Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 6

An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1968: An Coiste (Atógáil). Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Fo-alt 2º i bPairteanna I agus II.
Subsection 2º in Parts I and II.
D'atógadh an díospóireacht ar an leasú seo a leanas:
I gCuid I, fo-alt 2º a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad:—
"2º Is do réir na hionadaidheachta cionmhaire agus ar mhodh an aon-ghotha ionaistrighthe a toghfar na comhaltaí.";
agus
I gCuid II, fo-alt 2º a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad:—
"2º The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
3. In Part I, to delete subsection 2º and substitute the following:—
"2º Is do réir na hionadaidheachta cionmhaire agus ar mhodh an aon-ghotha ionaistrighthe a toghfar na comhaltaí.";
and
In Part II, to delete subsection 2º and substitute the following:—
"2º The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
—(Deputy Norton).

When I reported progress last week, I had demonstrated to the House the motives which prompted me to table this amendment and the advantages which my amendment offered both to the Government and to the country. I had shown that my amendment was not contrary to the primary purpose of the legislation. I mentioned the main points of the Taoiseach's speech to demonstrate that his primary concern was the problem to which the multi-seat constituency gave rise. I recalled that the Minister himself had said that he was mainly concerned to obtain the single-seat constituency and was less concerned as to the actual method of voting. I did this to demonstrate that there was no departure in principle involved in accepting this amendment and that therefore there was no substantial reason why the Minister should refuse to accept it.

I explained to the House that I personally was in complete agreement with the view that we should have single-seat constituencies and the straight vote, that I believed in the superiority of such an arrangement, that I believed this would remove much of the humbug and pretence and the futile competition among Deputies regarding matters of administration over which they have no real control or influence. I pointed out that it would lead to greater parliamentary and administrative efficiency and to greater political stability as distinct from our present political stagnation. It was my view that it would encourage a better type of candidate to enter public life and that as a result a two-Party system would eventually evolve, that it would bring new life and purpose to national politics by removing many of the mediocre personalities and forcing the Opposition to think constructively and to transform themselves from a collection of disgruntled Deputies into a coherent and forceful Opposition.

Having said that and made my position clear, I then explained that I did not believe that at the moment the people would be prepared to accept the straight vote. From my communication with persons in all walks of life and of all shades of political and non-political opinion, I believe that the public are unhappy about the way in which our public affairs are conducted, that they are of the opinion that debate in this House is mere political manoeuvring, that it is futile and often insultingly insincere.

I believe the majority of the people are anxious for constitutional and parliamentary reform, that the Members of this House should be imbued with a new sense of responsibility and a sense of purpose. However, I do not believe that at the moment the electorate are prepared to accept the straight vote. I believe they are prepared to go halfway in this reform and accept the single seat, but if the Government persist in trying to go the whole way and force the issue on both the single seat and the straight vote, defeat is inevitable for them. Those who urge the Minister and the Government to continue this folly are those who, for their own reasons, would have the Government defeated. Then all hope of reform in the foreseeable future would be lost. Reform must come eventually, but it would be wiser to make this change now while the country is enjoying peace and prosperity and the people are calm and rational, rather than in the uncertain future when we may well have lost our political stability and the heat of our tempers may have replaced the light of our reason. At a time like this we learn the wisdom of the proverb that prevention is better than cure.

If this amendment of mine is rejected, then I believe the amendment to the Constitution will be defeated. Then the Minister and, indeed, the Government will have to explain to the rank and file of the Fianna Fáil Party at the next Ard Fheis why they rejected this amendment, why they refused to compromise, why they persisted in their headstrong policy and to what purpose. I have reason to believe that there are some Members of the Government who would be prepared to listen to reason, and compromise, and those other Members who are not prepared to do so might well consider that they will be held responsible for the inevitable defeat of Fianna Fáil. They might also consider that nobody is irreplaceable. The Minister himself well knows that there is no substitute for success, especially at the polls.

Shakespeare has said that there is a tide in the affairs which taken at the flood leads on to fortune. By ignoring the advice of their Leader and deciding to opt for the retention of PR, Fine Gael have lost their last chance of catching the political tide. Under PR they can never hope to win an election on their own. The most they can hope for is a coalition with the Labour Party, and that, I think, is a humiliating prospect. Those who saw last week's "Seven Days" programme and heard the ex-vice-chairman of the Labour Party, Dr. Noel Browne, talk of the new extreme socialism and of the list of industries and firms which it was proposed to nationalise, of the complete absence of loyalty to Cabinet colleagues, and of the need to spring the trap on those same colleagues when the time was opportune, must wonder if Fine Gael are now bereft of all dignity and shame. There are more honourable ways of committing suicide.

