This is the first vote for Chief Minister in which the result isn't a foregone conclusion

The handwriting wasn’t great either, but in fairness, it was mine and I can just about read it.

Let me go further in explaining how unscientific this was. I haven’t even met some of the people whose names were on the list. Of the ones I’ve spoken to, I don’t really know most of them.

Of the ones I know, I’ve asked a few the key question to which the letter P or I refers – the question being ‘who do you want for Chief Minister?’. And in the interests of full disclosure, let’s add this: almost all of those 51 people have been asked that question at one time or another, and almost all of them have refused to answer it.

Let’s back away gently from there for a moment, because now’s not the time to unleash the terrible, cold rage I feel about that. Now’s not the time to address the unshakeable feeling that the refusal to answer the question – and it’s a biggy – is born out of an incredible arrogance, a ridiculous sense of entitlement and a co-operative group effort from all sides of the States Chamber, left and right, old and new, to avoid having to publicly defend a difficult choice or being seen to have backed the wrong horse.

And whoa. Easy there big fella, back to the story…

There’s a point in all of this, and here it is: in a massive guesswork exercise, I tallied up the votes for Senators-elect Sir Philip Bailhache and Ian Gorst (on the admittedly shaky logic that Senators Alan Breckon and Ian Le Marquand are more likely to get knocked out in the opening rounds), and the votes came out 26 on one side and 25 on the other.

Honestly. That close. One vote in it. As it happened and for what it’s worth, that 26th vote came down on the side of the former Bailiff – but my point is that it’s close and almost certainly within the margin of error.

This is the first election for Chief Minister in which the result isn’t a foregone conclusion, and the first in which you can actually see both candidates making a decent fist of it all.

It also suggests a broader change underfoot – if you can get within one vote of Chief Minister, you can probably reach out and grab the Treasury Minister job without too much hassle. Add to that the biggest shake-up of the States Chamber in electoral history, and there looks to be reasons to be cheerful about the Island’s politics for the first time in a while.

Didn’t think you’d be reading that today, did you?

And here’s another way of looking at the election results – as a compelling argument for more, not fewer, States Members.

Seriously, lots more. Like more than double it. Like, add around 95,000.

Honestly.

The argument for reducing the number of politicians in Jersey is pretty much generally accepted, to the extent that your mind fast-forwards to the end of the sentence as soon as you hear the start of it.

Yes, the brain says, this makes sense. There’s a basic logical algebra going on here: politicians are (mostly) rubbish, so fewer politicians must be (mostly) less rubbish.

Well, fine. That’s all lovely. But the events of Wednesday 19 October suggest a new way of thinking about it.

We all know, and have known for a while, that Islanders when placed into a group of 53 are not capable of making decent decisions.

They refuse to debate a cut to their own pay, fail to deal properly with education cuts, endlessly prevaricate over reform, former policemen and parks, you know the story…

But in groups of about 95,000, Islanders do pretty well. They re-elect Pat Ryan in St John, keep hold of the best of the last intake in Senator Francis Le Gresley and Deputies Andrew Green and Tracey Vallois, and place Deputy Ian Gorst a very respectable second in the Senatorial poll. They also toss out a load of Members – most of whom were running out of ideas (although I’d say it’s probably a bit cruel that Deputy Debbie De Sousa lost her seat – she always seemed to me the best of the ex-JDA crowd).

Those are good, solid decisions. They are decisions based on principle – mixing cold-hearted pragmatism (axing a record number of sitting Members) with a minimum of outdated dogmatic thinking (note the gentle move to the middle).

And they create a new Chamber that’s better than the last one and younger than the last one. And that’s got to be a good thing.