It is regrettable, but not surprising, that Government House has received fewer than ten submissions on how changes to the Constitution should be made in the future.

It was not that long ago that Bermuda saw mass public meetings take place on this very issue, and deep concerns voiced about the ability of any government to change the Constitution simply by the passage of a motion or bill in the House of Assembly, regardless of how major or minor the changes are.

Now, just two years or so later, requests for proposals on better ways of changing the single most important legal document in Bermuda are greeted with a yawn.

That?s too bad. The apathy may be because there are no plans to change the Constitution right now. But that means there is all the more reason to have a calm and reasoned debate now, rather than in the heat of the moment.

One way forward would be to require that any constitutional changes be approved by a ?super-majority? in the House of Assembly of two-thirds or three-quarters of all MPs.

This would prevent changes being made by narrow majorities and would often require that any changes would need cross-party support.

Then, of course, the changes would still need the agreement of the British Government.

While this would meet some of the concerns over how changes are made, it does not solve all concerns about a party with a large, or disproportionate majority in the House of Assembly being able to ram through changes that might, conceivably, be opposed by as much as half the population.

For example, while the current Progressive Labour Party Government secured 51.5 percent of the popular vote in the last General Election, it won 61 percent of the seats. That meant the United Bermuda Party, with 48 percent of the vote, received 39 percent of the seats.

It is the nature of the Westminster system to disproportionately reward the winner of an election. But it is debatable whether MPs should then be given so much sway over the document that gives them their power. One party might be able to claim 66.6 percent of the seats in the House, but could only claim to represent 50 percent (or fewer) of the Island?s voters.

For that reason, a referendum on Constitutional changes is the better avenue. Again, this should require a ?super-majority? of two-thirds support with a requirement that voter turnout should be at least two-thirds as well.

That would prevent any changes to the Constitution being taken lightly. It is a document that needs to be sufficiently flexible to reflect changing times while it must have enough permanence to be reliable.

The question of referendum timing is also important. Having referendums at any time is costly and time-consuming and runs the risk of turnout falling below a meaningful threshold.

Having a referendum at the same time as a General Election prevents those problems. The election machinery is already in place and a strong turnout is virtually certain, at least in Bermuda, where voter turnout is traditionally high for general elections.

It has the added advantage of ensuring that the current government, whoever it may be, cannot change the Constitution for its own benefit. Only the successor government will be affected by the changes.

There will be approaches other than this one. It is important, if Bermudians value their Constitution ? and they do, to have as many submissions reflecting as many view points as possible put forward.

The extension of the deadline by Government House should give ample time to prepare and make submissions.

People who fail to do so give up their right to complain if changes to the process, or changes to the Constitution itself, are made that they do not like.