Calls for the Boundaries Commission's resignation were mixed with strong expressions of support for the process of electoral reform at a public meeting last night.

The difference was primarily racial - in general elderly white people were the most sceptical of the process and black people the most supportive.

People of both races did however, express a need for more information to allow them to make educated submissions.

“We never thought we would see this day when we would have the opportunity to have a vote that was equal,” said Austin Wade, a 67-year-old black man.

“I would like for those people who are objecting to get over it - just get over it.” He gave a quick run round of electoral injustices, saying: “Those things are there for us to remember... I'm not bitter. I'm just glad to have the opportunity.”

Few of the over 130 people who showed up at St. Paul's Centennial Hall actually made comments relevant to the Commission's work - that of redrawing the electoral boundaries under a revamped single seat electoral system.

And the first meeting between the public and the Boundaries Commission had chairman Sir Frank Blackman say repeatedly that the Commission was committed to share relevant information with the public.

All the key players were there - ordinary working class people, leaders of the two main political parties and members of the lobby group Association for Due Process and the Constitution.

The Commission itself was missing Eugene Cox who is away on official business.

The meeting started off with a presentation by Works and Engineering staffers demonstrating technology capable of rendering equal size constituencies with a few mouse clicks - and extracting statistical information on census districts, postal zones, parishes and the implications of creating new constituencies.

“What we are proposing is that this whole process will be completely automated,” said Tim Viney, senior land surveyor. “So once we have finished collecting all the statistical information, add it to our systems, we are then able to generate these polygons (hypothetical constituencies) completely at random” based on the number of constituencies decided upon. “The system will generate those constituencies based purely on the address points and the roads.”

Some members of the audience were concerned that the number of seats should not be too low - power would be concentrated in too few hands and the quality of democracy would suffer, the argument went.

Some suggested that if the numbers of MPs are reduced then Bermuda should have full time politicians.

“The fortunes of parties ebb and flow. Parties come and go. I would hope that the interests of the Bermuda public and the Bermudian voter can be made paramount over the more at times, naked interests of political parties in this process,” said political commentator Rolfe Commissiong.

Mr. Commissiong declared that he could “live quite comfortably” with a 40 seat House, but would accept one with 31 or 35 members.

“After all a House with 35 members would be 15 more constituencies than currently exist.”

He added that the final number should be an odd number - to plug the potential of a constitutional crisis in the event a general election returns equal numbers of seats to the political parties.

In response to a question whether the Commission would create and publish a written record of the meeting, Sir Frank said he could not guarantee a record will be published.

But he assured the questioner that a record was being kept and told the audience that their views were important to the Commission's deliberations.

Some, however, did not agree that the Commission should be deliberating at all.

“I think you are faced with a daunting task in six of you trying to decide how many constituents 60,000 people should have,” said William Zuill, Sr. “It seems to me, for honourable people, faced with this extraordinary problem, you have two honourable courses to take. One would be for you to excuse yourself from making such a decision at all.”

The other, he said, was to have a referendum on the matter. The Commission was “not truly fitted to do this task,” he added.

“It is really a political decision, not a technical one... Therefore I hope you will allow us all to eventually make the political decision.”

One other person voiced his agreement.

Sir Frank reminded the audience that the report would be debated in the House and sent with the report of the House debate to Whitehall. “The responsibility for recommending numbers will not end with this Commission - there will be opportunity for debate on that report,” he said.

Support for a proportional representation electoral system was voiced by a number of people - all of whom had attended a recent lecture on alternatives to the current first past the post system.

“We shouldn't replace one blighted system with another one,” said Sanders Frith Brown. “We should have proportional representation on an Island wide slate.”

He referred to the phrase “one man one vote each vote of equal value” as a “political cachet” which only stirs emotions.

“The real reason we are here in the first place is because we have an electoral system which is not adequately fair to all the people of the country,” Howard Saltus said to loud applause. “It's really embarrassing and a shame to be even having meetings like this - to be even talking about the injustices.”

He voiced his support for the Commission, saying “the people that have historically used an unfair system to stay in power are now here to make all kinds of submissions. And you talk about being a Christian...?”