Campaigners spell out the reform choices

THE referendum public meeting roadshow got off to a promising start last night with a lively and passionate debate between the three campaign groups and the public at St Saviour's Parish Hall.

01851614_Cropped

THE referendum public meeting roadshow got off to a promising start last night with a lively and passionate debate between the three campaign groups and the public at St Saviour's Parish Hall.

Around 80 people turned out for the event, which was the first of a number of chances Islanders are being given to hear about the options for States reform before casting their votes on referendum day on 24 April.

The A Team, which is campaigning for option A, had organised the meeting and were represented on the platform by law student and political campaigner Sam Mezec. The B campaign was represented by former Senator Ben Shenton and serving Senator Lyndon Farnham spoke on behalf of option C.

The three options for States reform are:

A - 42 States Members elected for a four-year term, known as Deputies and split into six large districts

B - 42 States Members on a four-year term, made up of 30 Deputies split into six large districts and 12 parish Constables.

C - 49 States Members made up of eight Senators, 29 Deputies in parish or sub-parish districts and 12 parish Constables.

Comments for: "Campaigners spell out the reform choices"

I will vote A#1 & C#2

None of the options are great.

Option A is the "least-wost" option the hijacked electoral commission is allowing us to vote on.

I will vote A & C and hope that our politicians do the right and fair thing and adapt the result into something that respects democratic principles like "A and provides enough members for the much needed scrutiny function.

Perhaps have 7 Deputies per district (totalling 48) or maybe keep the Senators.

The referendum options have been rigged to concentrate more power into fewer hands and decimate scrutiny and opposition.

Potentially an elected semi-dictatorship at best under "A", or at worst effective direct rule Dictatorship by the Constables under "B".

"A" can be easily made acceptable just by not reducing the house.

The Constables need to concentrate on administering the Parishes as that is their core job.

the thin wallet

the whole fiasco is a lost opportunity to do more . vote in the summer , extend voting time .

allow a none of the above for this referndum.

and allow none of the above for the next round of any election.

Realist

I am now erring towards Option C, as there is no option allowed for a sensible mix of deputies and a small body of senators only. One wonders why this choice was vetoed by our Electoral Commission. It would have preserved some semblance of an island wide representative mandate. I simply don't trust an assembly ruled by deputies alone. My disquiet has been fuelled by some dodgy previously passed over candidates who are part of the A team. It does their cause no good.

Scrutineer

I agree. I would like more senators, and fewer parish pump politicians, and therefore I have no choice other than to vote C, and not cast a 2nd vote. A vote for C may lead to a 2nd referendum in 5 years time, which would rightly produce an option with more senators to do the important island wide jobs.

Christine

The A Team is simply promoting an option that was included by the Electoral Commission. Your 'dodgey' candidates want democracy and equality just like the rest of us! The A Team includes people of all political leanings and from all walks of life. Vote with your conscience, it's nothing to do with individuals.

Lenny

It is a pity that some of the Option A people don't seem to agree with your last sentence, Christine.

Nick

I am Jersey born, was educated at the expense if my parents and the tax payer and my parents and have spent the last thirty years paying both of them back.

What on earth does Sam Mezec think gives him the right to tell me how to vote?

Captain Fantastic

The same right as the muppets proposing B & C.

Its stupid comments like yours that alienate youngsters from politics when we should be encouraging this sort of person. If you are not aware there is a growing amount of voter and political apathy in the island that is in a mess for this very reason. We need reforms and move on and engage all the island in politics not just the business interests that hold the reins at present and are making a total hash of it all.

Mark

Why pick on Sam? What about Shenton and Farnham?

This a political campaign, and lots of people are going to ask you to vote for their preferred option. That's what happens in a democracy. If you don't like that, you're not going to have much fun for the next couple of weeks.

Cedric

I seem to have heard this comment somewhere before.

I am sure that we are all going to have a lot of fun over the next couple of weeks, particularly when we look at Option A and see that St Helier will have 14 deputies, although we are not apparently allowed to make that rather obvious statement!

Polite Debator

Centric

You can make that statement as much as you like, however those that disagree with you have the equal right to put an opposing view. That is what debating is about

Cedric

Definitely.

I enjoy the continuing debate over what the Option A people will apply to the 14 St Helier deputies which Option will create- they like to tell us that they aren't really Deputies at all and that they won't be in St Helier.

It affords a fascinating insight into the mentality of these people. They can, as you rightly and piously state, make their point as often as they like. I look forward to having a chuckle every time that they do so!

Polite Debator

Centric

Please point me to where any advocate of option A has stated there will be no Deputies in the Parish of St.Helier and that they will not be Deputies.

All they have stated is that there are two districts with seven Deputies each. You can argue semantics if you wish but that is simple fact and it matters not that the districts are contained within the St.Helier parish boundary as the districts are to represent people not a Parish.

Chuckle if you wish but there is no need to be impolite in your posts.

Cedric

I do like to have a chuckle. I do not think that having a chuckle makes one's posts "impolite". perhaps political debate is the wrong activity for those with over-developed sensitivities.

Yes, semantics are a problem. We have seen this a lot from those who argue in support of Option A. They like to say that St Helier deputies will not be St Helier deputies. A constable-deputy under Option A will, according to them, not be such.

Then, of course, we are told that "it is not about the parish", even though their leaflet promises to "strengthen the parishes". Such disingenuous hyperbole would be well employed in the sales of double glazing.

Option A will certainly strengthen St Helier, but it will effectively destroy ecvery other parish.

So, yes, we are agreed that their semantics are a problem.

Bea

Ok, I will bite, How will Option A destroy any parish?

All option A does is creates an island wide government representative of the people of the island.

It has no effect on parishes, unless you think that the only reason for the existence of a parish is to be in the government. If the Parishes serve *any* other function than an area to elect island wide government, then they will certainly not be “destroyed”

Small one

Ok, I will bite, How will Option A destroy any parish?

All option A does is creates an island wide government representative of the people of the island. It does so by scrapping the senators and by creating a system of deputies shared between parishes, with the exception of St Helier. So, not island wide at all really.

It has no effect on parishes, unless you think that the only reason for the existence of a parish is to be in the government which of course most people don't.

If the Parishes serve *any* other function than an area to elect island wide government, then they will certainly not be “destroyed”, they will just be unrepresented within the states and therefore vulnerable. All except for St Helier will be at a disadvantage under Option A.

Nick

I single him out as he makes and has not made any financial contribution to the Island, indeed as a student he is a net taker rather than contributor from a financial perspective.

He also has extremely limited life experiences and brings only idealistic naievity to the process.

Wendy

At what point then does someone have the right to express a point of view and urge support for their campaign?

There are ex students out there who have yet to find gainful employment are they also not able to speak freely and urge support for whatever cause they support?

