Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1968

Vol. 233 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - An Bille um An Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1968: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Go scriosfar na focail go léir i ndiaidh "Go" agus go gcuirfear ina n-ionad:—
"ndiúltaíonn Dáil Éireann an Dara Léamh a thabhairt don Bhille ar an bhforas gur togra atá neamhdhaonlathach go bunúsach an togra sa Bhille suas le 40 faoin gcéad de bhreis ionadaíochta sa Dáil a thabhairt do roinnt saorá-nach thar mar a thabharfaí do shaoránaigh eile."
To delete all words after "That" and substitute:—
"Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that the proposal in the Bill to provide some citizens with up to 40 per cent greater representation in the Dáil than other citizens is fundamentally undemocratic."
—(Deputy Cosgrave.)

I admit I find the temptation very strong to go in greater detail into the defects, the absurdities and the pretences of the proportional representation system, since the more closely the system is studied in detail the clearer it becomes that Deputy Dillon was accurate for once when he described it in volume 108, column 1716, of the Dáil Debates of 12th November, 1947, on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1947, in the following terms:

Proportional representation is, in fact, as we all know in our hearts, the child of the brains of all the cranks in creation....

And he went on to say:

It was foisted on us by a collection of half lunatics....

But I do not think it is necessary to go in full detail into it. I think the people are beginning to see through the system, to see that it is not what it pretends to be. In any event, I am primarily concerned with the advantages for the country from the proposed system of single-seat constituencies and with getting rid of the disadvantages and the general undesirability of multi-member constituencies. My main concern is that the people should be able to make a clear choice, that we should get rid of a system designed to make this impossible and to promote the formation of small sectional Parties, that Deputies should have reasonable areas to cover and therefore have more time available for their more important duties as legislators, and that the undesirable effect on public morale of the present competition between Deputies for the same constituency, pretending that their influence is more effective than their colleagues, should be eliminated. This, in my opinion, is the fundamental change desirable.

I have already explained why we decided to put forward as the system of voting the straight vote or the relative majority system. First of all, there was the fact that there has been no indication, either from our own Ard Fheis or from the informal committee which studied the Constitution, that another system is generally desirable. This being so, the Government naturally decided to suggest the only logical and straight vote system there is, that is, at election time to ask the people to indicate whom they want to represent them, to count their votes and to accept the result as they express it instead of trying by the use of arbitrary and unjustifiable rules to arrive at an artificial result.

For instance, at the time of the last referendum, I showed that the theory on which the proportional representation system was based is absurd. I think I should again invite the House to consider an example where three candidates are contesting one seat. This could occur either in a by-election under the proportional representation system or in the concluding stages of the count in a multi-member constituency in a general election or under the system known as the alternative vote in a single-seat constituency.

But it would not be proportional representation except in the case of the last seat in a multiseat constituency.

It would not be proportional representation at all but it would be the system that is misnamed as proportional representation. It could happen here, it has happened here, and it does happen regularly. What I want to show is that it can be demonstrated beyond all doubt that this system does not in such circumstances, where there are three candidates contesting one seat either in the concluding stages of the count in a multi-member constituency, in a by-election or in the system known as the alternative vote in a single-seat constituency.

That is not proportional representation except in the case of the last seat in a multi-member constituency.

It does not establish that a majority of the voters favour the candidate who was declared elected in accordance with the rules of this system described as proportional representation. I want to ask the Deputies to consider a situation in which there are three candidates. Candidate A has 4,000 votes, B 3,500 and C 3,000. That is a total of 10,500 votes. Under this system if it were a single-seat contest, the quota would be declared to be 5,251. In any case none of these candidates has sufficient votes to be elected in accordance with the rules of this system. In accordance with the peculiar logic of the system what happens at this stage is that the candidate C with 3,000 votes is eliminated, and his votes could go, 2,000 to candidate B, and 1,000 to candidate A. This would leave a position that candidate A would now be credited with 5,000 votes and candidate B with 5,500 votes. The people who sponsor this system, or who defend it, maintain that this means that a majority of those 10,500 voters wanted candidate B to be elected but this has not in fact been established, even in accordance with the ridiculous practice of regarding preference votes as having the same value as actual votes.

