Commission’s politicians: Constables should stay

ALL States Members who sat on the Electoral Commission have now come out in favour of keeping the Constables in the States after the final member publicly declared her support for Option B.

St Mary Constable Juliette Gallichan

ALL States Members who sat on the Electoral Commission have now come out in favour of keeping the Constables in the States after the final member publicly declared her support for Option B.

St Mary Constable Juliette Gallichan, who sat on the commission alongside chairman Senator Sir Philip Bailhache and Deputy James Baker, has nailed her colours to the mast in a letter in today’s JEP.

It follows similar announcements by the two other States Members on the commission ahead of the referendum on States reform next Wednesday, 24 April.

Dr Jonathan Renouf, meanwhile, is the only non-States Member of the commission to publicly confirm his views, which are in favour of Option A and removing the Constables from the States.

Comments for: "Commission’s politicians: Constables should stay"

RichardB

No surprises there then !!

People need to remember, that option B has always been the proposed and preferred option for Senator Bailhache.

After proposing this option (42 states members, made up of 30 Deputies and 12 Constables) in the Senatorial Hustings back in 2011, he HAD to be able to hijack this "independant" commision to be able to stick to his word.

If you don't believe this, just Youtube it, it is in plain sight for all to view.

So in reality, this comission has come out with 1 new (fair) reform option and 3 pre-determined ones.

1) Don't vote

2)Vote to keep the status quo

3) Vote to endorse Senator Bailhache

4) Vote for reform.

Even with option B being the most undemocratic and unfair option (as stated by Sir Phil!!), all 3 states members who sat on this hijacked commision have chosen this to support. Quelle surprise & what a shambles !!

Sensible

Christmas.Voting.Turkeys.Not

Gobble Gobble

turkey ?........ christmas ?........

Pip Clement

Option B is the least democratic and probably the least likely to produce a working government.

But hey ho, who cares anyway, certainly not the members of the States! :-(

luap

This whole referendum has proven what a bunch of self interested unmentionables the majority of states members are. Concerned about the outcome of a referendum? Get your self and your cronnies on the panel....jobs a good un.

That is democracy done The Jersey Way.

Someone with some backbone in the states should have kicked bailache in to touch and left the commission to be independent as it was originally voted for and not for him to come along and completely ruin what many islanders have hoped for, political reform without states members influence.

What a complete and utter joke. I want to say more but am probably pushing my luck with the above!

Jim

I'm just really pleased that the A Team are organising a rally on Saturday, and I hope that all of its supporters will turn out and that the the JEP will give them plenty of coverage.

Even without delving into the detailed arguments, I am sure that the rest of us will be inspired as to how to vote simply by seeing those who support Option A.

jacqui

Yes, I am sure that their powers of persuasion and the sheer sight of the motley crew will be enough to cause a stampede to the ballot box.

luap

Jacqui = another person worried that option A might win so resorts to denigration

jacqui

Luap=another person worried that Option A won't win so resorts to denigration

Equal representation

Jim, You and Jacqui are mixing up the message and the messenger. Seems to me Option A wins the argument on content, but I am concerned that those that are the public face might be sending a different message simply by who they are. However, if Option A were to succeed on the first vote on a 40% turnout say, that would be 15,600 voters going for Option A, so it wouldn't be just these few public faces that would be supporting the option. If it succeeds, it will have wide acceptance (as would any of the options). Make sure you vote and Don't shoot the messenger. Vote for Option A.

Colin

If you vore for Option A, you'd be too blind to pick up a gun, let alone shoot any messemgers with it.

Public Faces

Now, now Colin. Just because someone is using this forum to tell us how to vote doesn't mean that you should make them look silly.

They don't need any help from you.

Equal representation

Oh,it is so easy to mock rather than deal with the issues, isn't it? For example, I could respond that Colin is so blind he can't even type properly. But this just degenerates into a personal slanging match. Please stop playing the man, and play the ball. If you have anything to add to the debate, we're happy to hear it.

Mark

It really is a sad indictment of Jersey politics that such a comment like this needed to be said.

But then again, it is clear that Option B supporters don't have a real argument so have to do what they can to distract from the actual debate and turn it into a mud slinging match so as to hopefully make people miss the fact that Option B doesn't make sense!

Hark

It really is a sad indictment of Jersey politics that such a comment like this needed to be said.

But then again, it is clear that Option A supporters don’t have a real argument so have to do what they can to distract from the actual debate and turn it into a mud slinging match so as to hopefully make people miss the fact that Option A doesn’t make sense!

Mark

Hark, thank you for proving my point with such a childish contribution.

Hark the parrot troll @8:37am

When it can't think of a reply it pastes your own comment back at you

"Whose a pretty boy then ?"

JerseyD

Option A will mean constables no longer draw a wage is my understanding, very unlikely you'll find any of them willing for option A but in my opinion it is the best option for the island's future and A will be getting my vote. Constabls will have to spend their time with their parish, where it was always meant to be, nowdays they spend too much time in the states.

Democrat

The only option which provides equal representation is Option A. Whilst there are good points made for retaining the parish link by keeping the constables a much fairer option than B would have been to reduce the number of deputies in each district pro rata to the number of constables e.g. St Brelade and St Peter 2 constables and 5 deputies. The failure of the commission to provide this option is shame. I urge you to vote for Option A.

