A Deposit System in Jersey?

A Deposit System in Jersey?

Inna Gardiner - 391 votes 24.44%

Lyndsay Fletham (Reform) - 324 votes 20.25%

Anthony Lewis - 245 votes 15.31%

Nick Le Cornu - 143 votes 8.94%

John Baker - 142 votes 8.88%

Andrea Mallet - 120 votes 7.50%

Guy De Faye - 76 votes 4.75%

Francesca Ahier - 60 votes 3.75%

Geraint Jennings - 59 votes 3.69%

Gordon George Troy - 34 votes 2.13%

Spoilt 6 0.38%

Under a deposit system with UK threshold of 5%, the last four candidates would have lost a deposit.

There are increasing calls for a Deposit system in Jersey, and last year Fiona Walker came strongly in favour. However the problem, probably never one for Fiona’s husband Frank, was that it disadvantages the poorer from standing, which is why I have never been that much in favour of it.

For example

£500 on income of £10,916 per annum (209.92 weekly) =4.58% (the current pension)

£500 on income of £20,000 per annum (384.61 weekly)= 2.50%

£500 on income of £100,000 per annum (1,923.07 weekly)= 0.50%

Given that there are other household costs to pay, those on £20,000 are having to stump up far more than those on £100,000 or more, where it is more than they earn weekly. Indeed it is only around ¼ of their weekly income.

Japan: The Baneful Effect of Deposits

Japan’s electoral deposit is the most expensive by far among the countries having such a system. The deposit system in Japan, modelled on that of the UK, was introduced as part of the General Election Law of 1925 to prevent frivolous candidates from running simply for publicity or to disrupt election campaigns. However, it is sometimes claimed that its real purpose is to limit the number of candidates and make sure that those with financial power also hold political power

The UK: Limiting Ability to Stand by Ability to Pay

The UK has a deposit system of £500. But in 2015, the BBC noted that:

“The £500 deposit required to stand in a general election should be scrapped, the Electoral Commission has said. The watchdog said the sum, which is returned if a candidate gets at least 5% of votes cast, was "unreasonable" as it depended on their financial means. Larger parties were mainly in favour, saying the payment deterred "non-serious candidates", its report said. But smaller parties and independent candidates told the commission the payments could be "unaffordable and therefore they restricted their ability to participate in elections".  The commission concluded: "We do not think that the ability to pay a specified fee is a relevant or appropriate criterion for determining access to the ballot paper."

The principle of paying elected politicians was introduced in the first place so that membership of the States could be open to anyone regardless of wealth. It would be ironic if a deposit system actually worked against that principle.

So how can we balance the system if there are deposits with a degree of fairness which has not been addressed?

How might a Jersey system work?

The best way to ensure that poorer candidates are not disadvantaged would be to have a means tested, sliding scale, deposit system.

How this might work is as follows:

The deposit would be 1% of the candidate’s income, up to a threshold of £50,000.

So a candidate earning £50,000 or more would need to pay a £500 deposit. However, someone whose income was only £20,000 would only pay a £200 deposit. The pensioner in our example would only pay a £109 deposit.

By way of clarification to online comments.

Moz said people might not want to declare their income.

"Some candidates may not wish to disclose their incomes. "

I see no reason why they should - provided they pay the full £500. The same applied with the University Grant Scheme for Education - you only had to declare income if applying for a grant.

Deposits would ONLY be lost if a candidate polled less than 5%.

And finally, underpinning any scheme, see also:
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2011/03/election-deposits-and-equality-of.html