All this means is that 4,000 of the electorate prefer candidate A to candidates B or C, 3,500 prefer candidate B to candidates A or C, and 3,000 prefer candidate C to candidates A or B, and that of those latter 3,000, 2,000 prefer candidate B to candidate A and 1,000 prefer candidate A to candidate B. That does not mean that an absolute majority prefer candidate B. Because no candidate has reached the quota, it was decided, in accordance with the rules of this system, to take the lowest candidate's second preferences into account in the same way as first preference votes. If the ensuing so-called result is accepted as final, is it not the position that 3,000 people who voted for candidate C have been given a second choice merely because their first choice was favoured by fewer of the electorate than either of the others?

Acceptance of this so-called result means in the example I have quoted that the candidate who was selected by most people as a first choice is defeated. What I want to know is: is there any good reason why the people who voted for this candidate should not have the same entitlement to have their second preferences considered as were the second preferences of the smaller number of voters who favoured candidate C?

Candidate C was eliminated.

He was. I want to point out that this is giving preferential treatment to the smallest minority in the constituency——

Not at all.

——and giving them disproportionate voting power. A false and fraudulent claim is made that this establishes that a majority in the constituency wanted candidate B to be elected out of the three, when in fact it proves no such thing. If Deputy Donegan will listen for a change he will see this. Let him contradict it if he can, but he cannot.

The only thing that marks out the 3,000 voters who voted for candidate C from the rest is that the man they selected——

Their man is eliminated.

——as their first choice was the candidate who found the least amount of favour——

And was eliminated.

——by the people in the constituency. He is eliminated in accordance with the ridiculous assumptions and the ridiculous regulations of this system—the unjustifiable regulations of this system. It may be asserted that this so-called result at least proves that more people wanted candidate B than candidate A, but it does not. That is wrong and it is demonstrably wrong, because the whole electorate, even in accordance with the ridiculous assumptions in this system that a preference vote of any degree is equivalent to the expression of support of a first preference, have not had the opportunity of deciding between candidates B and C. They have only had the opportunity of deciding between candidates A and B.

If it were decided—and I do not see why it should not be in view of the fact that the whole principle of democracy is that each person's vote is of equal importance—to give the largest group in the constituency the same voting rights as the smaller groups it is possible that the second preferences of those who voted for candidate A would go, 1,500 to candidate B and 2,500 to candidate C. This would give another equally justifiable "result" of 5,000 for candidate B and 5,500 for candidate C.

Except that some people would have two votes. There would be two candidates still in the field.

Why should the 4,000 who voted for candidate A not be given the same consideration as the 3,000 who voted for candidate C?

Because they still have their first choice.

What offence against democracy did they commit? What greater rights have a minority of 3,000 got that their second preferences should be considered when the second preference votes of those who were in the majority should not be considered.

It may be said that this second so-called result is the correct one on the grounds that it has been established that more people wanted candidate B than candidate A, and now it has been established that more people wanted candidate C than candidate B, but that is not the fact because all the voters have not yet been given equality of treatment. We now have the 3,500 who voted for candidate B who have not had their second preferences considered. Out of 10,500, 7,500 have been given a second choice. If the 3,500 who voted for candidate B were treated in the same way—treated without the discrimination that is inherent in the system of so-called proportional representation which we have in this country—the second preferences could possibly have gone, 1,500 to candidate A and 2,000 to candidate C which would give a third result of 5,500 for candidate A and 5,000 in favour of candidate C, so it is obviously possible that taking into account the second preferences in the same way as the first preferences on a non-discriminatory basis rather than in the discriminatory manner in the present system, this could show a majority favouring each of the three. This is nonsensical, of course, and the nonsensical result arises because the basic assumption equating a second, third or twentieth choice with a first choice is nonsense. If you start with a nonsensical assumption, you will get a nonsensical result.

It may be that if the only candidates happened to be A and B, the first result might have arisen, but that was not the position. There were three candidates. Candidate C was entitled to stand and the electorate were entitled to make their choice between the three. This system prevents them from doing so. Similarly, if the only candidates were B and C, the second result might have ensued. If the only candidates were A and C, we might have had the third result. As I said, the voters were asked in fact to choose between candidates A, B and C and the only thing that can possibly be established from their votes is that a majority clearly favoured candidate A. I suppose it would be more equitable to allot a notional value to preference votes, take them all into account, and allocate the seat to the candidate obtaining the highest gross total but any such notional value would have to be purely arbitrary and the voters would soon see that the most effective way of supporting their real choice would be to vote for him only.

