Senator Bailhache might not want it. Senator Ozouf might be terrified of it. Deputy Power might not be able to spell it. But DEMOCRACY is something a few of us genuinely believe in.
I publish below the report accompanying my proposition on seeking equality of vote for the third of the population that live in St. Helier i.e. an Assembly of 46 x Members. This to consist of 34 x Deputies and 12 x Constables. The maximum number on the Executive within this proposal to protect the Troy Rule would be 20.
As readers will be aware I tried to get this put forward as one of the versions for the public to vote upon within the hijacked referendum. This is only being lodged again now - as opposed to letting the new PPC bring forward 'fair' proposals - simply because Senator Philip Ozouf is fronting an EDL (Establishment Defence League) move to slip through a watered down Option B that would simply move St. Helier voters from being 3rd Class voters up to 2nd Class voters.
Sorry, Senator. But 'fairness' is fair - or it just isn't...FAIR!
REPORT
‘Equality
and fairness are key elements of any truly democratic electoral system’
Background
This
proposition proposing to reduce the Assembly to 46 Members has arisen primarily
from the debacle of the recent referendum on reform. A referendum, of course,
made a debacle purely by the weakness of a majority of States Members in
allowing what had been voted for in 2011 to be a fully independent Electoral
Commission – and thus free from political manipulation - to instead be hijacked
by Senator Sir Philip Bailhache.
The
not-fit-for-purpose ‘reforms’ that arose from this shambolic process - where no
fewer than three pro-retention of the Constables politicians were subsequently
allowed to sit let us not forget - has since led to an even more divisive
propaganda campaign by those who, like it or not, were quite willing to wholly
disenfranchise the people of St. Helier for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Such
discriminatory, vested-interest driven proposals should never have been allowed
to go forward by the States, nor by any self-respecting jurisdiction claiming
to be a democracy. Indeed, when considering this fact should it really be any
surprise to us that 74% of the registered electors did not bother to vote? I
suggest most definitely not.
Option
B, it should never be forgotten - nor it be allowed to be glossed over by its
supporters - made Jersey’s already significantly imbalanced in favour of the
smaller, country parishes political system even worse. Reform is meant to mean
improving things. The false impression the public were spun however was that we
either had to vote to retain the Constables or have greater equality: the two
apparently being irreconcilable. Add in deeply flawed questions and it was no
wonder we got such a confused, unsatisfactory result and turnout.
Yet
perhaps the saddest aspect of the whole referendum debacle is the fact that there
was absolutely no need to propose such flawed reforms. For as I have twice
demonstrated over the past year we could have a system that allows us to retain
the Constables AND give the third of the population that reside in St. Helier
the equality of vote which is obviously their right: aright that would be
respected by any true democracy.
The
proposal that both retains the Constables and gives St. Helier equality of vote
This
proposition, which calls for a reduced Assembly of 34 x Deputies and 12 x Constables,
does just this. And I submit it now simply to try and finally put the reform
debate and the public disgruntlement with the impossibly flawed referendum
proposals to bed – for a few years at least!
Yet for now I believe it should be quite sufficient to focus on the
following brief facts. It not only creates a far more equitable system than we
have at present; it also retains the much-quoted ideals of reducing the size of
the Assembly from its present number. It is also clearly based around the concept
of Option B – 6 x ‘Super-constituencies’ and an Assembly of just Constables and
Deputies. Surely this is worth a little compromise from all sides in itself?
Yet
my proposition does even more.
- An
Assembly of 46, as proposed, would enable the highly important ‘Troy Rule’
principle to be retained. Something that will prove nigh impossible with a
reduction to a 42 x Member States Assembly – a point that was a major
concern for many within the debate that rejected Option B. Indeed, the
Assembly of 44 now being touted by Senator Ozouf will also fail to do this
due to the number of new Ministers being called for.
- This
slight increase from the rejected Option B number of 42 x members by 4 to
46 will also offer potential to even allow one Member to take on the role
of Speaker should, as many feel inevitable, the need to achieve a full and
true separation of powers (i.e. ending the dual role of the Bailiff as
Head of both Judiciary and Legislature) come to be supported by a majority
within the Assembly or be forced upon us by the United Kingdom and/or
Europe.
- Finally,
though I personally believe the argument about saving money by reducing
numbers to largely be a red herring this proposal would still bring about
a significant ‘saving’ in the region of £230,000 on the present system of
51. A saving that would also, I repeat, not bring the huge risks of
undermining democracy and efficiency that the reduction to 42 or even 44
might.
Can
all sides finally compromise or will we be debating reform for another decade?
