Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Jun 1998

Vol. 155 No. 19

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Department considered polling station opening hours prior to the recent referenda. However, current legislation stipulates that polling stations shall be open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. I am considering changing that at a future date to facilitate a 7 a.m. start. It is increasingly evident that people are leaving home for work earlier and that the 8 a.m. opening hour might unfortunately be too late for people who have to travel to work. A 7 a.m. start would cause huge difficulties for those who work in polling stations but the public must be facilitated and we should strive to provide the best possible customer service in this regard. A case might be made for polling stations to close earlier in the evening if they open earlier in the morning. I foresee some difficulties in opening hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. as they would involve very long days for polling station workers but the suggestion of a 7 a.m. start certainly has merit.

The question of weekend voting was raised by a number of Senators. I do not share the popular notion that the level of voting would increase if polling was held at weekends. The fact that a 58 per cent turnout was recorded for the most important and historic referendum of our lifetime speaks volumes; voting occurred on a Friday in that instance and many people said that would make a huge difference to the turnout. There are more deep seated reasons people do not turn out to vote in large numbers and I do not think the day of the week on which polling is held is a major factor. If people consider the facts, they will realise that the day of the week on which poling is held is irrelevant. The level of turnout appears to be affected by the degree to which the public is engaged by the issues involved. I was hugely disappointed by the turnout for the recent referenda, particularly in regard to the Northern Agreement.

There may be some advantages to Sunday voting as it might facilitate electors who would normally be away from home during the week. It would eliminate school closures and provide a wider choice of voting times as most people do not work on Sundays. There would also be disadvantages. In the past, strenuous objections were raised by minority churches to Sunday voting, although the Catholic Church did not have any objections to it. I can find out whether those objections still hold. Weekends are also popular times for people to go on holidays, attend football matches and so on. Certain sectors of the workforce, such as those in the transport and hotel industry, are required to work at weekends and Sunday voting would offer no advantages to them.

Postal voting is now available to a wide range of people whose employment makes it difficult for them to vote and it is also available to students. It is far easier to secure locations for polling stations during the week than at weekends. This is not a black and white issue but I do not think the day of the week on which polling is held is a huge factor in turnout levels. I have no great objection to carrying out one experiment in Sunday voting but I would be very reluctant to go against the wishes of any churches on the matter if such objections still exist.

My views on the electoral system are well known. Senator Henry referred to three former prominent Fine Gael politicians who have written about this issue which obviously cannot be dealt with under the present Bill. Multi-member constituencies and the STV system are both enshrined in our Constitution and constitutional amendments would obviously be required to change that. Proposals to replace the existing system with single member constituencies and a straight vote have been rejected by the people on two previous occasions. The first past the post system is profoundly undemocratic and I would not advocate its use. In the UK one political party remained in power for 18 years. In that period that party never commanded more than 40 per cent of the vote. There is a similar system in Canada where the party in Government called an election and returned only two members. That is not good for democracy.

The programme for Government states that we want to review the electoral system and the Government has decided that the all party Oireachtas committee should examine the issue. It is right that this should be examined objectively on an all party basis. I have an ambition before I leave politics to reform not only local government but also the electoral system for Dáil constituencies.

Senator Doyle mentioned the inter and intra-party rivalry. The purpose of any electoral system is to elect a government which is representative of the people and to elect representatives who, once the government is formed, are capable of scrutinising everything that executive does on behalf of the people. It should also be capable of scrutinising the various non-elected bodies which are established. That should be the primary role of parliament. The system which we have currently does not allow parliamentarians to discharge that role fully. There should be a strong link between the constituents and the elected representative, Deputies should be answerable to a specific electorate. In the current system, however, the balance is wrong. The parliamentarian spends 85 per cent of his time dealing with his constituency and 15 per cent of his time doing the job he should be at a national level. That will remain the case unless we change the electoral system.

Media criticism of politicians was mentioned. The media cannot have it both ways. People in the media will argue when a Government displays insufficient scrutiny that the TDs should not be involved in constituency work, but should be ensuring Government actions are scrutinised. When TDs make a reasoned argument, however, that this system does not allow us to do that they say that we do not want to be answerable to the electorate.

The change to the system considered by Professor Michael Laver would mean a weakening of the strong tie which a TD has to a constituency. There has to be some loss. Things cannot continue in the same manner after a change to the system. As Senator Dardis said, it is ineffective to use present perspective to judge what might happen when a system is changed.

Senator Henry stated that if the system changed Fianna Fáil would win all the seats on a constituency basis and other parties would come into Parliament on lists. That argument does not hold water. The last eight by-elections produced two victories each for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left. A single seat constituency system would produce results like that. There would be a mixture of parties within that system.

In the 1997 general election Fianna Fáil won 12 seats more than it should have according to the proportion of the vote it received. It received 39 per cent of the vote yet took 12 seats more than the proportion of the vote represents.

It got some help from the transfers.

Fine Gael won eight seats more than it should have based on the proportional system. The Progressive Democrats, however, won four seats less than they should have won based on that system. The Green Party won five less than it should have and Sinn Féin won three less. Fianna Fáil has, since the foundation of the State and the advent of proportional representation, consistently won greater representation in the Dáil than it should have on all but one occasion. Proportionality does not stand up to scrutiny.

Only 12 per cent of TDs are women, and the percentage of female Senators is much the same, although they make up 51 per cent of the electorate. No minorities are represented.

This is one area where the Progressive Democrats score.

That is right, on that kind of proportionality.

I am strongly committed to change. It cannot be taken in isolation but per force it must be taken separately at present. I am committed to change in the local government system, the abolition of dual mandates, the separation of local government from national government and greater independence for local government. That, allied to a change in the electoral system, would bring about total and fundamental change in the democratic institutions in this State. It would be a change for the better. I am deeply committed to that and I will continue it for as long as possible.

I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for your indulgence. I thank the Senators for the interesting debate. The matter is with the Constitution Review Group and it might not be appropriate for either House to discuss it at present. If Senators want to discuss the report with me here when it becomes available, I will be delighted to do so.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Committee Stage now.
Top
Share