Renée Webb’s opinion piece in The Royal Gazette, dated Friday, September 27, and the entire narrative concerning the intended candidature of more independent electoral candidates is an interesting development on many levels. And from a political scientist or analyst’s point of view, so are the recent results at the by-election held in Sandys Parish in Constituency 36 just days ago.

Interesting on an historical level, since I and others in 1983, 1998 and 2012 — and Stuart Hayward successfully in 1989 — have run as independent candidates in general elections. We ran largely to make the points that Renée and Sir John Swan are attempting to make today.

I did so for very much the same reasons, and ran on two occasions when the PLP was not yet then in power — or the One Bermuda Alliance not yet in existence. The political gridlock we see today between the two prevailing political parties — the PLP and OBA — were present then with the PLP and the United Bermuda Party. This was, in fact, present right from the inception of party politics in Bermuda, primarily around 1964, when the UBP was formed.

These tensions heightened after the arrival of our 1968 Constitutional Order-in-Council — Bermuda’s Constitution — before which arrival there were, by name only, “independent” Members of Parliament. That is so because the fundamental or substantive problems that existed then exist now.

How much real progress has been made since then?

Where were Sir John and Renée during those years in 1983, 1989, 1998 and 2012 when many of us were calling for the inclusion of “independent” candidates? People such as the now-deceased David W. Burch.

Where were these people when we were championing the cause of sovereignty for Bermuda and a change in and of our electoral process, among other issues we see today?

These issues endured during the very years these two were actively involved in political parties or indeed were Members of Parliament? Sir John was the Premier. Has he of late had a kumbaya moment? Why do we in Bermuda, who call ourselves “woke”, only seem like “Bernie at the Beach” come to life when a given “state of affairs” or, more accurately in this case, when “affairs of state” no longer serve our personal interests well or well enough? Riddle, and don’t dare diddle, me that.

A more objective approach

I wish to propose here a more objective, less personal or subjective approach to inclusively diversifying political representation in our House of Assembly or Parliament. To attempt to provide and achieve a wider access to a greater, more mature democracy and to a greater, diversified, more inclusive, number of parliamentary hopefuls.

Further, I wish to provide better and more choice of quality candidates than we enjoy at present — or, more precisely, not enjoy, largely as a result of the gridlocking nature of the first-past-the-post electoral system through which we choose our parliamentarians today.

If one’s goal is to ultimately effect or implement a coalition parliament, government and/or cabinet, Bermuda must in the first instance, transform its electoral system into a “hybrid, two-tiered, mixed or additional-member electoral system” which would combine both “first past the post” and a suitable adaptation of the “proportional representation electoral system/model”. (More on the implementation and application of both later.)

This hybrid electoral system would, of course, have in operation the appropriate conditions, electoral thresholds, checks and balances, etc, permitting this model to achieve and maintain the balanced degree of required stability necessary for the effective execution of good governance of and for our island.

However, before we illustrate just how that good governance can be achieved, we have to debunk a few annoying, distracting, repetitive and unsupportable myths that we continue to hear bandied about whenever we speak of reforming our parliamentary representation — this comes often from those you would think should or ought to know better.

A quick debunk

As surprising as it may come to many who should know better as a result of their prominence or high profile in the community, the gridlock and polarising of the results we consistently see at Bermuda’s polls have little to nothing to do with the Westminster parliamentary system of governance in and of itself. The Westminster model is a parliamentary model or system and not an electoral system or model. The electoral system is designed to elect members to sit in parliament. Westminster-style, or parliaments generally, are neither functionally nor purposefully designed to elect Members of Parliament. Nor should they. Their function is very different.

However, a quick illustration of a Westminster-style parliament that comprises members elected by a similar hybrid electoral system to the one we propose — that is, combining a “first past the post” electoral system with a “proportional representation” electoral system — is the Parliament of Wales in the United Kingdom. Another illustration of a non-Westminster-style parliament using a similar hybrid electoral system is that of Denmark. These examples should kill once and for all the myth that the Westminster model of parliament elects Members of Parliament — here in Bermuda, in London, and indeed in Denmark and Germany to name a few.