I think it is clear that where there are two or more candidates, it is not possible to establish that an absolute majority favours any one unless more than 50 per cent of the voters say so themselves by voting for a particular candidate. If more than 50 per cent do not vote for one, then there is not an absolute majority in favour of any one of the candidates. The only question that it is feasible to ask at elections is: which of the candidates on the ballot paper do you prefer? We know what a No. 1 vote means. It means that this candidate is my choice as a Deputy but no one can interpret the meaning of a tenth or eleventh preference vote. In fact, such a vote is really meaningless. Certainly, to equate it to a No. 1 vote is making a mockery of elections.

In the example I have quoted, more people favour A than either B or C; they have said so themselves, and while it is possible to devise any number of methods of manipulating the votes after they have been cast so as to change that result it is not possible to disprove it. The more different systems of manipulating the votes after the actual elections that are considered the clearer it becomes that the only feasible and equitable thing to do is to ask the people whom they want as their Deputy and accept the answer as they give it and abandon any effort to change the result they express in the ballot boxes by mathematical trickery in accordance with a set of purely arbitrary and illogical rules. In the immortal words of Deputy Dillon, the system that is described here as proportional representation is "a fraud and a cod". It does not do what it pretends to do. Examination of the distribution of votes will show clearly that the idea of distributing them proportionately had to be abandoned at a very early stage in the post-election manipulation of the votes. The claim that it ensures effective participation in the result of all the electorate is also clearly, as I have shown, a shameless pretence.

The example that I have quoted clearly shows that this system is solely concerned with those voters who are most out of touch with the general views of the people as a whole. The system is devised to ensure that in a close situation, it is those voters who will make the actual decision and not those who share the views of a reasonable number of the electorate. Democracy is based on the idea that the majority is right, and if this is so, then the next most important views are surely those nearest to the majority and the least worthy of consideration are those in the smallest minority? But the present system works in exactly the reverse way. It is fundamentally opposed to the whole theory of democracy.

I have shown that even in a single seat constituency the taking into consideration of the votes cast for the candidate in the smallest minority as full votes for other candidates until there are only two left, does not, in fact, establish that one particular candidate is favoured by a majority of the voters. I have shown that this is so, even if we accept the ridiculous assumption that a second, third, tenth or twentieth preference should be equated to a full vote. In view of the fact that there is not, as I said, any indication that another system is generally desired, the Government have naturally put forward what we regard as the only sensible and justifiable method of obtaining public opinion at an election. Our reasons for proposing these two amendments of the Constitution are, however, first to enable constituencies to be defined in a reasonable way, that is taking reasonable account of practical considerations and of the convenience of the people and their representatives and secondly, to obtain for the country the advantages of single-seat constituencies. As I see it, the actual system of voting is incidental but since the responsibility is ours we have put forward what is clearly the best and fairest system.

There is just one comparatively minor point that I might mention in view of the fact that this debate is taking place at a time when two by-elections are being contested and in view of the fact that the conduct of these two campaigns in the two large and difficult counties of Clare and Wicklow makes such demands on the time and energy of Deputies that we have had, I think, an unusual number of quorum bells. Under the system of single-seat constituencies, this disproportionate effort and expense by all Parties and by Deputies and Senators would not be necessary. By-elections in a reasonably-sized constituency would not have to disrupt Deputies' normal activities and tax their stamina to the same extent as they do now. Instead of having to arouse the interest of people in a large area in order to replace one-third, one-fourth or one-fifth of the representation of the area, the task at by-elections would be to ask the smaller number of people——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

When I was interrupted, I was just concluding by pointing out that there was this point, which I considered a comparatively minor one, that if we had single-seat constituencies, by-election campaigns would make smaller demands on the time and energies of Deputies and that we might have less need for quorum bells and there would be less of a tax on the stamina of the Members, that the task of the political Parties and the candidates at by-elections would be of a smaller proportion than it is at present, that instead of having to arouse the interest of the people of a large area in an election which is being held to replace one-third, one-fourth or one-fifth of the representation of the constituency, the task would be to ask the smaller number of people that would be involved in the smaller constituencies to come out to replace the single representative for the area, to elect a new Deputy for the area; in other words, to replace their total representation. There would obviously be less expense attached to by-elections, both for the State and for political Parties.

