A Few Comments on Electoral Reform

2014 Referendum: Keep Constables in States? Yes/ No

Kevin Keen, writing in the Bailiwick Express, set out his agenda for the new States. I’ll be looking at these over the next few weeks and offering some comments of my own.

"1. Electoral reform - often promised but still not delivered - is essential for more engagement from the public, and a fairer system. As we know it will take a while, so if I was the Chief Minister I would set a deadline of June 2019 for the debate, and some final decisions supported by referendum in Autumn 2019 if necessary."

The only item on the agenda for potential reform is that of removing the Bailiff from the States. The referendum proposition has been moved to July 2018. Four years ago, 62% voted to retain the Constables. The abortive attempts by Andrew Lewis and Lyndon Farnham in 2017 were thrown out that year, both of which involved super constituencies very much along the lines attempted before.

That previous attempt came in 2012, when the States decided that Senator Bailhache should take charge of what would have been an independent electoral commission. A referendum took place in 2013, but the turnout was very poor, and the States rejected the result. The options A and B again involved super constituencies.

Clearly a lot of time has been wasted on electoral reform, and has achieved very little.

While the number of States members elected unopposed has caused a good deal of disquiet, it should not be forgotten that while no seats are unopposed in the UK, there are a number of seats regarded as “safe seats” which rarely change hands from one party to another, and it is only the smaller numbers of “marginal seats” in which voters can actually make a difference.

It amazes me that UK voters for opposition parties retain their sunny optimism and vote when the likelihood is that their votes will almost never dislodge the party’s grip on a safe seat. Even the parties themselves target marginal constituencies far more than safe seats, where money and time spent is largely money and time wasted.

The problem with the UK system is that the first past the post allows a disproportionate amount of the votes cast to be wasted. Minority parties can do well as a percentage of the popular vote, but this does not translate well into seats. A proportion system of voting would be fairer as it would more evenly reflect the voting population, and even votes in safe seats would not be wholly wasted but could contribute to the totals of a minority party.

In Germany, for example, members of parliament are elected with two votes. One vote is for a direct candidate, who ought to receive a plurality vote in their election district. The second vote (considered as more important) is to elect a party list in each state as established by its respective party caucus. Half of the Bundestag is then filled with candidates that won their electoral districts by the first votes and the other half by candidates from the party lists according roughly to the proportion the parties receive from the second votes according to a mathematical formula.

While not going wholly down that path, I think that what Jersey needs is the introduction of some kind of electronic voting, and after that a move towards single transferrable vote or alternative vote (depending on whether it is a multi-member or single member constituency). Logistically, STV or AV is too complex to handle by hand, so the introduction of electronic voting would mean that it was realistic to opt for that.

That should be in place in four years, in time for the next election, and would provide a greater incentive for more candidates as under first past the post, split votes can actually let a candidate be elected whom the majority did not, in fact, want.

Once voting mechanisms are in place, and that, surely is a feasible reform, the thorny topic of States reform could be back on the agenda.

Before Reform is on the agenda, and a proposition is mooted, serious discussions should first take place on the following questions:

• Will the States agree to be bound by the results of a Referendum? The outcome in 2013 was a rejection of the results and angered many people, but how can that potential pitfall be avoided? 
• Should there be a minimum threshold for turnout? One of the factors in rejecting the 2013 result was a low turnout. Jeremy Macon wanted to pre-empt this by fixing a threshold which must be achieved for the States to consider the referendum, but his proposition was turned down. 
• Do we need a referendum? At present, we seem to be proceeding piecemeal and actually getting some results – that in 2014 being an example, the Bailiff as head of the States being another. When the options become complex, people may not actually want what is on offer – such as losing the Senators and super constituencies in 2013. 
• Do we need another electoral commission, but independent? We are looking at a change to the way politicians are elected that is probably far more complex that the Great Reform Act of 1832 which did away with rotten boroughs and reallocated seats to represent the existing population more. That was more akin to losing the Rectors and Jurats.
• Do we need a clean slate? The problem with a clean slate approach is that it usually isn’t a clean slate but gets ideas from elsewhere. Hence Clothier was actually a reflection of the UK Parliament presented as a best fit for Jersey. This is what Annie Parmeter used to call "cultural imperialism" - importing a set of structures and values that work elsewhere and trying to shoe-horn Jersey to fit.
• But would that have fitted well with the Parish system? How can we establish checks and balances so that the centre does not dominate? Do we examine any systems for checks and balances on power, so that the States cannot ride roughshod over smaller Parishes, for example? Do we need to incorporate how the electoral system will mesh with the Parish system and support principles like subsidiarity for example where power is devolved from the centre? 

Check and balances are fundamental. The UK has a single party system, which can, as we have seen, ride roughshod over Scotland - the Midlothian question, which still has not been resolved. The USA uses two houses to ensure that the smaller States can not be tyrannised by the majority. 

No system is perfect, but we do need to see what can be done under any new system to prevent the Parishes being diminished in economic power and responsibility where they run far more efficiently than central government. That is one of the tenets of subsidiarity, and it was challenged in 2014 by a paper commissioned on rates which looked at professionalising and centralising the rating system, and removing it from the Parishes at goodness knows what increase in expense.

So we do need reform, but it should be in the round, and not just limited to voting systems.