Indeed are all those currently out of work or unable to work debarred also? Your comment raises many questions as to who should and should not speak freely.

Is to want fairness naive? Probably, because those that benefit from the unfair systems that exist in all aspects of life fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo and their benefits. Sam has yet to see that in all its ugliness.

Sam is not telling you how to vote. If you disagree with him then just disagree. Do not though criticise him for wanting and being willing to get out there and try and change things. How many on here have had the gumption to do so in their long or not so very long lives.

I await all the leftie comments but you would be wasting your time on a blue nosed individual.

Frank

The blue nosed aspect cast doubt on the validity of any opinion, perhaps "brown nosed" would be a better description of your fawning comment

Sensible

Has his parents, like yours, not contributed (although I do fail to see what that has to do with anything). I dont know the kid, but to single him out for critism like this is unfair.

Wendy

Frank

There was nothing fawning or brown nosed in my post. I was making the point that everyone has the right to comment or campaign.

Because I am right of centre (blue nosed) does not in any way invalidate my opinions.

Frank

Quite so. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's whether your nose is blue, brown or possibly some other colour.

The fawning aspect is a matter of perception, really.

Anne

Completely agree with you

Pip Clement

Vote for Options B or C, watch the States impose Option A.

Or vote for option A and watch the States adopt the system.

What a choice!

Equal representation

And your justification for this statement is what exactly?

Mar

Probably about the same as yours.

Option A

The only way we are ever going to rid Jersey of the current right wing government and the parasitic finance industry is to remove the parish as the power base of the establishment.

Bill

I don't think so. The constables represent grass roots democracy, which would seem to be the opposite of the right wing. Option A would destroy that.

Polite Debator

Bill

Again we have grass roots democracy given as a reason for a system allowing automatic entry into the States for the Constables.

Firstly what is grass roots democracy? Many people with have many differing views. Mine is that each and every voters vote carries equal weight. And once candidates are elected into the States I have the ability to go to those in my electoral district with a problem that falls under the remit for Islands Government or if parochial I can go to my Constable.

I also wonder, and have asked many times, is the grass roots of St.Mary more important than the grass roots of St.Helier or any other parish with a vastly larger voting public?

I have also asked many many times. Do you believe that the current system or those offered under B or C are fair to each and every

Island voter? If yes please can you explain how that is the case.

Bill

Yes, garss roots representation will be lost if Option A succeeds. It is a theme which comes up again and again.

Polite Debator

Bill

And again we have gain saying. You have not answered either question put other than stating yes at the beginning but I do not know which question that refers to and you do not give a rational. Why will no one answer these questions? If asked a question I will give an answer and my reasoning for that answer and I do not think it too much to ask the same from others. The whole point of a debate is to try and get the undecided to go with you and try and change the opinions of those who hold an apposing view. Gain saying adds nothing to the debate and is pointless.

Bill

I don't really understand the reference to gain saying.

What is occurring is that a point regarding one of the many deficits of Option A keeps arising. The reason why it keeps arising is because it is an ongoing defect.

That may well be a circular argument, but it would not seem to be "gain saying". It is more a case of repeating something which represents a major problem with Option A.

I am not sure that the point of a debate is to convert others to one's view. that may well be the purpose of your persistence, but my view is that I am content for people to vote as they wish. My purpose is to bring out the problems of Option A that its supporters are so desperate to conceal.

Polite Debator

Bill

I contend that simply repeating a statement whilst giving no clear rational for the statement is gain saying. I genuinely would like to know why grass roots democracy, whatever that may mean to you, would be lost if the Constables were not in the States.

Bill

I agree that making a comment without provding a clear rationale is rather futile. Please note your own advice.

It seems pretty obvious to many that grass roots representation would be lost if the constables cease to have a states sest, as Option A envisages.

Polite Debator

Bill

It is not obvious that Grass roots representation will be lost. I will work on the asumption that you believe grass roots to mean representation of people. The Parish system will still be in place and will run as normal. Any Parish issue that needs attention in the States can be brought to the attention of the Deputies who's districts cover that particular Parish. They would loose a considerable chunk of their votes from the grass roots if they simply chose to ignor it.

Bill

My belief is that the loss of parish representation which will flow from Option A amounts to a loss of grass roots representation.

Terry

Polite debator is quite right. It is not obvious to those who support Option A that grass roots representation will be lost. That is why they support Option A.

Professor

Polite Debator,

The "Grass roots representation" question is quite obvious.

It simply is a replacement of the phrase "Parish representation".

It is only used by the people who want "Parish representation" and don’t care for democracy. They see every parish as equal and would see every parish having the same number of representatives. Giving a clear bias to the smaller parishes. They have no desire to see equality or to see any form of representation for people. This is seen with their unwillingness to understand why St Helier should have more representatives than they currently have.

Of course, they say "Option A only concerns themselves with numbers" but they ignore that democracy *is* about numbers. The highest number of votes win elections. They only care about Parishes and not people.

"Grass Roots Representation" sounds nicer than its other meaning, Feudalism, where people don’t have a vote and the Parishes control the island.

Gary

Grass roots representation certainly is a very wholesome term. Unfortunately it, together with the parish representation which you finally acknowledge, would be lost if Option A were to succeed.

Professor

Feudalism is not a very wholesome term in terms of democracy!

As you agree that "Grass roots representation" is a form of Feudalism and it simply means "parish representation", then, good, It should be removed.

No on has been able to explain the term, "Parish representation" with the exception that it means "representing the people in the parish" which is folly, because Option A gets rid of "Parish representation ", but retains the latter and improves the representation of the people to be far more effective and fair.

Surely "Fair Representation" is much better term to use than Feudalism?

Gary

No, grass roots democracy is nothing to do with feudalism. I don't think that you know what the word "feudalism" means. A number of people who vocalise support for Option A also use words that thye don't understand.

We have grass roots democracy in Jersey. It is about community politics and much of it derives from the constables. That grass roots democracy is something that will be destroyed by Option A.

Professor

Care to explain what Feudalism means then Gary, if you know what it means and we dont?

And I will explain why the lords of land should not be representing people in this day and age.

And then you might understand why your "Grass roots democracy" actually means bringing back a Feudal state.

Gary

No, I am not prepared to explain what the word means.

You are the commentator who has sought to misuse the word "feudalism". It follows that the task of justifying your apparently foolish statement must fall to you.

Duck

If you cannot explain what it means, then how can you claim other people do not know what it means...

Rather childish of you.

You demand that I justify my use of a word, yet you are unwilling to explain what that word means, The only conclusion is that it would prove you wrong and cause embarrassment to yourself.

My statement stands, the correct word as commonly understood and explained in dictionaries, is “feudalism”.

