It seems that those in authority are intent on going through with their plan to increase the number of parliamentary constituencies to 63, from the current 60.

As we have done before, we suggest that the Electoral Commission, which is providing the intellectual leadership and delimitation on this project, and the Parliament's Boundaries Committee, which will formally execute the plan, reconsider their move. For as much as we understand their thinking, the change is not necessary. And definitely not in these bad economic times. Indeed, there is a better, and certainly cheaper, way to achieve the objective behind this proposal.

Clearly, close election results in Trinidad and Tobago, including, on two occasions, a hung parliament, concentrated minds in Jamaica on the likely political effect should the same thing happen here. For more than a long while on the night of the 2007 general election it seemed that it might. The Jamaica Labour Party and the People's National Party appeared headed for a tie. In the end, the JLP gained a four-seat majority.

Nothing inevitable

So, the idea is to declare in the Constitution a minimum allowable number of parliamentary seats of 65, but have 63 ridings in play by the next general election, due in 2012. There is, however, nothing inevitable about those figures.

In fact, the Jamaican Constitution at present stipulates a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 60 seats. It is possible, therefore, to reduce the number of constituencies by one, or to any odd number up to 59, to achieve the intent of the current plan.

Our preference, of course, would be for the planners to be as robust as possible in trimming the number of ridings - down to the minimum now allowed by the Constitution. Such a move would hardly do violence to the quality of representation received by constituencies which, mostly, is not good. But that has less to do with the number of constituencies than with the cynicism that runs too deep in the Jamaican political process and, in our view, the quality of representation this cynicism has spawned.

Avenue to corruption

An increase in constituencies is likely to exacerbate the problem. It will hike the cost of running the parliament - more people in the House with little to do, but having to be paid wages and provided benefits. It will also mean more people to be enticed to the idea of distributing political pork which, of itself, is an avenue to corruption.

A smaller parliament, we feel, would have the advantage of forcing on the prime minister the discipline of structuring a slim-line and efficient Cabinet and reducing the number of people for whom he has to find jobs in the executive. All of this is good for the national treasury.

We expect to hear the argument that fewer constituencies will lead to far too many constituents per riding and per MP - a claim that may have been worthwhile in an earlier period but is of little validity in today's world with its efficient and efficacious communications infrastructure.

Moreover, Jamaica has a local government system - which it is insistent on maintaining - which, if it operates reasonably well, should reduce much of the pressure from the national representative.

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.