I am not talking about population but about electors. It is the electorate who are important when one comes to consider the question of the election of a Deputy. So while I think the picture painted there in the extract I have read is probably correct, again I do not think that that is any virtue. I do not think that is any reason which should induce the people to accept these changes proposed.
The next argument, as I see it, in this article is contained in this quotation:
With one Deputy in each constituency the work for civil servants, Ministers and Deputies will be simplified.
Under PR as many as five TDs could be making representations to a Minister on behalf of a constituent. That adds work to the Civil Service. under the "first past the post" method—
previously in the article it was referred to as the "knock-out" system
—there will be only one TD making representation on behalf of an individual.
Is it to be seriously argued that we should change our election system so that the work of civil servants, Ministers and Deputies will be simplified? Remember, in this matter of an election system, we are dealing with the fundamental rights of the people and we should not be concerning ourselves with the convenience of Ministers, civil servants or Deputies. We are talking about a right which should, and I believe, is regarded as a fundamental right of the people to be properly represented in a free Parliament, to have their views properly expressed in this House on their behalf by a freely and fairly elected representative. If we are to change what I believe is a very fair, very just and very democratic election system in order to serve the convenience of civil servants, Ministers or Deputies, we will be taking a very retrograde step. It would be all wrong to do it. I hope that argument will not carry weight either with the Government or with the electorate.
The next argument put up in this article follows on the previous one. It says:
Ministers will not have to listen to the views of five TDs in a particular case.
I know that Ministers are required to give a great deal of their time to public work: I know that, by and large, Ministers do not have very much free time. They have little time of their own. That is the way it is and the way it has been from the beginning, but it is not right to look on these proposals from the point of view of the Ministers. It does not make all that difference whether a Minister listens to the views of five Deputies or of one Deputy from the Minister's point of view, but it may make a very considerable difference from the point of view of the constituent on whose behalf the Deputies are making representations.
Deputies are of different calibre of one sort or another, whether it be mental make-up or knowledge or learning, and will be able to present things in different ways. Some people may be built with a more sympathetic and humane approach than others and they may understand and appreciate the point of view of the constituents on whose behalf the representations are being made rather better than another Deputy in the same constituency. Certainly, if a situation arises where in a five-member constituency all five Deputies are of common mind in regard to the justice of a particular case and the need to make representations to the Minister, that adds far more weight on behalf of the unfortunate constituent than would be the case where a constituent is depending on the assistance or co-operation, if you like, of one Deputy. Remember that when we are dealing with the question of single-seat constituencies, we are all members of political Parties and we look on this from the point of view of a political Party.
We know that, by and large, throughout the country if single-seat constituencies are introduced, the Deputies for those constituencies will be elected as representing various political Parties and consequently the Deputy when elected possibly—and, I think, probably —with a minority vote, will be in a position either to give or to withhold his co-operation to constituents. He will be in a position to decide this on a political basis. I am not saying that every Deputy or, in fact, any Deputy would be likely to act in that way but at least it is possible. It is open to him to decide that he will make representations only on behalf of those of his own political persuasion.
Even if he does not adopt that attitude, let us take it again from the point of view of the constituent. We have been brought up for 50 years or thereabouts under a system of PR, a system where in each constituency the various political Parties get representation according to the volume of support given to them in the constituency by the voters. The Fine Gael supporter, as a matter of course, goes to the Fine Gael Deputy in a constituency and the Fianna Fáil supporter, also as a matter of course, goes to the Fianna Fáil Deputy. That has been the position here for the past 50 years or so. Do we think that overnight if these proposals are accepted, the person with strong political views in a constituency who is represented by a Deputy of a different political persuasion is likely to approach that Deputy with the same freedom and ease as he would approach a Deputy of his own political persuasion? So far from that being an advantage, as apparently the political correspondent of the Irish Press sees it, I think again it is one of the disadvantages likely to ensue if this change is made.
I want to look for a while at the arguments presented by the Taoiseach when he introduced these proposals. I am referring to the typescript which was circulated rather than the Dáil Debates because I have made some notes on the typescript. At the end of the first page and going on to the second page, the Taoiseach draws a distinction between elements which he sees as being basic to the democratic process and those which admit of variation and he said:
I should like at the outset to draw a distinction between those elements in our electoral system which are basic to the democratic process and those elements which admit of variation according to circumstances.
Then he sets out his categories and says:
To the former category—
that is, those which are basic to the democratic process
—belong such principles as universal franchise, the secret ballot, the right of individuals and groups to contest elections, the limit on the life of any Parliament, the prevention of electoral abuses and the provision of impartial machinery for the conduct of elections.
Then in the second category, those which the Taoiseach sees as being open to variation, he puts the precise method of voting; he puts the question of whether constituencies should return one or a larger number of members, and the machinery for determining constituencies.
