THE decision by the Assembly and Constitution Committee to recommend all 45 deputies be elected, island-wide, at one time, is either very naive or very Machiavellian.

They must know that asking most islanders to familiarise themselves with the policies, views and abilities of 80 or 90 candidates and then select half of them as deputies would be the biggest electoral turn-off the island has ever experienced. Voter participation, after an initial burst of interest, will soon dwindle. The political anoraks will love it. Mr and Mrs Le Flem from Capelles will say, ‘blow this for a game of soldiers’.

Worse than that, the change will be hugely advantageous to the sitting deputies. Newcomers always find ‘getting themselves known’ the hardest bit of getting elected. It is possible in one of the current electoral districts, if you have what it takes, to communicate your ideas. Island-wide it will become almost impossible. For a start, new candidates couldn’t knock on 20,000 doors – and if they all tried, it would drive householders mad.

I know the option was favoured by just over 2,000 islanders, but that’s a pretty thin mandate. It wasn’t even the most popular choice. What happened to Deputy Rihoy’s earlier public pledge to put the option with the most votes to the States?

More importantly, where was the option in the consultation paper to significantly reduce the number of deputies? That’s clearly the best way to improve the efficiency of government and is an obvious first step for those who want to see island-wide voting.

Reducing the size of the States is also simply the right thing to do now that we have a professional (in one sense of the word) parliament. Fifty-five members was fine when the vast majority were very much part-timers and paid little more than expenses. Forty-five salaried politicians are far too many for a community of 60,000 souls.  Of course, unlike the proposed system, which will favour sitting deputies, cutting the numbers of seats might put their paid employment in jeopardy. Am I being too cynical by suggesting that’s one reason why it’s unlikely to happen?

To be fair, both the other options for island-wide voting in the consultation document were flawed  – although more workable than the one being proposed. The idea of 10 parish deputies would be very unfair. Proportionately, it would mean that Tortevalites were much better represented than residents of St Peter Port.

I know the US Senate has two members from each state, regardless of population, but not everything American is perfect. Anyway, the Senate is the second chamber in a bi-cameral system. That’s very different to electing members to a parliament with a single chamber.

The other option was to elect half the deputies island-wide every two years. In purely electoral terms, that would be the easiest option, particularly if coupled with reducing the number of States members to, say, 30. Choosing 15 deputies at one go would be much easier than choosing 45, even though there would still be lots of candidates to get to know. The main problem would be instability within the States once every other year became an election one.

Despite those drawbacks, both the systems rejected by the committee are more practical than the option they’re recommending.

Most States members must know what a dog’s dinner a single election for 45 deputies would be. Remember the farce of choosing 13 deputies in a single St Peter Port constituency? If members are to throw away their critical faculties, because 2,000 islanders have indicated a preference, then it’s an interesting precedent. Pet theories over issues as diverse as waste disposal, taxation and education could easily garner that level of public support. It wouldn’t make them right.

I started by saying the current recommendation was either naive or Machiavellian. Why Machiavellian? Because the committee may well be proposing the least practical option knowing the States are likely to throw it out. That will leave them free to say to the public, ‘Well, we tried. It’s not our fault.’

My solution? The honest answer is to keep the current system but cut the number of deputies to five per constituency. However, I am seriously warming to the idea of the States calling the committee’s bluff and agreeing to the crazy circus they’re proposing. That would at least put this issue to bed at last. If it works well (it won’t), then fine. If it’s a disaster, it can be quickly repealed.