This debate has ranged over several days and there is little left to say so far as the pros and cons of the two proposals before the House are concerned. It is not my intention to go back on statements made in the debate that took place in 1959 because that would serve no useful purpose. So far as the merits of proportional representation are concerned, they were, I think, admirably summed up by the President in 1937 when he told this House that the system we have we know; the people know it; it gives fair representation to all Parties. No change has taken place in the interim which warrants bringing before the House at this stage the two proposals to amend the Constitution. The President summed up the position very well in 1937.
We know from the statistics provided by various speakers that proportional representation has given fair representation. The Government Party have benefited to some extent by getting a slightly higher percentage of seats than their actual first preference votes would entitle them to and I can see little reason, therefore, for this proposal now before the House, a proposal that is taking up a great deal of the time of the House and will later take up a great deal of the time of the Seanad. But there is another consideration: this referendum will cost a great deal of money which could be utilised in a more gainful manner. It can be safely assumed from the opinions we hear expressed in the country generally that this referendum has no chance of succeeding. The people will reject it because they know it is not brought in from the point of view of the national interest; it is brought in purely and simply from the Fianna Fáil point of view. Fianna Fáil in general, and the members of the Government in particular, believe that, if our electoral system were changed from proportional representation to the straight vote, they would have a good chance of remaining in office for the next ten or 15 years.