During the remainder of this debate, I hope Deputy Cosgrave will avail of the opportunity of making known his views on PR. If he now accepts the Fine Gael Party's view and believes in retaining PR, then he should say so loud and clear. If, on the other hand, he has doubts, his silence in this regard is not reassuring. But if he has doubts about PR, I do not think he should try to conceal these doubts and mislead the public by his silence. After all, he is the Leader of the Fine Gael Party. He should not be as mute as a mouse but should speak out and lead his Party on this most critical issue; otherwise some tomcat masquerading as a tiger will eat him up. This is being said more and more openly by the Fine Gael Party's national newspaper, by its political correspondent, and, indeed, by Fine Gael public representatives on television, not to mention the penetrating analysis of the situation by our old friend "Backbencher" last weekend. Indeed, we would be sorry to see him replaced.

The Labour Party are the only Party that hope to benefit by the retention of PR. They will most probably hold the balance of power after the next general election and in that position will be able to exert power out of all proportion to their strength. The temptation to indulge in political blackmail will be very strong. I will say no more than that. If this highly unsatisfactory position comes about, then the Fine Gael Party must accept the blame for their present shortsighted refusal to accept a compromise. Unless the Government change their minds and accept this amendment, I forecast that we will be condemned to political instability and ultimate chaos. We might well reflect on the situation in France today—and also in Italy and Belgium—and unless we are prepared to put our house in order by reforming our Constitution so that elections can produce a strong stable Government, which can govern effectively, and a viable Opposition, then the tragedy of France today may well be ours tomorrow. It is for this reason that I move this amendment.

I agree with Deputy Norton that, as I have already said, the most important thing in this proposal is to get rid of the present system of multi-member constituencies with all its disadvantages, with all the evils inherent in it, the dangers that are inherent in the present system, dangers in regard to stability of government and, indeed, in regard to the prospects of forming a government at all, and to substitute for that system a system of single-seat constituencies thereby gaining for the people substantial advantages both from the point of view of their adequate representation in the House and of having a more efficient legislature, thereby also, eliminating the undesirable effects of multi-member constituencies on the morale of the people and also on the morale of political Parties and establishing circumstances in which the people will have a better opportunity of choosing their Government, of having the benefit of stable and coherent government, and being able in the next election to hold the Government responsible for their actions. The proposal that we have before the House in this Bill is to do something more than that as well. One of the principal things that this proposal will do is that it will establish for the first time here equal treatment of all in regard to the exercise of the franchise.

The Bill proposes, first of all, to obtain for the people the advantages of single-member constituencies and, secondly, to establish for the first time here the principle of one man one vote by abolishing the present discriminatory system which confers a multiple-voting power on some of our citizens, the extent of the multiple voting being in inverse proportion to the responsibility of the views of the individuals selected for this favoured treatment, that is assuming that the degree of responsibility is measured by the volume of support for these particular views which exist in the particular constituency. I think that is the fundamental concept of democracy.

As far as I can see, Deputy Norton has made the case that the obtaining of the advantages of single-member constituencies and getting rid of the disadvantages of multi-member constituencies is so important that other wrong things may be accepted. This may be so but it has not been shown that we are any less likely to get the advantages of single-member constituencies without imposing these other undesirable features on the public. Subsection (1) of Parts I and II which we have passed is the subsection which gets rid of the disadvantages of multi-member constituencies and obtains for the people the substantial advantages of single-member constituencies. As I say, I agree that this is the most important part of the proposal from the point of view of the public as a whole. The subsection to which this amendment is proposed, (subsection 2), gets rid of the discrimination which is inherent in the present system, which discriminates in an arbitrary, completely unjustified, unfair and undemocratic way between voters.

Deputy Norton's amendment, in fact, proposes to retain this unjustified and unfair system of voting in the context of single-member constituencies. The theory of the system, if it can even be dignified by describing it as a theory, cannot be justified in multi-member constituencies. The only possible justification is that it is an artificial way of arranging representation for minorities. The basis on which this is done is the absurd one of equating a preference vote of any order with an actual vote for a candidate, this, of course, being done in the case of some individuals only. For people who see something desirable in this fragmentation of the people's representation, who see something desirable in the people considering narrow sectional interests rather than those of the community as a whole, it has at least got that amount of justification, that it does make this fragmentation possible. But there is even less justification for this system of voting in single-member constituencies.