Sam

An alternative would be -

"ALL States Members who sat on the Electoral Commission have now come out in favour of a less democratic voting system after the final member publicly declared her support for Option B."

Option B is openly said by Senator Bailhache to provide for less equal votes than the current system. Just amazing that such a system can even be on the table really!

Equal representation

Option B - just 30 Deputies and 12 Constables. Current Ministers plus Assistant Ministers 24. Total control by those with the power. Option B should never have been put forward as an option in a democratic society. If you want Constables in the States, Option C is your only option.

Interesting...

B doesn't even need to be put into practice to show its flaws! Simple maths and simple logic can tell you that B gives the widest range of voting power to islanders. Why on earth would the be preferable?

Equal votes for all, one level of politician (the division between Constable, Deputy and

Senator serves no real purpose - it's just confusing)... 6 districts with 7 deputies in each for me!

JokeJersey

I don't care what their opinions are. This whole idea of the referenda seems to be pointless now. The result of it is not legally binding, so even if the majority support option A the states won't pass it.

Jersey needs reform to international standards, if the UK leaves the EU, then we will have to abide by their laws, can't be part of the single market without being subjected to the same laws.

What ever happen to true democracy? :/ Jersey people are made up of uneducated and intolerant people. :D I think it is time to move to France or the United Kingdom. At least democracy has meaning :P

Free Travel for pretend democrats

Nothing stopping you, Joke Jersey.

Suzanne

Soooo independent.

Let's hope for a resounding A vote that's too big to ignore. Bailhache said on the radio this morning that if there's a strong preference the States will have to act on it.

Get out there people and get your friends to vote for the only fair option.

St Saviour resident

Well that's made me consider my vote now & it will be "A" after this set up.

Sanity

So the commission had a Senator who was elected on a platform of electoral reform, the Constable who has overseen and guided the reform process to date and a deputy. There were 3 independent members with various views and expertise and that one is now heading the option A campaign must in all but to the most wilfully blind prove that there was no “closed shop” as I believe is the union terminology. This was hardly an undemocratic or “hijacked” commission as claimed but the A team propaganda machine. Other than Messrs Wimberley and Mezec whose independence I would question who else should have made up this team?

Sam

Sanity, I can't speak for Daniel, but I am not a politician, I receive no money whatsoever from any of my involvement in these campaigns and I did not apply to be on the Electoral Commission. So my independence is not questionable at all and it would do your cause some good to not make such silly comments about individuals like me, especially when you make such laughable statements about how the Electoral Commission was not hijacked. It contained 50% members who's jobs (and therefore salaries) depend on the outcome of this process. That is pretty much the definition of something not being independent.

Option Zed

Of course it was hijacked. The proposition voted on was for an 'independant' commission.

Look up that word 'independant'.

It was hijacked when a person with a stated goal to keep constables in the states on his electoral platform (and so not 'independant') managed to squeeze himself onto the commission as chairman.

Then came a constable, who has, surprise surprise, a strong interest in retaining constables ('independant'?) and the son of a former constable who has grown up embedded in the parochial system ('independant').

Yes,entirely independant.

Whoa but hang on, don't know what it means....

The matter of what is independant would be an issue which would be self-standing, independant even.

Then we have the matter of independant thought and the independant casting of votes by way of secret ballot.

Various key words can be cast about. Words which construe an inmage of self-reliance tend to evoke thoughts of what might be independant.

-----------------

The term "hi-jack" is misused almost as much as the word "independant". This shows that the thoughts of those who repeat the terms are those of the follower-they are not independant thought.

---------

One can then dispose of most of these points by pointing out the fact that the word "independant" is not known to the english language.

Those who wish to display independent thought, on the other hand, must appreciate that using words which they don't understand is something of a shot in the foot so far as their intellectual credentials may be concerned.

Sanity

Whilst Jersey politics may have its faults, unlike the UK, hostility and aggression has not normally been one of these. People have been able to speak freely and enter into rational and informed debate without fear of recrimination or spiteful comment. Most local politicians are approachable and more than willing to both listen and explain and whilst you may not agree with their course of action at least you get to understand the wider picture.

I am therefore surprised and shocked at the tactics being employed for this referendum. If this is a taste of what option A is set to offer I would beg all those that care about our Island to turn out and vote and stop this new aggressive left wing element in their tracks and hopefully before they get an opportunity to cause irreversible damage.

Mark

What left-wing element? I'm a staunch Option A supporter and advocate and consider myself to be on the centre-right of the political spectrum. There is nothing left-wing about the argument for Option A.

It's about democracy, not left or right.

I'm pretty bored of having to make this point. It seems that only those with political motivation are trying to portray Option A as the "left-wing option". It most certainly is not. It is the "democratic option".

luap

Actually Sanity, I have been reading many comments regarding this referendum shambles and what has been in comments from Option B supporters has been just as bad if not worse if you want to include a letter from a certain ex politician so your comment is completely moot.

Loop

There has been a plethora of comments and the thing is a shambles it has been said in respect of Options that the supporters are no worse than many in other spheres and if you want to look at documents from ex-personnel so the remark becomes hypothetical.

Sam

Sanity, I find this comment quite laughable given your personal attack on me in your above comment. Hopefully most readers will have spotted the irony.

