I've received an advance copy of the transcript of my interview with the Electoral Commission, which is posted below.
Tomorrow (Wednesday 8th August) the Chief Minister Senator Ian Gorst is being interviewed by the commission at 10am in the Blampied Room in the States building (through the entrance to the Royal Court) which is open for the public to view. I'll be going and will do a write up after if anything of interest is said.
After that, on the 17th August at 10am at St Pauls Centre, Reform Jersey member Daniel Wimberley and Deputy Pitman (who made a great submission from the floor at the Reform Jersey meeting last week) will be giving evidence. So that is one not to be missed.
This is one of the most absurd propositions that I have seen submitted. Jersey is not a parochial society, it is a collection of just under 100,000 individuals, each of whom has their own independent views, irrespective of where they live in the island. The idea that we can chop the island up into 12 unequal districts and give them each the same say is fundamentally ridiculous and undemocratic. It's essentially gerrymandering.
I hope a sensible resident of St Peters reads this and writes to the commission saying how the Constable does not speak on your behalf and how his suggestions are simply fanciful.
The only solution fit for Jersey is one where every single islander is treated equally and fairly. That means -
1. Each States Member should represent the same number of people.
2. The system should be simple.
3. Each voter should have the same number of votes.
So get writing and make this point!
Sam
_________________________________________________________________________________
STATES OF JERSEY
Electoral Commission
MONDAY, 16th JULY 2012
Panel:
Senator P.M. Bailhache (Chairman)
Mr. C. Storm (Vice-Chairman)
Deputy J.P.G. Baker of St. Helier
Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary
Professor E. Sallis
Dr. J. Renouf
Witness:
Mr. S. Mezec
[11:17]
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Come and take a seat.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Thanks very much for having me.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Mr. Mezec, thank you very much
for your submission first of all, or your 2 submissions. I think you have probably already had a reply
to the first one asking us to do various pieces of research. Have you had a reply to that or not?
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
You have. So that is the Commission’s position on
that. But thank you very much for your
detailed points that you make in your second submission and we would like to
ask you to draw our attention to any points that you think are particularly important
or add to it in any way that you would like to do.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Okay, well for me I think the
most important part is the preamble because that sort of sets the context ahead
for any decision that is going to be made under these 4 things that are being
considered. I start by talking about the
actual word “democracy” and where it originates from and my Greek friend tells
me that it means demos kratos which
means people and power. That is pretty
much the best definition I think you can get for democracy. It is the process by which the people are
empowered to govern the society they live in and so whenever you are proceeding
to make any decisions on how the democratic process works, what it is consisted
of and how the executive is made up and all that, the question you need to be
asking at every single point is are the people empowered through this. Does this reflect this idea of the people
having power, this demos kratos, this
democracy? So when you look at various
electoral systems you can see little nooks and crannies that are in there to make
sure they are as representative as they possibly can be. When you look at Jersey ... the whole reason
this commission is being had is because there are lots of things in the Jersey
system that are not quite in line with that idea of the demos kratos of people having power. The main point that obviously a lot of time
has been dedicated from the previous 2 speakers has been the fact that in
certain parts of the Island votes are not the same because of populations
having more representation, some parts having less representation, some people
having more votes than others, some people only having one vote. That sort of leads to an end which is not
satisfactory at all because it is just not representative. People are not represented across the Island
for their views, they are represented for where they are from and that is not
really the best way to be conducting things in a 21st century democracy, you
want to have the legislature made up of the right percentages of people for
what their views are compared to what the views are there in the real
world. So my conclusion, I think, just
very briefly, bullet points, what I think the most democratic system that
Jersey could possibly have, that would be practical and workable as well and
that is simply to have one type of States Members, each States Member
represents the same number of people, each person has the same number of votes
and for the number of States Members ... I have not given an arbitrary number
and I do not think it is right to give a specific number until it is looked
into properly how many we could have while all the functions of government and
opposition can be effectively carried out.
So there is no under representation on any of those parts and whatever
that number ends up being would be the suitable one in my opinion and whether
that ends up being 42, whether it ends up being 48, or even ... unlikely, but
if it ended up 60, you know, it would have to be that if that meant all of the
positions were able to be filled and carried out effectively.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Can I interrupt you just to try
to clarify which you think is the most important. I am just harking back to your point that
votes are not the same and there are really 2 issues there, are there not? There is the question of how many votes each
individual elector has and there is a question of how many voters are
represented by each elected representative.
Which is most important, do you think?