I want to say, first of all, as a general comment on what the Taoiseach says there, that this distinction which he draws between elements which are basic to the democratic process and those which admit of variation is, to my mind only valid, provided the elements which are placed in the second category, that is, the variable elements, are themselves essentially democratic.
The Taoiseach specifically mentioned the precise method of voting. The precise method of voting, I agree, is an element which is variable but if it is varied from a system which is essentially democratic to one which can allow undemocratic practices to spring up and to surround it, then, obviously, that variation is not one which should be made and if, coupled with a proposal to alter the method of election, there is a question where a tolerance issue might so unbalance things as to make the whole set-up at least doubtful from the democratic point of view, then I think this division made by the Taoiseach is one which certainly may not in all circumstances be valid.
When he talks as being in the second category, that is the variable category, about the machinery for determining constituencies, again I would say to him, that may be all right provided the element is in itself essentially democratic. It would be quite undemocratic if constituencies are rigged in favour of either a particular candidate or a particular political party.
The Taoiseach mentioned as one of the matters that were, so to speak, sacrosanct in this regard the right of individuals and groups to contest elections. I agree with him there but, remember, that right must not be only an apparent right; it must be a real right and it is only a real right provided the election machinery is such as to give individuals and groups an opportunity of using it in order to get representation in this Parliament and if we allow a set-up to develop here where it is going to be virtually impossible for a seat to be secured by groups or individuals other than the ruling political Party then, surely, even on the Taoiseach's own definition, we are entering into a field that cannot be regarded as conforming with essential democratic principles.
The Taoiseach, again, on the second page of his typescript, refers to old established stable democracies such as Great Britain and the US and Canada, which have the straight vote. I want to say that I think that argument is entirely fallacious if it is intended to imply that in this country we have not had and do not have a stable democracy. I have referred already in the context of the arguments put up about splinter groups to the records which are before us, to the records we are entitled to take into consideration. I want to ask the Minister in charge of the debate, is it being suggested now that over the years from 1922 or 1923 onwards we have not had stable government in this country? I do not think it can be suggested seriously. I think all the weight of the evidence and all the weight of the record is there against that argument. In any event, I think we should remember that we are dealing here with Irish conditions, with an Irish electorate and with an Irish political system. Many of the factors which apply to larger countries have no relevancy whatever to our particular situation and to our conditions. We do not have in this country the same prospect of the growth of purely zonal or local parties or groups as you can have in a larger country. In this country most politicians of note are as well known in Cork, Limerick or Galway as they are in Dublin and, consequently, you do not have here the situation which encourages the growth of purely local groups seeking representation in parliament. So that I, at any rate, am not impressed by arguments which quote Britain or the United States of America or Canada as examples which we should necessarily follow in dealing with our election system here.
As I have already pointed out, there is the vital difference between the population in England and the population here. There is the situation that the single-seat constituency in England is roughly the equivalent of our five-seat constituency and it is envisaged that if this change goes through, you will have here a constituency as small as that which will contain an electorate of about 12,000. There is also in England the tradition of the Labour and the Conservative constituencies which, possibly, you may not have here.
On page 3 of his typescript, the Taoiseach makes the case that what marks out PR as so typically a product of the last century is the assumption it makes concerning the purpose of elections and then he goes on to say:
which it sees as basically a means of producing a deliberative assembly to pass laws.
Then, if we look at page 8 of the Taoiseach's typescript, we will see that, in extolling the virtues of the single-seat constituency—he is talking about the position of Deputies, and so on— he says:
So much time has now to be spent by Deputies in dealing ostensibly on behalf of their constituents with day-to-day matters of administration which it is not necessary for them to deal with and in travelling around extensive and unwieldy constituencies, that they have not enough time left for their primary duty as legislators.
So that, if the Taoiseach believes—and I do not disagree with him on this— that the primary duty of Deputies should be as legislators, why on earth does he then say that PR was so typically a product of the last century because it sees the election system as basically a means of producing a deliberative assembly to pass laws? Surely there is nothing out of date about that? If the Taoiseach agrees that the primary duty of Deputies is as legislators, then there is nothing out of date in an election system which has the object of producing a deliberative assembly to pass laws.
The Taoiseach also mentions, at the end of page 2 and at the beginning of page 3 of the typescript, that proportional representation was invented before the growth of modern party organisations. I want to ask the Taoiseach what is the relevancy of that argument. Does it mean that if one gets rid of PR, the Party machine will then rule supreme? To my mind, if our present system of proportional representation does at times reduce the effect of the Party machine, then I think that is all to the good and not necessarily to be dismissed as something that should not happen. In many cases it might be all to the good that that should be so.
