"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" – James Bovard

Some odds and ends for you this week, Mr. Editor, along with a couple of what ifs:

Someone has asked: If I had my way and could overhaul the 1978 Parliamentary Election Act what changes would I like to see? Good question.

First, I would bring back those provisions which I mentioned last week that were dropped when we moved from a continuous, standing voters' register to annual registration. I won't reproduce them in their entirety, but here are the guts of what they would provide:

¦ The Parliamentary Registrar will have a clear statutory duty to keep under continuous review the voting registers for all 36 constituencies and to make such alterations as may be required to maintain true and complete records of eligible voters in each of those districts; and (very important this next one),

¦ If at any time the Registrar has "reasonable cause" to believe that a voter is incorrectly registered he may by notice inform the voter concerned that his or her name will be removed from the register unless within 30 days of notification the voter objects to the proposed removal. Notification could be by mail, or by notice in the newspaper, or both.

Secondly, any overhaul would also include:

¦ The establishment of a tribunal to oversee the administration of the Act and to assist the Parliamentary Registrar. The tribunal would function much like the Boundaries Commission, with two appointees each for Government and Opposition, and two independents appointed by the Governor, one of whom would serve as chairman and who would have the deciding vote if it came down to that.

¦ The introduction of a postal ballot providing strictly that the ballot must be cast and sealed in an envelope before a recognised notary public, that is a person such as a lawyer who is legally empowered to witness and certify the identity of the voter and the validity of the documents.

¦ A continuous advanced poll for those who will be abroad on polling day rather than just the one day the week before.

¦ Stiffer penalties for those who deliberately register in constituencies in which they do not reside.

These would be a good start.

Bye- by-elections

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest last week that the entire $411,000 budget increase for the Office of Parliamentary Registrar was to fund two new posts, Comptroller and Legalisation Officer for the Apostille service. Not too shabby if it was, but it isn't, so there's no need to make inquiries and rush off job applications; although it does look like good work if you can get it. There were a couple of other reasons for the increase, the most noticeable of which to us were: an extra $35,000 for the Boundaries Commission which is finishing up its work and an extra $32,000 in funding for general and by-elections, jumping from $64,000 to $96,000 for the current financial year. OK then, the Parliamentary Registrar must know something. After all, we only had one by-election last year (following the untimely death of Nelson Bascome). So clearly he must be expecting at least one more, maybe two. Any guesses? The Premier has said – and the official line out of Alaska Hall – is that he will bring about one come October. I tried asking about the other, but the Parliamentary Registrar isn't telling us what he thinks he knows.

Size matters

Try to imagine a robust committee system like they have in London or Ottawa or Washington even. Now that would be something. That would go beyond just an active Public Accounts Committee, probing in the public eye Government contracts and Government spending, but extend to standing committees of MPs drawn from all benches, and Senators too in some cases, who could tackle the hot button issues of the day – like rapidly escalating health care costs and the challenges of affordable health insurance, or for something completely different but worthwhile, congressional-type hearings into what went wrong at the Bank of Butterfield.

Did I forget crime? Not necessarily. A joint select committee to examine what can be done has been mentioned and kicked around for some time now by any number of members from all sides of the House, dating back to the first rash of shootings which started before Christmas. Christmas! The trouble is joint select committees don't just materialise on their own. Someone has to make a motion to make it happen. It hasn't, so far.

I'm all in favour of a stronger network of committees, giving backbenchers an opportunity to roll up their sleeves and explore through witnesses, and representations from the public, problems and potential solutions to the major issues of the day. It would be nice to see the Legislature develop into something more than just an echo chamber or reading room with the occasional debate. I have to be careful what I wish for though. There are limitations on what we can do that stem from our size in the first instance. Yes, size does matter. There are after all only so many MPs to go around (Ministers being ineligible to serve on committees: the theory being that they have a country to run from the Cabinet table, subject to the checks and balances of a vigilant Legislature). In the second instance, there are limited resources: staff and funding being the most obvious.

Some coincidence

It's an issue with which we can come to grips (maybe) whenever we get down (maybe) to that parliamentary conference which the Progressive Labour Party Government promised to "champion" and arrange for under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to see how we could develop a modernised Legislature. Well, we're still waiting, Mr. Editor.

P.S. What an interesting coincidence this: the Bermuda branch of the CPA has been invited to send three delegates to the 35th Regional Conference of the Caribbean, Americas and Atlantic Region in Trinidad at the end of July. The conference theme: 'Modernisation of Caribbean Parliaments: Forging Our Own Identity'. Someone somewhere is listening.

Your thoughts? Write jbarritt@ibl.bm.