Mr. S. Mezec:
I would say very slightly the
latter, how many people each States Member represents but I do not want to play
down the significance of the other point as well. I think that is just as important as well
because you can have a position in St. Helier where one constituency, they have
4 votes for their Deputies and in other places you only have one vote for
Deputy, that can sort of leave room for certain points of view ... within the
constituency the majority ... therefore votes are more likely to be just
replicated of each of their votes. If
somebody in St. Helier No. 4 who is conservative, or of that political
persuasion, therefore votes are just going to be for conservatives - I mean
small “c” conservative obviously - and everybody else in that constituency, if
the majority of people agree with them and vote for conservatives then that
parish will be represented by 4 conservatives, even though maybe it was only 60
per cent of the people, the other 40 per cent may have been socialists and
given all 4 of their votes to socialists.
So you end up having ... you are represented entirely by conservatives
when there is a significant percentage that would have gone for somebody else
instead.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
In the absence of party politics,
how do you solve the problem?
Mr. S. Mezec:
My overall view was it would end
up being closer to super constituencies where people have weighted votes,
everybody had the same number of votes across the Island and the constituencies
were drawn up on a population basis and that way people could vote ... well,
they could use all of their votes happily for a start, they would not be
worried about giving their third and fourth vote to people who they were only
50 per cent on, whereas there were other candidates who they were 70 or 80 per
cent on and that would fix it across the Island where everybody ... the ideal
situation would be for every States Member to be elected Island-wide and then
the percentages would work in terms of representation, but then that obviously
have the practicality issues and whether you can reconcile that with having a general
election day and all that. So I think
having the super constituencies would be as close to having Island-wide as
possible. We could go for each single
member constituency for a 45 or whatever, but then you end up like in the U.K.
(United Kingdom) it is possible to get an overall majority in the Parliament
without having a majority of votes. It
has happened a few times. In 1974 was
one occasion. So James mentioned having
S.T.V. (single transferable vote), I think that would probably be the best way
of sorting out in super constituencies.
Professor E. Sallis:
Would the super constituencies
have a parish base or would you just divide the Island, I do not know, in
quarters or in fifths or something?
Mr. S. Mezec:
I think that is a good
question. In Jersey people identify with
the parishes a lot. When you ask someone
where they live, they do not say: “I live in the northeast”, they say: “I live
in this parish, I live in that parish.”
So if there is a way for it to be drawn up around the parish borders
then that would be convenient and that would hopefully be practical. The only thing to reconcile that with is the
population. I would say the population
issue does come first. You cannot have a
system where parishes are there just because they are parishes, the important
issue is getting the population ... when I was doing some reading for this, I
came across a proposition that was put forward in the States a couple of years
ago and it had a chart in it. I wish I had
printed it off, I only got to the Island yesterday. I might print it off and send it to you, but
it had a suggestion, it was not binding or anything it was a suggestion, of how
the parishes could be grouped together where their populations would work out
as being roughly the same and I do not see a reason why that could not be used.
Professor E. Sallis:
We have had people, though, who
have suggested something similar, that the problem is let us say you put
together, I do not know, St. Peter and St. Brelade - just for argument’s sake -
and then you end up not electing anybody from St. Peter because the majority of
the population is St. Brelade. Would you
think get people in St. Peter saying: “We do not have representation any
longer, the bigger parish has overwhelmed us” do you see that as a problem or
not?
Mr. S. Mezec:
I would hope not. Because you do end up in situations like the
U.K. where you can get a Scottish person standing in England or vice
versa. I would hope that people would
look at the district and say: “I am representing a district.” Because it is based around parishes but not
based around the parish, the singular, it is based around several parishes so
when people would stand they would presumably have a manifesto that would cover
issues that include the other parishes.
No person standing in St. Brelade would want to cut off the electorate
from St. Peter, would they? They would
want to ...
Professor E. Sallis:
Well, we would hope not.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes, exactly. They would presumably want to be as inclusive
of the whole district and so I would have thought for their own electoral
reasons they would not want to cut off the other parish. So I would not see it as being that much of a
problem hopefully?
Dr. J. Renouf:
I am interested, you mentioned
the parish system and people’s identity with the parishes. Do you think that is as powerful a draw
amongst say your generation as it is in the population as a whole?