Accordingly, although reform is needed in Bermuda in this area to bring it into the modern era, it is not the Westminster parliamentary system that will deliver the diversification of representation we need in our Parliament. The targeted change will have to take place in our “first past the post” electoral system.

If the goals and objectives of the “movement for independent candidates” are greater representation and democracy in Bermuda’s parliament, the minimisation or eradication of undemocratic “safe seats or constituencies” for legacy political parties, the enhanced value of the principle “one person, one vote of equal value”, the reduction of the number of seats in parliament, and the achievement of a coalition and diversification of representation in parliament, government and/or cabinet, there will have to be a comprehensive and concerted move to a combination, in the first instance, of a “first past the post” electoral system, and a proportional representation electoral system. Such a move would see the “first past the post” electoral system applied at the constituency level and the “proportional representation” system applied at the national or island-wide level.

This combination of electoral systems would, at the constituency level, maintain the local and intimate relationship that exists between the individual constituent and their parliamentary representative, while at the national level, those candidates who have a wider appeal to island-wide voters but not so much at the constituency level, may nevertheless be voted into parliament via that route. Of course, in the interests of fairness, both political parties and independent candidates may run for parliament at both the constituency level as well as at the national level, as will be explained later.

But first, boundary changes, etc, are needed before implementation of hybrid system

Because Bermuda is such a small polity geographically, 21 square miles approximately — or one MP per square mile — 21 MPs are more than sufficient for our Parliament. We should need only seven to nine persons to form a cabinet and nine persons to fill Senate seats — that is, one senator per parish or division if for the purposes of Senate representation, we divide the island into nine equal or near-equal divisions. Bermuda conceivably could initially, then ultimately, politically draw one large “open constituency” with the boundary circumventing the entire island. Such a drawing would severely minimise or even eradicate the historically race and class-dividing, gerrymandered, undemocratic safe seats or constituencies that both the PLP and OBA enjoy.

These safe seats dilute and make a mockery of democracy and the PLP’s time-honoured and hallowed principle of “one person, one vote of equal value” made worse by the wasteful nature of votes wrought by the application and deployment of the “first past the post” electoral system. Any wastage of votes amounts to disenfranchisement of voters and should be minimised as much as is possible, if not eliminated altogether.

Such seats in the past favoured the White and wealthy class only. Today, they favour the Black and White-wealthy or well-to-do class, against the fundamental interests of the lower-income, majority-Black working class.

Hola, folks. We have a class problem in our midst in Bermuda that we need to fix. So, let’s try to fix or ameliorate this acknowledged race, class and minority-group problem in our parliament and electoral process, shall we? For that we must get a little technical, but not much.

To successfully design, implement and apply the earlier-mentioned two-tier, mixed or added-member electoral system to ensure stability in governance, fairness to candidates vying for Parliament and ensure that the “first past the post” and the “proportional representation” electoral systems work in harmony with each other, we will have to introduce a workable candidate-eligibility or elimination threshold or benchmark whereby we would hold in check the number of persons vying for and ultimately earning their seat in Parliament. Let’s say for the moment, and for our model, that the threshold is one ninth or approximately 11 per cent of the voters registered or voting in the national poll. More on this issue will be explained and expounded on later.

How do we begin?

A, The local or constituency divisions, MPs and polls

As alluded to earlier, I would first recommend that we reduce the Members of Parliament from 36 to 21 and use the resulting savings of dollars to pay quality and career parliamentarians a decent salary to sit two sessions per week, and work in their constituencies and community at large on behalf of us all for the rest of the time.

I would further recommend that for the continued representation of the close-knit relationship between the local or constituency candidate and their constituent, we, albeit on an expanded basis, divide Bermuda into 12 equal or near-equal constituencies and draft a “constituency ballot” in a different colour from the “national ballot”.