As far as I can see, Deputy Norton believes that the system which we propose, the straight vote is in fact the best. The only possible argument—and I think that it would be fair to say the only argument—that Deputy Norton advanced in favour of this amendment is the suggestion of expediency but, in fact, no evidence has been produced to show that it would be more expedient to adopt it. Deputy Norton says that he believes the people are not ready to accept our proposal. This is merely his own opinion; it is an opinion that cannot be substantiated. There is only one way of finding out and that is by letting the people vote.

It will be too late then.

I do not know of any other way. I agree that the Coalition newspapers give that impression but, after all, that is their function. They have accepted as their function the adoption of the same role as the Opposition Parties here in the Dáil of denigrating anything that is proposed by the Fianna Fáil Government and striving in every way possible to frustrate the Government's efforts in every sphere by trying to direct public opinion against what the Government proposes.

Which is the non-Coalition newspaper?

Deputy Norton might remember that, if these Coalition newspapers either accurately interpreted public opinion or effectively influenced or formed public opinion, this Government would never have been even one day in office.

Does the Minister think it fair to castigate the press in this fashion?

I am prepared to agree that all the propaganda so far has been against our proposal but it is quite obvious from the attitude of the Opposition Parties here over the past few days that they know the public have absorbed all the propaganda against this proposal for electoral reforms that they are likely to absorb and, therefore, further attempts at brainwashing will be futile. They know that we have succeeded over the years in making our case known and getting it accepted against this same propaganda and this same paper wall. As this debate continues they see how effective the arguments are for the proposed change and it is obvious the Opposition Parties are in dread of these arguments being made known to the people. As each day passes they see more and more clearly the prospect of the people becoming aware of the arguments in favour of the proposals we are making.

Let us have the referendum before the summer is out then.

The Opposition's only hope is to create sufficient confusion in the public mind to prevent the public knowing the full facts. On the other hand, we believe we can make these things known to the people. We believe the people will see the advantages that will accrue to the country as a result of what we propose.

This proposed electoral reform will, in fact, be effected by the people. I suggest Deputy Norton has done no more than express his opinion. He has not shown that the people will not accept what we are asking them to accept. In fact, there does not seem to be any way of discovering this except by means of the referendum. Neither has Deputy Norton shown that the acceptance of his amendment, which involves the retention of discrimination in regard to voting power with even less justification than in present circumstances, will in any way lessen the opposition to the fundamental change from multi-member constituencies to single-member constituencies. I confess I do not see any way in which he could show this and it appears to me, therefore, that there has been no substantial reason advanced as to why this proposed amendment should be adopted.

Deputy Norton admits that the system we propose is more desirable, but he believes that the system he proposes would be more expedient, though he has failed to establish his argument in that regard. I said on the Second Reading debate that since neither our own Ard Fheis nor the Committee on the Constitution nor any other body recommended any other system of voting in single-member constituencies, we naturally put forward what we considered to be the best and only justifiable system. Since this alternative system has been proposed, even if it is only on the basis of expediency, it is necessary, I think, to show just how unjustifiable is this ridiculous system of considering some people's preferences to the nth degree as votes for different candidates while ignoring all but the first preference votes of others. There is no way of dealing equitably and democratically with all voters other than the way we propose.

The transferable vote, fraudulently and cynically misnamed the single transferable vote, since so far from being a single vote it is essentially a system of discriminatory multiple voting, discriminates arbitrarily between voters. I go further; I say that the basis on which this discrimination is exercised is opposed to the fundamental concept of democracy. The whole theory of democracy is based on the principle that the majority is right. It assumes that all the people over a certain age are qualified to vote, that their votes are entitled to equal consideration and the views of the majority should prevail. If that is so, and if the majority view is the correct democratic view, then it follows surely that the views of the smallest minority are least worthy of consideration. As I said, the fundamental point is that all views be given the same consideration but, even if the proposition that there should be differential voting for some were to be accepted, surely it would be to the largest group that this differential voting should be accorded rather than to the smallest group.

The transferable vote works in the exact opposite way. It is devised to arrange the maximum possible consideration of the views of the smallest minority down to the point of treating an expression of opinion that a particular candidate is the second worst of the total number on offer as equivalent to the majority opinion that a particular candidate is the best while, at the same time, arranging that the minimum amount of consideration will be accorded to the views of those who find a reasonable number of their fellow-constituents to agree with their views. The system arranges that in a close result the decision as to who is to represent the constituency and therefore ultimately what Party is to form the Government of the country will be made, not as is inherent in democracy, by the majority, but by the smallest minority group in the constituency.