Gary

If you want to use big words then it is up to you to demonstrate that you know what they mean.

It is no interest to me whether you justify yourself or whether you do not.

The nub of the matter is whether you wish to be taken seriously, or whether you do not. It is of little consequence either way. :)

David

Well, we now know that "Duck" and "professor" are the same Option A person posting under different names.

He used the word "feudalism" but won't say what it means. He clearly donesn't know what it means.

Having used the word, he demands that others explain the meaning to him.

Priceless.

Sensible

No matter who is in charge, the finance industry is immensley important to Jersey so will in no way be "got rid of".

And the people will vote for whom they want even under Option A, which could well be "right wing government". I plan to vote A as I think, IMO, its the most democtratic option. Who gets voted in after that has no real baring, right or left wing.

Scrutineer

'Option A' I have never worked in finance, or anything remotely resembling it, but please explain why the finance industry is parasitic. I have been living with the idea for some time, that without the finance industry we would all be in a complete mess. Explanation, please?

Concerned of St Clement

Whilst I agree that some form of electoral reform is needed, I do not agree with the concept of creating six large districts - so for me options A & B are complete non-starters. I also firmly believe that as such a referendum, with its large scale and long term implications as to the future governance of the Island, should be 1) binding on the States as to its result, and 2) only accepted if more than 50% of the Island's electorate vote. Only then can it be seen as representing the "choice of the people". Any other scenario will mean that the future of the Island has been decided upon by a minority, and probably a minority with a vested interested in concentrating power into the hands of just a few. As ever the problem will be voter apathy - and looking at past turnouts in elections it is unlikely if more than 35% of the electorate turnout to vote.

As I am not happy with the options being put forward, nor the basis on which this referendum is being put to the elecorate, I shall be voting for option C, and option C only, i.e. keep the status quo for the present, but request the States "go back to the drawing board" of electoral reform, and come back to the electorate with a different set of options that not only provide a solution to the need for electoral reform, but also retain a certain level of parish representation - and just to retain the Constables in the States will not, in my opinion acheive this aim.

So I would encourage anyone else who shares my views to vote, and to vote only for option C. It is vitally important that anyone with the right to vote, does vote, otherwise the whole belief in creating a democratic, and caring society, will be lost.

Equal representation

Option C is NOT a vote to "keep the status quo for the present, but request the States “go back to the drawing board” of electoral reform". It is a vote that will keep the status quo for the foreseeable future. You are deluding yourself if you believe that electoral reform will be revisited any time soon. You have been given 3 options, there aren't going to be any more options, changes to Districts that you don't like, parish representation that is not "just to retain the Constables" or options that will only be carried if voted for by 50% of voters. Vote for the option that you think is the best option.

Sue

No, option C is only sensible choice at the moment. The consequences of voting A or B are unknown but they will both have a negative effect.

Option A, for example, will destroy the parish representation with the exception of St Helier, as we know.

Polite Debator

Sue

If the consequences of A & B are unknown how can you go on to state they will have a negative effect. By your own statement you do not know what the consequences will be so equally both could have a positive effect.

Sue

No, not at all. We know that option A has negative connotations.

We don't know what the impact of those connotations will be. Neville Chamberlain could see negative connotations with another reform elsewhere, but failed to see the exact form that they would take.

Polite Debator

Disproportionate representation, disenfranchised voters, inability to vote when confronted with an uncontested election, Parish representation is a myth when voting on issues of health, education, tax, etc etc........all of these and more are the actual manifestations of the negative connotations of option C. We currently only have democracy when voting for Senators but they make up the smallest membership in the States under C so the benefits are already lost due to the make up of the remainder of the assembly.

Equal votes for all voters, fully contested elections, equal representation for all voters, one type of States member none being more important than the next as all elected on equal terms. These will be the positive manifestations of option A. A is about fairness to voters not which Constable may have a greater chance of election as a Deputy. If you firmly believe that Constables should or need to be in the States then under A you simply have to vote for all the Constables who stand for Deputy in your district. Assuming that is that they all put their name forward.

Sue

But Option A, as we have seen, will destroy parish representation and lead to a massive bias in favour of St Helier.

Ken Oratola

Someone called Polite Debater said:

"If the consequences of A & B are unknown how can you go on to state they will have a negative effect. By your own statement you do not know what the consequences will be so equally both could have a positive effect."

I prefer not to gamble with our island's future in the way that Polite Debater suggests. Option A seems to be unpredictable and possibly very destructive. Option B is slightly better.

Option C preserves the status quo until such time as a more palatable set of options might be formulated. We would also get to keep the senators for now- those who preach democracy seem oddly silent when they are confronted with the fact that the senators will go under A and B.

The constables would also go from the states under A, so we would lose both parish representation and the island wide mandate if Option A gets in.

Equal representation

Ken, Could I ask if you would please read my post at 13? I believe it sets out why option B is not "slightly better" than A.

You also say "those who preach democracy seem oddly silent when they are confronted with the fact that the senators will go under A and B." Well I certainly haven't been silent. I think many Option A supporters would like an Island-wide mandate for ALL States Members. That is the very best democratic option. But it's just not feasible. You would be voting for 42 members from a list of say 80-100 candidates. Imagine the hustings, the press coverage required, the leaflets through the doors, the length of time it would take to vote. The Commission decided the way to deal with this problem was to divide Jersey into 6 Districts and let one sixth of the electorate vote for one sixth of the Members. That is Option A.

"Option C preserves the status quo until such time as a more palatable set of options might be formulated." I really don't think you are going to get another chance. If we vote for C, that is the way the government will be run for many years to come. It's not a "none of the above vote". It's a clear vote that you don't want change.

Ken Oratola

Your post at 13 could not have been read by me when I made my comment, because I am not, unfortunately, in possession of a time machine.

I did not realise that you are the same person as Polite Debator. That explains quite a lot.

It was said that:

“If the consequences of A & B are unknown how can you go on to state they will have a negative effect. By your own statement you do not know what the consequences will be so equally both could have a positive effect.”

I still prefer, even after having read your words at number 13, not to gamble with our island’s future in the way that you suggest.

Option A is clearly unpredictable and possibly very destructive. Option B is slightly better.

Option C preserves the status quo until such time as a more palatable set of options might be formulated.

We would also get to keep the senators for now- those who preach democracy seem oddly silent when they are confronted with the fact that the senators will go under A and B.

It is quite true that you haven't been silent- the reality is quite the opposite.

You have made a great deal of noise, but it is, unfortunately, not noise of a very high quality. If verbosity were the hallmark of a sound argument, then you would clearly win by a considerable margin.

