Composition and Election of the States: proposed changes (P.139/2020): comments [P.139-2020 Com.(2)]

STATES OF JERSEY

COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES: PROPOSED CHANGES (P.139/2020): COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 27th November 2020 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2020  P.139 Com.(2)

COMMENTS Introduction

Composition and Election of the States: proposed changes (P.139/2020) has attracted 7 Amendments.

The Privileges and Procedures Committee (PPC) lists them here in the order they will appear in the debate, this paper is designed to assist Members during the debate with a page-per-amendment guide to each option.

Included are headline summaries of what each Amendment strives to achieve, a graph showing % variance and brief comments.

Key Drivers

In January 2017 The States Assembly approved an amendment to the Public Elections (Jersey) Law 2002 which permitted, for the first time, access of observers to our elections.

In formulating its past and present proposition for electoral reform - and in reaching conclusions  whilst  comparing  and  contrasting  the  Amendments  now  before  the Assembly, PPC is guided by the leading factors affecting the performance of elections in Jersey as identified by The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association British Islands and Mediterranean Region (CPA BIMR), Election Observation Mission (EOM).

Four major areas of concern are neatly identified in the first paragraph of the EOM Report which finds:

• "an electoral system which remains overly complicated and cumbersome;

• Further areas of concern relate to the number of uncontested elections,

• the disparity in the equality of the vote across districts and parishes and the

• low voter turnout

• which arguably undermines the principle that the elections in Jersey are fully genuine."

In Recommendation 1 the Assembly is requested to revise our electoral system by taking into account, "the findings of the 2013 Electoral Commission and the outcome of the Consultative Referendum"

Further,  

"The EOM finds that the method for seat distribution in the States Assembly is not consistent with the principle of the equality of the vote due to significant differences in vote weight from one parish to another for the election of Connétable s. This is at  odds  with  the  obligations  of  the  States  of  Jersey  under  the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This deficiency in the current electoral system was also noted by the Electoral Commission in its 2012 final report and addressed in its suggestions for electoral reform."

Apportionment and %Variance

To improve the equality of the vote and respect the principle that the vote of one elector should be equal to the vote of another, leads us to re-draw boundaries to achieve constituencies of equal population size. Of course it is impossible to achieve exactly the same population size across all districts, some will have more people, some fewer.

It is the extent to which they differ in size, the variance from the ideal, that is important to identify.

The  Venice  Commission  recommends  that,  "except  in  really  exceptional circumstances", the maximum admissible departure from the apportionment criterion should seldom exceed 10% and never be more than 15%.

PPC presents graphs showing the %Variance, using the same calculation criteria for the main Proposition and across all Amendments. Please note:

Thanks

PPC thanks all those who have lodged Amendments. Negativity and intransigence reign in electoral reform debates, it's very easy to reject proposals out of hand and this has been a habitual trait of the Assembly for the last two decades. It's not quite so easy to positively construct alternatives and we are grateful to all those members for their efforts in contributing to the debate and for giving this important issue careful thought.

P.139/2020 COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES: PROPOSED CHANGES Privileges and Procedures Committee

• 49 Members

• 37 district representatives elected in 9 districts

• 12 Constables elected by Parish

• No Senators

• Follows the principles of P.7/2020 lodged by Senator Ian Gorst but not debated.

District Reps alone District Reps & Constables District Makeup Population Total Pop Reps Pop per Rep Variance Reps Pop per Rep Variance St Helier South (Le

District 1 Bas de la Ville & Le  2,730 -5% 2,540 16%

Haut de la Ville) 10,920 10,920 4 4.3

St Helier Central ( Le

District 2 Bas du Mont au Pretre  2,628 -9% 2,479 14%

& Le Rouge Bouillon) 13,140 13,140 5 5.3 St Helier North (Le

Haut du Mont au

District 3 Pretre, Le Mont a  3,120 8% 2,902 33%

l'Abbe, Le Mont

Cochon) 12,480 12,480 4 4.3

District 4 St Saviour 14,820 14,820 5 2,964 3% 6 2,470 13% District 5 St Clement 10,060 10,060 4 2,515 -13% 5 2,012 -8% District 6 St Brelade 11,540 11,540 4 2,885 0% 5 2,308 6%

St Mary 1,990

District 7 St Ouen 4,450 11,890 4 2,973 3% 7 1,699 -22%

St Peter 5,450

St John 3,180

District 8 St Lawrence 5,850 12,460 4 3,115 8% 7 1,780 -19%

Trinity 3,430

Grouville 5,320

District 9 9,490 3 3,163 10% 5 1,898 -13%

St Martin 4,170

106,800 106,800 37 2,886 49 2,184

Total: Population Members Ideal Per Rep Members Ideal Per Rep

Total Members 37 49

This  proposition  offers  the  compromise  of  retaining  the  automatic  right  of  the Connétable s  to  a  seat  in  the  Assembly.  In  return  it  asks  for  the  introduction  of constituency boundaries drawn in line with international standards, based on population size.

We know this option has considerable public support. It is very similar to Option B in the 2013 referendum.