I want to suggest that this proposition for the retention of the present system of multiple voting for those who are most out of tune with the majority view needs some explanation. Under the system of the transferable vote, the number of votes given to the individual voter is, in general, proportional to the smallness of the number of voters who share the voter's particular view. In other words, the more out of tune a voter is with a political view shared with a reasonable number of the electorate, the greater the number of actual votes that are given to him, that is to say, that the smaller the number of people who share a person's view the more votes he gets and these are all treated as full votes, the same as the single vote of the majority group.

It is bad enough to give one vote to some people and an indefinite number to others, the total number given being controlled only by the number of candidates in the field, but it is worse to give the multiple votes to those who can find the least to agree with them and can therefore be described in the immortal words of Deputy Dillon as "cranks and crackpots".

Apart from anything else, the transferable vote system is a fraud. It purports to establish that there is a majority in favour of one candidate after the people in the ballot box have said that there is not. The transferable vote system manipulates votes after they have been cast, in accordance with a set of illogical, inconsistent and unjustifiable rules and, as a result, allocates votes that were cast for a number of different candidates eventually to two of the candidates and the absurd claim is then made that this post-election manipulation of the people's votes establishes that an absolute majority favour whichever candidate winds up with a majority, consisting of votes that were cast for himself and a number of votes that were cast for other people but which were allocated to him by virtue of the machinations of the returning officer and his staff.

This is nonsense. It is a fraudulent claim even if you accept the basis of the absurd principle of all these preference votes being of equal value to actual votes and it can only be arrived at as a result of the most blatant and undemocratic discrimination between voters. What is claimed as the "result" arrived at in this way can be easily proved to be unsustainable if the principle of equal treatment for all voters is conceded, that is, if it is agreed that the principle of one man one vote is a proper principle to adhere to. Both on Second Reading a couple of weeks ago and in the debate in 1959 I gave an example which showed that this is so, which showed that this system does not do what it claims to do, even on the basis of this ridiculous assumption of equating preference votes of any degree to actual votes, and this has not been controverted nor has any attempt been made to controvert it because it clearly shows the fraudulence of the claims made and the absurdity of the whole basis of the system.

I think it is necessary to give an example again although I fully appreciate that, once again, the answer will be silence. I quoted an example of three candidates contesting a single-member constituency or contesting a by-election under the present circumstances or contesting the concluding stages of the count in a multi-member constituency. One candidate, candidate A, has 4,000 votes; candidate B has 3,500 votes and candidate C has 3,000 votes. The operation of this system of transferable votes is to take the 3,000 votes cast for the candidate who is in the smallest minority—candidate C—and distribute them among the other two remaining candidates on the basis of equating second preference, or whatever other preferences there may be, to actual votes and this could result in 1,000 of these being allocated to candidate A, giving him 5,000, and 3,000 to candidate B, giving him 5,500 votes.

The proponents of this so-called theory of the transferable vote say that this is grand; that it has now been established that a majority of the people in that constituency want candidate B to be elected. That is a ridiculous claim. It is obviously not true because no such thing has, in fact, been established. What has happened is that of the 10,500 people here, 3,000 of them who voted for candidate C have been given two votes and those who voted for the other candidate have been given one vote only. For what reason? How were they selected for this favoured treatment? Just because they failed to elect their candidate? But, now, as a result of giving this smallest group this specially favoured treatment, we arrive at a situation where the major group in the constituency have also failed to elect their candidate. Why should the 4,000 who voted for candidate A not get the same consideration allocated to their views, not get the same voting power as the 3,000 who voted for candidate C?

What I should like some member of the Opposition Parties who want to retain this system to explain is, how do people disqualify themselves from getting the same treatment with regard to their votes merely because of the fact that they find more people to agree with their views than do these other people who found themselves in the smallest minority? I say that there is no reason whatever why the 4,000 who have been put in the position of voting for a candidate who is not successful should not get the same treatment as the 3,000 who voted for candidate C in this instance, and it is obvious that if we decide to treat all these voters equally, as is inherent in the principle of one man one vote, the 4,000 votes distributed in the same way, on the same basis as the 3,000 were, could go, 1,500 to candidate B, giving him 5,000, and 2,500 to candidate C, giving him 5,500, and now as a result of giving the 4,000 the same treatment as the 3,000, we have the result of establishing that a majority in the constituency are in favour of candidate B and candidate C. It might be said that what has been established is that more people wanted B than A and more people wanted C than B and that therefore the second result would be the proper one. But this has not been established either, because we now have the position where the 3,500 who voted for candidate B have been treated in a discriminatory way and they have not had the same consideration accorded to their views as was given to the views of the other voters. I submit there is no way in which they either have disqualified themselves or have proved themselves to deserve to be treated as second-class citizens.