Mr. S. Mezec:
Not at all. To be perfectly honest. I think when younger people like myself look
at Jersey politics, they are looking at issues that affect everybody because
... I went to Hautlieu School, which does not have a specific catchment
area. So I went to school with people
who are from all across the Island and when people were talking about Jersey,
they were not talking about issues that were just based around one parish, they
were talking about issues that were Island-wide. When I was at school the big debate was on
G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) because that was happening at that time. That is not a parish issue. You do not need a specific parish
representative to put forward the parish’s view on an Island-wide issue like
G.S.T. St. Martin is not going to be
worse off if it does not have someone to put forward the St. Martin because
parishes are not homogeneous. Everybody
has got their own point of view and so the bigger the districts are, you will
be more likely to be inclusive of the different points of view rather than the
majority of each individual parish being the only thing that has its view put
forward. One parish might have 49 per
cent of people in favour of one thing, 51 per cent in another and because there
is only one Constable then only that 51 per cent view is going to get put
forward.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Sorry, I did not understand
that. Why would a larger constituency be
more homogeneous than a parish?
Mr. S. Mezec:
I would not, it would be more
diverse. If there were ...
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
That is the opposite, is it not?
Mr. S. Mezec:
What do you mean as in ...?
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Diversity as opposed to
homogeneity.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Well, yes, there are going to be
people in every area that are going to have different views and so if there is
...
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
I understand the point that you
are making but a parish consists of a whole lot of people with different views,
I would have thought exactly the same thing applies to a larger constituency.
[11:30]
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes, of course it will, but there
will be more representatives in the large constituency. In a single parish like St. Mary where they
only have one Constable and one Deputy, whereas if it were as super
constituency they would have 6 or 8 or however many it would be, and so because
each person would get in with a percentage they would not have to get 51 per
cent if it were a 2 person race. You
could get in with 20 per cent or you could get in with 30 per cent. That would correlate with what the views are
within that district because it is multi member. So you would have ... especially if it was
weighed voting as well, you would be more likely to have a diverse set of
candidates come forward, but then there would probably be ... there would end
up being majorities for one point of view.
You know, if 60 percent of people in one super constituency were of one
persuasion, then as long as they mark their ballots accordingly to that and 60
per cent of the winners would get that and 40 per cent would represent the
other view. Most people consider the
Senatorial elections to be the most democratic on the Island because it is
multi member and people have the same amount of votes across the Island and so
people can gather what the mood is of the Island as a whole by looking at the
Senatorial results a lot better than they can by looking at one small district
or one parish. I have said before that
has practicality difficulties so having the super constituencies is a sort of
halfway point there. It is going to be
more representative because it covers a larger population and so it is as close
to an Island-wide system as you can get but still being practical is what I
think.
Mr. C. Storm:
In your conclusions you talk
about the introduction of a weighted system.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. S. Mezec:
It is similar to what James was
saying before, the S.T.V. I think I
mention it in my submission, at the last Senatorial election I only used one of
my votes because I had one candidate who I liked a lot and I had 3 or 4 who I
quite liked, but then I looked at it and thought: “Well, if I am in the first
past the post system like what we have now I would be pretty upset if my first
choice was beaten by my fourth choice by a couple of votes, i.e. pushed back
into fifth, I would be quite upset by that because each of my votes on the
ballot paper is worth the same”, whereas in my head they are not all worth the
same. I do have preferences and so I
would prefer a system where you can have a second preference vote like you can
in mayoralty elections in the U.K. One
option is a list system but I think that might be a bit too difficult when
there are not parties in Jersey. I think
when the A.V. (Alternative Vote) debate was going on the U.K. there was a
suggestion about A.V. plus for the U.K., which was the same principle but
instead of small constituencies it was in regions of the U.K. So that would be similar to Jersey because it
would be districts, so that is sort of like the regions here. Then on the ballot paper you rank them in
order of preference and so if your favourite one does not get in and, you know,
does not even come close they disregard that vote and go for your second
preference instead. So you are more
likely to have ... so minority views are not getting pushed aside just because
they are at 20 per cent instead of 49 per cent or something like that.
Mr. C. Storm:
Some people who have been talking
to us and writing to us have been looking at the frustration some people feel
with the number of commissioners and recommendations and examinations that have
come forward without their being anything substantial coming out of those
processes. Therefore some people have
suggested that this commission should consider an evolutionary process rather
than a radical process, in other words, one bite at a time, which could lead to
the whole process dragging on a little bit and, as I said before, other people
recommend that a radical approach to change, where would you stand on that?
Mr. S. Mezec:
Are we talking about ending at
the same place, just having a transitional process?
Mr. C. Storm:
Yes, absolutely.
Mr. S. Mezec:
My answer to that is, is that
best way to empower people? Is that
going to maintain enough stability so that we encounter problems along the way
and can fix them before we reach the final point? Because you could change everything all in
one go and then find yourself with a States Assembly that is just not working
at all because one little point was missed out or one eventuality was not
considered. So there would be merits in
that. I hope that the Commission puts
forward something that is good enough to work first time around, though. So I could see that as hopefully being the
result. If it is done as soon as
possible to get to the democratic ...