David Rotherham

Curiously, she seemed to be advocating Option A when the roadshow came to Trinity, which I thought a fine example of principle before self-interest. Pity she has reconsidered.

PhD

Perhaps she was swayed by debate. Better that than a fixed mindset.

Sanity

Come on Sam. You tell us that you have studied politics but it seems you failed to read past the chapter socialism part 1. Read a bit further and you will realise that every democratic peoples republic has ended up in a failed, bankrupt state and whilst the people have been able to cast an “equal vote” that vote has not allowed them any representation.

There is a lot more to a proper democracy than a simple numbers game on the back of an envelope.

Equal representation

The difference here is that an equal vote WILL allow equal representation (It's called Option A). The Democratic People's Republic (North Korea) is a single party state. There's nobody else TO vote for. Under Option A, the majority will get the States Members that they vote for governing them. Your comparison makes you look just a little ridiculous.

Insanely "Yeah but no but yeah but"

RE "Sanity" #14, 15 & 17

Talking of dirty tricks and a mature and honest attitude to politics, do you (Sanity) remember posting this ? :- "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."

You will find it at comment #6 on www.thisisjersey.com/news/2013/04/12/campaigners-spell-out-the-reform-choices

It is on your avatar along with comments 8, 9, 10, 16, & 17 all apparently pretending to be a rather manic and inarticulate "Option A" supporter in what appears to be a determined attempt to misrepresent and discredit option A.

Perhaps you have an explanation of this behaviour. Perhaps you thought it was funny ? Personally I would not find campaign fraud amusing.

Your statements on this thread are equally ridiculous with the paranoid fear that Jersey will be transformed into Marxist state if Option A were to succeed - It wont !

I left you some additional reassurance at the end of my reply to you at

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

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""" "

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.

" """"""""""""""""""""""""""""

I am (mostly) proud to have voted for Margaret Thatcher and she re-drew many UK constituency boundaries in order to deliver better VOTER EQUALITY. It is not about "Right and Left", it is about Right and Wrong.

You are either a democrat or you are something else !

Simean

It's all terribly pious.

Sam

Sanity, I have never told anyone that I have studied politics because to do so would be a lie. I am a law student, not a politics student. Before you caricature me, it would be a good idea to get your facts right.

Dicey's double

It certainly would be a lie to suggest that you have studied politics. Quite how anyone could have jumped to such a conclusion is beyond me.

john

What a hijacked farce this whole thing is.This whole island is turning into the Bailache show.The battle has already been lost just by the fact that these three options have been presented to the public.Whichever option wins the establishment win,even option A when there will be more ministers than backbenchers.I WILL be making the effort to vote and sticking two fingers up to the establishment and its cronies by DELIBERATELY SPOILING MY PAPER.Anyone care to join me?

block vote

The constable's block vote has been responsible for many of the recent self interest state's decisions. For instance GST. No wonder Phil wants them to stay.

Equal representation

Option B's support of their option in the leaflet through the door says "Option B is the Best option because

1) reduces the number of States members to 42 which will increase the effectiveness and efficiency and cut the costs of the States." Doesn't however point out that we will have only 30 Deputies to fill 24 Minister and Assistants posts, leaving only 6 Deputies and 12 Constables for Scrutiny; Constables who don't appear to have the time to take on these promoted positions.

"2) Option B does away with the undemocratic system where some voters can elect more deputies than others." Doesn't however mention how undemocratic it is that 26,000 voters in St Helier get 1 States member (the Constable) while 1,400 St Mary's voters also get 1 States member (the Constable). Very democratic that is.

"3) Option B means that deputies will no longer be able to get elected with a few hundred votes and will need substantial support from the electorate." Unlike the Constables who can get elected with zero votes for decades.

Vote Option A for equal representation.

Equal representation

Option C’s support of their option in the leaflet through the door says “...the only way to ensure that all Jersey voters have a perfectly equal vote is to have just one constituency - the entire Island - and give each voter the same number of votes to exercise..." but argues that, rather than move part way towards that, Option A, it is better not to change at all. Better to leave the unfair current situation than move towards a more equitable situation.

They say "for change but not this change". In other words they don't like their own option, but prefer it to the other two, and hope that by a positive vote for Option C the States will not read that as a "we like what we have thanks" but rather "please can we have some other variation?". I don't think the States are going to go through all this again any time soon. A vote for C is a vote saying "we like what we have and we'll stick with it".

Vote Option A for equal representation.

Yeah but yeah but vote a AND c

Yeah but yeah but vote A and C

(C with your backup vote)

I suggest this just in case A is knocked out and the count ends in a run off between B and C

Equal representation

Well, that's an interesting one. Is it best to vote for C also? I can see that it would be an attempt to ensure that B doesn't win. However, let's say A comes in just under 50% (the B and C vote seems to me to be a "we want the Constables in" split vote that is unlikely to reach 50% on the first votes, but either might when the 2nd vote is added, where many Bs will vote C and many Cs will vote B as they both want the Constables in.) Added to the A vote then will be anyone who votes for A as their 2nd vote. If A supporters also vote for C, that could be enough to tip the balance in favour of C. Isn't it best just to vote A if you really want A, and vote A AND C if you really don't want B? I'd like to hear views on this.

Polite Debator

The second transferable vote is flawed and should not have been considered. It allows for a minority vote to win the day especially as there will be those who vote either B or C to maintain the status of the Constables.

