Judging from yesterday’s initial reaction to proposals to introduce island-wide voting from next year’s general election of deputies, islanders’ reaction can best be summed up as, ‘nice idea, but…’

And it is in the ‘but’ area that the States Assembly and Constitution Committee report on the matter falls down.

Even for voters who passionately want island-wide voting, it is the pitfalls that immediately come to mind: how on earth do I select 45 individuals from 90 or even 100 candidates?

Forget the effort of reading that number of manifestos, making notes and comparing hopeful A against hopeful Y. The time, concentration  and knowledge needed in the ballot box, with the pressure of others queuing behind, to choose 45 individuals is simply too tall an order.

Readers can try it for themselves by printing the 2008 candidate list, which is available today on our website, and see how quickly they tire of putting a cross in 45 boxes.

That X-factor fatigue will cut in for most at around 10-12 choices.

While that might not be a bad thing – many electors already do not use all the votes they currently have – there are consequences from that, which the report fails to quantify.

What it lacks most is an analysis of what would be gained from IWV and what would be lost and this is compounded by chairman Ivan Rihoy’s minority report suggesting a virtual return to conseillers (without the name): 10 island-wide deputies seated above their 35 locally-elected colleagues.

Effectively, islanders will not know what happens under island-wide voting unless or until they try it and there is little in Sacc’s report that helps them to quantify the risk – or benefits – of doing so.

If the biggest obstacle, as the Electoral Reform Society said, is the sheer number of candidates to choose from, then the Deputy Rihoy alternative might be a half-way house, but isn’t presented as such.

Unfortunately for IWV supporters, while the downside of a radical change to the system is obvious to islanders, the benefits are not – and Sacc has to take responsibility for that omission.