Members put forward their own plans for States reform

TWO compromise propositions to address the ‘perceived and actual unfairness’ to St Helier residents under plans to reform the States were lodged today.

01442369_Cropped_Cropped

TWO compromise propositions to address the ‘perceived and actual unfairness’ to St Helier residents under plans to reform the States were lodged today.

Senator Philip Ozouf has officially submitted a proposition which would retain Option B – which received a majority of votes in the 24 April referendum – but with the addition of an extra Deputy in each of the St Helier districts to bring the total number of States Members to 44.

A proposition lodged by Deputy Trevor Pitman would see the Assembly made up of 46 members – 12 Constables and 34 Deputies.

Meanwhile, Senator Lyndon Farnham said that he was considering lodging an amendment to the proposition to include six Senators in the Assembly to preserve the Island-wide mandate of the office.

Comments for: "Members put forward their own plans for States reform"

Tony B

Sounds like monkeys being given the keys to the bannana plantation. We will ask the Electorate and then do as WE wish.

Bo

I'll put my own idea forward to, a vote of no confidence in the lot of you!!!

Can the public vote these idiots out?

C@rLiNHo5

I'd LOVE to vote most of these fools out too. The last lot AND this lot. If they're not performing, they should be got rid of. We need people who listen to the public, who SERVE the people's interest and aren't just there for the HUGE salary. The law should be amended so we can have a referendum every year. If we like you then you've got nothing to worry about.

Sam

All three of these solutions do not go far enough to address the biggest flaw with Option B which is that it is an inherently unfair system. It leaves St Helier under-represented and the country over-represented. No equitable system can be built on that unfairness.

My latest blog breaks down the proposals and shows exactly how they are unfair, as well as explaining why Senator Ozouf's philosophy for reform is totally unfit for this problem -

http://sammezec.blogspot.com/2013/07/senator-ozoufs-reform-proposal.html

Alan

Funny how you seem to think your word is more important than the people who voted.

Mark

Funny how you have nothing to say about what he is actually saying so just make a childish comment like that.

The fact is that Option B and this silly suggestion by Ozouf massively disenfranchise St Helier voters. That is no one's word, it is an objective fact as Sam's chart proves.

And anyway, the majority of people who voted voted against Option B (as Sam's blog shows too) so he isn't going against the people who voted, he is going with them.

Dave

I would have 24 Senators elected on an Island wide mandate and 12 Constables to look after the Parish matters.

David Rotherham

24 Senators? Picking 6 from 10-15 candidates isn't too bad with a bit of thinking, but finding the right 24 out of 30-40 would be a challenge that only the most committed politics geeks would be equal to. The many people, who think politicians are all the same anyway, would vote so randomly that they would become part of the problem?

the thin wallet

same here.

Steve

Agree on the Senators but as for the Constables they need to stand in there own right. 36 member house may be a bit light to be certain you do not end up with ruling click of either side.

Firmly believe that a all island mandate is vital for democracy to prosper.

the thin wallet

this is why it is important that the working folk of this island get out and vote.

and even get some ordinary working folk to stand for election.

Real Truthseeker

Why have Senators? Which democracy has Senators in the equivalent of our States Assembly, being the lower house, or House of Commons.

By having Deputies, at least they represent a smaller group of people in their Parish area, and I can contact them directly if I have an issue.

I live in St Mary's, and we could end up with no St Mary's candidates in the States other than one Constable. This is unfair for Parishes without a Senator.

Silly idea.

Paul

Just jobs for the boys again..there are too many politicians for a place of Jersey's size..

Alan

I am sick and tired of being told that Option B is unfair by well known A and C supporters. We had Months to decide out of the 3 Options with numerous campaigns, presentations, postal flyers and Media interviews yet people who want to stand in the Next elections (note want to stand) keep on patronising Option B supporters with stupid Blogs. The only reason this was rejected by 22 Deputies is because they knew their cosy little seats were in jeopardy and that's a fact. But even still when this is put forward again it is time the Public's wish for the winning Option B is honoured and we expect nothing less from our elected representatives.

Steve

But we never did I could not use my second vote as a option was not there for me to chose, it was loaded from the start to give the man who hijacked it the out come he wanted (Option B) and concentrate power out of the hands of the majority.

My thanks to those who stood up and dumped it they will get my vote next time around.

Mark

Alan, you're in cloud coo-coo land.

Option B IS unfair on St Helier votes. That is just a fact.

