Majority Rule and the Boundaries of a Constituency
In 1962, a commission is asked to redraw constituency boundaries before the next general election. The population is concentrated in New Providence, but the Out Islands hold a disproportionate number of seats under the existing scheme. The governing party, whose support is strongest in the Out Islands, argues that the Out Islands need extra representation because of their isolation and small populations. The opposition, strongest in New Providence, argues that equal representation of people is the foundation of the constitution and that the current scheme entrenches a minority. The commission has data showing that one New Providence seat has 9,000 voters while an Out Island seat has 700. The commission must recommend a scheme to the governor, who will lay it before the Assembly, where the governing party has a majority.
1. What principles should guide the commission's recommendation?
Read the worked answer
The commission should weigh three principles: numerical equality of voters, effective representation of distinct communities, and the practical need for stability in a small colony. Numerical equality is the default in a Westminster system; gross malapportionment undermines the claim that government rests on consent. But the Out Islands are genuinely distinct: travel is difficult, and a member representing 700 scattered voters does different work from one representing 9,000 in a city. A defensible scheme allows a limited, published deviation - for example, no seat more than 30 percent above or below the average - rather than open-ended weighting. The commission should state the criteria in advance so that the recommendation cannot be read as a partisan fix.
2. How should the commission respond to the argument that the Out Islands need protection from the majority?
Read the worked answer
The argument has force but is easily abused. Minority protection is a legitimate constitutional concern, but it is normally secured by entrenched rights, a second chamber, or a bill of rights, not by giving some voters several times the weight of others. The commission can acknowledge the Out Islands' needs and recommend other measures: development funding, a guaranteed share of public works, or a senate with regional representation. It should also note that the current scheme protects a minority defined by geography, but the effect is to protect a propertied minority, since the governing party's Out Island support is not poor. A strong answer separates the legitimate concern (isolation) from the illegitimate use (permanent partisan advantage).
3. What are the political and legal limits on the commission's influence?
Read the worked answer
The commission is advisory. The governor lays its report before the Assembly, which has a governing majority and can reject or amend the scheme. There is no entrenched constitution to which the commission can appeal, so the ultimate check is political and imperial: the Colonial Office could disallow a grossly unfair scheme, but it is reluctant to intervene in local affairs. The commission's real power is legitimacy - a well-reasoned, published report with clear criteria makes a partisan rejection costly. It should therefore aim at a scheme that a fair-minded member of the governing party could defend, and it should publish the data so that the public can judge. The limits mean the commission cannot guarantee majority rule; it can only make the case harder to ignore.