Of course, it is obviously possible if those votes were distributed they could give us yet another result—that 1,500 could be allocated to A and the remaining 2,000 to C, giving us yet another result of 5,500 in favour of A and 5,000 in favour of C. So that it is quite possible that if every voter were treated the same, we would arrive at the conclusion that there is a majority in the constituency in favour of each of the three candidates. That, of course, is nonsense. But you get a nonsensical result because the whole operation is based on the nonsensical assumption that a preference vote, no matter how low the preference it indicates, is the same thing and is worthy of the same treatment as a No. 1 vote.

This is the basic fallacy involved in the system. It may be said the first result would be the result if there were only two candidates, A and B, in the constituency and that the second would be the position if there were only B and C and the third if there were only A and C. But in fact that was not the position. There were three candidates in the constituency. Each was entitled to stand. People were asked to choose between them and they did and this is a system of trying to disprove what the people said in the ballot boxes. The result showed that there was not an absolute majority in favour of any of the three and it is futile to try to establish that there was.

I claim it is a fundamental thing that all voters should be treated the same, that the principle should be: one man, one vote. Everybody gets one vote. If some people are to get two votes, everybody should get two. If some are to get three, everybody should get three. If all are treated in the same way on the basis of this nonsensical assumption of the nth preference vote being equivalent to a No. 1 vote, we are likely to get a nonsensical result. There is only the one way of treating everybody's vote the same, that is, count the votes and accept the result as the people expressed it.

It might be suggested that everybody should get equal treatment by allocating a notional value to preference votes, totalling these up for every candidate and allocating the seat to the highest scorer. Any such national value would of course be purely arbitrary and the people would soon see that the most effective way of supporting their candidate would be just to vote for that candidate and for that candidate only. It is quite clear the only feasible and democratic thing to do at an election is to ask the people to indicate the candidate and policy they prefer and to count the votes. It is certainly the only equitable way of choosing between a number of candidates. Numbers 2, 3, 4, and second last preferences all mean different things. In fact, they mean different things to different people. I do not know whether the Deputies opposite would like to maintain that a No. 1 vote for Fine Gael and a No. 2 vote for Labour means "I believe in private enterprise" and "I also advocate the taking over of Guinness's, Jacob's, Pierce's of Wexford and Waterford Glass", as the vice-chairman of the Labour Party recently announced on television as Labour Party policy.

In the example I have quoted, all we know is that 4,000 people voted for A, 3,500 for B and 3,000 for C. It is not possible to establish that the position is different from that. If there is an absolute majority in favour of one in a constituency, the people will say so as they did in West Limerick and Clare. If the people have already said there is not an absolute majority, there is no way of establishing that there is.

There has been a lot of talk about by-elections, and as the winners of six out of seven by-elections this is a subject naturally very dear to our hearts. I admit I would like to go into them all in detail. There is a certain satisfaction in contemplating pleasant things, such as six victories out of seven. But although by-elections under the present system have particular relevance to the proposal of the transferable vote in single-member constituencies I do not propose to discuss the whole seven.

There has been particular reference by the Opposition Parties to the Wicklow and East Limerick by-elections, which are two out of the three which have been contested since the re-crystallisation of the Coalition brought about by our proposal to amend the Constitution in regard to the electoral system. This appears to have had one good effect already in exposing the continued existence of the Coalition and bringing it into the open inasmuch as these by-elections since then have consisted of a full-scale Coalition effort to direct the voters on how to transfer their votes. One of these all-out Coalition campaigns resulted in a seat for Fianna Fáil, despite the combined efforts of the Party machines of the two Opposition Parties, while the other produced the one swallow that makes the Opposition's summer. The result of these by-elections and the manipulations of the people's votes in the elections on these two occasions in themselves showed the absurdities, the discrimination and indeed the blatant fraud of the transferable vote system.