With regard to the Taoiseach's talk of a deliberative assembly to pass laws and his reference later on to the primary duty of legislators, it seems to me that the correct view of the functions of this House is that it is a representative as well as a legislative assembly, and so long as it is a representative assembly we should strive to see that it is representative in the sense that it fairly reflects the views of the people and that it is formed after the conduct of free and fair elections under a fair and democratic system.
The Taoiseach then goes on to argue, on page 3 again, that the inventors of PR did not foresee the modern extension of the State's role or the growing involvement of the Government in the economy. He refers to long-term planning and the need for stable government with an effective parliamentary majority. Then in the middle of the page he says that the electors will wish to choose their government directly. I do not suppose the Taoiseach meant that to be taken literally. It does not matter what system of election we have as long as we preserve the system of the Dáil electing the Government, the people are not directly electing the Government under either system. In any event, it can be demonstrated— and to some extent I think I have demonstrated—that our present system of PR does not militate against the situation that has arisen by reason of the extension of the State's role in the economy or long-term planning or even against an effective parliamentary majority.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach is making the case that these things are only beginning to happen now and that, therefore, it is necessary on this account to bring about a change. I do not imagine he will make that argument, because for many years past we have all known of the extension of the State into various fields of the economy. On page 4 the Taoiseach does seem to be arguing that, because he says:
The logic of developments within the past decade in this country requires us to consider our own position.
Even if we were to grant—and I disagree with the Taoiseach if that is his argument—that the expansion of the Government and of government machinery, administration and so on into further fields of the life of the country only came within the past ten years, it can be shown that nothing in our election system has militated against that. The present Government, while they did not obtain an overall majority at the last general election, obtained 72 seats out of the 144, and as one of the Deputies here—I think it was Deputy MacEntee—pointed out, that was an overall majority of the elected Deputies, because the Ceann Comhairle was automatically returned. Therefore, even on the basis of that argument, is it not quite clear that our present system has not in any way militated against the Government in carrying out their plans of extending as they wish to extend into the economic sphere?
Again on page 4 the Taoiseach refers to the virtual disappearance of small Parties and Independents from the Dáil and the increased interest shown by the voters in national Parties with comprehensive policies. This seems to me to be an extraordinary twist in the argument that has been used in connection with small Parties. The argument was, and I think the argument is made still, that we should abolish PR because it led to small Parties, small groups or splinter Parties. Now we find the Taoiseach arguing apparently that we should abolish PR because it does not lead to small Parties or splinter groups. He says :
The virtual disappearance of small Parties and Independents from the Dáil and the increased interest shown by the voters in national Parties with comprehensive policies has been paralleled by an evolution of thinking within the Parties to the point where each Party in the Dáil is committed to seeking a majority for the implementation of its own policy.
The conclusion he draws from that is:
Thus, the Irish people and the Parties in the Dáil have implicitly repudiated any desire for coalition government.
So we are told apparently that, now that the question of small Parties and Independents has been solved by their disappearance from the Dáil, we should get rid of PR. At the beginning of the next page, the Taoiseach poses a question:
The first question is whether we want a multiplicity of Parties and a series of coalition Governments.
This follows the Taoiseach's reference to the virtual disappearance of small Parties and coalitions. I have already dealt at some length with the argument about coalitions and I do not want to repeat myself further than to say that in so far as the Government base their arguments against proportional representation on their dislike of coalitions, in so far as the question of coalitions or of any groupings of Parties is concerned, then, to my mind, that is entirely a matter for the people of this country. If the people show by their votes, irrespective of the system, that they want representation of various Parties, big or small, in this House, then so far as I am concerned the people are entitled to demand that. It is a legitimate aspiration and it is one which they are entitled to seek by their votes. I do not think it is right that any Party which has secured an overall majority in the Dáil should endeavour by weight of their numbers in this House to force through legislation, the admitted design of which is to take away the right of the people to have either coalition Governments or inter-Party Governments if the people so choose. To my mind, that is what that particular argument of the Taoiseach amounts to.
What I say is emphasised by what the Taoiseach says at the beginning of page 6. He says:
The second question we should ask ourselves is which system of election is more likely to keep the number of Parties to a reasonable figure and facilitate the election of majority Governments.
I want to put again the case I put before in relation to this. Is it right that any Party in this House that has become a majority Government Party should endeavour to legislate in such a way as to make impossible of formation a type of Government they dislike? The way I view it is this: I dislike Fianna Fáil Governments. I will do whatever I can to persuade voters at the next general election to agree with me and to vote against the formation of another Fianna Fáil Government, but if I or my Party were to be in the position after the next general election that we had an overall majority in this House, are we by virtue of that fact then entitled to try to secure legislation and try to wring from the people consent to the proposition that changes should be made which would render the formation of future Fianna Fáil Governments impossible? I do not think that any Fianna Fáil Deputy who examines this argument will feel quite complacent about it, looking at it from a purely democratic point of view.
