Voting Reform

I know this lot have barely got their seats warm yet but I want to talk about voting reform, something allegedly dear to the hearts of many.
 
We are governed as an Island so it makes sense to ask the electorate as an Island who they’d prefer sitting in the States. However with 78 candidates standing for the 2012 election, future Island wide ballot paper would be a little on the long side.
 
Some have suggested that we cull the number of seats in the States but I wonder whether this is a good idea. If we reduce too far we will have to give serious jobs to some rather lightweight candidates. 

Or perhaps I should be diplomatic and say untested.
 
We also have the current problem of “All Change” every four years which has mixed blessings.
 
How about we vote every two years but for only half of the House?
 
That might ensure a degree of continuity and remove the temptation to blame the previous lot for all of the troubles later encountered.
 
We’ll start in two years time with those deputies who polled in the lower half of this year’s elections and leave the rest there to serve out their four years.
 
Technically we’d each have 20 votes but I don’t see why we couldn’t reduce this to a maximum of ten or even five if that is more manageable. I’m sure even I could find five people to vote for out of a list of say 40 odd candidates.
 
If it’s good enough for the Goose then I suppose we’d better allow our deputies the same rights every two years to elect to the various committees.
 
Here it gets a little more difficult as some committees might have nobody up for re-election whilst others might lose most of their members.
 
How could this work?
 
As an incoming deputy I might find that all of the seats on my favourite committees are already full for another two years. Well, that gives me a chance to either try something else or just sit on the back benches and learn my trade. At least in two years time there will be lots of seats up for grabs and I’ll be established by then.
 
If I’m good enough, then by the time I’m up for re-election I might even get that committee job back again.
 
How bad is that?
 
But what about the top job? That’s only going to come up every four years.
 
So?
 
One must assume that the current holder of the post is competent and well supported enough to be able to do the job for four years. If you are a strong candidate coming into the House two years later, then waiting for two years will gain you experience and consolidate your position.
 
If then successful you might only serve for two years before seeking re-election as a deputy but that then gives the electorate the chance to comment effectively on your own effectiveness as CM during that term. If you are good enough, you will get re-elected to the House and maybe even back into your old job.
 
I think that’s all of the reform we can cope with for now but I’d be keen to hear any better ideas.