In order to demonstrate that and to demonstrate the lack of justification for this whole theory of the transferring of votes, I would like to consider the Wicklow by-election results first. As Deputies know, in this constituency the Coalition strategy was a five against one line-up. The result of the first count was that a Sinn Féin candidate received 2,009 votes, a Labour candidate 5,761, a Liberal candidate 509, a Fianna Fáil candidate 9,788, an Independent 191 and a Fine Gael candidate 8,035. The result of the application of the transferable vote rules was that the candidate who was supported by 8,035 of the voters was deemed to be elected, and "deemed" is the right word as he certainly was not elected by the people. There were 8,035 of the voters who voted for this candidate who was "deemed" to be elected and there were 18,258 who voted for candidates who were not "deemed" to be elected. Of those 18,258, 8,470 had their preference votes treated as No. 1's. There is no way of knowing how many second preferences were treated as No. 1's or how many third, fourth or fifth but, in fact, we do know that some people had all these preferences in turn being treated as actual votes for candidates other than the candidates for whom the voters actually voted— 8,470 of the 18,258 who voted for candidates who were not "deemed" to be elected.

The 9,788 who found most people in the constituency to agree with their views did not get this consideration. What I want somebody to explain to me is why were they deemed as having disqualified themselves from getting the same treatment, the same consideration paid to their views, as, for instance, the 191 who voted for the Independent candidate and all those others who voted for other candidates who were not "deemed" to be elected? What in fact, distinguished the 9,788 from the 8,470 who were given the special consideration? The only thing that distinguished them was that they found more people to agree with their views in the constituency than any of those other 8,470. They obviously should get the same treatment. If we are to pay any attention whatever to the principles of democracy, it is, if anything these people's views who are most entitled to consideration. Why were some of these 191, for instance, given two votes, some given three votes, some given four votes and some actually given five votes while some of the 509 who voted for the Liberal candidate were given two, three and some four.

The same thing applies to the 2,009 who voted for the Sinn Féin candidate and the 5,761 who voted for the Labour candidate. The last group only got two votes but we do not know how many of these votes which were allocated to other candidates were second, third or fourth or fifth preferences. I maintain that there is no reason why the 9,788 should be treated as second-class citizens and should be given only one vote as against multiple votes given to the other smaller groups. I maintain they did not demonstrate themselves in any way as being less entitled to consideration than anybody else in the constituency, and the only thing that marked them out was that they had views that were acceptable to more of their fellow citizens than any of these other groups.

The result of this practice of discrimination in accordance with arbitrary and undemocratic rules was that the candidate who came second in the actual voting was "deemed" to be elected and this came about on the basis of treating a total of 4,561 preference votes, including an unknown number of fifth, fourth, third and second preference votes, as actual votes for this candidate whom they were not cast for. The theory is that failure to elect a candidate requires the voters' preferences to be taken into account but this result shows how these arbitrary rules discriminate against the majority group. It was not possible within this system to arrange that the candidate who got 191 votes or the candidate who got 509 or 2,009 or 5,761 votes would be elected.

After going through five operations, however, it was found possible to arrange for the defeat of the candidate who got the biggest number of voters to support him—9,788. I would say that even having arrived at that stage there was still, even based on the theory of this system, a democratic requirement to arrange that these people who voted for the candidate getting the major support in the constituency should have the same consideration paid to their votes as was paid to others whose selected candidates were "deemed" not to be elected. After all, some of these other voters had five, some had four, some had three and some had two votes. The least the majority group should expect is that they would be given a second chance at least.

It is incumbent on the people who are trying to hang on to this theory to explain what sin against democracy these voters committed. The discrimination was not only against this majority group but also even against the supporters of the minority groups who were so misguided that even on their second or third attempt they chose the same candidate as the majority. For example, of the 191 who voted for the candidate getting the smallest support, those who chose as their second candidate the man who got 509 votes, got another vote, and if their third choice went to the third last candidate, they got another and if their fourth choice went to the fourth last candidate placed they got a fifth vote. If at any stage in this manipulation of the voting any of these people transferred their vote to the candidate getting the majority of votes in the constituency they were disqualified from further consideration the same as those who supported this candidate in the first instance.