At the end of page 6 and beginning of page 7 of this typescript of his speech, the Taoiseach says:
The logic of a position adopted by all Parties in the House and by the people requires that we change our system of voting to the straight vote.
Then he says:
Probably because of this most of the opposition to the present proposal is based not on principles or long term considerations but on the supposed immediate effects of the changeover.
In relation to that I want merely to say that so far as I am concerned, I support the Irish system of proportional representation as against the British system of the straight vote which Fianna Fáil are proposing, not out of Party considerations. I have tried to look at this and I think reasonably successfully, from the general point of view and not from a purely Party point of view. I do not know whether the bringing about of this change would, either in the short term or in the long term suit my particular political Party. I do not know what effect it would have ultimately so far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned if this change were brought about, but I disagree with their proposals because I believe that the system we have at the moment, even if it cannot be called a perfect system— and I think one would want to be either a very brave or a very rash man to claim that any human institution is perfect—is the fairest system I know of and because I believe it is a fair system and a just one, because it gives fair and just representation in this House to all sections of the people, I support it and not merely from the point of view of whether it does or does not suit my political Party.
I do not think there would be anyone in the ranks of the Fine Gael Party who would shirk contesting for the Government of this country with Fianna Fáil, regardless of what system is in operation, but I believe the system we have is a fair one and gives fair results, and it is because I believe the people are entitled to a system which is fair and gives fair results that I support it.
At the end of page 7, the Taoiseach says:
The members elected in a constituency are primarily the representatives of particular groups, rather than of the whole community.
This refers to the PR system. He goes on:
This has many undesirable results. Instead of considering the interests of their constituency as a whole, Deputies tend to adopt partisan attitudes towards local problems.
He refers then to the competition between Deputies and so on. Surely this much is clear. At present the Deputies by and large, excluding for the moment the occasional Independent representation in the House, represent their political Parties. That situation will not be altered whether you keep the PR system or depart from it. If by the phrase "particular groups" the Taoiseach means the political Parties, then he is right. They do represent particular groups in that sense and they will continue to represent particular groups in that sense, even if this change were to be brought about.
Then the Taoiseach goes on to say at the end of page 8:
Under the single-seat system, the political Parties would have every incentive to put forward candidates of a high calibre.
It would be easy, and it is indeed tempting, to deal with this particular topic facetiously. I wonder would the Minister for Health let us know, for example, the reaction in the Fianna Fáil meeting when the Taoiseach stuck his head around the door and said: "Listen, boys; we want to get rid of PR because we want Deputies of a high calibre." I think that once the argument is advanced, it is an argument we have to consider and to deal with seriously. In an argument such as this when we are told that the changeover would produce Deputies of a high calibre, I suppose it is true to say that we are entering into a rather delicate area of self-examination but it is one that we should deal with.
I take the view, rightly or wrongly —I do not say it is shared by everybody—that the calibre of Deputies, both at present and throughout the years since the foundation of this State, has been high. I know various quotations may be fired at me and I may be told about what so-and-so said about so-and-so, but I think it is understandable, and that it is in fact understood, that from time to time in the course of debates and discussions in this House, one may feel oneself provoked into, let us say, saying more than one's prayers. One may feel provoked into saying things about a Deputy or about institutions or about Parties that one regrets afterwards. Things may be said which the person who says them regrets quite sincerely and which the person about whom they were said probably forgets.
I am sure that in my time in this House and for some time in the Seanad I probably have very frequently said things that were over-harsh, unfair or unjust, but I think by and large none of us intends those as personal reflections. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, if there are any still on record, I have no hesitation in withdrawing them because I have a high regard for this House, for the Seanad and for the Members of the two Houses of the Oireachtas. The longer one is a member of the Irish Parliament, the more one's respect grows, not only for the character and calibre of the Members who have been elected and are being elected under the Irish system of proportional representation but also for the work they have done in this House.
It may be far easier to remember the cleavages and the controversies, and what a newspaper described some time ago as the reportable incidents, than to remember the sound work done not by front benchers and Ministers but by back bencher Deputies, the contributions they make to the legislation going through the House, to the general discussions that take place in the House on various matters. It is easy to forget the number of occasions on which legislation going through this House has been amended and improved by reason of discussions that have taken place here and by amendments proposed, whether from the Opposition benches or by Government back benchers. Those things may be forgotten but I do not think they should be forgotten. Whatever one's personal views may be, it is undoubtedly true that the election system which we have gives us in this House a fair cross-section of the people of the country.