Instead of making your silly comments, why don't you explain to St Helier residents why they are worthless compared to St Mary voters and why they are so stupid and irresponsible they should not be allowed an equal vote to the rest of the island.

That is what you actually think, so why don't you just admit that you like Option B because you hate St Helier because it elects people like the Pitmans and Southern.

Go on, be honest.

Geeky Blogger

What makes me laugh is that there is a deputy who is proposing a change to the number of deputies in St Helier yet he and his wife do not even live in St Helier!

Mark

What on Earth are you talking about?

How does where they live have anything to do with it?

Are you for real?

It is possible for people in St John to want a fair electoral system too, you know.

And what does his wife have to do with this?

Is this is really the best the anti-democrats are capable of?

Jon

Let's just elect one person, to pop in on a Wednesday afternoon and sign the odd document. The island will run itself without the interference !

Peter

Six super constituancies each electing 5 deputies. No other kinds of states members. A 4 year term. Scrap the silly experiment with "ministerial government" as it only works in a party system. Go back to the tried and tested committee system but slimmed down to about 7 or 8 committees. Err ... that's it.

BeanAbout

Anyone running this Island ?.

1. Stop immigration, tomorrow.

2. Stop building anything until everything else is either sold or realistically re valued.

3. Slice through all these fat cats and narrow them down to maybe 5, tomorrow.

4. Provide a Free bus service run by the Island for the island.(see how popular that is)

5. Make Local phone calls FREE, you pay for the line rental.

6. Do something with Fort Regent. NOW!

7. Take a REAL look at the finance industry and PREPARE now for what will happen here in 5-10 years.

8. Get the building industry to work for the Island and fix up all the run down states housing and run down area's of the Island.

Just a start mind you!

This is an Island 9 by 5 not, NEW YORK CITY we cannot have or sustain continual growth and we don't need to be paying all these people to ask US in the JEP what we think they should do and then ignore it!

I Pasdenom

BeanAbout,

"...This is an Island 9 by 5 not, NEW YORK CITY..."

Absolutly right! we should model ourselves on somewhere smaller than New York City, like Manhattan; which is half our size...

Lewton

Whatever happens, by reducing the amount of members,even to the newly proposed 48, 36 deputies and 12 constables ,and the potential of fifteen ministerial positions in the near future, the chamber of ministers will have a quorum, 31 ministerial positions versus 17 scrutiny. Someone please explain to me how this is democratic, especially as potentially 12 of these scrutiny positions will be held by Constables trying to look after their parishes.

Gino Risoli

This is the way life works. Every thought without exception whether voiced or not is creative which of course includes negative thinking. Being aware of ones thoughts gives focus for you too choose objectively.

Absolutely nothing is impossible, small things are easy bigger things takes longer for a reason that is too long to explain here. Therefore if one continues to focus without distraction you will attract what it is you want. As an Island people if we all focus every day for even a minute on happiness that will happen.

Geeky Blogger

Shame on all those who voted against the purchase of Plemont and this Referendum result.

Mark

Most islanders were against the purchase of Plemont, so good on those that voted against it.

Most islanders did not want Option B, so good on those that voted against it.

John

54.98% voted for Option B.

John Two

54.98% of what?

Is this like 89% of a third of bus workers voted for a strike, therefore every bus worker wants to strike?

Less than half of those who voted, voted for B. This is less than 50%. This is a matter of public record.

John

No. The public record 54.98% for Option B.

http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Pages/HaveSayComposition.aspx

the wanted

Thats 54% of 16000 people who voted, not the entire electorate that are elgible to vote.

Tell the truth instead of massaging figures to suit your argument please.

John Two

Aha, so 54.98% of only some votes, Only votes for A or B.

Not exactly a percentage of the votes, is it? Not a reflection of the percentage of people who voted.

Certainly not a matter of public record if you choose to ignore parts of that public record that show your error.

As I said, and your link proves, less than half of those who voted, voted for B. This is less than 50%. This is a matter of public record.

John

I only report the public record.

John Three

Aho, ahee, so you had better take the matter up with the greffier of the states.

You speak of public record, so here it is again.

http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Pages/HaveSayComposition.aspx

John two

Actually, the wanted,

Thats 54% of only 14,897 people, where actually 16,799 voted.

But your right, John only massages the figures and only posts a small part of the public record to suit his argument, He chooses to ignore the 11% of voters.

