States debate island-wide voting .

Digger wrote:...What are your thoughts on this ?

"COMPOSITION OF THE STATES: REVISED STRUCTURE AND REFERENDUM

With the above proposition in mind I would like to offer an opinion and ask for your views on the subject.

It would appear to me that the principles being considered are:
(i) the need for reform;
(ii) a single general election day;
(iii) the Parish Connétables should remain as members of the States;
(iv) the Island-wide mandate for some members is important although there is also considerable support for parish representation;
(v) there are too many members in the States;
(vi) a slightly longer term of office would be beneficial.

My own opinion and the universal opinion of those people who have one with whom I have spoken on this subject is that there is a, some would agree with me desperate, need for reform of the structure of the States. This being the case the point (i) need not be further addressed.

The mentioned principle (ii) is that of a single general election day. The people I have spoken to seem to be of the opinion that this issue is more to do with making the process of election clearer rather than the ability to change the membership of the States in one almighty cull. The view has also been expressed that the term 'general election' is perceived more as an island-wide election rather than truly global including every office, which links neatly to principle (iv), that the Island-wide mandate is important, but more of that in a moment.

The issue of Parish Connétables remaining in the States (iii) is perhaps the most controversial of all, albeit I believe to be so more out of tradition than logic or democracy. Nobody with whom I have spoken has been of the opinion that the Connétables be excluded from holding an office in the States, but many say that this office should be separately elected because of their views on principle (iv), the island-wide mandate.

Principle (iv), the island-wide mandate. Absolutely the most important issue to everybody I've talked to is the island-wide mandate. How any future composition can do away with the Island-wide mandate simply beggars belief. More than ever under the Ministerial system adopted the requirement of an Island-wide mandate is of the absolute utmost importance and each of the other issues pales in significance to it. The cynic in me wonders why this is 'buried' in the middle of the list of principles of the proposition, and why it is the only principle written as it holds two opposing views, almost as if to muddy the waters and confuse those considering it.


Issues (v) and (vi) are perhaps the least significant issues as (v), the number of members in the States would not bother anybody if they felt the composition was effective and likewise for (vi) the length of office. Both issue are almost a matter of common sense.

So, does the proposition offer an answer to each of these issues, and is it the right answer?

Well if the most important issue is the Island-wide mandate, which I and everybody I speak to think it is, then the proposition not only fails to improve on the broken system, but takes a significant step in the wrong direction in doing away with the small proportion of Island-wide mandate holders there is at present.

What would I propose?

Well to answer each of the issues raised, and in answer to other issues I have and that are shared by the people I have talked to, I would propose:

An all Senator States membership, each holding the island mandate.
A forty member States chamber
A four year term of office
An annual election day

The key to the practicality of the global island mandate being the annual election day where ach year ten seats would be contested, this will give a manageable ballot and I think the regular annual election will make people feel more in touch with their elected members.

The rolling election process also means there would be a certain continuity to the States as there is at present, which I think is a benefit.

A global island mandate means that the Chief Minister etc. can truly represent the people of Jersey rather than just their constituency. Under the P&PC the Chief Minister could be the Connétable of St Mary, or at best have been elected by one sixth of the island.

I believe my proposition better answers each of the principles than that of the P&PC.


Sadly I think that P&PC's proposal is so flawed that I hope it doesn't reach a referendum. The idea of giving two massively flawed options to the electorate is frankly ridiculous. It's like asking somebody whether they want to be punched or kicked and expecting them not to complain later claiming you only did what they 'wanted'.

Thank you for considering my comments and I would be very grateful if you could let me know you views.

Troy "