WITH the rudder broken, does it really matter who is rowing the boat?

Island-wide voting has long been held up as a panacea for the island’s ills. But with the current States system in disarray, it has to be asked whether the States questionnaire on pan-island voting is a valid exercise.

Would a House elected by any of the four options suggested by the States Assembly and Constitution Committee really be so fundamentally different?

It would still be riven by the silo mentality identified so clearly in the Tribal Helm and WAO reports. And each department minister and senior civil servant would still control his or her patch as a personal fiefdom owing zero allegiance to the Policy Council, the chief minister or the States as a whole.

And there is no firm evidence that cross-island voting would usher in an era of high-quality politicians.

An online island-wide poll of 652 islanders conducted by Submarine Ltd before the last election in April 2008 came up with some interesting results – John Gollop and Charles Parkinson shared top spot with 370 votes – but few surprises.

All the current ministers, including Chief Minister Lyndon Trott, polled comfortably in the top 25 and, although a few more green candidates would have gained seats, the complexion of the Assembly was much the same.

In fact, it proved a surprisingly accurate forecast of who would get in and who would not. In the end, just six out of 45 deputies won through in the island-wide online vote but failed in the actual election.

Could that 13% difference change the complexion of the island’s parliament and turn it overnight from lame duck into Usain Bolt?

The answer must be no.

That does not mean IWV is not worth considering – at some stage. But with the majority of this Assembly reluctant to embrace a wholesale change in how the States functions, despite the overwhelming problems identified by Tribal Helm/WAO, the island must be wary it does not accept this placebo in place of a genuine cure.