This division would immediately severely challenge or even eliminate many, if not all, of those undemocratic safe-seat constituencies we mentioned earlier. Seats at this local level would be chosen under the “first past the post” electoral system. All parties, groups and independents may run as candidates in these local or constituency polls as well as in the national polls.

All candidates would be identified by name recognition, party or group affiliation, if any, and parish residence. Independent candidates in the constituency polls may run only in the constituency where they reside or are registered to vote. In the remaining 11 constituencies, independent candidates’ names may appear on the national ballot only if they have registered that they will be running in the national polls as well.

Political parties and all non-independent or affiliated candidates will be permitted to run as a named political party or group only in the national poll — for example, as the PLP, OBA, Free Democratic Movement — and not by entering personal names of their individual member national candidates who would be chosen internally by their respective political parties or groups. Those names would appear on a group or political party-based internal priority list in a top-down order from first to ninth and must be published at a set time before any given election takes place so that voters may at least see for whom they are voting

B, National divisions, MPs and polls

The remaining nine seats of Parliament would constitute seats to be fought for in the national polls. The resulting MPs would be “national” MPs. These national MPs would be chosen by the application of a simple “proportional representation electoral process or model” — or an appropriate variant. The idea is that the number and choice of the seats accorded to each of the national MPs in Parliament reflect accurately and proportionately the number and choice of votes derived from the voting process used to produce that number and choice of seats in Parliament.

National MPs would be constituted by persons who may have national appeal but not necessarily sufficient appeal to voters in or at a given local or constituency level. Indeed, such persons may have an appeal in both the constituency and the national polls. Those persons ought to be given the opportunity to prove that such is the case at both levels, or at least in one or the other. The intent is to give both the electorate and the candidates the widest choices possible to be represented in both the constituency-level polls as well as in the national-level polls.

The national polls would have an island-wide electorate of all registered or “voting” voters, an “open constituency” boundary that would be designed to remove or ameliorate the prejudicial impact or deleterious effect of gerrymandering, safe seats and other undemocratic behaviour. The candidate running in these polls would have voters from St George’s and St David’s the length of the island to Sandys Parish. These voters would do so, if they choose to vote in the national polls, right from the comfort and convenience of the differently coloured national ballot bearing the national candidates’ names, parties, groups, etc, provided for them at the constituency polls where they reside and are voting in the local constituency.

Briefly: how the MM or AM two-tier electoral system works and what we should expect

It would not be a politically astute or smart thing to think, however, theoretically or academically, that any given party or registered independent or groups, if elected at the 12 division constituency level polls, could conceivably win or form government simply by winning — in the case of a political party or accepted group — at least 11 of the 12 constituencies whether they ran a candidate or gained no seats at all at or in the national polls.

That political party or group would have attained the majority of parliamentary votes needed to govern; that is 11 out of the 21 seats comprising parliament. If any one political party or group is not able to achieve a majority of votes to govern in its own right as a result of its performance at either the constituency polls or national polls, or both, then a coalition government or even cabinet including others would be likely the result. That coalition would have to include at least one other political party, independent candidate or registered groups to form a government and cabinet to run the country.

If there is a tie at the constituency level for two, three or four political parties or groups, with none of them gaining any seats at the national polls, independent candidates particularly winning at the national polls could determine which party or group would ultimately govern the country, as a coalition, over the ensuing election cycle or legally mandated period.

The rationale or necessity of the eligibility or elimination threshold briefly explained

The application of the “vote threshold” is to encourage quality candidates in all categories to go out and canvass widely the national island-wide electorate to garner the requisite number of eligible votes to give them a shot at gaining a seat in Parliament under the proportional representation electoral model. Who does finally gain a seat would be determined by the overall proportionate result for each candidate at the national polls. The “threshold” as well is an attempt to discourage nuisance or non-serious candidates who wish only to frustrate or make a mockery of the fluency and/or integrity of the electoral process.

For example, the eligibility or elimination threshold could be set at a level whereby each candidate, party or group would have to gain, say, one ninth of the vote in the national polls or 11 per cent of those voting at the national polls to an acceptable number of votes. Where there are, say, 36,000 persons registered for the national poll, then each candidate — as an independent, party or group — would have to garner at least 4,000 of the registered votes or 11 per cent of those voting in the poll, whichever is a predetermined and acceptable lesser number of votes.