The cost of this referendum has been mentioned but obviously the cost of the referendum would be quickly recovered through less expensive by-elections and as I have said, the demands on all our time and energies would be less. I may say, while I have described this as a comparatively minor point, it was looked on by the 1910 British Royal Commission on Electoral Systems as being much the gravest defect of the system of proportional representation which operates here. Obviously the larger the constituency and the more Deputies they elect—in other words, the nearer the system comes to what was intended by its inventors—the more disproportionate becomes the effort and the expense necessary to replace the smaller fraction of representation of the constituency involved.

If Deputies opposite could get over their highly developed inferiority complex and develop instead some degree of confidence in their own Party and their own policy, which apparently Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy O. J. Flanagan and a minority of Deputies of Fine Gael have, they would see the advantage of single-seat constituencies and would abandon their really craven complaints that in the clearer circumstances of a single-seat constituency, there must be inevitably a perpetuation of Fianna Fáil in office. That is the case the Opposition have been making, that if we get this clear confrontation in single-seat constituencies of the different Parties, there is no prospect either now or at any time in the future of anything but a Fianna Fáil Government.

And 33 per cent tolerance for gerrymandering.

I never heard of a more abject admission of the ineffectiveness of their own Party and their own policy than that.

33 per cent for gerrymandering.

It is a clear admission—a confession to the public in general—that in no circumstances could they hope to convince more people in a majority of constituencies that their proposals for the country are better than those of Fianna Fáil. If that is the Opposition Party's assessment of themselves, then how can they expect the public to assess them any differently?

In the Army in which the Minister for Local Government and I had the honour to serve, there was an expression which was used and which was the correct one which applies to what the Minister for Local Government has been saying over the past couple of days, and the word was "bull". If I ever listened to bulling in my life, I listened to it coming from the mouth of the Minister for Local Gevernment because it appears as if he and nobody else in his Party believed in the things which he put before this House.

The memory of the Fianna Fáil Party appears to be short. They do not seem to remember that they were beaten in their attempt to change to the straight vote system in 1959. They do not seem to realise that the people are not going to forgive them for the needless expenditure of money which they propose to indulge in some time this year, for no other reason except that they themselves, and as Deputy Boland, Minister for Local Government, seems to suggest, are afraid of what will happen. They cannot, if they do not get a change, have a chance of lording it over everybody.

I listened to the Taoiseach opening this debate and I was very surprised by some of the statements he made. To pick one out of its context, it amazed me that the Taoiseach of this House, the Leader of the Parliament, the Leader of the Government, did not know how proportional representation works. It astonished me to find that somebody in his position should make the statement he made here. If this is the well-informed opinion which we are told the Fianna Fáil Government have on the electoral system of this country—and they have quoted most countries to us here—it is rather a pity that they did not inform themselves of what actually happens here. What the Taoiseach described as the proportional representation system which elects people to this House was, in fact, the system which is used to elect people to Seanad Éireann.

I quote from what he said in case anybody believes that I am misinter-preting what he meant.

In volume 232 of the Official Report for Wednesday, 28th February, 1968, the Taoiseach says:

The choice between two effective candidates can depend on the relative position of weaker candidates and the chance transfer of sub-parcels of votes. We all know of candidates who have headed the poll and not been elected. 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. 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.

Did the Taoiseach ever take part in a count? Did he ever take the trouble of watching his votes being counted as most of us have done? If he did, he would know that that statement is incorrect. There is no question of bundles of votes. When a Dáil election takes place the elected candidate has his surplus and that is divided in proportion to the second preferences, for every candidate, for every paper. It is astonishing that the Taoiseach should put forward a case like this. If the rest of his arguments are like this one, they are very weak.

Great play has been made of the fact that some people, not in our Party but in the Fine Gael Party, have expressed views contrary to what their Party stands for now. I do not know whether that is right or wrong. But I will say that there are in the Fianna Fáil Party people who dread the prospect of the straight vote being carried through. They will not hear me say this because they are not here, but they will read it in the Official Report. I should like to hear them say: "We do not mind; we are sure of our seats." That is not what they tell me and that is not what they say around the country.

