combat the Baker phenomenon...
In this Referendum I support "Option A" as the best on offer and places the Constables in their parishes ONLY where they can do useful work. It is not a wholly attractive scenario and nothing like my own proposals as submitted to the EC but since Ph. Bailihache clearly controlled the whole process from the outset I know my place...
The bigger battle has been waged since the Jersey Revolution of 28 September 1769 and matters will continue to be reformed in future...see you all on Jersey Reform Day this year in the square?
Option B is clearly the Bailhache option. But I was trying to make a general point on the mechanics, not a personal one. I agree on your comment about organising election campaigns on superconstituencies without party politics. The 42 figute and superconstituencies was in Clothier's approach, but that report rather assumed party politics would come about.
ReplyDeleteThis whole process would be a lot clearer had the EC laid down a full and balanced set of options along with detials of the mechanics of governmemt issues and proposals to make them work.
Unless there is a significant turnout and a clear preference for one option, when it goes back to the States, as it must, the whole excercise will have achieved nothing.
JT/Tom Gruchy.
ReplyDeletePhilip Bailhache's option B before the EC had even thought of it! HERE
You will recall the famous phrase “least worst option” that was bandied about on by the BBC as a means to sell GST to an unwilling public. That could equally, but with sincerity, be applied to Option A in the referendum.
ReplyDeleteI agree the reduction of numbers of States Members is not acceptable as it will serve only to reinforce the Executive and weaken Scrutiny even further. Unlike now, there won’t even be enough tame loyal supporters to give it any functionality.
Option A does embody features that have been demanded for at least 20 years; one category of States Member and larger electoral districts. Having studied the EC research material it is patently obvious how the Country has dominated the Town for centuries through the tiny electoral constituencies called Parishes. Option B would perpetuate the under representation of the urban areas in favour of the Northern County Districts. The new District 5 would have 9 representatives (5 Deputies and 4 Constables) whilst St Helier as a whole would only have 10 Deputies and 1 Constable. District 5 has about 11,000 eligible voters and St Helier 27,000.
All three options concede a General Election with everyone elected on the same day. giving the electorate a chance of structuring the States. We shall see if there is any policy choice presented via slates or political groupings on a common platform. New organisations will have to emerge together with an unprecedented degree of cooperation and self sacrifice.
The administrative arrangements for the Referendum have been a shambles: No public funding, no cap on expenditure, No access to the electoral role. That a Referendum was going to be held has been known for a year and no once sought to consider the law and associated regulation.
In spite of all that, vote Option A and make it the first and only preference.
I note that the closing date for written submissions to the UK Justice Dept Select Committee examination of the Crown Dependencies (like Jersey) has a closing date in May - by which time we shall know the result of the Referendum.
ReplyDeleteThis information could sharpen pencils a bit - so better be prepared to formulate your submissions soon....
At the forthcoming hijacked referendum PLEASE use BOTH votes.
ReplyDeletee.g. A #1 ......... AND ........ C #2
Voting C as 2nd choice is NOT a vote against A because your 2nd vote does not count unless your first choice is knocked out in the first count,
Your 2nd choice vote ONLY counts if your first is knocked out ...... USE IT !
Do you want B to win because you didn't use your backup vote?
The current system (i.e. "C") is bad and undemocratic but least it is not "B", which is worse !!!!!!
I will vote A & C and hope that our politicians do the right and fair thing and adapt the result into something that respects
democratic principles like "A" but retains enough members for the much needed scrutiny function.
Perhaps have 7 Deputies per district (totalling 48) or maybe keep the Senators.
(keeping the island wide mandate is essential if the Chief Minister is going to get more powers)
The hijacked electoral commission has given us hijacked choices.
No change, or an elected dictatorship - a crass and immoral plan.
If "B" wins on the 24th our feeble democracy dies. Jersey's equivalent of Germany's 1933 enabling act, giving us a semi-elected dictatorship.
At the forthcoming hijacked referendum PLEASE use BOTH votes.
ReplyDeletee.g. A #1 ......... AND ........ C #2
Voting C as 2nd choice is NOT a vote against A because your 2nd vote does not count unless your first choice is knocked out in the first count,
Your 2nd choice vote ONLY counts if your first is knocked out ...... USE IT !
Do you want B to win because you didn't use your backup vote?
The current system (i.e. "C") is bad and undemocratic but least it is not "B", which is worse !!!!!!
I will vote A & C and hope that our politicians do the right and fair thing and adapt the result into something that respects
democratic principles like "A" but retains enough members for the much needed scrutiny function to avoid an "elected dictatorship".
Perhaps have 7 Deputies per district (totalling 48) or maybe keep the Senators.
(keeping the island wide mandate is essential if the Chief Minister is going to get more powers)
The hijacked electoral commission has given us hijacked choices.
No change, or an elected dictatorship - a crass and immoral plan.
If "B" wins on the 24th our feeble democracy dies. Jersey's equivalent of Germany's 1933 enabling act, giving us a semi-elected dictatorship.