Parliamentary session when she proposed changes to the Island's election system.

Her discussion paper envisions the replacement of dual-seat constituencies with single seats and the abolition of parish boundaries as the basis for drawing constituencies.

The paper fulfils the long-held Progressive Labour Party promise of single seat constituencies.

It is also aimed at ending the long-time PLP complaint that the current system is unfair in that it gives voters in parishes with smaller populations such as Smith's and Paget greater representation than more heavily-populated parishes like Warwick.

Ms Smith's paper instead calls for single seat constituencies composed of an equal number of -- "or as near as can be'' -- of registered voters.

On the surface, this may seem to be fair, although there will be many who will question the wholesale abandonment of the historic parish boundaries for a new, and as yet undetermined, division which may not guarantee equal constituencies either.

Indeed, nowhere in the paper, which will be published in full in tomorrow's Royal Gazette , does it state how many seats the current 40-seat House will have, nor what the Government sees as an ideal constituency size.

Nor is there any examination of what happens as the population grows. Does the number of seats remain fixed, or does it increase (or decrease) to reflect changes in the size of the population.

Indeed, Ms Smith appears to leave those decisions to the Boundaries Commission, which meets in secret and is made up of just five members: An independent chairman, who usually comes from abroad, two Government members and two Opposition members. The public is entitled to question whether this is the fairest and most open forum to decide the most momentous changes proposed for the Constitution since it was drafted in 1968.

What is also disappointing is that the Government has chosen to ignore any other form of election system which could result in even fairer returns, such as some form of proportional representation or a combination of PR and first past the post.

The strength and weakness of first past the post (the Westminster system) lies in its tendency to disproportionately reward the victor at the expense of the loser. Thus, a relatively narrow election victory can result in one party having a disproportionate number of seats in the legislature. Indeed, a party can fail to secure a majority, or even a plurality of the popular vote, but still have a majority of the seats.

That assures strong government but diminishes democracy.

And in defence of the current election system, no party has ever won the Government without winning a true majority of the vote.

PR's weakness is that it assures fair representation for all points of view, but can make it difficult for a party to form a government, at least without a coalition. That is why Britain, the home of the Westminster system, has been experimenting with a combination of PR and first past the post for elections to the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.

No-one should be surprised that Government is moving on its election promise, but it is disappointing that its approach to a discussion paper, unlike Home Affairs Minister Paula Cox's wide ranging paper on long term residents, also tabled on Friday, is narrow and that its proposed methods seem aimed at reducing public debate, not on encouraging it.