Sadly, this is not so. Indeed, you repeat your "public can't be trusted to vote for 42 on a ballot paper" argument, which, as the best that you can come up with, seems to reflect the Option A mentality.

we also know, incidentally, that the constables would go from the states under A, so we would lose both parish representation and the island wide mandate if Option A gets in.

Equal representation

Ken, I am well aware that my post at 13 was before your post. I simply asked you to read it as an argument against yours that Option B is "slightly better". Clearly you don't agree and that's fine.

I can assure you I am not "Polite Debater" although it is clear he has very similar viewpoints to my own. My view is that he seems very logical and puts forward his points in the manner he describes himself, very politely. When he started on this thread, he seemed very uncertain which way he would vote and clearly has come down on the side of Option A. Others will read the points put forward on here and make their own minds up.

Polite Debator

Ken

I did not know I was two people. On the down side two lots of taxes, mortgages etc etc to pay. But on the upside I can now vote for A twice at the referendum. I must ensure my other self is registered though..........

Reg

Thos of us with independent mind who don't like being told how to think or how to vote are most unlkely to vote for Option A. I fully expect vitriolic response to this exercise of freedom of speech.

Ken Oratola

My apologies. My error was based on two things. Firstly, one person responded to a post which was addressed to another. Perhaps the "interloper" regarded himself as somehow superior to the one for whom he answered- either that or he was a mere "busybody", to coin the vernacular.

The error also partly arose from the fact that both the named commentators produced similar comment, both in terms of content and with particular regard to the low quality of that content.

The latter factor would appear to be a theme among those who support Option A, so perhaps the coincidence is not altogether surprising.

Equal representation

Ken Oratola, seriously tempting as it is to respond to you in the tone that you have responded to me, I won't. I am simply putting my point of view forward in a polite manner. I put forward arguments. You may not like them. Feel free to reject them. Feel free to respond with counter arguments. But your abuse lowers the worth of your posts.

I'm sorry your post to Polite Debator you felt was only for him/her to respond to. I don't think that's the way an open forum such as this works.

Helen

I would regard a vote for Option C as a vote to maintain the status quo. The problem with the other two(apart from things like the destruction of parish repesentation under Option A) is that the effects will be largely unpredictable and, with Option A in particular, potentially very damaging.

Ken Oratlola

No that's fine. I enjoy reading your comments with regard to Option A. It is very telling.

Concerned of St Clement

As I previously stated I am not happy with any of the options being put forward in this referendum. The assumption that I am "deluding" myself "that electoral reform will be revisited any time soon" is somewhat insulting not only to myself but the rest of the electorate - after all in a democratic society it is the electorate who should decide what happens. Perhaps we don't live in a perfect democratic society, but that does not mean we should not strive to change it for the better. To remind all of the electorate, we are due to have elections next year. I am going to vote option C on the basis that the supposed solutions put forward by the Commission do not in my opinion provide a sensible working solution, and for the time being I wish for the status quo to be maintained until we can all hear what the thoughts and ideas of prospective candidates in the next election are. Then I will vote accordingly. I see no reason why I should not excercise my democratic rights in such a manner, just because a small but vocal minority want to railroad the Island into accepting their concept of electoral reform by restricting the options available under the referendum.

Polite Debator

Reg

I am of a very I dependant mind and whilst being an advocate of option A I do not believe that at any time I have told any person how they must vote. I simply post my views and counter arguments on here as it is a public forum.

Ken

This is a public forum and not a private conversation so any person is entitled to comment upon any post. It is not interloping nor being a busybody and you will see that it is a common practice.

The common theme of the option A supporters, other than those masquerading as such and posting inflammatory comments, is to put forward reasoned argument. Now feel free to counter it but do not call it low quality just because you disagree with it.

Alas it seems that the vast majority of the less complimentary comments posted in this debate come from the apponents of option A and not from its supporters. Why are people so rude when they disagree with others is beyond me.

Reg

Quite so. That is why I wrote that those of us with independent mind who don’t like being told how to think or how to vote are most unlkely to vote for Option A.

I fully expected to see vitriolic response to this exercise of freedom of speech and indeed that seems to have been the case.

Polite Debator

What vitriol?

Option A

This should be about democracy. The Commission WAS hijacked from Daniel Wimberly / Sam Mezec who represent the people of Jersey. So what gives any politician the right to interfere.

Steph

Neither Wimberley nor Mezec represent the people of Jersey.

Option A

No constable should be allowed to stand for the States even under option A. This is clearly not democratic because they get more votes than proper candidates just because the parish will block vote for them. Then they have to vote on-block to support the right wing establishment party.

Bea

Strange how you share the same randomly generated and unique gravitar as "Sanity", there, Option A.

Perhaps, if you truely are a different poster, you should hide your link with that other person by using a random and non-exsistant e-mail address, (just like a number of people here who like to make things up.)

Option A

People must vote for Option A because Option B is clearly not democratic and people must not be allowed to vote for it. But even if they do vote for Option C at least if Option B is soundly defeated then the next commission will know that people do not want unelected constables even if this is again hijacked by politicians that the people do not want.

Vote A & C

I agree that Option B is clearly not democratic and that A is probably the best of the awful reform options.

The HEC (Hijacked Electoral Commission) should not have been permitted to put these flawed options to referendum, but the states let them so obviously people are allowed to vote for them. Even the dreadful Option B which is even less democratic than the current system.

Please moderate your language and do not overstate the case or people could think you might be a troll.

I understand your anger, but please chill.

Vote A

But Option B and C are both awful because it's about people and so those who want senators have got it wrong. Votes for those options should not be counted because they're all wrong. The only way to move forward to be all democratic is to vote for Option A, then all of the politicians will be ones that we like, not just the ones who get the most votes.

"Yeah but no but yeah but"

More ridiculous statements like "Votes for those options should not be counted because they’re all wrong" make me more sure you are a troll negatively campaigning AGAINST Option A

I have never heard any genuine "Option A" campaigner make such ludicrous and anti-democratic statements

All three options A, B & C are awful because the hijacked commission has given us hijacked choices which maintain or strengthen the Establishment.

B is by far the worst as it BOTH

- increases the voter inequity further in favour of the country parishes

and

- reduces the number of representatives so there are insufficient out of government for scrutiny of C.O.M. decisions and policy (which is why even Option A is flawed in favour of the Establishment ! ........ but the process was hijacked by the Establishment so we are only presented with their choices)

I will Vote A & C ...... If I can resist the urge to spoil my paper in disgust at the referendum being rigged by rigging the choices so the Establishment win whatever the outcome A, B or C.

What a waste of time, effort and money. Let's hope they do it properly next time.

Emma

"Vote A"'s statement could be one of two things.

It is either a very stupid supporter of Option A putting forward a rather inarticulate version of the arguments that we tend to hear from the proponents of Option A.