Mr. C. Storm:
Particularly given the history that
we have been through.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes, exactly.
Mr. C. Storm:
Right, thank you.
Connétable J. Gallichan of St.
Mary:
Can I just ask about something you touched on very briefly about the
general election? Do you think the move
to a general election was significant and would you like to see that retained?
Mr. S. Mezec:
Technically we have not had it
yet because half of the Senators were not elected at the last elections, so
people referred to that as a general election but ...
The Connétable of St. Mary:
Well, a single election day.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes, it was a single election day
but not all the Members were up for election.
I think it is part of that demos
kratos, that people’s power, that everybody should be elected on the same
day because if you end up with a government that is incredibly unpopular in the
Island and the people are desperate to get rid of, you have to be able to get
rid of them in one go, you cannot get rid of half of them and then have to wait
3 years for the other half of them. My
friend, James, talked about stability and I have used the metaphor in mine
about the iceberg. If you are heading
towards an iceberg stability is irrelevant, you do not want stability, you want
to be able to change course as quickly as you can, and so if there were a
circumstance in Jersey where people were very unhappy with the government and
needed to get rid of it as quickly as possible, then there would have to be a
mechanism for empowering the people so that they can pass that verdict on their
government and get rid of it in favour of a new one.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
The real solution to that is
party politics, is it not?
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes, I agree, absolutely. My friends who spoke before have agreed with
that. I personally think that party
politics is the most democratic way of people having their say but then I
completely accept that is not exactly something that can be legislated
for. That has to be a grass roots
things. But I see it is feasible in
Jersey and I see it as being completely ... I think Jersey would pull it off
very well if we did get around to it. I
mentioned in my submission Gibraltar, and Gibraltar is a place ... I know you
went to Guernsey to have a look, I would recommend a trip to Gibraltar as
well. If you time it right you might
even have some good weather. But as a
jurisdiction I did some reading on it and I think they have got a lot of things
right in their political system, they had an absolutely huge turnout at the
last election. Just by accident I happened
to come across on YouTube the actual recording of their election results
broadcast, and because it is a small place it was all in their town hall and
all of the party leaders took it up in turns to thank each other and it was
very civil thing. The candidates did
have their differences but it is not like the U.K. where a lot of the
differences can be very nasty. People in
one party can make really cheap points against another and I know that would
not be popular in Jersey and frankly I would not wish it on anybody to be
honest, but what they had in Gibraltar looked, I think, something that would be
great in Jersey. Their last election,
their Conservative Government was thrown out in favour of the Socialist Party,
after the Conservative Government being in power for something like 16 or 17
years. So that showed that the people of
Gibraltar had had a governing party that they liked so much that they kept for
however many years, but the times moved on and they decided they wanted a
change and they had a mechanism that enabled them to do that swiftly,
effectively and there was no nastiest about it either. All the parties do still work with each other
very closely but it is clear the public wanted to give one group a mandate to
govern and they are the people that are doing it and I think that would be the
best solution for Jersey.
The Connétable of St. Mary:
The reason I asked you about the
single day is you said about the Island-wide vote and although I struggled to
imagine a feasible way of doing this, you have had some contributors who have
said the way to do it is an Island-wide vote and simply you will do it, so many
elected every year on a rolling basis, but you would reject that, would you?
Mr. S. Mezec:
Yes, I do like the idea of
Island-wide voting but it goes back to my overall point of the demos kratos and people power, and one
of the fundamental powers that they need to have is to be able to get rid of
government and they have to be able to do that in one go. I think that is so important that it
outweighs the Island-wide voting, especially when the super constituencies I
see are something that could be almost as good.
But then it has the other benefits that I think make it better than
having an Island-wide done every couple of years.
The Connétable of St. Mary:
If I could continue then. I just wanted to check with you about the
parish role because you have said that you do not think removing the Constables
from the States would detract from the position of the Constable - and I think
it was James who also mentioned the importance of the parish - do you think it
would be possible to maintain the parish system long-term if there was a ...
Mr. S. Mezec:
I think often having Constables
in the States can be divisive and, in my opinion, it does harm because I have
had Constables that I think have done a very good job at running the parish but
I have been so angry at how they have voted in the States and so when it comes
to my election time I look at their manifestos and I just find it so difficult
because I might like one thing that they have done in the parish and that to me
is what the Constables should be doing.
But I have been annoyed at what they have done in the States and so it
makes it harder to decide who to vote for.
