IF THERE’S one expression that is always used by proponents of island-wide voting, it’s ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way’. Alas, just because a saying is a cliche it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.

Of course, if someone doesn’t believe in something, they’ll always find reasons for not doing it. Conversely, someone who genuinely wants to make something happen will find inventive ways to achieve it.

Nevertheless, there are some ideas that are inherently impractical, no matter how desirable they seem in principle. I’m afraid IWV is one such proposal. The devil in the detail stubbornly refuses to be exorcised, no matter who examines it.

Let me lay my cards on the table. As a voter, I really, really like the idea of IWV. I would far prefer to be able to influence the outcome of the election of all deputies rather than just those in my constituency. And in the unlikely event that I ever stand for the States again, I quite fancy the idea of standing island-wide. The trouble is that, despite that predilection, I simply can’t find a sensible and practical way of making it happen.

I’m not alone. Few people have felt so passionate about IWV than the old ‘Status Quo’ group, headed up by Dave Jones and Graham Guille, but they failed to come up with a workable system.

The best they could manage – even with the help of the Electoral Reform Society – was a system involving parochial elections coupled with ‘golden votes’.

Since then, the ERS has admitted there is no way to make IWV work unless we bring in party politics or slash the number of deputies to 20 at the most.

So, what options does the States face this time around? One is electing all 45 deputies – island-wide – in one go, from a slate of potentially 100 candidates. Not only will this be impractical and a pain for most voters, it will also have far worse effects. If people use only a fraction of their 45 votes, which seems highly likely, then those being elected in positions 40 to 45 will have a minuscule number of votes. Hardly very democratic.

It will also give a huge advantage to the sitting deputies and other well-known ‘names’, as many voters won’t bother to carefully read 100 manifestos to familiarise themselves with the newcomers. Lastly, the process will be such a voter turn-off that turnouts will nosedive over the next few elections.

What of the ‘Rihoy alternative’? This is basically a return to the old conseiller system – but what will it really achieve? At the moment, supporters of IWV complain they’re unable to oust deputies who they really don’t like because they don’t live in their constituencies. Under the Rihoy plan, that will continue to be true for three-quarters of members and those may well be the deputies who fill many of the top jobs. Not much of a benefit to set against the pain of electors having to turn out twice, a month apart.

Deputy Rihoy’s scheme also has far more practical problems than the old conseiller system. For a start, we’ll be electing 10 island-wide deputies in one go, as opposed to six conseillers. There will also be no restriction on candidature to those with previous States experience, as under the old system. This must be right in principle, but it could well mean that we have about 30 candidates. Some will be serious players and others just trying to raise their profiles ahead of the following month’s constituency elections. Either way, it will become a lottery.

There is also no doubt that having to vote twice in a month will – once the novelty wears off – tend to reduce turn-outs. That was the experience with conseillers and, interestingly, support for the island-wide vote ended up far lower than for the parochial elections a month later.

Lastly, in an increasingly hierarchical States, do we really want to return to having two types of members – the sheep and the goats?

We have to ask, just who is this battle for IWV really intended to benefit? Supporters say: ‘It’s the people – our polls show they want it.’ Weasel words. Of course we want IWV in principle, but our deputies’ job is to look in detail at how it can work. Is the fact that some of them are ploughing on – despite the clear problems involved – really nothing to do with IWV giving the incumbent deputies a huge advantage over newcomers?