Surely that is what we want? Do we want a House of experts? I do not think we do. I personally have the greatest respect for the views of experts in their own field but when we are talking about representatives of the ordinary people of the country, then I believe this House should be a true reflection of the people, that it should not consist entirely of experts. I consider the average Deputy is fairly representative of the average elector and that that is in fact what we require in this House.
The Taoiseach goes on to say on page 10, but perhaps before we come to that, we should deal with some of his criticisms of the present system which appeared on page 9. He says:
The defects of the present system have often been pointed out. Two defects inherent in the system are that all preferences have the same value —a casually cast 10th or even a 25th preference can have the same value as a No. 1 vote.
He goes on to say:
This latter defect, combined with the complicated and arbitrary method of counting and transferring votes, introduces a random element into the process and the ultimate result may be far from what the electorate really intended.
Later on, he goes on to refer to cases where candidates who have headed the poll have not been elected. I want to challenge the Taoiseach with regard to his views as to the operation of the system and with regard to the vote. I am quite sure the Taoiseach believes that all preference votes have the same value when he says it but I think it is possibly worth noting that even in that sentence, the Taoiseach seems to have had second thoughts about it. If we just look at it, we will see that the first phrase: "that all preferences have the same value" seems to be a categoric statement, a definite assertive statement of the position that all preference votes have the same value. In the second part of his statement, that part in brackets in the Taoiseach's script, we find that is modified a bit and instead of saying that all preference votes have the same value, the phrase is modified by saying: "a casually cast 10th or even a 25th preference can have the same value as a No. 1 vote", not that it is but that it can have. All that might seem a bit startling without an explanation and so far as I am concerned I want to see what the explanation is.
First of all, I do not think the Taoiseach's argument is correct. I think he is quite mistaken in the statement that all preferences have the same value. If you take, first of all, the position of, say, second or subsequent preferences on the paper of a candidate who has been elected on the first count with a surplus, I want to suggest to the Taoiseach that there are no circumstances whatever in which a second or subsequent preference vote appearing on the paper of such a candidate can have the same value as a No. 1 vote.
If the Taoiseach agrees with me, I think he will agree also that he was mistaken in making so comprehensive a statement, that all preferences have the same value. Secondly, I do not agree that there are any circumstances in which under our present system of PR the second or subsequent vote has precisely the same value as a No. 1 vote when we look at it from the point of view of the voter. It is the voter who counts, not the Deputy, not the Minister, not civil servants. It is correct, and indeed it is well known and well recognised by voters and candidates, that if on a voter's first preference choice, the candidate is eliminated, then the second or subsequent preference counts. The vote is transferred on to the second choice and to that extent it is nearly as valuable as a No. 1 vote to the candidate who gets it.
I say "nearly as valuable" deliberately because it may not be entirely as valuable as a No. 1 vote. This happened in the local elections recently in the Arklow area in the case where there was a tie for the elimination of candidates and it was necessary to refer back to see which candidates got the most first preference votes. Even on the votes following an elimination, it is not entirely correct to say that the second preference vote has the exact equivalent value of the first preference, but I might be regarded as over-particular in that. Generally speaking, on an elimination, a second preference vote is as valuable to the candidate who receives it as a first preference vote. What has happened here is that the voter's first preference has not been achieved. The person he voted for has been eliminated and, consequently, because our system is fair, because it is designed at sieving the views of the constituency as a whole with the object of finding out their preferences, when the first choice is gone, the second choice is taken into account.
Surely instead of being a defect in a voting system, that is one of the features which makes our system so essentially fair and democratic, that we are trying to get the views, after sieving the volume of opinion, of the constituency? We are trying to get the preference views of the electorate, and that, I think, is what was referred to by the Irish Press 35 years ago as in the extract which I quoted here last week. The Irish Press of 24th January, 1933, said:
The English press correspondents sympathise with us on having to work so complicated a system as proportional representation. It is wasted sympathy, for the system is simple to understand and easy to carry out. It is based on the excellent idea that we have a greater preference for some candidates than others. Under proportional representation the voter not only has the pleasure of voting first for the candidates he likes most of all, but he also can vote for all the others in the order in which he likes them.
The Irish Press said it was based on the excellent idea that we have a greater preference for some candidates than others. That is the explanation, that in certain circumstances when the first choice is gone out, the voter's second choice carries on and his paper is transferred to his second choice.
The Taoiseach went on in referring to the defect as he saw it, as in the quotation I have already read out, to say that the preferences of only some candidates are counted. I do not know but I presume that this refers to the fact that the preferences of elected candidates are not counted except in the case of a candidate obtaining a surplus. Surely the reason for that is quite obvious and it is the whole basis of the system and shows the essential fairness and democracy of the system, which is, of course, to ascertain and satisfy as far as possible the real preferences of the voters? If a voter's first choice and preference is satisfied, then obviously you do not need to have regard to his next preference.