If we are going to say what other Parties stand for, let us say what our own Party stands for. We stand for PR. We stand for it not because of the fact that we feel the straight vote would wipe us out but because we feel that the PR system is the fairest and only system that should be allowed. That is the reason and that is the only reason. To go further as this Party must, be it long or short, we stand for the system which we have now. PR was grand and I have records to show how it worked. It was grand as long as it favoured Fianna Fáil, as long as it guaranteed them a majority. But, when it began to appear that the public, as they are entitled to do, decided to change their mind the Fianna Fáil felt, as they always have felt, that the people of Ireland have no right to change their mind. They must support Fianna Fáil and if they do not do it one way they must be forced to do it another.

The Taoiseach's opening address is very revealing because it shows that he has doubts not about the system of election but the type of people elected to the House. One of the first things he said was that the straight vote will give a better type of Member. He was careful not to say "Deputy", but that will come later. Was he, in fact, looking at his benches and saying: "Look at them; would you blame me for changing the system of election with those fellows?" Did he mean that the people sitting in the front bench and back benches were not the type he would like to see in Dáil Éireann? Does he want to change the system because it will give a better type of Member?

I do not know if the Taoiseach studied his speech. Perhaps it was written out and handed to him and he did not read it. He is an intelligent man and possibly if he had read it he would have been as surprised as I have been.

He also referred to the fact that he thought Deputies were getting too much to do at local level. In the same volume of the Official Report he says:

The experience has been that competition between Deputies—often of the same Party—has forced some of them to curry favour with voters by pretending to gain favours for them even where benefits are available as of right thus tending to create a false impression in the public mind. 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.

Is that why so many of his Party find it so difficult to come to this House? Is that why so many members of his Party take no part in the debates? I suggest it is not. I suggest that this whole story of Deputies pretending they are doing things for others is cod and that the Taoiseach is trying to put a skin on the barefaced attempt he is making to change the whole pattern of political life in this country.

I claim to spend more time in this House than any other Deputy and I have plenty of time to look after the needs of my constituents. Very few of them come to me with complaints to get things done that they themselves could do, and in every case when they come to me it is because they have not got something which, as the Taoiseach says, they are by right entitled to. And it is only when they have tried every avenue that they eventually call on the Deputy who they expect will be able to make representations for them. I do not see anything wrong with that. As a matter of fact, I believe that a Deputy is a buffer between the ordinary people and bureaucracy and the situation, if PR is ever changed will leave the ordinary people worse off. The loss will be theirs.

This whole idea of changing the system, because as the Minister for Local Government seems to think the people want a change, arose many years ago. In 1937 when the Constitution was being voted on, the leader of Fianna Fáil would not agree that any attempt should be made to change the voting system. In 1959 the change was attempted and beaten and last year, over 18 months ago, a constitution committee was set up. I would be slow to give details of what happened in this committee but for the fact that the Minister for Local Government here in the House, as well as other members of his Party outside the House, have been attempting to use the name of that committee for the purpose of boosting the argument in favour of a change.

The Minister for Local Government said that the committee did not suggest any other change except to the straight vote, or any argument in favour of retaining PR. Of course nothing could be further from the truth because in fact this matter was mentioned at a committee meeting on only one occasion and on that occasion the former Taoiseach said—I want to make this very clear because if he wants an opportunity or if any other member of the Fianna Fáil Party on the committee wants an opportunity, he can come into the House and take it—that we should not discuss the suggestion of election by the straight vote system, because, since it had been defeated by the country nine years ago, the Government could not again put it to the country.

Nothing could be more definite than that and because of that the matter of a change to the straight vote was not further discussed. If Deputy Seán Lemass had not been on the committee at that time, there would have been written into the committee's report plenty of arguments against the proposed change; but we were given the impression by Deputy Seán Lemass —I have great respect for him and I believe he honestly meant what he said —that the change was not contemplated. The statement he made completely disarmed the members of the committee. We were in a position at that time to make a case against the suggested change——

Deputy Colley, in the chair, agreed with it.

Deputy Colley was in the chair. There were other Fianna Fáil members and nobody suggested that we were to have a change or that we must agree to make some recommendation on it. The only discussion was on the question of the single transferable vote and on PR. There were arguments in favour of both. If Deputy Seán Lemass were not the type of man I think he is, I should accuse him of deliberately introducing that statement for the purpose of disarming the people on the Committee who were opposed to the change. I should accuse him of attempting to and of succeeding in stifling any argument against the straight vote system. He made the statement and, as I have said, all of us there had respect for him and agreed that he must have been speaking with full knowledge of what the Government intended to do, particularly in view of the fact that he had been so recently Taoiseach and had set up the Committee—that he himself only came on it when Deputy Davern was promoted to the position of Parliamentary Secretary.