In the alternative, it is one of the rather more intelligent Option A dissentors seeking to parody the general quality of the comments placed by those who support Option A.

I wonder which one it is? Perhaps he or she will let us know in due course.

"Yeah but no but yeah but"

Emma (7:11pm), you describe it as "parody".

I would describe it as trolling or even as campaign fraud.

I smell a "RAT" do you ?

Emma

Most of what the comment contains does seem to reflect what you say. We seem to seeeing it rather too much, I am afraid.

R.A.T. = Random Avatar Troll

Hi "Emma"

Would you trust someone who kept changing their identity ?

Whenever a commenter is unable to remember which (Gr)avatar they post under I do "smell a R.A.T."

Predictable as ever you are true to form with a fresh avatar and a puerile comment, on this occasion with an undertone that other people are too free with their opinions. (ironic?)

Priceless.

Over a third of the comments on this (and other related topics) are under an assortment of names who display this "Random Avatar" characteristic and delivering a similar message.

Are they all you, or do you have some friends ?

Is this your job or are you unwell and doing it for free ?

Trolls come in many forms and they are not always Flamer-Trolls

You might have found my other comments on here, including

http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/04/12/campaigners-spell-out-the-reform-choices/#comment-272794

What sort of troll is "Sanity" ? Like yourself he is ...... "well to the right of centre" and displays little respect for debate, democracy or his fellow commentors when he pretends to be an Option A supporter but spreads negative propaganda, guff and misinformation like "No constable should be allowed to stand for the States even under option A. This is clearly not democratic because they get more votes than proper candidates ......" This from his comment #9 April 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm

Oh look "Bea" replies @9 "Strange how you share the same randomly generated and unique gravitar as “Sanity”, there, Option A.

Perhaps, if you truely are a different poster, you should hide your link with that other person by using a random and non-exsistant e-mail address, (just like a number of people here who like to make things up.)"

So Bea has spotted you too - but who hasn't ?

When I said ...... I smell a “RAT” ....... it was a Random Avatar Troll.

Do you qualify ?

BR

"Yeah but no but yeah but"

Emma

Well, this is all quite extraordinary. Even when one agrees with you, we still see vitriolic nonsense from you.

Would I trust someone who keeps changing their name? No, I wouldn't. Perhaps that means that you ought to stick to one name if you wish to be taken seriously instead of being recognised by most as the resident "trol" (There's always one!) :)

Democratic Dan

We are being offered exactly what no guarantee of adopting whats voted for if they don't like the answer, why couldnt we just have 42 politicians elected by population numbers and no constables they could do what they are elected for being at the helm of the parish with a parish elected politician(s) who can take the ear of the constable and see how the parish would like its elected politician to vote, each parish based on population will have equal representation, i offered this during the consultation but the hijacked commission by a partisan politician has seen to it that most people dont wont any of whats on offer unless they are really radical about democracy and actually want accountability and vote option A or just sit on our hands do nothing for another 70 years and vote c

N

42 on the island wide mandate would be good. Option A destroys the island wide mandate. I am also uncomfortable about the loss of the constables from the states- a loss of parish representation.

I would vote Option C because the other two, A in particular, are a dreadful mess. Option C would ensure some sort of stability until a better set of refrom options come to pass.

Scrutineer

Absolutely; the Commission have caused a lot of trouble, by producing this set of options. Having read all of this today, and seeing the extraordinary comments by 'Option A' above, which now convinces me that the A lobby are (a) desperate and (b) despotic, I am now firm on C.

Equal representation

In my view, the person posting as Option A above is NOT an option A supporter. I believe he/she is posting in that way in order to reduce support for Option A. "Option B is clearly not democratic and people must not be allowed to vote for it." I just do not believe that is a genuine position to take.

I also believe that Vote A is the same person. "Votes for those options should not be counted because they’re all wrong." This is complete nonsense. I would ask people to ignore these posts which are troll material in my view.

Eddy

It would as you state clearly be a good idea for people to ignore the posts which seek to push Option A. It is a duff option and therefore any advice to vote for it should indeed be ignored.

Equal representation

Eddy, as you well know, that is not what I said.

Scrutineer

Equal Representation - wow, I had not thought of that idea of Option A - but what do you do, if like me, you want more Senators with an island wide mandate n(we are after all about the size of 1.5 UK MP constituencies (and I do not buy this 'large constituency deputy is half way to being a senator' type argument since a lot of them will be the parish pump politicians who currenly fill many deputy posts)?

Equal representation

Well I'm afraid you're not going to get more Senators. It hasn't been presented as an option. I'm afraid you'll need to choose the next best thing from the 3 options we have. I don't buy the argument that a vote for Option C means they'll rethink the whole thing again (whereupon you might get your Senators). Option C is not the same as "none of the above". It is a clear vote for "no change".

I think you'll find that the new Deputies are going to require a much larger vote to get in than the old style Deputies, which should lead to a better quality I believe. I'm sorry you don't buy the large District bit. I can't see any other way to get Members being voted in with a substantial (although not Island-wide clearly) mandate. Having to get substantial support from one sixth of the voters is a decent hurdle to overcome though.

Obvious

We won't get any senators if Option A gets through!

truthseeker

Let us remember the good ship Jersey was fine untill the C.O.Ministers crowded out your elected representatives to a detrimental degree....Democracy took a massive torpedo in the side..eg: the public did not want G.S.T especially on essentials....20,000 souls voted against it by way of petition.." I don't care if a hundred thousand of them signed it...we are having it"" and that was that from the then treasury minister Terry'My Way' Le Sueur.....what school of democracy did that Dictatorial stance come from I wonder..? maybe Adolph Hitlers little book on how to win friends and influence people..the facts remain that since the C.O.M. we have been taking on water badly ..the overspends and over taxing to fund them has become unsustainable...many people are on their knees financially now the boom/bust gadget has broken..yet we are a society and life must go on ..the only way back is to focus on quality of life and being...and the old committee system did at least give us that and balance...the C..O.M has been a spectacular failure they of course ant to hang on to their power..option "A" would stop that and gives us a chance at restructuring the way we live that actually has some credibility...for whatever is forced on folks will fail if they do not believe in it ..and we sure do not believe in the devastation caused by C.O.M.let's get them OUT.get rid of G.S.T and the good ship Jersey will slowly right herself again.

Equal representation

I would like to have another attempt at getting across why Option B is a bad choice, because I think it results in a situation that people who might want to support Option B may not have fully grasped. I assume Option B supporters do so because they want the moderating influence of the 12 Constables in the States. They do not want the sort of Deputy that currently represents St Helier having a greater influence, a situation they believe will occur if Option A is chosen, resulting in the already well publicised "14 St Helier Deputies".

