The runoff pro­pos­al in the Con­sti­tu­tion (Amend­ment) Bill 2014 has been the sub­ject of con­fu­sion over the last two weeks fol­low­ing the Prime Min­is­ter's state­ment on Au­gust 4, in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives and the lay­ing of the bill it­self on that date.

The re­al­i­ty is that the Con­sti­tu­tion Re­form Com­mis­sion had a re­port dat­ed De­cem­ber 27, 2013, which was sub­mit­ted to the Cab­i­net on a unan­i­mous ba­sis. The re­port was made pub­lic sub­se­quent­ly and fur­ther pub­lic con­sul­ta­tions were held on the re­port in Feb­ru­ary this year. Af­ter those con­sul­ta­tions, the com­mis­sion made fur­ther com­ments on a unan­i­mous ba­sis on April 30, 2014. Af­ter that, the com­mis­sion sub­mit­ted an ad­den­dum on Ju­ly 18, 2014, to the Cab­i­net on a unan­i­mous ba­sis.

Af­ter the Prime Min­is­ter spoke in the House at the be­gin­ning of the Fifth Ses­sion of this Par­lia­ment on Au­gust 4, when the bill was laid for first read­ing, some views were changed.

The crux of the po­si­tion was that the com­mis­sion nev­er rec­om­mend­ed any oth­er sys­tem of elec­tion for the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives than the first-past-the-post sys­tem. That rec­om­men­da­tion was al­tered in its com­ments on April 30 to seek a "fair­er" method with­in the first-past-the-post sys­tem, and on Ju­ly 18, the method agreed was the runoff method of the first-past-the-post sys­tem.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/dig­i­tal/new-mem­bers