Let
me thus reiterate what I said in the original debate. Whether some of us think retaining the Constables is the best
system to benefit democracy or not it is a valid position to argue. It cannot,
however, be allowed to take precedence over advocating as fair and equally
weighted voting system as can be reasonably constructed. This proposal thus
seeks to compromise by simply trying to correct, to a broadly reasonable
degree, the democratic deficit that would be set against voters in St. Helier
by retaining 12 Constables within 6 large districts should we have adopted
either the original Option B or Senator Ozouf’s current proposals.
Indeed,
it cannot be left unsaid that the proposal being put forward by Senator Ozouf
is nothing more than a propaganda sop: offered in the hope of slipping through
proposals for an unfair system by sleight of hand. I ask Members to please not
be taken in by this shallow ploy. It does not address the weight of vote
disparity faced by the like third of the island’s population residing in St.
Helier in anything like the degree necessary. Of course, Senator Ozouf has been
telling those who read his blog that this proposal (and the one from Deputy
Green which advocated an additional 5 x seats for St. Helier) ‘goes too far’.
This should be seen for what it is: nonsense and propaganda.
Surely
equality of vote should be guaranteed for all and have no dependence at all on
where one lives; country parish or urban?
I thus ask Members to compromise as I have shown a willingness to do;
and now lend their support to this proposal. In doing so quite possibly finally
put an end to the divisive fallout from the failed referendum process and
allowing us to move forward to other, more pressing issues impacting the island
A
note on the graphs contained and why I initially used total population
statistics instead off the ‘Eligible’ voters format utilised by the Electoral
Commission
As I
pointed out in the spring the Commission’s decision to opt for basing its
proposals on ‘eligible’ voter figures within the 6 districts rather than total
population gives a wholly misleading slant to the public in considering the
fairness of the options put forward. Excuses that such consideration would have
taken it ‘outside’ of its mandate were in my view entirely without merit.
The
significance of this error is best highlighted by example of the fact that the
Commission’s approach conveniently knocked off some 6,632 people from the
number of individuals that St. Helier Deputies and/or the single Constable
would in reality have to represent. I repeat, just 11 x representatives to
26,890 looks an awful lot better in seeking to sell the Commission’s heavily
imbalanced Option B proposals than 11 x
representatives to 33, 522!
As I
also pointed out, it is equally true that the Commission’s use of ‘eligible’
voter figures would undeniably have been out of date long before the election
of 2014 even comes about. Truth be told they are out of date now. Young people
have come of age to vote. Immigrant workers unable to vote then – even though
paying tax – will have achieved such status.
Of
course, far more important is the principle that all should be entitled to
political representation regardless of age or being in the island a full two
years. Would any Member really turn away a request for assistance from such an
individual? I certainly do not. I firmly believe the figures set out below
which I used to demonstrate the unfairness of the original un-amended Option B
speak for themselves.
Nevertheless,
to help Members consider the various pros and cons of this proposition –
especially when viewed against the watered down proposals offered by Senator
Ozouf – I also include at the end of this report a number of charts and graphs
utilising the eligible voter format to illustrate the hugely important impact
of the proposals with regard to the best practice of the Venice Convention.
These illustrate the original Option B; Senator Ozouf’s current proposals; my
own proposition discussed herein; and even a version examining the impact if
one were to opt to take away a couple of Deputy seats from the undeniably
over-represented District/Super-Constituency 5.
My
sincere gratitude for these goes to local political activist for democracy Sam
Mezec.
The impact of proposals
under the original Option B using total population
District
No
|
Parishes/Vingtaines
|
Total
Population
|
Number
of
Representatives
|
Public
Per Representative
|
No.1
|
du
Mont Cochon
du
Mont a l’Abbé
de
Haut du Mont au Prêtre
du
Rouge Bouillon
|
17,543
|
5.5
|
3,189
|
No.
2
|
Bas
de Haut du Mont au Prêtre,
Canton
Bas de la Ville,
Canton
de Haut de la Ville
|
15,942
|
5.5
|
2,898
|
No.
3
|
St. Clement Grouville
St. Martin
|
17,850
|
8
|
2,231
|
No.
4
|
St.
Saviour
Trinity
|
16,736
|
7
|
2,391
|
No.
5
|
St.
Lawrence
St.
John
St.
Mary
St.
Ouen
|
14,178
|
9
|
1,575
|
No.
6
|
St.
Brelade
St.
Peter
|
15,571
|
7
|
2,224
|
As
explained then the above imbalance can only be rectified by one method that I
suggest would be both fair and politically acceptable. This is to offset the
clear deficit faced by St. Helier residents due to the impact of retaining the
Constables by increasing the number of Deputies allocated by 4 to have 7 in
each ‘Super-Constituency’ (district). Thus instead of 5 Deputies each (10 + 1 x
Constable to be shared) the two St. Helier districts would elect a combined
total of 14 + 1 x Constable (or 7 Deputies each plus a single Constable between
them).