At the present time, there are 24 Minister and Ministerial Assistant posts, and 2 of these are held by Constables. These Ministerial positions are the posts that have the most influence in the States. Indeed, since the move to Ministerial government, they have very substantial power in their own Ministries. Option B will result in only 20 Deputies who are not St Helier Deputies (5 in each of the Districts 3 to 6). If the Constables do not take on the Ministerial posts, at a minimum 6 St Helier Deputies will end up as Ministers or Assistants. AS A MINIMUM. I don't think Option B supporters want St Helier Deputies running ministries. I don't think Option B supporters want St Helier Deputies to have that much power and influence in the States. But that will be the INEVITABLE consequence of Option B being chosen, because there just won't be enough Members for that NOT to happen.

I'll say it again, if you want proper representation with the majority getting the government they want, vote Option A. If you want to keep the Constables and have a few (a very few, 8 out of 49) Island-wide Members, vote Option C. Option B is not a viable option and certainly not a viable option if you don't want left-wing members running ministries. Please think. Don't just act on some cosy idea that the Constables will result in "grass roots democracy".

David

The difficulty with Option A is that it does destroy the grasss roots parish representation and it also destroys the island wide mandate.

We should certainly think hard before we vote for it.

The Thinker

Very clearly all three options being put before the electorate are seriously flawed. There are many points well laid out in many of the submissions, basically pointing out the short comings of each option.

I strongly agree with Truthseeker in his assertion that things went very wrong when we went over to the COM system. Of course we will never know if the system would have worked as put forward by Lord Justice Clothier as it was dissected by the politicians in power at the time.

In my humble opinion, for such a small Island the old Committee system had many benefits and just required a little tweaking - but that was not to be.

I believe that the vast number of voters in the coming referendum are perplexed with the choice that is being offered and as such looking for the option that will do the least potential harm or damage. It does not bode well.

If its not broken - don't fix it. Hmmmm most people acknowledge that the system is broken and does require fixing and fixing most urgently but not necessarily in the ways being put forward.

We need a system of accountability where the electorate can judge someone by their actions - good or bad. We need a system where all the Island is represented not just various parts. In my opinion the Commission has failed to deliver and it is entirely wrong to continue forward with what is on the table.

I will vote but I would ask every voter to consider the options very carefully, because as has already been mentioned I don't expect another examination of the system to come up any time soon.

In the meantime could we please have some decent candidates standing in the next election - whatever form it takes.

Real Truthseeker

I am not in favour of Option A, however it will certainly win.

The reason for this is the entire vote is a referendum on Constables. Option A says NO, whereas Options B and C are a YES.

So Options B and C will split the vote, and Option A will win.

It shoudl have been a two stage process, firstly a vote whether we want or do not want Constables in the States, then which system. I suspect the majority want the Constables in, but the way this referendum is phrased Option A will win by default.

Option A

ER – I think Nick Le Cornu last night proved just how undemocratic the other options are – other than a few people who tried to high jack Nick Le Cornu’s meeting with their views exactly as they tried to high jack Deputy Wimberley’s commission – everybody voted for Option A. Even the electoral commission except for the politicians only want option A.

Geeky Blogger

The day I take Nick Le Cornu's advice on reform is the day I eat my hat.

Noddy

The odd things is that Le Cornu campaigns to eject the constables from the states under Option A, yet he himself sought that office some years ago in order to secure a states seat. He wanted power, but failed to achieve it.

The self-rightousness becomes somewhat hypocritical when viewd in this light.

Triumph of the Country

Who on earth would want to hi-jack a meeting organised by this gentleman? You'd be better off buying a copy of "Socialist Worker" and locking yourself in the khasi for three hours. At least it wouldn't matter if you ran out of paper!

Option A

I agree with Truthseeker than GST proves how undemocratic the other options are and that under option A we will get democratic politicians who will stop all these unfair taxes and give all of the workers a payrise.

The Thinker

Option A - me thinks I smell a rat.

Penny

There's a massive rat there all right and the smell is quite overpowering

Sanity

Thinker – Think back to the old committee system and everybody was complaining that there was no accountability, when we had 12 Senators everybody was complaining that we needed a general election and now that we have all this they are still complaining. Agree that we do need a higher calibre of candidate but then everybody complains that they are paid too much already and want the job done for free.

"Yeah but no but yeah but"

Hi "Sanity"

Think back to the old comments at :

6.

8.

9.

10.

16.

17.

Think back to to when you ware a troll pretending to be a Option A supporter but posting the stupidest drivel in order to put people off.

Do you think that was honest or good for the functioning of debate and democracy ?

Were you suffering from "Sanity" when you said this to totally misrepresent Option A:

"The only way we are ever going to rid Jersey of the current right wing government and the parasitic finance industry is to remove the parish as the power base of the establishment."

Don't fret "Sanity", take deep breaths and relax. Even Option A strengthens the Establishment

ALL the hijacked choices strengthens the Establishment .

I will Vote A & C ...... If I can resist the urge to spoil my paper in disgust.

Head in the sand

You do rather like to judge the comments of others. You do so from behind the cover of many names.

Geeky Blogger

Option B is the only sensible option if people are serious about cutting numbers in the States and look at the collection of wreckers who support Option A. The same socialist people who do nothing in the States but pick up a wage and fail to deliver in every term of office. Avoid Option A like the plague.

John Corbin

Constables are the islamd equivalent of local councellors in the UK and should fulfill this local role only, even if the parishes pay them a wage.

An island this size does not need any more than say, 20 elected politicians, and these should be on an island wide mandate.

I cannot seem to see any option reflecting this common sense attitude on either option A, B or C!

Fred

They are a little more than that. The constables represent the parishes and provide gras roots representation. They operate as a check on over-zealous deputies.

I can see why the analogy with a uk councillor is attractive. It strikes a chord with the Option A vision, which is to introduce UK style politics to Jersey and so reduce further it character and accessible democracy.

Equal representation

Fred, "They operate as a check on over-zealous deputies." I can see where you're coming from but can I request that you read my post at 13, because I believe that under Option B that "check" disappears. You haven't said whether you favour B or C, but in my view, if you want to retain the Constables, C is the sensible choice.

Professor

If Constables represent the Parishes, Then Deputies represent the people in those parishes.

So Deputies provide the Grass root representation for people, not Constables.

Constables only represent the Parishes interests which (as you will be aware if you have ever attended a Parish hall meeting on Rates) do not align themselves with the interests of the people.

Gary

Yes, but the problem is, if Option A gets in, the constables won't be in a position to represent the people of the parish and neither will the deputies, unless you're in St Helier.

Professor

Deputies will continue to represent the people in their district, which will, under option A, include entire parishes or possibly only part of a parish in the case of St Helier.