In a normal election the candidate with the most votes wins, there do not have to secure 51 percent to do so.

The following scenario is possible for any of the options to get in.

First vote

A 29 percent

B 22 percent

C 49 percent

Should A & B voters cast there second in preference of each other and very few go to C then C, which had gained a large clear majority from its nearest rival in the first round, could loose. It also raises the spectre of tactical voting whereby people can use the second vote to hopefully prevent their least favoured option from being successful.

Not healthy in my view, furthermore any option that wins in such a way will give extra ammunition in the subsequent debate in the States to reject the result.

I would urge all voters, no matter what option they prefer, to cast just their first vote.

Equal representation

I take your point but there IS a 2nd vote and we must live with that reality. As it happens, if there hadn't been a 2nd vote it would have been a horrible mess. There was always going to be a Constables in, Constables out split (the Electoral Commission said so in their report). Giving 1 Option with Constables out and 2 with Constables in meant that Option A was always highly likely to lead on the first vote - and I'm an Option A supporter. Can Option A get over 50% on the first vote? If not, what is the best way to handle the 2nd vote for an Option A supporter? I think it is best to vote A if you really want A, and vote A AND C if you really don’t want B? As I say, I'm not certain of this and would welcome any other advice to help me decide (as well of course all the other Option A supporters).

David Rotherham

No! If there is no clear winner, the last placed one drops out, and the second votes of those who voted for it are added to the others, with a 1 in 20,000 chance of a tie and otherwise one of the two having a majority. So there is all to play for by using your second vote to block the worst choice.

Yeah but no but ...... Spot on Mr. Rotherham

Thank you David @ April 20, 6:28 pm That was my understanding also.

It is a deeply flawed and hijacked process for sure and ALL the hijacked options suit the establishment - but we have to work with what we've got.

So......... PLEASE use BOTH votes.

A #1 ......... AND ........ C #2

Voting C as 2nd choice is NOT a vote against A because your 2nd vote does not count UNLESS your first choice is knocked out in the first count,

Your 2nd choice vote ONLY counts if your first is knocked out ...... USE IT !

Do you want B to win because you didn't use your backup vote?

The current system (i.e. "C") is poor and undemocratic but least it is not "B" which which will set Jersey back 100 years.

The C campaign says change is necessary but not this [hijacked] change.

Voting C and A will also lead to change but probably not for another decade

So .... Please vote ...... A ......... AND ........ C

“A” can be easily made acceptable just by not reducing the house - more Deputies per district, or keep the Senators

A reduced house may even lead to a bigger civil service, particularly under option "B" to help the constables in in pretend(?) scrutiny role.

Pip Clement

Which ever option wins, and I would argue that Phillip Bailhache has corrupted the process by acting as chair of the commission and expressing a preference, it will not matter.

The new battle for reform will start next week.

Yeah but no but ..... it ain't over yet

Agreed Pip. But Option A may win. The electorate are waking up from their decades of hibernation.

Option A is far from perfect but it establishes basic democratic principles which have passed Jersey by.

Option A can be developed into something fit for purpose.

It will be very interesting if Option B wins the Referendum because it is a mute point whether Option B is even legal.

This may seem an odd thing to say, but Option B winning could be analysed as a voting majority choosing an option which reduces still further the the voting power of the remainder who are ALREADY UNDER-REPRESENTED

So what ? you may say. That's democracy

Well in this case we are talking about the conservative majority reducing Jersey's capitol town (further) to an electoral ghetto

Would it be democracy if the white majority voted to reduce (or remove) the voting power of coloured people ?

Well, it certain wouldn't be 'liberal democracy' ............ it would be 'tyranny of the majority'

'Liberal Democracy' respects other people's rights.

If Option B wins the electoral commission will have made us the laughing stock of the free world.

Ultimately this need for total control is Freudianly anal - it is totally unnecessary.

Jersey is a conservative place and will invariably deliver conserve governments. That's democracy, There's no need to rig it.

Equal representation

"Jersey is a conservative place and will invariably deliver conserv[ative] governments. That’s democracy, There’s no need to rig it."

That is the message that needs to go out to the electorate. Just because the same name has been chosen (Deputy) for States Members doesn't mean we will get the same type of Deputy. The mandate required will be completely different. Jersey needs to have confidence that a representative democracy will produce the type of government Jersey needs. Please vote A and C.

No Axe to Grind

Those wanting the retention of the constables will be split between B and C, so A must win. We should have had the option of having Deputies and Senators, which would have been supported by many. Not to vote seems the best course now.

Option A

They have Option A in the UK and you never hear of anybody complaining that it's not democratic!

Yeah but no but ....... Neo Con Trick

Having another episode there "Sanity" ?

If you recall Margaret Thatcher re-drew the UK constituency boundaries in order to deliver VOTER EQUALITY

Please Vote A and C

Option A

What right has a democratically elected Senator got to hijack the Wimberley commission? Power to the People.

Zoro

That the constables are being allowed to vote to keep their own wages,privileges and position is nothing less than astonishing gang manipulation...we claim to have and live in a democracy...with a long history of honorary service and law....how can anyone think this is allowable....gangster rule is anti community.

Zoro

O.m.G jersey reform commission on Youtube....what a carry on reminds me of my old Grannie's saying.."The higher the monkey climbs the tree...the more of it's A**,the world can see.