The system is based on the peculiar assumption that the major consideration in down-grading the voting power of an individual is to be in agreement with a substantial number of his fellow citizens. We disagree with this. We maintain that it is implicit in democracy that every voter should get the same treatment and that it is unjust and undemocratic—if these terms are not synonymous—to refuse the same consideration to the 9,788 as was given to the 8,470 since both of these groups had under the system voted for candidates other than the one who was eventually "deemed" to be elected. Fair play could only be given by going back to the position that existed after the fourth count in this particular election. At that stage the position was that the Labour candidate had "credited" to him 6,797 votes, the Fianna Fáil candidate 10,343 votes, and the Fine Gael candidate 8,728 votes. In other words, 1,036 votes cast for other candidates had been given to the Labour candidate, 639 to the Fine Gael candidate and 555 to the Fianna Fáil candidate. It is quite obvious that if the votes were dealt with in a non-discriminatory manner, the 10,343 which were at this stage "credited" to the Fianna Fáil candidate could have and almost certainly would have put the Labour candidate above the Fine Gael candidate. Therefore it is clear that if the votes were dealt with in a non-discriminatory way it would have been established there was a majority for at least two of the candidates.

In those circumstances, of course, the votes which were now credited to the Fine Gael candidate would be entitled to the same treatment and that might well have resulted in the same situation as that created in East Limerick. It is absolutely certain that if in the case of the Wicklow by-election, the application even of this principle of the transferable vote, which equates preference votes to acutal votes were applied in a non-discriminatory way and a fair way, it would have shown a majority for at least two and possibly three of the candidates and this, as I have said, is of course absurd and it arises because the original assumption is an absurd one.

It is clear that the only thing known about the wishes of the Wicklow voters is what they themselves said in the ballot boxes—that 1,753 more of them were in favour of the Fianna Fáil candidate than of any of the others. Similarly in relation to East Limerick, where, despite all the efforts of the Coalition leaders and the canvassers, the voters refused to do as they were instructed to do by the Fine Gael and Labour schemers, and this discriminatory and unfair transferable vote system failed to encompass the defeat of the Fianna Fáil candidate and thereby circumvent the will of the people.

In East Limerick there were 6,487— almost 6½ thousand—more voters who wanted the Fianna Fáil candidate elected, and despite the loaded counting system it was not possible to change the result. Here again there is evidence of the discrimination that is involved in this system of the transferable vote. There were 21,399 voters who did not vote for the successful candidate and of these 11,248 got a second vote, some of them got a third vote and 10,151 got one vote only. Again I ask the Opposition to tell me why this was done, why had these 10,151 not got as much right to a second chance as those to whom the second chance was given? I draw attention again to the pattern—the biggest group in the constituency getting one vote, the next biggest getting two votes and the smallest getting three votes.

In fact, since that by-election the Labour Party have been stoutly maintaining that their coalition effort was better and more effective than Fine Gael's, that their canvassing for their Coalition partners was more effective. We do not know, of course. We do know they made an all-out effort, which makes a mockery of their reply to the recent Fine Gael pleas to form a Coalition openly. Now, we say they should have the same rights and that it is unfair that merely because there were 112 more people supporting the Labour candidate than the Fine Gael candidate, that those voters should get one vote only whereas Fine Gael supporters got two votes.

Here again, in East Limerick, the only thing known from the result is that there were almost 6½ thousand more voters who wanted the Fianna Fáil candidate elected than any other and there is no way of establishing that that is not the position. I am satisfied beyond all doubt, then, that there is no possible justification for the transferable vote system and that this is particularly so in regard to single-member constituencies. I am also satisfied that there is no other justifiable system of voting but the straight vote system.

Against this, Deputy Norton suggests that there is a poor chance of the admitted advantages of the single-member constituency being obtained with the straight vote incorporated in the proposal, and that the adoption of this discriminatory system of the transferable vote would make it more certain that this important electoral reform would be obtained. I suggest that in view of the overwhelming case against the transferable vote it is necessary for him to show even that expediency does in fact demand the adoption of this system of voting, and I do not think he can do this.

As far as I am concerned, I have confidence in the people of the country doing the sensible thing providing we succeed in putting the arguments before them, and with the assistance of the knowledge that a substantial percentage of the Opposition Parties appreciate that what we are doing is what is required in the interests of the people of the country, we expect to be able to put the arguments before the people.

It is quite true as Deputy Norton says that this proposal was defeated narrowly some nine years ago, but the people have had more experience of the system since. They have seen the discreditable and disedifying long counts in two constituencies in the last General Election. They have seen the fact that each count could produce a different result and it has been demonstrated to them that in a tight situation it is purely a matter of chance which bundle of votes is selected for further distribution and that even on the basis of the theory of the system there is no finality with regard to the result.