All
of the other 4 ‘Super-Constituencies) would elect 5 x Deputies + a Constable
each for however many parishes were contained within the ‘super-constituency’.
This would bring the districts reasonably into line with the other districts.
St. Helier District 1 having a population to representative figure of 2,339 and
St. Helier District 2 having a figure of 2,125.
Of
course, it is true that District 5 (St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Mary & St.
Ouen) will still remain significantly over-represented set against each of the
others. However, without reducing their number of Deputies by at least 2 this
anomaly probably necessitates acceptance in the interest of finally moving a
reasonable compromise forward as described.
Still
not a wholly perfect system it is acknowledged. But I repeat again: still
definitely much fairer than the system unsuccessfully proposed by PPC on behalf
of the Electoral Commission; or that of the proposal being touted by Senator
Ozouf. Isn’t such a workable and moderate compromise worth supporting?
Graphs
below illustrate the parity of vote variances relating to the Venice Convention
and utilise ‘eligible voters’ format..
Original
Option B
District
|
Parishes
|
Eligible voters
|
Number of States Members
|
Voters per D + C
|
% deviation from average
|
1
|
St Helier No. 1
|
13,960
|
5.5
|
2,538
|
32.19
|
2
|
St Helier No. 2
|
12,900
|
5.5
|
2,345
|
22.14
|
3
|
St Clement, Grouville, St
Martin
|
14,010
|
8
|
1,751
|
-8.8
|
4
|
St Saviour, Trinity
|
12,960
|
7
|
1,851
|
-3.56
|
5
|
St Lawrence, St John, St
Mary, St Ouen
|
11,100
|
9
|
1,233
|
-35.78
|
6
|
St Brelade, St Peter
|
12,600
|
7
|
1,800
|
-6.25
|
Total/ average
|
|
77,530
|
42
|
1,920
|
|
Option
B as amended by Senator Ozouf
District
|
Parishes
|
Eligible voters
|
Number of States
Members
|
Voters per D + C
|
% deviation from average
|
1
|
St Helier No. 1
|
13,960
|
6.5
|
2,148
|
+19.67
|
2
|
St Helier No. 2
|
12,900
|
6.5
|
1,985
|
+10.58
|
3
|
St Clement, Grouville, St
Martin
|
14,010
|
8
|
1,751
|
-2.55
|
4
|
St Saviour, Trinity
|
12,960
|
7
|
1,851
|
+3.12
|
5
|
St Lawrence, St John, St
Mary, St Ouen
|
11,100
|
9
|
1,233
|
-31.31
|
6
|
St Brelade, St Peter
|
12,600
|
7
|
1,800
|
+0.28
|
Total/ average
|
|
77,530
|
44
|
1,795
|
|
Option
B amended by Deputy Pitman
District
|
Parishes
|
Eligible voters
|
Number of States
Members
|
Voters per D + C
|
% deviation from average
|
1
|
St Helier No. 1
|
13,960
|
7.5
|
1,861
|
+9.28
|
2
|
St Helier No. 2
|
12,900
|
7.5
|
1,720
|
+1
|
3
|
St Clement, Grouville, St
Martin
|
14,010
|
8
|
1,751
|
+2.82
|
4
|
St Saviour, Trinity
|
12,960
|
7
|
1,851
|
+8.69
|
5
|
St Lawrence, St John, St
Mary, St Ouen
|
11,100
|
9
|
1,233
|
-27.6
|
6
|
St Brelade, St Peter
|
12,600
|
7
|
1,800
|
+5.7
|
Total/ average
|
|
77,530
|
46
|
1,703
|
|
Option
B as amended by Deputy Pitman + taking
away 2 Deputies from District 5
District
|
Parishes
|
Eligible voters
|
Number of States
Members
|
Voters per D + C
|
% deviation from average
|
1
|
St Helier No. 1
|
13,960
|
7.5
|
1,861
|
+5.62
|
2
|
St Helier No. 2
|
12,900
|
7.5
|
1,720
|
-2.38
|
3
|
St Clement, Grouville, St
Martin
|
14,010
|
8
|
1,751
|
-0.62
|
4
|
St Saviour, Trinity
|
12,960
|
7
|
1,851
|
+5.05
|
5
|
St Lawrence, St John, St
Mary, St Ouen
|
11,100
|
7
|
1,586
|
-9.99
|
6
|
St Brelade, St Peter
|
12,600
|
7
|
1,800
|
+2.16
|
Total/ average
|
|
77,530
|
44
|
1,762
|
|
Financial
and manpower implications
There
are no financial or manpower implications arising from this proposition seen
against the present situation of 51 Members – the amendment actually leading to
a reduction in costs of some £230,000.