It can be put quite simply this way. The voter is in effect saying that he wants to be represented by candidate "A" but that if he cannot be represented by candidate "A", then he would like to be represented by candidate "B". If, in fact, he is represented by candidate "A", why then should his subsequent preferences be taken into account when his first preference has, in fact, already been taken into account?
There are particular cases, as I am sure the Minister knows, even when the second preference for a candidate who has been elected is taken into account but they are not taken into account at their full value for the reasons I have given. If a person is elected on the first count with a surplus, then, because he has exceeded the quota, should his votes be spare, so to speak, a calculation is made to see what those votes are worth to the people who have got No. 2s from him.
The Taoiseach referred to the complicated and arbitrary methods of counting and transferring votes and then he says:
This random element is all the more serious when as happened in the last general election only a few votes decided the last seat in some constituencies and as happens in many elections, only a handful of votes decides eliminations.
He went on:
If the returning officer decided to include at an earlier stage a different bundle of an elected candidate's surplus votes, a different result could be achieved. But this is not the returning officer's fault. The system obliges him to take random selections from the votes of candidates who receive surpluses for subsequent distribution.
I should be glad if the Taoiseach or some member of the Government would explain that reference more fully because I confess I do not understand it.
I agree that in respect of any system of election, of any rules at all that are required to be carried out and implemented, it is probably correct to criticise them as being arbitrary because all rules are in some sense arbitrary. It may be fair to suggest that the system of counting is complicated, just as anything is complicated for a person who does not understand it. I should probably find many things complicated which would be very simple to others. If I were to start messing around with the electric wires in this House, I have no doubt I would be electrocuted very quickly—I do not understand them; they would be complicated to me—but a qualified electrician would have little difficulty in understanding them.
Generally speaking, the system of counting for our Irish system of PR should not be too severely criticised on the basis of being complicated. Most of us who have experienced the system merely by experience have got a fair grasp of it. We know the first thing the returning officer is required to do is to find out how many votes are spoiled or invalid and to take them out, to exclude them. We know that he then goes on to sort out the voting papers and to arrange them in order, under the rules provided in the 1923 Act, into parcels according to their first preferences; in other words, he puts them into bundles for each candidate in accordance with the first preference votes the candidate has got.
The returning officer then counts the No. 1 votes for each candidate and he arrives at the quota by dividing the total valid poll by the number of seats plus one, and adding one to the result. The next step is that if a candidate reaches or exceeds the quota, he is declared elected. Following that, if a candidate reaches the quota with a surplus, the surplus is distributed according to the next ballot preference. I do not think there is anything complicated about that. I think it is very reasonable, that it is known to anyone who has any interest either as an election worker or as a candidate. It may be that some difficulty may be experienced in understanding exactly what happens when a candidate has been elected with a surplus in the first count.
I do not wish by any means to set myself up as an authority on the subject, but the rules are there in black and white; all of us can read them and to my mind, they are not in any way ambiguous. They can be followed by anyone who takes the trouble to look up the Electoral Act of 1923. There the rules are set out in the Third Schedule. Let us take a case in round figures in which the quota is 80 and a candidate gets 100. That candidate clearly has a surplus of 20, and if that surplus were not carried on in some shape or form, the votes would be wasted and criticism might be levelled against the system on the ground that they were wasted.
If I recall correctly, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Davern, interjecting while I was speaking on the last occasion, referred to votes not getting their full value. If the surplus votes I have been talking about were not carried on, that would be probably ground for criticism of the system. What happens in the example I have given is that all of the votes are again distributed, this time in accordance with their next choice—the second or subsequent ballot preference. If we take the case of five candidates in a constituency, the quota being 80 and one candidate getting 100, leaving a surplus of 20, all of the 100 votes are distributed between the remaining candidates; and supposing, for the sake of keeping the example in its simplest terms, that the four remaining candidates get 25 votes each all marked No. 2 on 25 of the ballot papers, the next job is to find out what the 25 votes are worth. That is done under the rules by finding out what proportion the surplus bears to the total transfer of votes. In this case it is clearly one-fifth. Consequently, if a person gets 25 votes, each vote worth one-fifth, the poll carried on to him is a total of five, not the whole 25. That is quite simple. Whether it is simple or not, it seems to me to be quite fair; whether it is arbitrary, as the Taoiseach claims, at least it is clear and clearcut.
What would be the position in regard to wastage of votes under the system proposed? Surely every vote under the so-called straight vote system cast for anybody but the successful candidate is in fact a wasted vote? I do not know whether there is very much more in the Taoiseach's speech with which I wish to deal. Some of the other points I have noted are matters of criticism with which I have dealt already.