Equal representation

The newspaper article above is about the Constable of St Mary, who gets a place in the States (not to mention a place on the Electoral Commission) because she represents 1,400 St Mary voters, and yet we've had all the comments over the last month on here about the unfair advantage the Constable of St Helier might have in getting elected (note ELECTED) as a Deputy when he represents 26,000 voters. And some people want to continue this system (Option C) or make it even worse (Option B). As they say, "you couldn't make it up". Please vote A and C.

Sanity

Option A will give equal representation with no say. Just glance at the UK press and it is obvious that they certainly don’t think that they are properly represented.

Equal representation that is not firmly rooted in the community is NOT democracy.

Duck

Option B would give unequal representation with no say.

Option C would give the same problems as right now, with no say.

Sanity

Sam - the Constable of St Mary is just one vote. I don't think even she could declare war on Sark or whatever else it is you are worried about. The cost of your version of Democracy is the lose of our direct link to government through our Parish and community systems. True Democracy is about people not numbers. Once you have destroyed the Parish system there is no going back – we will be left with UK politics of equal representation without actually being represented.

Just read the UK press.

Duck

I will still have a direct link to Government through direct contact with my deputies

I don't know why you want an intermediary for a "Direct link", Bit of an oxymoron....

Don't know how you think you wont be represented, perhaps you intend to move to Guernsey?

Don't know how the Parish system will be destroyed either? The Parish works independent of the Government. Unless you think that the Government has automatic seats in Parish assemblies...

Sanity

Option A makes out that the Constable of St Mary somehow rules the Island on just a few thousand votes. Once you see through this first bit of nonsense their whole argument falls down. One vote in 42 can’t do anything yet we are being TOLD that we have to give up our community based democratic systems at the same time as the UK and others are desperately trying to emulate us. Option A will remove accountability and move us into UK style politics with policy being dictated by a central party elite.

Equal representation

Option B is what will result in a central party elite. There will be 30 Deputies and 12 Constables. The Constables won't take on Ministerial or Assistant positions so we will have 24 of these positions filled from just 30 Deputies (by the way, 10 of these will be the St Helier Deputies that you are so concerned about. I hope you'll enjoy have one of them dictating your Housing or Health policies.) That leaves 6 Deputies and 12 busy Constables to scrutinise policy. Anybody that votes for Option B will come to regret it. It's just not a workable model. If you want Constables in the States, vote C.

Duck

Dont be silly Sanity, The issue is that St Mary is treated as exactly the same as St Helier, despite the twenty times more people in the latter. That means the people are treated as a lower class by the democracy you envisage.

Why do you want to treat some people as worth less than others simply based on where in a 9 by 5 mile island they live?

Unless you understand that little point, you will not understand the meaning of democracy.

How will option A remove accountability? How will it destroy a Parish system unrelated to a Government system? How will it remove representation?

Until you can answer these three points, your statements mean nothing.

Polite Debator

In a close debate in the States with a roughly evenly devided house those representing a minority can win the vote. That one vote of St.Mary representing a few thousand can cancel out the vote of St.Helier representing well over twenty thousand. That is not grass roots, that is not having no effect that is the minority cancelling out or defeating the majority. Wrong on every level.

Polite Debator

It gets worse when you consider that the 4 votes from St.John, St.Mary,St.Ouen & St.Lawrence easily defeat the St.Helier vote, even though when combined they only represent roughly half of the population of St.Helier. Again, not grass roots, not having no effect, and the minority defeating the majority. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Chas

Exactly my point. That is why Option A is so defective; it affords a distinct advantage to St Helier because that parish will be the only one where the electoral boundaries correspond exactly with parish boundaries.

St John, St Mary, St Ouen and St Lawrence will be a fragmented district sharing 7 deputies, as against the 14 dedicated deputies that St Helier would have had under Option A.

Your mention of grass roots representation is also pertinent; we again know that Option A would effectively have destroyed this kind of community politics.

Polite Debator

No Chas

It gives the population of the two St.Helier districts equal representation to the populations of the other 5 districts. Fair on every level.

Duck

Aha the old "Its Bias" non issue again.

As you point out, one area will have 7 deputies, and two other areas (each of equal size to the first) will have DOUBLE the amount of deputies.... And "thats bias"

Or the intentional "District 5 will be a fragmented district" arguement that intentionally excludes the comment that St Helier will be a fragmented Parish, because it harms your "argument"

Chas

I would maintain that Option A affords a distinct advantage to St Helier. It will do so because that parish will be the only one where the electoral boundaries correspond exactly with parish boundaries.

The best argument that you can come up with is that St Helier will be split into two districts. That may be countered by the observation that those two districts constitute St Helier. St Helier will have 14 deputies under Option A.

St John, St Mary, St Ouen and St Lawrence will be a fragmented district sharing 7 deputies, as has been said.

Those who support Option A will ceratinly consider the point to be a "non issue". That is because it is an inconvenient point which keeps coming up and which will keep on doing so.

It must be very annoying for those who have their fingers in their ears.

Duck

Chas, It is a non issue, because any two districts will have double the people in it than any one district, and double the states members.

Do you also see a bias in District 4 and 5 having 14 deputies, but District 1 only having 7? Because that is what you keep saying.

