Despite the superficial fairness, the even-handed offering of retention of Constables or both Constables and Senators as alternatives could be interpreted by voters as implying that they, too, would be equally acceptable outcomes.
There are strong grounds for endorsing Option A, the six multi-Deputy constituencies without Constables. Only the first option delivers a House in which all Members are specifically elected to do the job by a comparable electorate and all voters have a fair and equal say in choosing their Members.
The second option provides only 30 Members unencumbered by the running of a parish, while the part-timers would hold equal power from fewer, and in some cases far fewer, votes; one of principal flaws of the status quo that the reform should be addressing.
Even choosing to stay with the present unsatisfactory system after all would be better than Option B, although it would be a sad waste of an opportunity to both make a real improvement and close the subject for the long term.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
How do you see the suspension of the Dean playing into this?
I'm happy to argue (from experience) that Bob Key could not keep up with the workload of being both head of the Church and part of the States - which, mutatis mutandis, is exactly why the Constables have to come out of the States.
Post a Comment