There is of course, no public record that says 54.98% of votes were for Option B

John Four

Aho, ahee. I am not massaging the figures. I even provide a link, so that those who are able to think for themselves can follow the link and view the public record.

http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Pages/HaveSayComposition.aspx

John Two

Your continued use of the excuse that this is a matter of public record highlights that you are massaging the figures.

This is as inexcusable as "I was just following orders"

John Four and a half

Aho, ahee. Speak to the greffier of the states!

http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Pages/HaveSayComposition.aspx

John two

Why? It is not he who is massaging the figures, but you.

John Four and three eights

Not at all, aha aho. He is the one who who sanctions the results and puts them on the site as a matter of public record.

Of course, it is much easier to put silly comments on here than it would be to take the matter up with the Greffier or to deal with the issue through the proper channels. That would take courage.

So we go on and on.

Under the rules of the referendum, Option B: 54.98%

Aho, ahee

Referendum results:

http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Pages/HaveSayComposition.aspx

Ohh Ahhhh Massager

Considering that those links don't mention 54.98% anywhere, where is this public record?

John

Aho, ahee! The first site ahs now bee altered, but this one still reports the result as it was recorded in accordance withe the rules of the referendum.

http://www.vote.je/the-results-of-the-referendum/

John with a clue

Are you now suggesting that the Greffier of the states does *not* record the results in accordance with the rules of the referendum? And that the same person who you advised no longer sanctions the results and puts them on the site as a matter of public record.

Despite your earlier comment that he does?

It seems to be that the Greffier has realised the rather foolish error and has now corrected the official public record to show the correct results.

Given this, it is clear that you alone continue to massage the figures.

John Seven

Aho ahee! The greffier has corrected the figures, but the point which I made was based on the figures which stood as a matter of public record at the time of the post.

I suggested that you take the matter up with the greffier, but you stated that it had nothing to do with him. Now you are saying the opposite! You like to massage information.

Here's another one to raise your blood pressure, aho, ahee.

http://www.vote.je/the-results-of-the-referendum/

Jonathan

It sounds l;ike it should be "John without a clue".

On the one hand, you admit that the other John obtained his figures from the states' website (a matter of public record) and you also admit that that website has been changed since John made his first post.

On the other hand, however, you insist that John "massaged" the figures, even though you have again admitted that he obtained those figures from the public record site and indeed provided a link to the same.

To make matters worse, you even sought to argue at one point that the website itself (i.e. the Greffier of the States of Jersey) "massaged" the figures. You did not pursue that argument, however, no doubt in anticipation of the impending laughing stock status that such an argument would surely have brought upon you.

It might be better to simply let the matter rest henceforth.

Sensible

Not quite a fair comment there, John Two.

I would partly agree with you when you speak of people massaging figures, which is a common enough occurrence both here and elsewhere.

Here, however, the person (John Four or whatever he likes to call himself) is simply providing a direct link to an official website, which does set out the figures as he suggests. I have looked for myself, as I expect you to have done.

I agree that the way in which the result has been presented may give rise to confusion. John Four is perfectly correct, however, when he suggests that you approach the States Greffe if you feel that the figures have been misrepresented.

John Four is merely the messenger and is pointing at the noticeboard which displays the information to which you repeatedly object.

John Two

Yes, Sensible, He is providing a direct link to an official website, one that does *not* state that Option B got 54.98%.

Have another look. Perhaps it once said that it did, but being incorrect, it has now been changed.

I would expect a response from John (insert number) to apologise for his error and to accept that, although Option B got the most votes, it did not get 54.98% and that he was manipulating the figures.

Sensible

Aho, ahee, John Two. He is providing a link to the webiste which provides the official figures. 54.98% looms large in those figures.

http://www.gov.je/Government/HowGovernmentWorks/ElectoralCommission/Pages/HaveSayComposition.aspx

John Three

Aho, ahee. Don't forget this one, Sensible.

http://www.vote.je/the-results-of-the-referendum/

John Five

No apology, I am afraid, John Two. I await yours.

The Greffier of the States has, as you stated, changed the website since I posted, even though you didn't think that it was anything to do with the greffe.