So, what evidence is there that Deputies would not represent the people in their districts, as you claim?

Clearly doom saying and fear mongering. Can you not come up with a reasonable response?

Gary

Well, the constables would go under Option A, which would give rise to a loss of parish representation.

Then also so would the country parishes be forced to share deputies with other parishes, up to three of them.

St Helier would not have to share them- it would have 14 dedicated deputies under Option A.

Professor

Indeed, Gary, Why do Parishes need representation, when the People in the parishes have representation, they are represented by Deputies under *All* options.

As mentioned above, Constables only represent the Parishes interests which do not always align themselves with the interests of the people.

Gary

No, I disagree. The parish and the people within need representation. The constables provide this; it is grass roots democracy. This would be lost if Option A is elected.

Professor

Correct Gary, Deputys and Senetors represent the People of the parishes, Constables represent the Parishes themselves. That is not "grass roots democracy"

As mentioned above, Constables only represent the Parishes interests which do not always align themselves with the interests of the people.

As I said, the People *have* representation. So why do Parishes need representation?

Gary

Quite right. The constables represent the parish and the people within. This form of democracy will be lost if Option A gets through.

Professor

Quite right, Gary, Because parishes don't need representation.

People do.

So this form of democracy should be removed. Its not about people.

Gary

I agree with your sentiment that Option A is not about people. What matters is ordinary community parish representation, which is why the constables should remain within the house.

Professor

What an amazingly stupid comment.

"Option A is not about people"

It is the only option that only concentrates on people, not organisations.

And it is frankly bizarre that you think only Constables can represent a community.

But I suppose that is your own fault. Who knows the reasons why you vote for your local deputy. Or what you think your local deputy represents. For most of the people in this island, their deputy is more “local” than their Constable, but for you, you voted for a duff deputy it appears. Your own fault.

Gary

Yes, the constables do represent the people of the parish. The sentiment regarding Option A came from you.

In any event, Option A is more about numers than anything else.

Professor

No Gary, Constables represent the Parish, not the people. That is their role in the states and the reason for their automatic seat.

If they choose to go beyond this and represent some people, it is up to them, and good for them for going beyond the call of duty, but their role is quite clear.

Democracy is about numbers. So Option A is Democracy.

So that means if Option B is not about numbers, Option B is not democratic?

Gary

Nope. The constables represent the parishes and the people within.

The people have decided that the situation will remain. That is democracy.

Marlene

Constables represent the people of the parish.

You need not take my word for it. The preponderence of those voting in the referendum thought likewise and voted to retain the constables' seat and therefore cast a vote for grass roots democracy.

Fred

On the contrary, the constables do represent the parishes and provide gras roots representation. They also serve as a check on over-zealous deputies and other officers. I have found this to be the.

The deputies do represent the parishes at the moment to a large extent- but they will no longer do this if Option A wins the day. The exception to this would be St Helier, where the electoral boundaries would continue to exist on parish lines.

I agree that Option C would seem to make the most sense.

Option D

45 square miles, 12 parishes 2 politicians each for 11 parishes 3 for St Helier, 25 politicians at £45,000 each is £1.125 million. Get the Constables to take care of their Parish affairs that is their role on the island not in government. Why do we need 42 or 49 politicians on an island this size.

Our government is too big for its boots...

Sanity

Given Mr Wimberley’s statement that these new “super” deputies would talk time out to represent one of the Parishes in their district, I asked several friends in St Mary where he was the former deputy just how committed he was to the Parish. Given that some admitted to have voted for him they ALL stated that after election they never saw him.

If we lose the Constables the Parish and all the social and community amenities that revolve around the parish hub will fail, to be replaced by a faceless and unaccountable central administration.

Sensible

The "super deputies" under Option A (whatever that soundbite might mean) are less likely to represent any parish (except St Helier) due to the fact that under Option A, the parishes will share deputies, except for St Helier of course.

If Option A succeeds, I can foresee all sorts of buck-passing and "not my job" from the deputies who will purport to represent more than one parish. Certainly, Option A will mark an end to accessible politics in Jersey. The problem, will of course, be exacerbated by the removal of the constables from the states under Option A.

Professor

I have to share my constable, so why shouldn't you have to share your deputy?

Sensible

That doesn't sound like a very meaningful or intelligent answer, I am afraid.

Professor

It wasn’t an answer, Sensible, it was a question. (there was a question mark to give a hint)

You complain that some people would have to share a deputy.

I stated that I have to share my constable. With other people, living on other streets no less.

My Constable purports to represent more than one street, and yet, I see no buck-passing.

If I have to share my Constable, why should you not have to share your deputy?

But for your answer, its quite simple. Deputies will not represent any Parish, even St Helier under Options A or B.

They will represent Districts. Even for St Helier, of Course, as it is not one single district.

So, No Deputy can purport to represent more than one parish, they simply represent the district, which will contain either parts of, or entire parishes.

Just as no Constable purport to represent more than one street, they simply represent the parish, which will contain either parts of, or entire streets.

Sensible

It still doesn't sound very mature or intelligent. Talking about "why should I share" and making odd statements about streets is also a little silly. It sounds very small minded.

One of the many difficulties with Option A arises from the fact that St Helier will have dedicated deputies, while other parishes will be forced to share deputies. A deputy from one parish will, in all except St Helier, purport to represent another parish.

This will, of course, be exacerbated by the constables' removal from the house under Option A.

Professor

"fact that St Helier will have dedicated deputies"

Nope, Fact is that St Helier will be split. So no dedicated deputies.

"other parishes will be forced to share deputies."

Thats not very mature or intelligent, to use your own words.

Talking about odd statements about sharing, it sounds incredibly small minded and silly.

Or is "sharing" only something you can talk about?

Sensible

Oh dear. We can't think of our own words and arguments so we have to use those of others, do we Prof?

One of the many difficulties with Option A arises from the fact that St Helier will have dedicated deputies, while other parishes will be forced to share deputies. A deputy from one parish will, in all except St Helier, purport to represent another parish.

This will, of course, be exacerbated by the constables’ removal from the house under Option A.

Andy

"Fact is that St Helier will be split. So no dedicated deputies."

Well, let's examine this.

Option A will see St Helier split into two districts, each one of which will have seven deputies.

Put together, the two districts cover an area which exactly corresponds with St Helier.

So, we see that the 14 deputies are indeed dedicated St Helier deputies.

What of the other parishes?

Well, the example of St John under Option A is that St John would have 7 deputies, but would have to share them with three other parishes.

Professor

Option A will see St Helier split into two districts, each one of which will have seven deputies.

So, we see that the 14 deputies are indeed dedicated to half of St Helier each. Not surprising, no deputy will dedicate himself to another District other than his own. Why should they? Unless they are super states members and much better than any other states member!