Personally I think if the Constables are removed from the States I think
the position would be a lot better because you could end up getting people who
are standing on a specific platform and specific parish issues, people who are
lot less ... they are not going to have a problem if say somebody is in favour
of one thing in the parish but is in favour of raising G.S.T. to 25 per
cent. Some people might think that is a
great idea but a lot of people think it is a terrible idea, even though their
parish policies are great they cannot vote for them because they have that
moral reason to not like what they are going to be putting forward in the
States. So I think that with the 2 roles
separated you would also get more people coming forward for the position of
Constable because a lot of people are attached to their parish, they like
living in the parish, they like being a part of the community there but they
would not like the idea of being a States Member, they would not like the
scrutiny that goes with that from the public, a lot of the disdain that a lot
of people have for that position, for being in the States and voting on things
sometimes that controversial and unpopular, whereas in the parish I think
people would like their Constables a lot more personally, and I think that
would be a good thing for us to get on with our Constables a lot better. I think it would strengthen both
institutions, the States and parish.
Mr. C. Storm:
A question we have asked other people
who have come along, if given the choice of only having one of your
recommendations that you would put forward would you be prepared to say which
one you would choose?
Mr. S. Mezec:
I have made it clear in my
submission that I think the biggest mistake the Commission could make would be
to leave the Constables in the States, not just for the reasons that I have
just outlined about how I think it would strengthen the Constables’ position
but the Constables being in the States with their parish boundaries is
irreconcilable with democracy at the end of the day because the number of
voters for each different parish just varies by too much that it is just
undemocractic. Unless St. Helier was
given 10 Constables or unless we had more Constables ...
Dr. J. Renouf:
It is an unruly place, after all.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Exactly. That is the main thing. The important thing is everybody having an
equal vote and the Constables are the biggest obstacle to that, and I think it
is bad for their position as well. So I
think it is a win/win situation removing them from the States in my
opinion. The compromise that I would
make is to let them be like the Dean of Jersey who is allowed to speak in the
States but is not allowed to take on any roles or allowed to vote. That would be a compromise that I think would
be tolerable. So I think that is
important to be on the table as well.
Dr. J. Renouf:
The Upper House idea?
Mr. S. Mezec:
My friend, James, has put an
eloquent case forward but I am not convinced it is necessary to be honest. I think Jersey could be fine with one
Chamber. So long as we do not have too
few Members. If the number of Members
were cut by a large amount in the main Chamber in the States then there might
be a reason to have it but so long as we keep a sensible number in the main
Chamber, I do not see it as necessary.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Could I just press you a little
bit on S.T.V. because I think different people mean different things by
S.T.V. You said you cast only one vote
in the Senatorial elections. Do you
envisage that you would have a system whereby you would have, in the last
election for example, 4 votes to cast and you could cast them all for one
candidate, or do you mean by S.T.V. that you would rank your candidates ...
Mr. S. Mezec:
Ranking, I think, yes. Because you may have 2 candidates who you
really like and third one who you almost like as much and if you had your 4
votes but could give them all to one candidate I think that might skew things a
little bit. I think it would be better
to have it ranking. There might be a
candidate who 80 per cent of the electorate quite like and would have happily
have there but there just happens to be more candidates who smaller numbers of
people really like and so would give them the vote.
[11:45]
I think that person who is quite
liked by a lot of people might have a more reason to be the one that is elected
because of the more generic support they have across parish, so I think a
weighted system where you put 1, 2, 3, 4 or whatever on your ballot paper would
be the best one.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Thank you very much, Mr. Mezec,
is there anything else before you leave the chair that you would like to ...
Mr. S. Mezec:
The one thing that was sort of
connected to the first letter I sent and it is line with this demos kratos idea of people being
empowered, I would like to see that as much information as possible is out
there. Objective information, statistics
and facts and things like that to be on the website or sent out in leaflets
like the original one that was sent out to every household. Just so people are as informed as possible
because an ignorant group of people are not going to make a good decision if
they do not the facts around them. So I
really think it is important for the Commission to dedicate some time, either
themselves or delegate to another body to do a substantial amount of research
on things like what class of Member puts forward the most propositions, what
class of Member takes up the most important positions of responsibility and
what parts of the Island contribute.
Objective statistics could come from that that I think would be really
important for people just to know so that when they are making an informed
decision they can look at what the best way to empower themselves would be and
I think the quality of submissions would be good if people had that
information. That is just my one interim
recommendation that maybe interim reports are put out about various findings
that are gathered. Just so people are as
informed as possible when they make their submissions. I think that is really important.
Senator P.M. Bailhache:
Thank you very much indeed.
Mr. S. Mezec:
Great, thanks very much.
[11:46]
