changes and has made some promises about more meetings and consultation.

That's good.

She and her Government might be wise to consider the idea of having an Island-wide debate on the entire Constitution and how Bermuda wishes to be governed.

This is an opportunity for the PLP to be more than a partisan government and to be a facilitator and leader of the whole community which can, together, define the Constitution for the 21st Century.

That's a better process than the current one in which the Premier, at least based on her statements at the public meeting, takes the view that the 54 percent of the vote won by the PLP in 1998 is a mandate for change, and that anyone who opposes it must be a UBP supporter.

Nor should this appeal be seen as opposition for its own sake. The Constitution should be a document which is respected by all sides and which can be changed through a set and agreed-upon process. Clearly it has weaknesses. Equally, it should not be something which can be changed at a whim by different parties when they attain power.

It is true that the United Bermuda Party gained changes to the Constitution without a constitutional conference or a constitutional commission.

In the early 1970s, Sir Edward Richards gained some name changes -- including changing the title of Government Leader to Premier -- and in the mid-1980s, Sir John Swan won the right for Bermuda to negotiate on its own behalf with foreign powers.

Those changes, arguably more minor than a revamp of the election system, demonstrate the need for a fixed and agreed-upon process for change. The present, alternating method suits no one.

Since the public meeting, there does appear to be a growing consensus in favour of single seat constituencies.

The National Liberal Party, which may have one foot in the grave anyway, has thrown its weight behind the idea, essentially signing its own death warrant in the process as the Westminster system is designed to squash third parties whose support is wide, but not deep.

The UBP has not yet made plain where it stands on the issue except to acknowledge the inequities in the current system.

Single-seat constituency systems, especially large ones, have two flaws. One is the tendency of majorities to be magnified. Thus, in Barbados, the Opposition party has two seats out of 28. In Grenada, the Government holds all 15 seats. Both countries have been used to show how Bermuda is "over-represented''; is this what Bermuda wants? The second is the risk that one party will win the popular vote and the other the majority of seats. This, basically, is what happened in the United States this month.

But Americans accept the rules as they are laid out in their Constitution; clearly there are flaws in the Bermuda Constitution and there is no consensus in its support now.

Last week's public debate answered some questions at the same time it demonstrated that the Premier has difficulty distinguishing between people asking to have their fears assuaged and those who want to question her integrity.

The answer is to have more meetings and to have them on the whole Constitution so that the whole community can have a set of rules that all can respect.