Staggered Senatorial Elections: The “Back Door” Safe-Seat Dilemma

Deputy Montfort Tadier wants to reintroduce staggered Senatorial and Deputies elections, a return to Senatorial elections being a month before Deputies ones. 

I don't think this is a good idea as it allows Senators rejected by the electorate on an Island wide mandate to creep back in via a "back door". 

For even if the Island electorate rejects a candidate on an island-wide Senatorial ticket, that person still carries a fully valid democratic mandate once elected as a Deputy. The two offices rest on distinct bases of support:

Senators answer to the whole Island.
Deputies answer to a specific constituency or parish.

Losing a Senatorial poll signals that a majority of Jersey voters did not wish to renew that Island-wide role. But a parish or district can independently decide it values that individual’s experience, expertise or local commitment enough to send them to the States as one of its Deputies. In effect, two separate electorates speak to two separate representative functions, each conferring its own legitimacy.

Case Study: Clarence “Clarrie” Dupré

Clarence Dupré’s career illustrates this dynamic in practice. It was one which particularly infuriated me at the time, and I think shows the dangers of staggered elections. It was not the only one, but it was the first which really upset me.

As Tourism Committee president and sitting Senator, he faced an Island-wide verdict in the Senatorial election (1972). Voters judged his record on tourism—and decided not to return him at that level.

Immediately afterward, he stood for election as a Deputy in his home parish. Parish-level voters, arguably weighing his local profile  more highly, chose to reinstate him.

He then resumed the Tourism portfolio, now carrying a parish mandate rather than an Island-wide one. But it was the same presidency!

This dual outcome shows that while the Island’s broader electorate judged his overall performance insufficient for a Senatorial term, his neighbours felt he still merited a place in the Assembly.

But in a unified election day system, this “second-chance” route disappears—once a candidate loses, they cannot immediately re-qualify via a separate ballot.

Will Reinstating a “Defeated” Senator Drive Apathy?

It’s natural for voters to feel their verdict was undercut when a candidate they rejected island-wide simply reappears in the Assembly. Clarence Dupré picked up his old Tourism brief after losing a Senatorial poll, and some electors (myself included) wondered whether their vote ever truly mattered.

Perceived futility: When the electorate sees no lasting consequence for a failed campaign, they may conclude that casting a “wrong” vote has no impact.

Blurred accountability: If the same individual executes policies they were just voted out for, it muddies the link between performance and electoral reward or punishment.

Media narratives: Headlines celebrating a “comeback” can reinforce the idea that elections are mere formalities rather than genuine judgment days.

The “Back Door” Safe-Seat Dilemma

Re-electing a defeated Senator as a Deputy in a friendly parish can indeed feel like a thumbs-up to local supporters and a finger-in-the-eye to the island-wide electorate. Voters who rejected him on a broad mandate may view his parish return as immunity from their verdict.

So why does it feel like a “Fingers Up” to the broader electorate?

Incumbency advantage: A former Senator already has name-recognition, fundraising networks and media profile. In a rural district, that can translate into an almost unassailable safe seat.

Local identity over island critique: Parishioners may prioritize shared history and local ties, effectively saying “we value you, flaws and all,” despite the island’s negative judgment.

Portfolio continuity: Winning back the same Tourism Committee brief as he did only reinforced the sense that the island-wide vote was merely ceremonial.

Structural Drivers Behind the Phenomenon

The old staggered system did not bar a failed Senator from immediately contesting a Deputy seat, creating a built-in fall-back. And we should also consider the electoral geography. Some rural constituencies are natural power-bases for high-profile figures, making them less competitive and more ripe for “second-chance” bids. 

This is less likely with larger electoral districts, but reintroducing Senators may see a push-back towards Parish boundaries.

Ministers are often drawn from whichever elected tier, so local wins can flip directly into government posts, undercutting island verdicts on performance.

In conclusion, curtailing the Deputy fall-back tightens the link between broad electoral judgment and policy leadership.