Is it any wonder, therefore, why those of us on that Committee are angry when we find people like the Minister for Local Government attempting to use the report of the Committee to bolster up the weak arguments in favour of the change to the straight vote system? The Committee, having met during a considerable period, were requested just before last Christmas by the Chairman, Deputy Colley, to bring in a report. He was very anxious the report should be brought in quickly. I knew Deputy Colley before he came into the House and I believed he was dealing with this in an honourable manner. He said it was necessary to bring in the report immediately because the Government were considering certain changes of the Constitution. He impressed on us the urgency there was to have the report brought in. We sat hours after this Dáil had concluded its business, for the purpose of considering fully the report on questions which the Government had no intention of considering at all. Deputy Colley was a member of the Government; Deputy Lemass was not, and Deputy Colley as Chairman of the Committee requested us to bring in the report quickly because the Government wanted to consider it.

At that time it must have been known that the Government intended to try to change the system of election and at that time we had long passed the portion of the report which dealt with the system of election. I feel very strongly that an attempt was made by the Fianna Fáil Party, the Government of this country to make fools of Members of the House by getting them to sit on a Committee, acting as stooges, as fools, preparing a report which they knew they would not use, or any part of it, unless it was favourable. When it was not favourable, they knew they would ignore it completely and bring in these two changes in the Constitution contrary to what was recommended.

This is a matter which strikes at the roots of Committee work in this House. If Members of the Dáil who genuinely believe they are doing work for the House are to be used in this way, I want to make it very clear that as far as the Labour Party are concerned, we will not be involved in this kind of thing again. We attempted to get the Committee together again when the real evidence had come out. Could we get it? No. There was no danger of the chairman calling the Committee together because there were hard things to be said and it was decided it would be better to leave the saying of the hard things until this matter before the House was being dealt with. It does not matter whether it is all over. We have got a lesson in duplicity that we will not forget for many a day.

All sorts of weird statements have been made by Government spokesmen. It started with the Minister for Justice, in a television discussion with Fine Gael Senator, Garret FitzGerald, and me. He made the statement that it was quite a simple thing, that all we had to do was to produce one paper dealing with the whole lot. It was dead simple, just like that. The Government had made up their minds. Either the Minister for Justice was flying a kite or was badly caught out. It would be difficult to find out and it does not really matter now. The fact is that public opinion became so strong against the Government proposal to have a package deal—two entirely different things tied up in one, salt and sugar—that the Taoiseach announced he had decided to change. I do not know if the Taoiseach was sure about whether a decision had ever been made to have the two together. It is just an example of what would be tried if the public were not alert.

On that occasion on television I produced quotations, which I propose to produce again later in the debate, in which the present President of Ireland, Mr. de Valera, then Leader of Fianna Fáil, and the man who followed him as Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, both stated that PR was not alone the best system of election but that it was the only safeguard of democracy in the country and that anybody who suggested it should be changed would only be doing so for sectional purposes, for Party political purposes. They said they were not proposing it in the best interests of the country.

What a change. That was pooh-poohed by the Minister for Justice on that occasion who said it was a long time ago. It is a long time since Moses was given the tablets of stone but they are things that should not be forgotten. There are people in this country and in every country who believed that what was written then is still the law, that what was said then is still the law. What Deputies de Valera and Lemass said then is still true. We echo it here tonight. Those who want to change from proportional representation want to do so only for Party interests and thus, in fact, preventing— if they get away with it—a system which will protect democracy in this country.

As reported at column 1957 of Volume 232, No. 13, of the Official Report, the Taoiseach stated:

There have been demands from certain Deputies that the order of names on the ballot paper should be determined by lot rather than alphabetically on the grounds that candidates higher up on the ballot paper tend to receive more votes than those in a lower position. If there is such a tendency, it is, of course, aggravated by the long lists of candidates inevitably involved in the present system.

Let me point out that my name has consistently been at the bottom of the ballot paper, but, thank God, equally consistently, at the top of the poll. That answers that argument pretty neatly. In addition, the long list of candidates described by the Taoiseach simply does not exist in most cases.

