constitutional meetings do not appear to have settled matters on the changes proposed by Government much.

While the FCO officials have, under their two-step proposal, clarified how the process will work and arguably added more checks and balances, the concept of change, at least as it relates to constituencies, remains much the same. In other words, other ideas, both on the best form of electoral reform and on the process -- via the Boundaries Commission and a vote in the House of Assembly versus a Constitutional Conference and a referendum -- appear, at this stage, to have been ignored.

The bigger picture and the need for wider reforms to the Constitution, not the least of which is the absence of a clear mechanism for making those changes, do not seem to have been addressed, although it may be that the FCO wants more time to digest those issues. That is the optimist's view and it is to be hoped that the FCO will recognise the depth of feelings that surround the issue, and does not lump together the reasoned concerns with the hysterics about ethnic cleansing and so on.

What Bermuda and the FCO should be aiming for is the fairest and most representative government possible; this newspaper does not believe that the system proposed by Premier Jennifer Smith will achieve that. The Premier and the Government have still failed to give a satisfactory explanation of how fewer MPs will lead to better representation.

And the Westminster system, while it may be better than our existing one, has flaws, which were again demonstrated in the St. Vincent elections last week where the winning party won 15 seats with 57 percent of the vote and the losing party gained three seats with 43 percent. That may be one man, one vote of roughly equal value, but it is not democracy.

Last week's process left two questions unanswered. One concerns what happens if there is another change of government and the winning party has a recommendation for a change in the election system in its manifesto.

Presumably, under the precedent set last week, that Government, and any other new one, will be able to bend the Constitution to its will.

The second question concerns what happens in another five to seven years time.

Does the Boundaries Commission start its work all over again, setting numbers and boundaries from scratch? Finally, it is to be hoped that the FCO will recognise that the existing mechanism for changing the Constitution is hopelessly outmoded and tortuous.

It is quite possible that the major parties will never agree on the best way to change the Constitution. But there should be a higher bar for change than a simple majority of those present for a vote in the House of Assembly.