The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
COMPOSITION AND ELECTION OF THE STATES: REVISED STRUCTURE (P.72/2009) – FOURTH AMENDMENT (P.72/2009 Amd.(4)) – ADDENDUM
Presented to the States on 8th September 2009 by the Deputy of St. Mary
STATES GREFFE
2009 Price code: B P.72 Amd.(4).Add.
ADDENDUM
1. Explanation and data used in proportionality graphs
The following graphs show under- and over-representation by comparing the number of constituents per representative (for each parish) to the number of constituents each representative should have according to the principle of proportionality.
For example
Currently there are a total of 41 parish representatives (29 Deputies and 12 Connétable s). According to 2001 census figures the total population is 87,233. If each member represented the same number of constituents, there should be 2,128 (87,233 ÷ 41) people per representative.
However, St. Mary has in fact 796 people per representative – a difference of 1,332. This means that there are approximately two-thirds (1,332 ÷ 2,128) fewer people per representative than there should be. St. Mary is over-represented by about two-thirds: 62.61%.
Current situation: 29 Deputies + 12 Connétable s | 49 Deputies (Amendment 2) | 37 Deputies (Amendment 4) | 12 Connétable s only | Eleanor Moran's suggestion: 43 Deputies, mini- constituencies | 41 Deputies, mini- constituencies | |||||||
St. Mary St. John Trinity St. Lawrence St. Martin St. Ouen St. Saviour St. Peter Grouville St. Brelade St. Helier St. Clement | 62.61% 38.48% 36.13% 26.33% 14.74% 10.63% 2.15% -0.89% -10.50% -19.08% -20.96% -28.41% | 55.32% 26.47% 23.66% 11.96% -1.89% -6.81% -0.23% -20.57% 11.96% -13.85% -6.01% -15.10% | 32.52% -11.04% -15.28% 0.28% 23.06% 19.35% -5.96% 8.96% 0.28% -7.46% -0.06% -15.88% | 78.11% 63.99% 62.61% 35.32% 50.09% 47.68% -71.83% 40.94% 35.32% -39.41% -289.44% -12.75% | -3.40% 12.32% 12.32% -3.40% -2.65% 0.23% -2.62% 0.23% -2.65% 0.09% 0.32% -1.00% | 1.09% 1.09% 0.58% -10.50% 0.58% 4.87% 2.15% 4.87% -10.50% 4.74% -2.35% 3.70% | ||||||
80% 60% 40%
Current situation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y r a M . t S | n h o J . t S | y t i n i r T | e c n e r w a L . t | n i t r a M . t S | n e u O . t S | r u o i v a S . t S | r e t e P . t S | e l l i v u o r G | e d a l e r B . t S | r e i l e H . t S | t n e m e l C . t S |
|
|
| S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29 Deputies and 12 Connétable s)
20% 0% -20% -40%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y r a M . t S | n h o J . t S | y t i n i r T | e c n e r w a L . t | n i t r a M . t S | n e u O . t S | r u o i v a S . t S | r e t e P . t S | e l l i v u o r G | e d a l e r B . t S | r e i l e H . t S | t n e m e l C . t S |
|
|
| S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 Deputies (Amendment 2)
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40%
37 Deputies (Amendment 4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y r a M . t S | n h o J . t S | y t i n i r T | e c n e r w a L . t | n i t r a M . t S | n e u O . t S | r u o i v a S . t S | r e t e P . t S | e l l i v u o r G | e d a l e r B . t S | r e i l e H . t S | t n e m e l C . t S |
|
|
| S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Over/Under-representation: parishes ordered by proportionality
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40%
Current situation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y r a M . t S | n h o J . t S | y t i n i r T | e c n e r w a L . t | n i t r a M . t S | n e u O . t S | r u o i v a S . t S | r e t e P . t S | e l l i v u o r G | e d a l e r B . t S | r e i l e H . t S | t n e m e l C . t S |
|
|
| S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29 Deputies and 12 Connétable s)
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% -20% -40%
49 Deputies (Amendment 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
y r a M . t S | n h o J . t S | y t i n i r T | e c n e r w a L . t | e l l i v u o r G | r u o i v a S . t S | n i t r a M . t S | r e i l e H . t S | n e u O . t S | e d a l e r B . t S | t n e m e l C . t S | r e t e P . t S | ||||||
|
|
| S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
80% 37 Deputies
(Amendment 4)
60%
40%
20%
0%
y n n r e e r r e n y t r ti e te c ll ie u d h it n a r u e n vi el io a o in e
-20% S.M Ma .O .P re ou H a rel St.J Tr Clem v
t . t t w r .
t t S B
S S S La G S t. t. .
t
. S S
t S
S
-40%
80% 43 Deputies
in mini-
constituencies 60% (E. Moran's
suggestion) 40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
80% 41 Deputies
in mini-
constituencies 60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
5. Over/Under-representation of Connétable s – note different scale
100% 12 Connétable s
50% only
0%
y r r r t
n y e n n e e
r it c ti e u e ll e n
-50% . a . oh Tin n Mar u a io et o vi rela Hel e e
d i
M J r re O v P u m
t t w . t. S t. r B . l
S S a t t C
S S . S G t. S .
-100% St.L St S St
-150%
-200%
-250%
-300%