At this stage of our development, we should be able to count up to nine or ten. The ballot paper which contains the names of more than nine or ten candidates in a Dáil election is rare indeed. In most three-seat constituencies, there are the names of five, six, seven and, on rare occasions, eight candidates on the ballot paper. The Taoiseach is suggesting that we get mixed up because of the long list of candidates. That might possibly be an argument in relation to the lists of candidates at local elections but, to judge by some of the speeches made here over the past couple of weeks, it is not the intention of the Government to alter the system of election of local authority members. Therefore, this proposal is simply something which is introduced for Dáil Members.

I assert that it does not matter where the name of the candidate appears on a ballot paper and I have proved it in my own case. Secondly, I assert that the long list of candidates the Taoiseach talks about does not exist.

I have an interesting table here of the percentages of the electorate who voted at each election and of the invalid votes cast. To those who claim that proportional representation confuses people, that they do not know how to vote, that the "straight vote", as they call it, would be so much easier to understand, I would ask them to bear the following particulars from that table in mind.

In the 1922 election, 62 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was 3.08; in the 1923 election, 61 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was 3.66; in 1927, there were two elections, in the first of which 68 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was 2.6; at the second election in 1927, 69 per cent of the electorate voted and 1.86 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1932, 77 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes dropped to 1.6; in 1933, 81 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was 1.05; in 1937, 76 per cent of the electorate voted and 2.1 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1938, 79 per cent of the electorate voted and 1.2 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1943, 74 per cent of the electorate voted and 1.2 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1944, 68 per cent of the electorate voted and 1.04 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1948, 74 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was .98; in 1951, 75.3 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was .89; in 1954, 76.4 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was .94; in 1957, 71.3 per cent of the electorate voted and .93 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1961 70.6 per cent of the electorate voted and .96 per cent of the votes was invalid; in 1965—the last election— 75.1 per cent of the electorate voted and the percentage of invalid votes was .91.

Where, then, do we get the idea that the system of proportional representation is confusing, that people spoil their votes, that people do not vote properly, that they do not know how to vote? I have read out the figures for the House. They answer the Taoiseach's argument pretty well.

We have also heard arguments about the number of elections which were held. One must be sure of one's facts. One of the arguments by Fianna Fáil on this issue is that the straight vote system will create a more stable government and, in fact, that the Government will remain longer in power— for very obvious reasons. Since proportional representation was introduced in this country in 1923, the number of elections which occurred here, as compared with the number which occurred in Great Britain, where the straight vote system is in operation, shows that there was one election more in Great Britain in that period than there was here. So much for the argument that proportional representation produces an unstable government.

For anybody who is interested in the figures, the life of the 1923 Dáil was three years and eight months. Cumann na nGaedheal, the then ruling Party, got 39.2 per cent of the votes and 14 per cent of the seats.

In June, 1927, Cumann na nGaedheal received 27.4 per cent of the votes and won 30 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted two months.

In September, 1927, Cumann na nGaedheal got 38.4 per cent of the votes and 40 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted four years and three months.

In 1932, Fianna Fáil got 44.6 per cent of the votes and 48 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted ten months.

In 1933, Fianna Fáil got 49.7 per cent of the votes and 50 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted four years and four months.

In 1937, Fianna Fáil got 45.3 per cent of the votes and 49 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted ten months.

In 1938, Fianna Fáil got 52 per cent of the votes and 55 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted five years.

In 1943, Fianna Fáil got 41.9 per cent of the votes and 48 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted 11 months.

In 1944, Fianna Fáil got 48.9 per cent of the votes and 54 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted three years and seven months.

In 1948, Fianna Fáil got 41.9 per cent of the votes and 46 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted three years and three months.

In 1951, Fianna Fáil got 46.3 per cent of the votes and 47 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted two years and ten months.

In 1954, Fianna Fáil got 43.4 per cent of the votes and 45 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted two years and eight months.

In 1957, Fianna Fáil got 48.3 per cent of the votes and 53 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted four years and six months.

In 1961, Fianna Fáil got 43.8 per cent of the votes and 49 per cent of the seats. That Dáil lasted three years and five months.

In the last election, Fianna Fáil got 47.7 per cent of the votes and 50 per cent of the seats. There is a question mark as to the lifetime of this Dáil.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14th March, 1968.
Barr
Roinn