Thursday, April 25, 2013








There are many reasons for such a low turnout. Some would have used it as a protest vote against the options on offer but I believe the main reason is Apathy. 

Apathy must be challenged in Jersey. It is beyond doubt the only clear winner in this shambolic referendum. 

I seriously didn't want to vote as I wasn't happy with any of the options. I forced myself. I went with A even though I think that option is flawed with the 42 members. It was the only option I had. There simply wasn't a second option on the ballot paper for me. Anyone wanting to keep the Constables had two options. That isn't a conspiracy as some are saying it was on my ballot paper. 


How can anyone be happy about this? The Spin Machine has started. In a previous posting I pointed out the fact that Senator Bailhache would not be drawn on what was a reasonable turnout in the referendum. This is what I said:  

"The reason I'm voting 'A' is that I want option 'A' to stand a chance in the debate that will follow the referendum. Option 'A' must win at the polls to stand a slight chance of being implemented. During the BBC Jersey Breakfast show this morning the most crucial part was when the presenter Mathew Price asked Senator Bailhache about what he thought was a reasonable number regarding voter turnout. Senator Bailhache refused to be drawn on this issue. He said "If a reasonable percentage of the island turnout for one or other of the options he is sure the states will implement it." Mathew Price asked him a number of times just what he thought was a reasonable number but the Senator refused to give one.  I thought Mathew Price should have been harder with Senator Bailhache on this point. He should have told him that his listeners deserved to know what the Chairman of the Electoral Commission thought was a reasonable number."

It is a disgraceful turnout. 

There are 63,945 registered voters in Jersey 

16,624 People turned out to vote. And after the first round of counting just look at how close it really was.

Option B. 6,804

Option A. 6,581

Option C. 3,239

The difference between A & B is simply 223 votes. The first count was the truest reflection of this referendum because A voters simply had nowhere else to go.

What will happen will happen regarding the States of Jersey and implementing this referendum. There will be many amendments to the main proposition. 



Option B on the first Count had 6,804 votes. This is to change the makeup of Government and to affect everyone of us. There are more people at Jersey Live on a Saturday afternoon than that total.

Do not rejoice, do not beat the drum, do not walk about with puffed out chests Jersey has a serious problem and it must be addressed.

I listen to the youth assembly.  There are green shoots out there. Why is the Island so disengaged with politics? We must get into the schools, have debating forums in school. We lack a University which is a huge problem. We must engage the youth.

Rico Sorda

Part Time Investigative Journalist 


voiceforchildren said...


There is also the argument that while the State Media keeps everybody discussing A's, B's and C's, the real power and corruption carries on flying under the radar.


Sam Mézec said...


Only 10.6% of the electorate backed Option B. That is no mandate whatsoever for that change.

But it was never about the mandate, because the establishment knew exactly what they wanted to do, and they are damn good at getting what they want.

That being said, Option A got the lower number of votes and so it is history, without a doubt. But for us to have only been 223 votes behind the option backed by those with vested interests and no democratic tradition, I think that's pretty good going and shows that there is a glimmer of hope for the future.

Option B is so grossly unfair that it has to be stopped, one way or another. There was so much wrong with this referendum from the very start, that there is a huge amount to work with in planning how to stop Option B.

Anonymous said...

It is a poor turnout but the result is the result and if it is not implemented then the voter will be even further disengaged.

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree with you on the fact that it was due to apathy that there was such a poor turn out. I didn't vote as in my opinion there were no viable options. Why would you want to vote for the best of a bad bunch! I would have been much happier to see a 0% turn out, or even a I DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF THE ABOVE as an option. By turning up to vote you have just legitamised the whole farcical process. A true democracy would see us voting on every decision to be made, in that case you might find that more people would become engaged with politics as their vote would actually make a real difference, instead of being pushed into a rubbish compromise such as this one was always going to be.

rico sorda said...

From my posting:

"There are many reasons for such a low turnout. Some would have used it as a protest vote against the options on offer but I believe the main reason is Apathy. "

The reason are vast. Apathy is defiantly well up there.

rico sorda said...

