Skip to main content

Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – proposal 1 (P.93/2013) – third amendment (P.93/2013 Amd.(3)) – comments.

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 ASSEMBLY: REFORM – PROPOSAL 1 (P.93/2013) – THIRD AMENDMENT (P.93/2013 Amd.(3)) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 2nd December 2013 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2013   Price code: A  P.93 Amd.(3)Com.

COMMENTS

The  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  presented  comments  to  the  States  in advance of the debates on the various reform propositions (P.94/2013, P.98/2013, P.116/2013 and P.117/2013 and related amendments refer). The comments were in the form of a report prepared by Professor Iain McLean and Professor Ron Johnston, entitled:  The  Proportionality  of  Electoral  Districting  Schemes  for  Jersey:  an Evaluation'.

Following receipt of Deputy Le Fondré's amendment to Senator Ozouf 's proposition, the Committee has considered the Deputy 's proposal using the methodology employed by  Professors  McLean  and  Johnston,  as  set  out  in  the  following  tables.  Further information regarding the methodology applied by the Professors is available in their report,  which  was  presented  to  the  States  by  PPC  on  25th  October  2013  as Composition and election of the States Assembly: reform – (P.93/2013, P.94/2013, P.98/2013, P.116/2013, P.117/2013 and associated amendments) – comments'.

Table A: The Ratios and Proportionality Measures

Scheme

Parish  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 St. John  1.62  1.64  0.82  1.39  1.53  1.55  1.48  1.37  0.92  1.55  1.49  1.56 St. Peter  1.22  0.96  1.64  1.15  1.12  1.16  1.11  0.80  1.23  1.16  1.16  0.91 Grouville  1.13  0.98  0.98  1.08  1.05  1.08  1.03  0.82  1.15  1.16  1.17  0.94 St. Clement  0.90  0.78  1.04  0.83  0.81  0.86  0.82  0.87  0.89  0.96  0.97  0.99

St. Brelade 1  0.93  0.89

St. Brelade 2  0.89  0.85 St. Brelade  0.97  0.90  0.88  0.86  0.92  0.88  0.94  0.95  0.92  0.94

St. Ouen  1.39  1.17  1.17  1.14  1.29  1.33  1.27  0.98  1.23  1.26  1.25  1.11

St. Helier 1  0.73  1.03  0.93  1.05  0.83  0.91  0.85  0.78  0.84  0.75

St. Helier 2  0.80  1.16  1.02  0.93  0.90  1.00  0.92  0.77  0.77  0.85

St. Helier 3  0.88  0.89  0.85  0.82  0.84 St. Helier  0.78  1.01

St. Saviour 1  1.11  0.86  0.86  1.06

St. Saviour 2  1.16  0.88  0.89  1.10

St. Saviour 3  0.83  0.91  0.79 St. Saviour  0.87  1.05  0.79  0.77  0.83  0.79  1.03  0.84

St. Martin  1.26  1.25  1.25  1.22  1.19  1.20  1.15  1.05  1.31  1.28  1.25  1.19 St. Lawrence  1.26  1.34  0.89  1.00  1.15  1.20  1.15  1.12  1.07  1.13  1.17  1.27 St. Mary  2.10  2.62  1.31  1.91  2.03  2.01  1.92  1.10  2.05  2.01  1.92  2.50 Trinity  1.44  1.52  0.76  1.40  1.36  1.37  1.31  1.27  1.50  1.50  1.42  1.45

Most

Overrprsntd  2.10  2.62  1.64  1.91  2.03  2.01  1.92  1.37  2.05  2.01  1.94  2.50 Underrprsntd  0.73  0.78  0.76  0.79  0.77  0.83  0.79  0.80  0.84  0.77  0.77  0.75 Range  1.37  1.84  0.88  1.12  1.26  1.18  1.13  0.57  1.21  1.24  1.17  1.75

Propn.

underrprsntd  0.68  0.65  0.46  0.52  0.58  0.68  0.52  0.34  0.68  0.68  0.60  0.68 Deviation measure  0.36  0.49  0.21  0.29  0.32  0.33  0.29  0.16  0.32  0.33  0.30  0.42

Key to schemes: 1 – PPC rejected; 2 – default; 3 – PPC interim; 4 – Farnham ; 5 – Green; 6 – Ozouf ; 7 – Pitman; 8 – Southern ; 9 – Noel; 10 Connétable of St. Mary (A);

11 Connétable of St. Mary (B); 12 – Le Fondré.

Page - 3

P.93/2013 Amd.(3)Com.

Table B: The Schemes Rank-Ordered

  1. By Scheme (rank order position in [ ])

Measure

Scheme  Range  Underrepd.  Deviation PPC Rejected  1.37  [10]   0.68  [=8]   0.36  [10] Default  1.84  [12]   0.65  [=7]   0.49  [12] PPC Interim  0.88  [2]   0.46  [2]   0.21  [2] Farnham  1.12  [3]   0.52  [=3]   0.29  [=3] Green  1.26  [9]   0.58  [5]   0.32  [=6] Ozouf  1.18  [6]   0.68  [=8]   0.33  [=8] Pitman  1.13  [4]   0.52  [=3]   0.29  [=3] Southern  0.57  [1]   0.34  [1]   0.16  [1] Noel  1.21  [7]   0.68  [=8]   0.32  [=6] Connétable of St. Mary (A)  1.24  [8]   0.68  [=8]   0.33  [=8] Connétable of St. Mary (B)  1.17  [5]   0.60  [6]   0.30  [5] Le Fondré  1.75  [11]   0.65  [=8]   0.42  [11]

  1. By Rank Order Position

Measure

Rank Order  Range  Underrepresented  Deviation

1 (best)   Southern   Southern   Southern

2  PPC Interim  PPC Interim  PPC Interim 3   Farnham   Farnham   Farnham

Pitman  Pitman

4  Pitman

5  CSMary (B) 6   Ozouf

7  Noel

8  CSMary (A)


Green  CSMary (B) CSMary (B)  Green

Noel

Default

PPC Rejected   Ozouf Ozouf  CSMary (A) Noel

CSMary (A)

Le Fondré

9  Green

10  PPC rejected  PPC Rejected 11  Le Fondré  Le Fondré 12 (worst)  Default  Default