Unfortunately, this knee-jerk appeal to more as a solution to problems is a conceptual flaw that is about to be applied by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) and the island's Parliament.
Last week, the Senate gave its assent to legislation, in effect, to amend the Constitution to increase the number of allowable parliamentary constituencies to 65, from the current 60. It is proposed, however, that the actual number of constituencies be initially increased by three, which could happen in time for the next general election.
The change in the constituency numbers is on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission which, in its current form as well as its earlier incarnation as the Electoral Advisory Committee, has done much good work to advance Jamaica's electoral system. Indeed, the ECJ has flawless intent for wanting both the maximum in play at the next general election, to be an odd or uneven number.
Jamaica's last general election, in 2007, was after all a nerve-wracking affair that ended, eventually, with a thin four-seat majority for the Jamaica Labour Party. But for a long time it appeared as though the contest was heading for a tie - as had happened twice in Trinidad and Tobago.
Indeed, the events in Port-of-Spain had helped to concentrate minds in Jamaica on the possibility for political instability should the same thing occur here.
Solution
The proposed solution was to make an election tie a mathematical impossibility. It, however, does not require an increase in the number of constituencies for that to happen. Nor is there anything inevitable about the numbers proposed by the ECJ. In fact, the Constitution set the minimum number of constituencies that we would prefer to see.
The other rules relating to constituencies are that they should not cross parish boundaries and the maximum number of voters per constituency should not exceed the quota by more than half. The quota is arrived at by dividing the number of registered voters by the number of constituencies, for a current quota of a little over 24,000. That is not a large number of constituents per riding, especially in a system that also provides for local-government representation. An increase in constituencies will reduce the number of people per constituency.
It will also do something more: increase the cost of constituency management - including the wages and benefits of MPs - the financing of elections and expanding the opportunities for the distribution of political pork, which tends to be an engine for corruption. And it offers little or no guarantee of improved political representation.
A smaller parliament may even do us some other good. It will reduce the number of people for whom the PM has to find jobs in the executive - which will be good for the public-sector wage bill - and induce a slimline, more efficient Cabinet and greater discipline in government.
We acknowledge the past efforts of the ECJ and appreciate why its proposals are, by convention, rubber-stamped by the Parliament. This time, however, there is cause to rethink this 'consensus' and to do what is logical and affordable.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.