No Need for More At-Large Seats
Territorial At-Large Representative Stacy “Budda” Mather says he opposes the Constitutional Review Commission’s recommendation to add two At-Large members to the House of Assembly, arguing the existing system already fails to deliver. His comments add to growing concerns from lawmakers about accountability, cost and the practicality of expanding a system many say is not working.
Stacy “Budda” Mather, the Territorial At-Large Representative, has publicly rejected a Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) recommendation to increase At-Large members in the House of Assembly from four to six. Speaking during the parliamentary debate on the CRC report, Mather said he was firmly against any expansion of membership. “I want to categorically say this: I’m not in favour of increasing the number of members in the House,” he said. “You know why?
Nobody buys more of something if they already have it and ain’t using it.” Mather questioned the practical effect of adding two more territory-wide representatives if the underlying At-Large system remains flawed. “What are you gonna do with those two At-Large members? We’re gonna say they’re invading districts, and stepping over to places where they don’t have any kind of say?
Why expand something if you’re not going to use it,” he asked. The CRC proposed the change as part of broader measures intended to strengthen national representation and improve accountability. However, the commission’s own report acknowledged that “the At-Large system is not working,” language Mather and other legislators have echoed.
Natalio Wheatley has also recognised the system’s shortcomings, saying it has presented “challenges over the years.” Opposition Leader Myron Walwyn has questioned the value of simply adding members and suggested exploring alternative models — including the possibility of a bicameral legislature — to better balance representation and oversight.
For many residents, the At-Large seat was introduced decades ago to give voters territory-wide choice and to ensure elected officials could represent broader interests beyond district lines. Critics now say the model has produced overlaps with district representatives, blurred lines of accountability, and given rise to tensions about where At-Large members should focus their efforts.
Mather’s intervention highlights a central dilemma for BVI lawmakers: whether increasing the size of the House would address democratic deficits or merely add expense and complexity without meaningful reform. Opponents of expansion warn of increased costs to taxpayers and further dilution of responsibility, while supporters of change argue that more At-Large members could boost national perspective and oversight.
As the constitutional review debate continues, the territory faces decisions about both the shape of its legislature and the mechanisms that would make any expansion effective. Lawmakers will need to weigh reforms to the At-Large system itself alongside any changes in numbers to ensure improved clarity, accountability and value for the public.
Primary source: BVI News