Chas

Yes. Those who support Option A will certainly consider the point regarding the St Helier bias to be a “non issue”.

That is because it is an inconvenient point which keeps coming up and which will keep on doing so.

Duck

Well, It seems the entire island disagrees with you, Chas.

People either do not think that St Helier would have an advantage beacuse of the electoral boundaries (80% voted for this) or people are happy with the current system (remaining 20% voted for "C")

Conclusion, you are the only one who sees a bias.

Chas

On the contrary. It would seem that the result of the referendum tends to support my view.

Tufted one

Err, Option A was not passed, was it, Duck? So your comment regarding the "entire island" is based on.......?

Duck

Correct Tufted One, No option was passed A B or indeed C. The opinion poll showed that 89% of the population agree that St Helier having two districts with twice the deputies as any single district IS NOT BIAS!

The remaining 11% have not said anything, they are simply happy with the current set up. (with 0.7% Spoiling the vote)

So, Chas, Nope, The results of the referendum completely disagree with your view that St Helier has a bias under the reform option.

So, continue to argue with obvious facts, and embarrass yourself further.

Chas

Duck/professor, Option A did not succeed, so the "St Helier bias" was clearly an issue and one which the voters recognised. St Helier voters, of course, were one of the exceptions to this.

So, Option B was passed as Tufted says. The wonderful thing is, you can argue it until you are blue in the face, but there is nothing whatsoever that you can do about it! :)

Tufted One

Option A was not passed in the referendum. The successful Option was Option B.

The rejection of Option A shows, as I think Chas pointed out, that the many difficulties which Option A presented were in turn rejected by the electorate.

Duck

Yes, option A was not passed, neither was option B, which, even with the second vote, failed to get the majority of 50% of the votes, A and B together got nearly 90% of the votes.

Both A and B creates districts where st helier will have two districts, and twice the deputies as any other single district ( containing multiple parishes)

Which you have continued to claim is bias.

The volume of people disagreeing with you is obvious, but now you change your tune to claim it is not bias?

Chas

The result of the referendum was that Option B was passed.

That result reflects that fact that the failures of Option A, including the St Helie bias, were recognised at the ballot box. Option A failed, while Option B succeeded.

The greffier of the States recorded this result.

Duck

That last comment shows that you don’t understand the issue.

The result is not that Option B has been passed. It just means that option B was the most popular of the choices presented, but it failed to get 50% of the votes, even after the second vote was included.

As repeated, Option B gives St Helier two districts with 10 deputies and other districts have only 5 deputies, shared with other parishes.

As repeated, This is not bias, despite your claim that it is.

As repeated, the majority of people agree with me and disagree with you.

Chas

The result of the duly held referendum was that Option B was passed.

Clearly, the failures of Option A, including the St Helier bias is something which became clear to the voters.

Option A failed at ballot, while Option B succeeded.

Mr Michel de la Haye, the greffier of the States of Jersey, recorded a victory for Option B..

Tufted One

Bearing in mind the fact that Option B was passed, then the comment regarding the "entire island disagreeing" is bit of a silly one.

Clearly, some 50 odd percent of the island did agree- hence the winning poll for Option B.

Duck

When was Option B passed? please tell me when the States actually agreed that? Or have you come from the future?

It was simply a non-binding opinion poll.

The greffier of the States will have recorded the results of the reforendum, This is a mater of public record.

There was no “Victory” as that would be silly and childish. It was not a battle, just a poll.

No option received the required 50% of the votes, so no option can be discribed as a “Victory” only that one option got more than another. It is apparent that no option gathered sufficient support to be accepted by more than half of the people.

Do you both dislike being wrong that you continue to argue about it.

Tufted One.

Chas said " it affords a distinct advantage to St Helier because that parish will be the only one where the electoral boundaries correspond exactly with parish boundaries."

He then goes on to complain that "St John, St Mary, St Ouen and St Lawrence will be a fragmented district" having half the deputies as the (apparently) St Helier “dedicated” deputies.

Option B does exactly what Chas said is bias and unfair and got 48% of the votes.

Option A does exactly what Chas said is bias and unfair and got 40% of the votes.

Therefore at least 88% of the votes disagree with Chas that it is *not* bias and unfair.

As repeated, This is not bias, despite your claim that it is.

As repeated, the majority of people agree with me and disagree with you.

Chas

Option B was passed in the referendum. It polled 54.9% of the votes.

Clearly, the diffulties with Option A, including the well documented St Helier bias, was among the reasons which lay behind Option B being passed by the electorate.

Tufted One

The comment regarding the “entire island disagreeing” remains a rather silly one, when the results of the referendum are taken into account.

Clearly, most of the island did not agree with you; 54.9% voted for Option B, which was thereby passed.

Dr

I heard the results come in on referendum day. Option B got just under 55% of the votes under the referendum rules. It was declared the winner of the referendum.

If there is any doubt, then a quick call to the greffe should clear up the matter, although he will perhaps wonder why any such caller cannot read a newspaper or comprehend basis information.

Tailor

Option B won the referendum with just under 55% of the vote.

Duck

Chas, Tufted one, Option B also has "the well documented St Helier bias" so, what do you have to say now? Clearly the "entire island disagreeing” with you is hard to swallow, Options A and B have the same bias, yet you disagree.

But clearly, you feel the need to lie and say Option B got 54.9% of the votes.