Senator Farnham was elected in 2011 with 11,095 votes. His ace card was the keeping the Senators and the Island wide mandate. That was it really, so the simple question is this, where did they all go??????????????

Anonymous said...

Low turnout? Because people could see what a waste of time farce it was :)

thejerseyway said...

Hi Rico.

Yes & how many votes did Senator Bailhache top the pole with, around 16,000 votes so ware have all of them gone. At lest we can say A was radical & a long shot at wining. But they can't even say it was because people don't like coming out in November or it was bad weather.

Just let them put B into operation & we'll see all the Nuts come lose. because ALL the Constables will have to work for the States & not only for the Parish & there is only one person to blame & that is Bailhache, then with his perpetration in the bin That will be the end of him.

O what fun we sad F*cking people who do actually care have.


Anonymous said...

Look the point is that you know, I know and anyone with half a brain knows that the result of this referendum is a pathetic tick in the box to show that Jersey is forward thinking and inclusive and progressive. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that it is a complete crock of shit and real democracy doesn't exist in any real form (oh yeh - they pay the usual lip service to it) but in reality the old boys network was, is and will continue to be in control in this island because they've already stitched it up good and proper. Anyone raises their head above the parapit and the machine kicks in and grinds away with some form of assassination, be it financial, character, moral or a combination of all 3. The elite are in control and they intend to keep it that way (they'll play the occasional bullshit political game but it means jack). And they shouldn't try to espouse democracy and refer to a nonsense majority within a minority when most people know that real democracy on this island is an enigma.

rico sorda said...

Hi Ian,

Not every comment has to have f*ck - sh*t and wa*nker in it.

One of the main reasons for keeping swear words of the blog is for the simple fact I can't access it from the library as it gets blocked. They have filters on. The odd one slips through.


Anonymous said...

One can speculate forever on the reasons for a low turnout for the referendum., but the simple truth is that the majority of people in Jersey do not see the States as relevant to their lives.

The States are a government – yes, but as long as the status quo re. low Tax Rates is maintained; as long as Jersey imposes restrictive immigration, employment & residency laws & regulations, as long as those entitled by birth and/or “quallies” receive adequate privileges and state-benefits– so the majority of Jersey residents will continue to be complacent, sit back and reap the benefits.

Compared to the UK, let alone other European countries, Jersey is a desirable place to live and work (except perhaps for the comparatively few unemployed in the Island.) It has been so for decades. The entire system which is Jersey fosters a feeling of separateness and privilege among those who live there. Salaries and wage-levels are still high compared to the UK. Jersey has hardly suffered the effects of the Recession (single, or double-dip) when compared to the huge job-losses and economic downturns experienced elsewhere.

So, as long as your average Jerseyman (and woman) can continue to make good money and live “the Jersey lifestyle” and as long as the powers-that-be in Jersey do nothing to threaten their incomes / profits and lifestyle, they couldn’t care less about the actual structure of those powers, or who they actually are.

Those who do care tend to be those who are determined that nothing should threaten the status quo and, by association, their innate sense of privilege and superiority -hence the constant ultra-conservative clapping on about “tradition” and the “fact” that “Jersey is different.”

It is not apathy, but complacency and a realisation that, in what really matters to the people of Jersey – their incomes, privileges and lifestyle – the States are largely irrelevant which cause low turnouts at elections and for referenda. In effect, the States meddle with the essence of Jersey at its peril – not that any States member would be minded to threaten the comparatively comfortable and profitable status quo. Such is unthinkable.

The number of members of the States and their electoral constituencies are irrelevant as, no matter how many, or how few, no States Assembly will raise the level of income-tax, or introduce measures which threaten the Finance Industry, or reduce benefits for Jersey locals, or remove restrictive and discriminatory housing, employment and residency measures.

All any States Assembly does is fiddle around in the margins, tinker with existing policies. To introduce any genuinely radical change is impossible for them, as, no matter what their “political persuasion” they are totally hemmed in and constrained by the status quo which is Jersey, and of which they are a product.

