AFTER years of searching for the Holy Grail, the States Assembly and Constitution Committee has come up with a dud of a report on island-wide voting.

That it plumped for the option – voting for all 45 deputies island-wide – described as basically unworkable by the Electoral Reform Commission – speaks volumes.

If it was not such an open committee you would be forgiven for thinking it was sabotaging the whole issue by recommending something this unfeasible – the vote in February could confine island-wide voting to the history books for the next decade.

Sacc is itself in disarray because it is not speaking with a united voice – despite whatever its chairman Ivan Rihoy would try to argue.

He will back his minority report having lost the argument in the committee room that 10 deputies should be elected island-wide.

If the head of a company board was so out of step with his fellow directors, he would either put his hands up and accept the majority line – or resign.

But then Guernsey politics rarely works along such principled lines.

We also know already that another Sacc member, Deputy Shane Langlois, is against IWV.

It leaves Sacc vice-chairman Mary Lowe to lead debate on the report, which members of the committee apparently only half-heartedly support.

No one has ever laid out a persuasive argument against the principle of island-wide voting – so much of the decision-making left in the hands of the States affects the whole of Guernsey, it makes sense that deputies should get their mandate from everyone.

But followers have not yet devised a system with enough support to carry the day – this committee fragmentation could confine IWV to the dustbin.

If the Alderney representatives maintain their stance of abstaining from the vote, it will take 23 supporters to initially carry IWV.

In January 2009, when Sacc went to the States with its first thoughts and simply asked for the nod to carry on researching the subject, just 26 voted in favour. That demonstrates how hard the fight will be because many of those 26 backed different ways of operating island-wide voting.

This was illustrated in July last year when Sacc came up with its recommendations – again a confusing muddle because it gave different options – and its report was sursied [referred back], already collapsing as it was under the weight of several amendments. The potential tightness of the vote means it could also face a challenge under the rules of procedure if it does not get two-thirds support.

Seven deputies could ask for a second reading, which would happen at least three months after that initial vote.

A simple majority would carry the proposition, but then the timing of when that debate happens will be an issue – would there be enough time to make the necessary changes before the next election? Then there is another opportunity for a challenge when the legislation comes back to the States.

The amendments placed last time – and not debated because of the sursis – included electing half the Assembly every two years, which has been criticised for trapping the island in perpetual electioneering, electing the chief minister island-wide and a system for 35 parish and 10 island-wide deputies.

Another option was a reduction in the number of deputies to make it all workable.

When reporting on island-wide voting at the beginning of 2007, the Electoral Reform Society said it could feasibly operate only if one of two conditions were met: candidates formed parties or there were fewer seats – it said any more than 20 would still be problematic.

Assuming its opinion remains the same, and if it had changed you would assume Sacc would not have included its report as an appendix, this would seem to be a large black mark against the committee’s proposals.

Indeed, the society favoured retaining the district system but introducing the single transferable vote – candidates being ranked in order of preference.

This is said to give maximum power to voters and is more representative than first past the post.

Reading between the lines, this seems to have been rejected by Sacc because it is too complicated for the voters – and there is no little irony here, given the system it has proposed.

Scouring the report, you are presented with different options and how they would work in practice but little real analysis to persuade you either way that any are the answer, not even the system Sacc proposes.

Already the forums are alive with people suggesting their island-wide voting system and no doubt a wave of amendments is being drawn up by different deputies. One question, so many answers.

But can the IWV lobby unite behind one?