By having large districts, we pretty well guarantee that there will be contested elections in  every  district. This  should  drive  higher  levels  of  voter  engagement.

Removing  the  distinction  between  Senators  and  Deputies  is  vital  to simplify  the electoral system.

AMENDMENT - Deputy J.M Maçon of St. Saviour

• 52 Members elected from 9 districts

• No Senators

• Automatic right of the Constables to a seat abolished

• Follows the principles of P.126/2019 lodged by PPC (defeated 20 - 26)

This is the only option before the Assembly which comprehensively upholds the fundamental principles for democratic participation in a modern society.

With a generous allocation, Deputy Maçon complies with Venice Commission guidance that, "the maximum admissible departure from the apportionment criterion should seldom exceed 10% and never be more than 15%."

The maximum variance here is a never before achieved in Jersey -8%.

SECOND AMENDMENT - Connétable of St. Clement

• 49 Members elected by Parish or Parish District

• No Senators

• Automatic right of the Constables to a seat abolished

• Follows the principles of Clothier

PPC commends the Connétable for finally putting Clothier before the Assembly. Had this been adopted 20 years ago, two decades of stalemate might have been replaced by the steady evolution of a more equitable arrangement. Never too late to start perhaps?

The % variance figures tell their own story, exacerbated by the Connétable 's generosity to the smallest Parishes. This does, however, represent a clean and considerable simplification.

FIFTH AMENDMENT - Senator L.J. Farnham

• 48 Members

• 8 Senators and 12 Constables retained.

• 28 Deputies elected from 6 districts

This Amendment preserves a complicated three tier system. We need to focus on what the public want, one of the things we need to give them is simplicity.  

In the 2013 referendum, 80% of the public voted for options that removed the role of Senator. There is no getting away from this. People weren't hoodwinked.

The 6 new districts are an improvement on apportionment but twice twin a smaller Parish with one twice or three times its size, something PPC avoids. The rationale for 6 super-constituencies" to replace the Senators is clear. Less so the case for their adoption whilst Senators are retained.

SIXTH AMENDMENT - Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier

• 49 Members

• 37 district representatives elected in 9 districts

• 12 Constables elected by Parish

• No Senators

• Differs  from  main  position  only  in  terms  of  the  distribution  of  district representatives.

Same destination as the main proposition but perhaps a less scenic route?

Deputy Higgins is resolute, "The fairness of seat distribution must also take into account the position of the Constables who will be automatically returned for all of the 12

Parishes.Fair is fair. If Parishes wish to keep their Constables, which I respect they do seem to want to do, they must be prepared to give up some of their Deputies."

PPC's concern is that St Mary, St Ouen, St Peter, St John, St Lawrence and Trinity might experience a sense of loss, when what we're striving to achieve is a new electoral system to universally excite and energise.

SEVENTH AMENDMENT - Senator J.A.N. Le Fondré

• 53 Members

• 8 Senators and 12 Constables retained.

• 33 Deputies elected from existing districts

Essentially, this amendment preserve the status quo. It makes a clear statement of intent. "The aim of this amendment is purely to provide a compromise, and a step forward."

It delivers neither. Where is the compromise? Where the step forward? It's the current system plus four more deputies.

One of PPC's key goals is simplicity. This retains the complexity of the existing system in its entirety. This option just tinkers with a system that we know is simply not fit for purpose.

Let's have the courage of our convictions, listen to what the public have said, and try something new.

THIRD AMENDMENT - Connétable of St. Martin

• Introduction of a "None of the Above" option on the ballot paper.

• Only for use in uncontested elections.

• Aside from that one extra Article the main proposition remains unamended.

With the best intentions the Connétable presents an intriguing innovation as remedy for the uncontested election, a source of widespread dissatisfaction . At issue here is whether this measure treats a symptom when it is the cause that is crying out for repair.

PPC has reservations, does an election become "contested" in any meaningful sense by adding "none of the above"? Does it solve the intellectual problem, is anyone going to say that everything's now OK in the States now that some have fought an uncontested election against no one? The debate, however, is welcomed.

FOURTH AMENDMENT - Connétable of Grouville

• Referendum to be held on any approved outcome prior to enactment.

Why on earth would anyone show any interest in a referendum when the last time a referendum  was  held  on  these  proposals,  the  States  voted  to  ignore  it?  Another referendum on electoral reform would be laughed out of court. What credibility could it possibly have?

A call for a referendum now is really an attempt to block reform that the voters have already in essence approved.

The point is, actions have consequences. The States voted only 7 years ago to not implement a referendum result. That was after having set up an Electoral Commission to come up with recommendations to put to a referendum.

As a result, as far as the public is concerned, the credibility of a referendum on this subject is shot.

We have to face facts: having taken the decision to ignore a referendum, the States effectively took upon itself the responsibility to sort the mess out. That is what PPC strives  to  achieve  but  can  only  accomplish  if  Members  are  prepared  to  take responsibility, demonstrate leadership and act.

Statement under Standing Order 37A [Presentation of comment relating to a proposition]

These comments were presented after the deadline on Wednesday 25th November 2020 due to resource implications arising from the Committee's current workload.