Here's another link which will doubtless cause you sleepless nights and a hissy fit.

http://www.vote.je/the-results-of-the-referendum/

The website states as follows. No massaging of figures as you argue, just a direct quote

The first round of voting did not produce a clear winner, so the second preference votes were then counted.The results, after the second preference were -

Option A - 6,707 (45.02% of the vote)

Option B - 8,190 (54.98% of the vote)

REFERENDUM

Revised Figures after second preference votes added Option A - 6707 (45.02% of poll) Option B – 8190 (54.98% of poll)

Oh dear. :)

John two

Ahh, So disappointed to be proven wrong and having found out your public record argument is worth nothing, you resort to a different, older, site that also massages the figures.

Well done in attempting to MTFU and get out of the silly argument.

John One and a half

Aho ahee! The public record matter is clearly worth noting. Thank you for that admission.

The older site, as you put it, states what the other site stated at the time of my post.

Perhaps you should expend some of your "nerd" energy in informing the people of that site of your anaorak concerns, aho ahee.

Ballot Blocks

Exactly John. All the sites which set out the results massage the figures. They are all in on it. It is just a massive conspiracy.

When King Canute looked at the tide tables, he argued that someone, somewhere, had massaged the figures.

Aaron

Its rather simple. As recorded by the States Greffe, the public record, a total of 16,624 people voted. Under the rules of the referendum, a total of 8,190 votes were cast for Option B.

16,624 total votes.

8,190 votes for Option B.

That is less than half, not 55%

How people are getting this 54.98% figure is beyond me.

It is simply made up to make the referendum look like it came to a result, when the rules required one option to get more than 50% of the votes.

When this didn’t happen, someone fudged the figures and Muppets like you lot, fell for it.

With people like you believing what you are told despite having facts right in front of your faces, no wonder you let the states ruin Jersey.

Raron

"How people are getting this 54.98% figure is beyond me."

Well, perhaps the clue might be that the official source (the public record) mentioned it.

Would that be beyond you?

Bob

It is rather simple. Option B won the referendum.

With people like you not believing what you are told despite having facts right in front of your faces, no wonder you let the states run Jersey.

Aaron

Yes, Raron, It is still beyond me where the official source (the public record) has always stated that 8190 votes for option B out of 16,624 total votes.

It is beyond me how people now cannot tell that about 8,200 is less than half of about 16,600.

It is beyond me how people cannot work out this simple number and yet repeat the line "54.98% voted for B because it says so and I dont understand percentages or what that means"

Redron

Well, if it is beyond you then I guess that there is little point in discussing it further.

John Two

Oh dear, John Five, Back to badly manipulating the figures and quoting nonsensical quotes from web pages.

Yes, The Greffier of the States has amended the website to remove the nonsense you have been claiming. It is no wonder because quite clearly what you have been claiming is not true. It is good that the Greffe has now realised that some people choose not to understand what is written and do not understand percentages.

Given that the Greffier understands that it is obviously not true that 54.98% voted for option B, Why do you insist this by misquoting another website, again, one that carefully massages the figures.

It is not surprising that you intentionally missed the last bit from your "Direct quote",

Let me add that for you

"Revised Figures after second preference ….. 1727 did not use their second vote"

According to you and your misunderstanding of the web page you quote, 111.59% of votes were counted.

6707 + 8190 + 1727 = 16624

8190 Votes from 16624 votes is not 54.98% of the votes.

(According to the website, they have summarised only the second round, not the total votes.)

Now if you worry so much about understanding basic maths and cannot use neither a calculator or computer to understand simple arithmetic, it is no use complaining at me and using websites to back up your misunderstanding. It isn’t even worth claiming that someone pointing out your error is having "a hissy fit". I would suggest you seek some help overcoming your misunderstanding of Maths.

John Nine

Aho, ahee, no. Not me manipulating figures. I am a mere messenger, old chap.

http://www.vote.je/the-results-of-the-referendum/

You do seem to be having a hissy fit. Such a nice day as well. Perhaps you should get out a little more. You sound like you might need some perspective in your life.

Monk

The first round of voting did not produce a clear winner, so the second preference votes were then counted.The results, after the second preference were -

Option A - 6,707 (45.02% of the vote)

Option B - 8,190 (54.98% of the vote)

REFERENDUM

Revised Figures after second preference votes added Option A - 6707 (45.02% of poll) Option B – 8190 (54.98% of poll)

Source: http://www.vote.je/the-results-of-the-referendum/

Ben

Well, in all fairness, John Two, most of the information can be found on the Beatles' website- the figures relating to the band's earnings before Ringo came on board is relevant, although I am not sure how official the information is, if you see what I mean.