over.flow.je /

States of Jersey Electoral Reform Models


On the 1st December 2020 the States Assembly will debate proposition P.139/2020 - Composition and Election of the States: proposed changes.

In accordance with the vote on part a) of the last attempt at electoral reform, P.126/2019 - Electoral Reform 2020, the Assembly agreed:

"that fair representation and equality in voting weight and power across the whole population should be the basis for any reform of the composition and election of the States."

Due to the nature of Jersey's electoral system, there are a number of ways in which representation may be calculated depending on the handling of Member roles and constituencies (either district or parish level).

As Senators represent all Islanders equally according to their mandate, they need not be included in calculations of representation at constituency level as their influence is constant across all districts/parishes and citizens.

Having excluded Senators, the calculation of the representation provided by the current system and other models can take the following forms:

  1. Deputies per district,
    e.g. St Helier #3/4 = 4 Deputies
  2. Representatives per district proportionally (the literal interpretation of the model),
    e.g. St Helier #3/4 = 4 Deputies + 0.33 Constable
  3. Representation per district (the number of representatives a citizen may call upon),
    e.g. St Helier #3/4 = 4 Deputies + 1 Constable
  4. Representatives per parish,
    e.g. St Helier = 10 Deputies + 1 Constable

This webpage provides the representation calculations for a number of models for electoral reform in Jersey in a comparable format using the population data from P.139/2020 and P.139/2020 Amd 7.

It is the opinion of the author that from the perspective of the electorate, the figures for 'representation per district' provide the best means for calculating and comparing representation across the Island's electoral districts.

On this basis, it is evident that the models presented in P.139/2020 and P.139/2020 Amd 1 are the only options currently available that satisfy both the Venice Commission's requirement of a maximum variance in representation of 15% and P.126/2019 a).


Electoral Models:




Districts Members Range of Difference
from Average
Model D C S Deputies
Only
District
Proportionally
District
Representation
Parish
Representatives
Current Model 17 29 12 8 -46% — 48% -62% — 42% -62% — 29% -62% — 29%
P.139/2020 9 37 12 0 -13% — 10% -22% — 32% -8% — 15% -82% — 20%
- P.139/2020 Amd 1 9 52 0 0 -8% — 7% -8% — 7% -8% — 7% -84% — 5%
- P.139/2020 Amd 2 14 49 0 0 -54% — 25% -54% — 25% -54% — 25% -54% — 20%
- P.139/2020 Amd 5 *4 6 28 12 8 -20% — 41% -32% — 19% -2% — 61% -85% — 11%
- P.139/2020 Amd 6 9 37 12 0 -24% — 106% -13% — 13% -17% — 82% -70% — 6%
- P.139/2020 Amd 7 17 33 12 8 -39% — 68% -58% — 27% -58% — 15% -58% — 18%
P.7/2020 *5 9 37 12 0 -18% — 14% -27% — 39% -13% — 21% -82% — 29%
- P.7/2020 Amd 1 9 34 12 0 -21% — 99% -18% — 9% -13% — 79% -71% — 6%
- P.7/2020 Amd 2 9 40 12 0 -18% — 17% -23% — 20% -11% — 21% -81% — 20%
P.126/2019 9 46 0 0 -18% — 13% -18% — 13% -18% — 13% -83% — 6%
- P.126/2019 Amd 1 *5 9 37 12 0 -18% — 14% -27% — 39% -13% — 21% -82% — 29%
P.133/2016 *1 6 32 12 0 -9% — 17% -29% — 16% 6% — 34% -86% — 16%
- P.133/2016 Amd 1 6 20 12 6 -15% — 22% -34% — 22% 9% — 46% -85% — 22%
- P.133/2016 Amd 1 Amd *3 6 26 12 6 -11% — 19% -31% — 18% 8% — 39% -86% — 18%
- P.133/2016 Amd 2 *4 6 28 12 8 -20% — 41% -32% — 19% -2% — 61% -85% — 11%
- P.133/2016 Amd 4 6 26 12 8 -11% — 19% -31% — 18% 8% — 39% -86% — 18%
P.117/2013 7 28 12 7 -28% — 28% -28% — 14% -18% — 46% -85% — 11%
P.116/2013 17 29 12 6 -35% — ??? -24% — 32% -32% — 32% -24% — 32%
P.98/2013 12 49 0 0 -27% — 25% -27% — 25% -27% — 25% -27% — 25%
P.94/2013 6 34 12 0 -17% — 24% -26% — 12% -2% — 40% -86% — 6%
- P.94/2013 Amd 1 *2 6 27 12 6 -23% — 30% -19% — 11% -5% — 43% -82% — 8%
- P.94/2013 Amd 1 Amd *3 6 26 12 6 -11% — 19% -31% — 18% 8% — 39% -86% — 18%
- P.94/2013 Amd 2 5 35 12 0 insufficient population data
P.93/2013 *1 6 32 12 0 -9% — 17% -29% — 16% 6% — 34% -86% — 16%
- P.93/2013 Amd 1 *2 6 27 12 6 -23% — 30% -19% — 11% -5% — 43% -82% — 8%
- P.93/2013 Amd 1 Amd *3 6 26 12 6 -11% — 19% -31% — 18% 8% — 39% -86% — 18%
- P.93/2013 Amd 2 4 32 12 0 insufficient population data
- P.93/2013 Amd 3 17 31 12 8 -42% — 58% -60% — 32% -60% — 10% -60% — 23%
P.2/2011 5 21 12 8 -7% — 11% -35% — 41% 17% — 41% -88% — 41%
- P.2/2011 Amd 1 5 21 12 8 -17% — 20% -35% — 61% 5% — 61% -88% — 61%
- P.2/2011 Amd 2 5 21 12 8 -28% — 272% -5% — 5% 3% — 192% -74% — 3%
- P.2/2011 Amd 3 17 28 12 8 -48% — 53% -63% — 39% -63% — 26% -63% — 26%
P.72/2009 6 37 12 0 -11% — 9% -21% — 29% 1% — 24% -87% — 29%
- P.72/2009 Amd 1 6 49 0 0 no model provided
- P.72/2009 Amd 2 12 49 0 0 no model provided
- P.72/2009 Amd 2 Amd 12 47 0 0 -56% — 20% -56% — 20% -56% — 20% -56% — 20%
- P.72/2009 Amd 3 6 35 12 0 no model provided
- P.72/2009 Amd 4 6 37 0 12 no model provided
P.75/2007 6 36 12 0 no model provided
- P.75/2007 Amd 1 12 36 12 0 no model provided
- P.75/2007 Amd 3 6 48 0 0 no model provided
P.64/2007 12 0 12 35 n/a -78% — 311% -78% — 311% -78% — 311%
P.145/2006 Amd 1 12 37 0 12 -31% — 19% -31% — 19% -31% — 19% -31% — 19%
P.151/2004 6 47 0 0 -7% — 4% -7% — 4% -7% — 4% -89% — 0%
P.115/2004 12 42 0 0 -61% — 20% -61% — 20% -61% — 20% -61% — 20%
P.179/2001 17 53 0 0 no model provided
Clothier 42 12 42 0 0 -22% — 35% -22% — 35% -22% — 35% -22% — 35%
Clothier 44 12 44 0 0 -35% — 20% -35% — 20% -35% — 20% -35% — 20%

*# = Duplicate electoral models