Candidates would have to achieve the requisite number of threshold votes to avoid being disqualified from participating in any further count or calculations. In the event the eligibility or elimination threshold does not produce the nine national MPs required, another default mechanism could be put in place and deployed on a straight proportionality basis, which may include the votes cast for candidates at the constituency level. Of course, the eligibility or elimination threshold could, in and of itself, be eliminated altogether from the proportional representation system in mind.

However, if the threshold is used and the requisite number of votes are attained to satisfy it, then the issue of which candidate, party or group receives a seat and/or the majority of the seats in Parliament would be determined proportionately, as the process of tallying votes progresses and finalises under the proportional representation mechanism.

For example, if at the national polls the PLP receives proportionately one third of the votes, it would achieve three of the nine national MP seats in Parliament; the other two thirds of the national votes, and seats in Parliament, would be shared among the OBA, FDM, groups and independents proportionately to the number of national votes they achieved at these polls. A coalition parliament would have been attained via this electoral process — and conceivably a cabinet and government.

The best example of illustrating the stark differences in results engendered when applying the “first past the post” electoral system as opposed to the proportional representation we have in mind can be seen in the aftermath of the most recently held by-election in Sandys Parish.

We will ignore for the moment that only 38 per cent of all registered voters in Sandys North came out to vote, which itself should raise political eyebrows. Voter apathy is never a good thing, particularly in an alleged thriving democracy as Bermuda would like to think it is.

That notwithstanding, the results under the FPTP system demonstrate the huge wastage of votes, and the spectacle of a “massive disenfranchisement of voters” under that system. More voters did not vote for the “winner” than voted for her. There are no pejorative connotations or aspersions ascribed or cast against the successful PLP MP. It is, however, a proper and scathing indictment of the electoral system that produced such a bizarre and undemocratic result — a result very much to the distinct disadvantage of the remaining candidates participating in that election and an affront to those who voted for them.

Such a system, at the constituency and national level, neuters the principle “one person, one vote of equal value”. And for years we have told the successive powers that be this fact. We as an intelligent people deserve more from our leaders. We have here a parliamentarian produced by a “minority vote” to the complete exclusion from Parliament of other deserving candidates who, collectively, garnered more votes than the newly minted parliamentarian in that by-election.

Where, pray tell, have all the approximately 294 “no” votes really gone? To losers, everyone, except the three spoilt or rejected votes. When will we ever learn? On the principle of “one person, one vote of equal value”, what are the proponents for, and practitioners of, the present system of FPTP saying about that?

The transposing of the proportional representation system and implications

Let’s now see the same results of Constituency 36 in the context of a wider, national, “open constituency boundary” context around the entire island, and in a General Election.

Let’s too, untrammelled by, or in the absence of, undemocratic, gerrymandered districts and safe seat areas, divide the island into 36 equal or near-equal political constituencies within which there are 36,000 registered and voting voters, all voting under an island-wide proportional representation system in Bermuda.

We are, of course, attempting to see just how closely, if at all, the seats that could be gained in Parliament by the candidates under study would be reflected in the proportion of votes they achieved in the polling process and circumstances of and at the recent by-election when the proportional representation electoral system is in operation.

The PLP achieved one seat in Parliament from 162 votes, which represents 35.53 per cent of those voting at those polls, or 13.5 per cent of the registered voters for Sandys North.

Marc Bean, of the FDM, received no seat in Parliament despite receiving 108 votes or 54 votes fewer than the successful PLP candidate. His votes constitute 23.68 per cent of those voting at those polls, or 9 per cent of the registered voters for Sandys North.

The independent candidate Ci’re Bean received no seat in Parliament despite garnering 95 votes, or 67 votes fewer than the PLP candidate and 13 votes fewer than the FDM candidate. Ci’re’s votes constituted 20.83 per cent of those voting at the polls and approximately 8 per cent of those registered to vote in the constituency.

