Requiring a two-thirds majority for constitutional and other similar decisions is an effective democratic mechanism for ensuring widespread support when a major change is planned. By contrast, the Brexit vote itself was decided last year with a vote split 51.9 per cent for leaving the EU and 48.1 per cent for remaining. More than 16 million people voted to remain in the EU, but they were (just) overruled by the 17 million who voted to leave. The difficulties associated with imposing fundamental changes on a country so evenly split are now clear for all to see.
The authors of the American constitution recognised the dangers of acting on a vote so evenly split and required a two-thirds majority in key areas. In their terms, this would ‘… guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good…’. In particular, changes to the constitution can still only be agreed in this way.
In Jersey, almost all decisions are taken on a simple majority vote. There is a slightly stricter rule that applies to votes to make changes to the number of elected members, their term of office or constituency boundaries. Whereas most votes require a majority of members present at that time, these particular details can only be agreed with a majority of all States members. With 49 members at present, this means approval from at least 25 politicians.
Given the widespread dissatisfaction with the Council of Ministers and the level of mistrust in the political process at present, there is no better time for ministers to seriously consider introducing a two-thirds majority system for key votes, not just limited to constitutional matters but extending to other fundamental decisions such as the long-awaited debate about our population policy.