Having dealt with the merits and the value of our system of PR and having dealt with the arguments that have been put forward against it, we should now have a look at the system that is proposed as an alternative and see what are its virtues and its defects. The most glaring weakness of the so-called straight vote system is that to which I have just referred—that it can produce a result through which a Party with a substantial minority of the votes cast can get a majority of the seats in this House.
The Taoiseach referred to constituencies with electorates of approximately 12,000. If you take a constituency of 12,000 voters with three candidates, you could have this kind of result: you could have candidate A getting 4,001 votes, candidate B getting 4,000 votes and candidate C getting 3,999 votes and under the straight vote system which we are to be asked to adopt, candidate A with 4,001 votes would become the sole representative of that constituency, although there would be 7,999 votes cast against him. Surely that is not likely to produce a fair result? Surely candidate A taking his seat in this House in that situation cannot claim that he really and fairly represents the mass of opinion in his constituency?
The greater the number of candidates put forward, the worse and the more unbalanced and the more undemocratic the result may be. If you take another example of a constituency with an electorate of 12,000 where there are four candidates in the field, it would be possible to get this result, that candidate A gets 3,002 votes, candidate B gets 3,001 votes, candidate C gets 2,999 and candidate D gets 2,998 votes. There you have a result from an electorate of 12,000 and candidate A gets 3,002 votes and gets the seat, although there are 8,997 votes cast against him. I admit that these are extreme examples. I am giving them deliberately in order to point out what I regard as the glaring weakness of the system which the Deputies opposite are sponsoring and trying to get the country to adopt. That is the first and most glaring weakness of the system, that it can produce a Dáil, can produce a Parliament, which in no way reflects the desires and wishes of the majority of the people. I think it is true to say—I have seen this somewhere but I have not got the actual figures—that in one of the general elections in England sometime in the 1950s, the Government Party, the Party which obtained the most seats in the election, obtained less votes than the second largest Party. In other words, a Party which had the greatest number of seats in the English Parliament had fewer votes than another Party represented in it.
The second defect which I see in the system is one which is very possible and was also referred to in the article I quoted from the Sunday Press, that is, in regard to this question of safe seats, where there is no election, no contest, no opportunity given to the electorate to bring about a change or express their views at all. That is a possibility. Indeed, it is more than that; it is a probability. It would indeed be a pity if it ever came into vogue in this country. My third criticism of the so-called straight vote system is that it means in effect that the votes of a great body of the electorate are completely wasted. Under the British system, it would be possible for a person to go right through his adult life voting in election after election, as they came about, without his vote counting one iota in Parliament, or having any influence whatever on the election of the Government, because it is only the votes that are cast for the successful Party that have any relevance whatever in Parliament under the so-called straight vote system. Those who vote for a candidate who is unsuccessful in an election are as effectively disfranchised as if they were locked away behind iron bars.
Whatever my personal views or criticisms of the so-called straight vote system may be, whatever weight people may attach to them, I think that in different degrees they are shared by many people in the country. On the last occasion this proposal was put before the people, Deputies may recall that the six University Senators considered the proposal and having considered it, published their views. Their views are just as relevant now as they were 8½ years ago. I do not think that anything has changed. Exactly the same proposal is being put before the people and to a large extent the same arguments are being used. It seems to me that the verdict of six eminent University Senators, who have no axe to grind politically, who approached the problem of examining the proposal thoroughly and declaring their views, is just as relevant to the proposals now being put forward. I quote from the Official Report of 29th April, 1959, at column 1366, where the views of the Senators were quoted, and they said:
We are convinced from our many investigations that the proposed change to the miscalled straight vote system would be disastrous on the following grounds:
(1) It would lead to an excessive Government majority with an Opposition almost as powerless as the present Opposition in the Six County Parliament.
(2) This would result in intolerant and dictatorial Government and might ultimately evoke as a reaction an organised extra-parliamentary Opposition.
(3) It would cause division and Party strife rather than a co-operative approach to our economic and national problems in the coming decade.
(4) The single seat constituency would inevitably narrow the voter's choice at elections and would greatly increase the power of political Parties as such. This would undoubtedly lower the quality of Dáil representatives since unquestioning obedience to the Party leaders would then be the first demand made on any candidate.
(5) The proposed system sets the stage for class warfare between town and country and makes it possible for a majority to command 40 per cent in the urban constituencies and, getting little or no support in the rural areas, due to its deliberate anti-rural policy, to get a majority in Dáil Éireann. Such a Party might have the support of as little as 25 per cent of the total electorate, and yet the miscalled straight vote system would enable it to impose its doctrines on the remaining 75 per cent of the population.