Option B got 8,190 votes from a total of 16,749 votes. Even a primary school child can tell that this is not 54.9% of the votes.

Duck

Dr, Your correct, a quick call to the greffe has cleared up the matter.

Option B did not get 55% of the votes, it got 48.8% of them

Option B got 55% of the total of option A and B. Not the total of all the votes.

it is really as simple matter and its amazing that people cannot understand.

Duck

Tailor, Do the maths.

People who voted, 16,749

Number of votes (total) for option B, 8,190 (48.8% of the total)

How do you get 55% from these two figues?

Does everyone need to go back to primary school for basic maths lessons?

Chas

Option B was successful in the 2103 referendum, having polled an overall 54.9%.

This would show that many of those who were disturbed at some of the features of Option A (including the St Helier bias) exercised their vote in favour of the winning Option.

Dr

Mr de la Haye must surely have fallen about laughing when he received your call, Duck.

He would, no doubt, have enlightened you as follows:

Because none of the options received more than half the votes cast, the ballot papers from Option C (which received the fewest votes across the Island) were re-distributed between Option A and Option B where voters had indicated a second choice on their ballot paper.

With Option C's ballot papers re-distributed in accordance with the terms of the referendum:

45.02% voted for Option A

54.98% voted for Option B

In accordance with the rules of the referendum, Option B won the day.

Tufted One

The comment which mentioned the “entire island disagreeing” remains a rather silly one; indeed the fact that Option B was passed by the electorate tends to make it very silly indeed.

No doubt the chap who you allegedly telephoned explained, slowly carefully and in necessarily simplistic tones, that most of the island did not agree with you.

54.98% voted for Option B, which was thereby passed.

Duck

Chas, Do the maths, 51% of people did not vote for Option B.

How then can 54% have voted for Option B?

Answer: they didnt.

Dr, No, I spoke to a secutary, who was able to answer my question and confirmed that Option B got 48.8% of the votes.

What you are stating is that it got 54.99 of the A and B votes only. This is not in accordance with the rules of the referendum.

Option B got the most votes, but *did not* get more than 50% of the votes.

If you dont understand the concept of percentages in maths, I am sure you can ask a small child to help you out.

Tailor

I looked at the results which showed that 54.98% to be precise voted for Option B under the stv system which the referendum adopted.

Teacher Duck

Tufted One, 54.98% is incorrect.

Please show your working, your response is marked on your workings.

Tufted One

The comment which mentioned the “entire island disagreeing” has now ben proved to have been a rather silly one. Not only that, but the passing of Option B by the electorate makes it a very silly comment indeed.

The silliness is compunded by the fact that 54.98% voted for Option B.

Chas

"Dr No, I spoke to a secutary".

Me too. I spoke to a "secutary" in Goldfinger.

I also looked at the results of the referendum. Those results showed that 54% voted for Option B.

Duck

Tailor, Yes indeed, it does show 54.98% of option A and B votes only were in option B's favor, ignoring any votes not of these two options, under the stv system.

But it is quite clear that option B did not get 54.98% of the votes. It got less than 49%

Why people cannot understand this simple issue amazes me.

16,749 people voted.

8,190 people voted for B.

Only a fool would claim B got 55% of the votes, when it is apparent to all that it did not.

Which, it seems, Chas, Dr and Tufted One, are....

Dr

They must have had a laugh in the office when you phoned,Duck.

His secretary would, no doubt, have enlightened you as follows- the words are published on the states website:

Because none of the options received more than half the votes cast, the ballot papers from Option C (which received the fewest votes across the Island) were re-distributed between Option A and Option B where voters had indicated a second choice on their ballot paper.

With Option C’s ballot papers re-distributed in accordance with the terms of the referendum:

45.02% voted for Option A

54.98% voted for Option B

Of course, one can also add the 26% Option C voters, who also clearly had a vision of the problems with Option A.

Tailor

Well, in fairness, they have been trying to explain to you that the overall result was that B got 55%.

The difficulty seems to have arisen because you failed to consider the aspect of the stv, which was and is a known entity.

Duck

The numbers are (as published);

Option B got 8,190 Votes

total of 16,749 votes cast.

What percentage of the total votes were Option B votes? 48.8% or 54.98% (show your working out)

Are either of you you willing to prove me wrong?

Duck

Tailor, The overall result was that B got less than 49% of the votes.

I have explained this multiple times, giving the overall number of votes and the overall number that voted for Option B.

I have considered and including the transferred vote from option C, it is a known entity and is included in the final result that B got less than 49% of the votes.

To clarify,

Overall, 16,749 people voted.

Overall, 8,190 people voted for B including the transferred vote from Option C votes.

Overall, 48.8% voted for option B.

To claim Option B got 55% of the votes is simply untrue.

To be fair to them, if they choose to ignore the votes that do not agree with Option B or the main opponent, Option A, then yes, B got 55% of this sub-set of votes, but despite their claims and miss-understanding, it clearly did not get more than half of the votes. (only more than half of a portion of the votes)

Chas

The results show that Option B was successful in the 2103 referendum, having been passed with an overall 54.98%.

This illustrates that many of those who were aghast at some of the features of Option A (one aspect of which was the well documented St Helier bias) voted in favour of the winning Option.

Tufted One

We have now established that the statement about the “entire island disagreeing” was not valid.