JerseyJustice23 said...

The question we should all be asking is why is the Chief advocate for Option B the chairman of the Electoral Commission.

It’s absolutely nonsensical and somewhat bizarre that we all just carry on playing these games.
I mirror exactly what Mr Wimberley has stated from day one, in that the electoral commission should have been independent with regards to concentrating on what the reform proposal was in place to achieve i.e. DEMOCRACY.

I'm sure im asking the same question that the majority of the discerning jersey public who have voted are, and that is …what is the purpose of Privileges and Procedures when they don’t even make sure that the supposed democratic reform referendum is set up to properly to achieve what we are all looking for?
It’s absolutely farcical that everyone involved goes on about democracy and urging everyone to vote.....when in fact the referendum was set up to achieve nothing!

Why was this accepted?

What is going on in this island? , as a jersey man with generations of my family history in the island, I continue to get frustrated that over 50% of yesterday’s have this backward stance with regards to each parish. We all live on a small island and we have 12 different voting constituencies...just think about it, its absolute nonsense!
It can only be concluded that if all this carries on then we should just accept that the islands government is simply set up as a quasi-dictatorship under the pretence of democracy, we can all continue to play these utter nonsensical games but nothing will ever change.
Here is a solution.... simple and democratic that could be funded from each parish and the states pocket.
Not sure if it’s legal, but hey, if no one is voting what do we do if the electoral commission cant even set up the options properly.
Independent Electoral Commission under scrutiny
1 million pounds
Eg 70,000 registered voters
Electoral Commission pay £ 10 per registered vote which is compulsory
Then split the extra 300k between the options campaigns.
May the best team win!

There you go people, just sorted out the electoral commission’s job! You would then get a minimum of a 50% turnout.

But as ive said above, there are people in jersey who don’t want democracy, and that was all option B supporters, I mean how can they say that they want democracy? Their option is actually worse if it was implemented, it would become more of a farce.

In my opinion, it’s a form of admission that 45% of the public votes across the island want to carry on with this form of hierarchy government which in turn is undemocratic , and this will carry on until we remove the right for a group of 3 conflicted individuals to choose what we actually vote for.

Anonymous said...

Are the local internet blogs being seen as a threat to “ The Jersey Way “ ?,3741.msg57152/topicseen.html#msg57152

Anonymous said...

The voters of option 'B' want their Constables in the States, as they feared the Parish system will fail.

So perhaps this may have alerted a lot of Parishioners to raise more issues that their Constables can raise and debate within States business, just to be sure they are worth their votes, otherwise what the point of them being their.

So make a list of everything you consider is wrong with your Parish and get writing, make your Constable work for his vote next time around.

Anonymous said...

Here's another point that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere - is the term of office going to be 4 years?

If so, that means another step backwards for democracy because there will be fewer - less frequent - elections, giving them more time in power before we get a chance to vote in new blood it we're fed up with them.

I go by the definition of democracy being that you can actually change your government if enough of you decide to vote for that. That's the kind of democracy we do have over here, but with the time between any elections rising from 3 years to 4, that will make it harder to do. Elections are good for getting all the current issues debated in public, less frequent elections means that thing are hushed up and brushed under the carpet for longer.

Anonymous said...

I thought the turn out was 26% - almost exactly a quarter; so why is the pie chart on Tony's blog ( showing what looks like a third for those who voted?
(I can't comment anon on his blog)

Anonymous said...

Interesting the St Helier turn-out was so low (accept is never that high) especially as the only Constable who was against option B, Simon Crowcroft was so quiet.

Also interesting the MSM made a great play that 10 Constables supported option B but absolutely nothing in Crowcroft.

Why was he so quiet & why was he ignored by the Jersey Press?

Anonymous said...

Re: April 26 at 8:14 AM,

How about a little government sponsored trolling? Would that be the strange job Jersey is trying to advertise?


voiceforchildren said...


Diocese of Winchester caves in to THE JERSEY WAY

Ian Evans said...