Those are five solid arguments produced after an examination by six individuals who, in my belief, had no political axe to grind, who viewed the matter thoroughly, made their examination and published their findings. Those views and criticisms are just as valid today in relation to the present proposals.
On the last occasion on which the Fianna Fáil Party endeavoured to change our election system, we, on this side of the House, suggested to them that before that exercise was undertaken, there should be a thorough examination of election systems and the choice should not necessarily be limited, as it was then being limited. It is fair to say that there is a difference between the present position and the position that obtained eight and a half years ago. On the last occasion there was no examination by any committee, although we urged that such an examination should be undertaken. This time, the move by Fianna Fáil comes after an examination of electoral systems by the Committee on the Constitution.
In fairness to the Taoiseach, it should be stated that he did not claim the report of the Committee on the Constitution as justifying the proposals he made to the House and it is, I think, important that we should recognise that. It is important that we should recognise that, although this question of the system of election was examined by the Committee, they did not recommend the proposals now before the House and they did not recommend that these alterations or amendments should be made in or to the Constitution. I have no special knowledge of what went on or of the discussions that took place at the meeting of that Committee but I claim it is absolutely and abundantly clear from the report published by the Committee that the proposals now before this House were never suggested at any meeting of the Committee and were never brought before the Committee for consideration.
One has only to look at the arguments produced in favour of a change to realise that those arguments are not arguments devoted to urging a change from proportional representation to the so-called straight vote. At page 22 of the report, paragraph 61, there is set out:
The question of adopting a different electoral system for Dáil elections was considered by the Committee. The substitution of the present system of proportional representation by the Alternative Vote was proposed and the arguments adduced for and against are set out here-under.
I am right in saying then that there was never a proposal brought before the Committee that proportional representation should be replaced by the so-called straight vote. Apparently there was a recommendation that proportional representation should be replaced by the alternative vote, but there was not unanimity with regard to that and no recommendation was made by the Committee, but the arguments pro and con were set out. I would not recommend that proportional representation should be replaced by the alternative vote and my only purpose in referring to this is to make it clear and put it on the records of the House that there was no proposal from the Committee that we should change from proportional representation to the so-called straight vote. It is not necessary to go into the arguments set out because they are available in the report for anyone who wants to read them.
Various arguments have been made against proportional representation but very few arguments have been advanced in favour of the straight vote. I have examined the speech made by the Taoiseach and dealt with it to the best of my ability. So far as I am concerned, I do not want any departure from the present system. I believe there is an obligation on those who want a departure from the present system, those who are not satisfied with it, to examine fully and independently, apart from committees composed of members of political Parties drawn from the Dáil and Seanad, what alternatives or other courses are open. That has not been done except to a limited extent. If Deputies argue against our present system of proportional representation on the basis that it contains defects, it is open to them, and this should be done, to examine to what extent the defects of which they complain are capable of being adjusted and, if there are complaints with regard to the rules of voting being either complicated or arbitrary, is it not open to us to examine the rules and see whether or not any modifications or adjustments can be made in them? Why is the only course open to us that of scrapping the system entirely? Why, if the Government insist that the system should be scrapped, is the only alternative the one rejected by the people eight and a half years ago? I do not think very much of the arguments that have been adduced against the system of proportional representation. They are not substantial. In so far as they relate to the machinery of the election system, or the count, I think an examination could be and should be made to see to what extent adjustments or modifications are necessary.
In addition to the Fourth Amendment Bill to which I have been addressing my remarks so far, we have before us also the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I do not intend to say very much about this. I listened to Deputy O'Connor last week and I did not find a great deal on which I could disagree with him when he described the work of a rural Deputy, but he will, I think, agree with me that he was viewing the matter solely from the point of view of a Deputy and I have already said on more than one occasion that we should not view these Bills from the point of view of Deputies, or Ministers, or civil servants. We should view them from the point of view of the voters. Most of us in this House know what to expect when we present ourselves for election. There is no obligation on us to remain in the House if we feel the work is too onerous, that we are not able to get around our constituency or that we have not sufficient time for our own personal business. There is no obligation on us to remain in this House; we can get out of it. It is not necessary, to my mind, to look on these proposals or the present position from the point of view of a Deputy's or Deputies' convenience.
What is being proposed in the Third Amendment Bill is this tolerance issue. A short while ago, we engaged in the exercise of devaluing the pound. This Bill is a Bill to devalue the vote, not by a mere 14 or 15 per cent, but in some areas by up to 40 per cent. That is the issue involved in the Third Amendment Bill, in this tolerance Bill. The issue is that we are asked to bring about a situation where the votes cast in some areas are going to be worth 40 per cent less than the votes cast in other areas. I do not think that is the kind of system we should encourage the free Irish democratic people to accept and support.