As for District 5, under Option A, like any other District, it would also have 7 deputies. If these are to be shared between parts of the district, then the electorate of District 5 have not bothered to vote someone who will dedicate themselves to their own district. (unlike the people in St Helier!)

So, under option A, St Helier elects the best representatives, but the people in St Johns are foolish enough to vote for inadequate states members.

Sensible

"Option A will see St Helier split into two districts, each one of which will have seven deputies.

So, we see that the 14 deputies are indeed dedicated to half of St Helier each."

Responded: =Therefore, St Helier would have gained 14 dedicated deputies under Option A, which is now defeated at ballot.

"Not surprising, no deputy will dedicate himself to another District other than his own. Why should they? Unless they are super states members and much better than any other states member!"

Responded: =This makes no sense in the context of the discussion. The only thing which it shows is that you have failed to understand the St Helier bias which Option A would have created.

As for District 5, under Option A, like any other District, it would also have 7 deputies.

Responded:= It would have had 7 deputies shared between 4 parishes. St Helier would have had 14 deputies within the one parish.

"If these are to be shared between parts of the district, then the electorate of District 5 have not bothered to vote someone who will dedicate themselves to their own district. (unlike the people in St Helier!)"

Responded:=This again depicts a somewhat confused thought process and shows that you have failed to grasp the problems with Option A. Fortunately, a large number of the electorate did recognise the problems.

"So, under option A, St Helier elects the best representatives, but the people in St Johns are foolish enough to vote for inadequate states members."

Responded:+ The fact that you envisage a relatively poorer quality of representation within the country parishes shows that, albeit unwittingly, you see the glaring difference in treatment which Option A would have afforded St Helier.

The results of the poll show that the St Helier voters realised that they were onto a good thing; fortunately, this vested interest was not allowed to win the day.

Professor

Constables will not be "lost" and the Parish will not fail. What utter tosh.

Constables will simply not be automatic states members.

Sensible

It certainly would be "tosh" for a commentator to state that, under Option A the constables would be "lost".

That would be the reason why I di not say it. perhaps you should read the post again.

Option A will mark an end to accessible politics in Jersey. The problem, will of course, be exacerbated by the removal of the constables from the states under Option A.

Professor

Sensible, Sanity (or Option A, depending what name he posts under) said:

"If we lose the Constables the Parish and all the social and community amenities that revolve around the parish hub will fail"

I said, in response, Constables would not be "lost".

But why do you think that Constables are the only way to accessible politics in Jersey? Is this not simply who you vote? if you vote for someone who is not accessible, that is your right.

Sensible

No, I said the following:

The problem, will of course, be exacerbated by the removal of the constables from the states under Option A.

You have quoted what someone else has said, presumably because you cannot properly address the point which was made.

Professor

Sanity posts, I respond to Sanitys post, you respond saying you did not say what Sanity said and tell me to read the post again....

I did, perhaps you should read who I responded to...

Or you just have your wires crossed.

Now... you say Option A exacerbates somthing that will only happens under option A

"Option A will mark an end to accessible politics. The problem will be exacerbated under Option A."

If you feel it will only happen under option A, then of course it will be exacerbarated under Option A. There is no other way it could happe.

I simply ask what accessible politics is, and why is it only accessable with Constables.

Sensible

Much depends upon whether you mean accessible or accessable.

Accessible politics is where a perosn who represents a locality and its people, for example, a constable, is accessible.

We will lose this form of grass roots democracy if Option A succeeds.

Professor

Aha, thank you, I was not aware of the difference.

Then my question will be that, considering a Deputy of District 5 (under option A or B) represent the local people in the north east of the island, How is that not accessible?

And therefore, is the Constable of St Martins a local of Rozel or a local of Gorey, and is he accessible only to part of the area he represents?

How "Local" does "Local" have to be to be grass roots democracy, and who decides that?

Sensible

Gras roots democracy is something which lives in the heart of the community. The constables provide this. Option A will destroy grass roots democracy and replace it with faceless politics.

Sanity

Professor - Option A gives equal voting BUT will not deliver representation. Under option B the majority is made up of equally elected representatives that will both benefit and be bought to account by the grass root representation of the Constable. And if confused just look at the little picture.

Professor

How will Option A not deliver representation?

Who represents the people of District 3? What would the Deputies of District 3 do, if they are not representing the people of district 3?

your statement makes no sense!

The little picture?

Constables do not represent people!

That is not the representation I want!

I want my states members to represent me, not an organisation!

Sensible

What a peculiar comment. My constable represents me and has done so on occasions. I wonder if you actually have any knowledge of Jersey politics when you seek to argue that a constable does not represent anyone.

On your argument, perhaps deputies don't represent anyone either.

Professor

And yourself, rarther perculiar, Your constable may have represnted you, but his role is to represent his Parish, not people.

Good for you to have a Constable that goes beyond his requirements!

Now, what does a Deputy do, as a deputy does not represent a parish? Perhaps they represent people?

Why have you not elected a Deputy that is as good as your Constable? Its your own fault, you know....

Sensible

No, it is not good for me. The constable represents me because that is his job. That is why he is elected.

The role of the constable is to represent the parish and the people within.

Your thinking on the matter is, as you put it, most "perculiar".

Sanity

Democracy is not about equal votes but equal representation. Some feel comfortable with the Parish and community based organisations whilst other prefer a more mathematical based government like the UK. Option A clearly removes all representation from a huge section of our society whilst option B disenfranchises nobody. A democratic system that fails the people is not democracy as is evidenced in many “Peoples Democratic Republics” across the World. Democracy must have an element of compromise which is why I will opt for Option B.

Professor

Democracy is not about equal votes but equal representation.

Unfortunately, Option B gives neither!

Someone in District 1 would have 5.5 States members.

Someone in District 5 would have 9 States members.

That is not equal representation!

I want a Parish community that works.

I want a Government that works.

Constables doing both jobs detracts from doing either as well as they could.

Option A gives more representation to everyone (how you think it removes it is beyond me, as you have not explained how)

And Option A gives the Parishes a Constable who can actually devote thier time to the role of being a Constable.

Option A is a win/win situation.

Sensible

If democracy is about equal representation then it should be clear that Option C is the sensible choice. Option A certainly falls short of any form of democratic equality.

Professor

Why would C be a sensible choice with so much inequality in representation? B has the same problem.

1 vote for representing 1,500 people, or 1 vote for representing 33,000 people

That’s not equal representation.

Explain again, why A would not have any form of democratic equality where every person can elect 7 representatives and each representative represents about the same number of people.

Sensible

Option A has difficulties insofar as it abolishes the island wide mandate, detroys parish representation and affords a bias towards St Helier.

That is not my idea of democracy.