How can you interpret these figures as a vote for change?

From Chris Cook.

I WAS rather taken with the interpretation of the results by your political correspondent.

Using the figures in your paper, after the first round, out of a possible electorate of 63,945, 6,581 had voted for A and 6,804 had voted for B. This means a total of 13,385 had voted for change, or 20.8 per cent of the eligible electorate. I have not included the figures for C as they did not vote for change.

I also did not include the transferred vote from C in the second round, as it cannot be assumed that they were a vote for change.

In fact, as nearly all of those who made a second choice made B their second option it would have been better to assume that they were an anti-A vote.

I find it hard to interpret these figures as a ‘clear message to the politicians’ that voters want the States to be reformed.

In fact, I think that only two interpretations of the result are possible: either that nearly 80 per cent of the electorate were not sufficiently motivated by the active choices on the referendum (A and B) to come out and support them; or that most of the electorate were not sufficiently engaged by the process to show any interest at all.

The conclusions drawn by your correspondent in the second part of the article, under the heading ‘Less Clear’, seem more in line with what I have written above when comparing the percentage results in favour for A and B after the first round.

She made much more of the low turnout and commented on the fact that Sir Philip Bailhache ‘described the final result as a clear majority despite the low turnout’. He was a B supporter.