We also know that Option B was passed by the electorate with a final tally of 54.98%

Duck

Chas,

1, Prove how Option B got 55% of the vote when it got 8,190 Votes from a total of 16,624 votes. Your maths are incorrect.

2, Option B has the same well documented St Helier Bias as Option A, so Option B + Option A is the total who agreed that this "bias" was nonsense. According to your calculation, this is 100% of voters. So, you have stated that 100% of voters disagree with you that the reform was bias towards St Helier.

Duck

No, Tufted One,

the "St Helier Bias" that Chas claims is apparent under both Options A and B.

Thats right, Both options create districts that exactly correspond to St Helier (apparently bias) and this will create dedicated St Helier Deputies (apparently bias), and there will be twice the number in St Helier than of any other district (apparently bias), which will share deputies with other parishes, (again apparently bias).

Chas has claimed that Option B got 54.98% of all votes and that Option A got the remaining 45.02% of the votes.

(we all know that this is incorrect, but why let the correct numbers spoil a good comment)

This makes 100% of overall votes for the reform that creates the "St Helier Bias" Chas is so against.

So it is clear that the “entire island disagreeing” with Chas's comment that people voted against the "St Helier Bias".

As Chas states, not even 1% voted against the reform choices of Option A or B that created this claimed bias.

Tufted

Having now proved that the statement about the “entire island disagreeing” was not valid, we can go on to look once again at the results of the referendum.

Option B was passed by the electorate with a final tally of 54.98%

Chas

The voter revulsion towards the St Helier bias was confirmed in their rejection of Option A.

In the event, Option B was passed with an overall 54.98%

Duck

The voter confirming that the "St Helier bias" did not exsist was confirmed in their acception of Option B.

In any event, Option B only got overall 49.8% of the votes.

Chas

By voting for Option B, the voters recognised that Option A created a bias towards St Helier, together with a number of other problmes.

Consequently,Option B was passed with an overall 54.98%.

Duck

The "Bias towards St Helier" as described by yourself above, exists under Option B.

As such, the votes for Option A and B together disagree with your opinion that there was a bias.

Chas said "it affords a distinct advantage to St Helier because that parish will be the only one where the electoral boundaries correspond exactly with parish boundaries."

Option A and B both have the same electoral boundaries.

As such, Option B got 48.9% of the overall votes.

(I suggest you look up the meaning of "overall" as your use of it is incorrect)

Duck

I will also add, Chas, that only 48.9% of all votes were for Option B.

Please clarify three tiny details.

Obviously, if you are unwilling to confirm these simple questions, you admit that you are incorrect in your statement that “Option B was passed with an overall 54.98%”

1. How many (total) voted for Option B

2. How many (total) votes were cast.

3. What percentage of the answer to 2 is the answer to 1?

Tufted One

I read the comments posted by Chas and he made no such statement about any 1% of voters.

What he did say is that Option B was successful in the 2103 referendum, having polled an overall 54.98%.

This figure would show that many of those who were disturbed at some of the features of Option A (including the St Helier bias) exercised their vote in favour of the winning Option.

I would tend to concur with this view.

Chas

Yes, I would agree with that.

The electors must have understood that Option A created an undue bias towards St Helier, together with a number of other defects

We then saw that Option B was passed with an overall 54.98%.

Maths buff

"What percentage of the answer to 2 is the answer to 1?"

Presumably the same percentage as the answer to 4 to the answer to 2, or even the answer to 6 to the answer to three.

Is the answer a half?

Option A

Zoro - Well said comrade. If we are to get proper Democracy and equal representation then the Constables and their cronies must not be allowed to vote.

Sanity

Duck – How can one person in 42 make any real difference? We are being told that we need to sacrifice a system of democracy that has not only been in place and worked for a thousand years but is also now being copied as far as possible by many. The Option A crowd TELL us that they will not destroy the Parish – but read what the Parishes say – Option A are the only ones who seem to agree on this issue.

Duck

"How can one person in 42 make any real difference?

Life has given plenty of examples of one person in millions making a difference.

But for the Jersey Government, It is not fair that one person holds a disproportionate amount of power. As far as Constables are concerned, One constable represents a third of the island, and has one vote. the remaining Constables represent the remaining two thirds (twice as much) but have 11 votes. (eleven times as much power) Why is this so bias?

"We are being told that we need to sacrifice a system of democracy that has not only been in place and worked for a thousand years but is also now being copied as far as possible by many."

Really? Where did you learn your History?

Our current system of democracy has only been around since the end of the 1940s, not "a thousand years"

"The Option A crowd TELL us that they will not destroy the Parish – but read what the Parishes say – Option A are the only ones who seem to agree on this issue."

Yup. You know, I had a chat down the Parish hall a couple of days ago. No one mentioned the Parish being destroyed until I mentioned it. In fact no one was concerned about the Parish at all, The Constable certainly wasn’t and he supports Option B. He recognises that the Parish will continue to exist even if he isn’t in the states. So, why do you maintain the Parish will be destroyed when my Parish thinks that is nonsense.

Within his satchel

Well, the parish won't be destroyed now that Option A has been blown out of the water so it is now a moot point, thankfully.

Polite Debator

You ask 'how can one person in 42 make any real difference?' I have already answered that in my two replies to your above post. Also our system has not been in its current form for a thousand years! Who has copied it?