For many, the state constitution has become a cork bottling up their anger. An election cannot be held until March 26, 2011. The constant barrage of bad news stories about NSW Labor and the theatrics that have replaced good government make it difficult for many to wait that long.

As a result, the fixed-term election is being depicted as enemy No. 1 for delaying the clean-up of state politics that would come from allowing voters to go to an early poll. It is worth remembering that when fixed terms were adopted in 1991, after much hard work by independent MPs, it was seen as a plus for democracy. It removed the power of one person, the premier, to call the election when it suited his or her political fortunes.

Giving this power back to the premier or allowing the governor to intervene and send an unpopular government to an early poll is not an advance for democracy.

But the debate about building a right of recall into the state constitution has merit. An improvement of the democratic process is needed. There have been surprisingly few advances since the 19th century campaigns of the Chartists for universal suffrage, secret ballots and payment for MPs.

A number of letters to the editor published in the Herald have warned that there can be a downside to the right of recall on unpopular governments. In most of the US states with this provision, the bar is set at 12 per cent of votes cast at the previous election. Many now think this is too low. Cashed-up lobby groups and corporate interests are able to wheel out sophisticated campaigns to gather the necessary number of signatures.

The Greens do not rule out building a right of recall into the NSW constitution. But we need a community-wide debate to answer questions about how to achieve such a change, so the democratic process is advanced but sectional groups do not find ways to exploit the recall provision.

How do we determine the number of voters needed to petition for a recall? Would the new parliament sit for another four years, or just finish off the term of the previous one? Would the upper house be dismissed along with the lower house?

Even if we won a recall right and the constitution was amended, such a change would not address many of the issues making voters cynical and angry. Corrupted preselections, factional infighting and the lack or proportional voting in lower house elections still need to be addressed.

Imagine how differently the current political situation in NSW could have played out if no one party dominated the house in which government is formed; if the composition of the NSW Parliament truly represented the voters' intention in the last election, and if issues could be considered on their merit.

The major parties have worked hard over the years to give proportional representation a bad rap. It has been equated with dysfunctional governments. But the benefits are many.

A lower house that represented the diverse political views of the wider community would put the government of the day under constant scrutiny. If no one party had the numbers on the floor of Parliament, accountability would have more meaning.

This could bring about the much desired early election, as under proportional representation the opposition is more likely to be able to mobilise the numbers for a vote of no confidence.

Right now, our system of election for the lower houses, in most states and federally, disenfranchises large numbers of people.

At the 2007 state election, for instance, Labor's 39 per cent of the primary vote won it an undeserved 56 per cent of lower house seats. The Coalition parties have never challenged this system, waiting for their time in the sun.

In the same election, the Liberals and Nationals picked up 38 per cent of the seats from 37 per cent of the vote. The six independents represent 6 per cent of the vote for what equates to 6 per cent of the seats. This left 18 per cent of voters with no representation in the lower house.

While voters largely got it right in that election, the electoral system gave Labor a comfortable majority that protects them from the threat of an early election.

While it is time to carefully examine whether voters should have the power for an early recall of corrupt or unpopular governments, it surely is time to introduce proportional representation into the house where government is formed.

If we had achieved that at the last election, we could well be facing a state election now if the Coalition, independent and minor party MPs voted for a no confidence motion against the Government.