Carl Neblett, the OBA candidate, garnered four votes fewer than the independent candidate by capturing 91 votes or 19.96 per cent of those casting a ballot, or roughly 8 per cent of all registered voters in the constituency.

Using the respective percentage votes of each candidate and transposing those numbers to a 36-seat parliament chosen by a 36,000-strong electorate voting under a “no threshold” proportional representation system theoretically produces the following results:

The PLP as a political party, and gaining 35.53 per cent of the electorate’s votes, would have garnered approximately 12,790 votes and 13 seats in Parliament.

The FDM as a political party, and at 23.68 per cent, would have garnered approximately 8,525 votes and nine seats in Parliament.

Independent candidates, as a group and at 20.83 per cent of the polling vote, would have garnered approximately 7,499 votes and seven seats in Parliament.

The OBA as a political party, and at 19.96 per cent, would have garnered approximately 7,186 votes and seven seats in Parliament.

With these theoretical results, and if the country was to be governed at all, stably or otherwise, the minority-seat PLP, which received the most seats from this general election but not enough to form a government in its own right, would of necessity have to employ interest-based “horse-trading” by making appropriate alliances or coalitions with the other successful candidates. The PLP in this case, to form a “coalition government and likely cabinet” from an already election-engineered and constituted coalition parliament, would have no choice. It would have to do this or head back to the polls, which is unlikely, even risky, politically.

Such a scenario as the above, would give the deserving electorate, island-wide and by direct voting, the widest possible representation and accountability over the successful MPs at the highest executive and legislative levels of government than it has ever had. That would be as it should be and would also most closely reflect the result that they cast their individual and collective ballots for in the first place. You will note at this point that we have not suggested a “power of recall” should any of these MPs, particularly the political party ones, “turn rogue” or not live up to their duties, obligations and responsibilities.

It is only then that there would be true “value” in the proposition and principle of “one person, one vote of equal value”. Then and only then would we as a community at large have made a real stab at achieving a greater democracy for all segments of our island home.

And now the way ahead

Over time, and after ironing out all the kinks in the hybrid system outlined above — and certainly after Bermuda gains greater political sophistication and maturity — the 12 constituencies operating under the outmoded, undemocratic, “first past the post” electoral process may be safely removed and discarded altogether. Bermuda can then transition to an island-wide, open-boundary 21-square-mile political constituency operating under a fairer and appropriate variant of a proportional representation electoral process or system. Such a system would give full or fuller value to the principle “one person, one vote of equal value”.

In such a scenario we could rid ourselves of the farcical exercise every ten years or so of assembling a majority non-technical but highly partisan boundaries commission to allegedly politically hash out inherently unfair boundaries to keep intact the undemocratic “safe seats” and gerrymandered districts we mentioned earlier.

Nothing of any real material substance or political consequence is, or has ever been, achieved on the issue of a fairer and greater democracy in and for Bermuda through that vacuous exercise. That practice is nothing short of a ritualistic game of perennially “moving the parish boundary furniture around the undemocratic decks of a sinking and shrinking Titanic-prone democracy”. We can and should do better if we wish to truly earn the moniker of “an advanced and sophisticated democracy”. Let’s not knowingly be hypocrites.

It is only the will of the people of Bermuda, however, that is ultimately going to set things on the right course to a greater and fairer democracy for all races, classes, minorities of one persuasion or the other, genders and ideologies. Political will, I’m afraid, particularly in the face and reality of egos, personal aggrandisement and opportunistic avarice, is virtually non-existent or on life support in Bermuda.

Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the two-tier proportional representation electoral system I have outlined begins to put Bermuda’s democracy firmly in the hands of the people at large where it rightfully belongs. Happy to hear other suggestions, of course, along these lines.

Anything less, I hold, is a farce, a subterfuge and a pernicious, feckless game of “smoke and mirrors” that we, and particularly our future generations, can ill afford.

• Phil Perinchief was attorney-general under the Progressive Labour Party government between 2006 and 2007