As well, as Deputy Norton said himself, there are a substantial number of new voters who will be voting on this occasion who have not had the opportunity of ridding themselves of the present unsuitable system. I am satisfied the Opposition Parties cannot counter the arguments against the transferable vote. They cannot show any reason why one voter should be discriminated against in this way. Their attitude here, as in other things, is opposition because this proposal has been put forward by Fianna Fáil. It is an attitude based, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has admitted, on suspicion, on their inherent dread of Fianna Fáil, rather than on a reasoned case.

What we propose here is the best system and we can see no reason to abandon it. I fully agree that the main objective is to get rid of all the disadvantages of the multi-member constituency and to obtain the advantages of the single member constituency. I have shown that the system of the transferable vote is unjustifiable but in so far as we in Fianna Fáil are concerned, we have no reason to be afraid of this system of voting or any other system of voting. We have confidence in the people and the Wicklow and East Limerick by-elections obviously represent the maximum Coalition effort and we obviously have nothing to fear from the all-out efforts of the Fine Gael and Labour Party leaders to direct the people who support their policies to transfer their votes in accordance with the wishes of the Party leaders. I am satisfied that even those who are misguided enough to vote for the other Parties cannot in fact be directed to dispose of their votes in any particular way. We are quite confident of our future in any circumstances, whether it is in the present circumstances or not, and it is not for any reason connected with the maintenance of Fianna Fáil as either the majority Party or as the Government that these proposals are being made, but in order to obtain for the country the benefits of a more rational system of election and representation and to obtain the benefits of better representation and a better Parliament for the people. It is for that reason that these proposals are put forward.

As I have said, we have no reason to fear any particular system of counting the votes, or indeed of manipulating the votes after they have been cast and counted, but there is no justification for the transferable vote. We believe that the people will accept the proposition we are putting to them. The only argument I can see that was put forward in favour of Deputy Norton's amendment is his personal belief that to accept this system of voting would make it more likely that the main advantage to the country of single-member constituencies would be obtained. I think that has not been demonstrated and that there is no reason to believe that the people who concede the advantages of single-member constituencies would desire to retain the present system of voting, which discriminates in a completely unjustifiable way in giving multiple votes to certain members of the community and only single votes to others.

(Cavan): The Fine Gael Party since the foundation of this State has made its position quite clear on proportional representation. We accepted proportional representation on the foundation of the State as the fairest, the best, the most equitable and the most efficient method of electing Parliament. Experience in the difficult years and in the elections following the foundation of the State demonstrated clearly that our belief and our faith in proportional representation as the best system of election were well founded. It operated fairly in the difficult years of the 1920s but it operated efficiently and despite all the difficulties of those years it provided a sound Government, an efficient Government and a Government who built up the institutions of State that all Parties in this House, including the Fianna Fáil Party, have come to respect.

Not alone did those events in the years immediately following the foundation of this State justify our belief in that method of election but in 1937 when the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party became dissatisfied with the Constitution of 1922 and decided——

It was in 1922 he became dissatisfied with it.

(Cavan): He tamed in the interval. He was just a wild man then.

He did not wear the blue shirt. They were not tame.

(Cavan): There are some descendants of the Blueshirts who came into this House under the Fianna Fáil banner as recently as the last by-election in Limerick. I do not know if that is generally known.

He was dissatisfied with it in 1922 and ever since.

(Cavan): I did not interrupt the Minister during his long harangue. In 1937 when the then Leader of Fianna Fáil expressed his dissatisfaction with the Constitution of 1922 and decided to invite the people of the country to enact another Constitution, the one thing that he could not find fault with in the Constitution of 1922 was the system of proportional representation as a method of election to this House.

That is not so. Why deny the written fact? President de Valera said that he did not want proportional representation but it was forced upon him.

He determined to get rid of every provision in the Free State Constitution.

(Cavan): He said it was the best system possible. Deputies opposite, young and old, are getting annoyed. They do not like to hear the truth and the facts.

We have not heard either.

(Cavan): The facts are that in 1937 the then Leader of Fianna Fáil solemnly wrote in the Constitution of 1937 the system of proportional representation and invited the people to re-enact it as a method of election to this House. Deny that.

We put it regrettably in the Constitution.

(Cavan): You put it into it. The then Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party wrote into the 1937 Constitution and wrote it more indelibly——

We will deal with it.

(Cavan):——and spelled out more clearly the system of PR as the system of election to this House and invited the people to accept it, and accept it they did.

That was not the end of it because when the Fianna Fáil Party had second thoughts about PR and feared that they could not continue to win under it all the time, especially on the departure of the then Leader in the year 1959, they put a proposal to the people to change the Constitution and to change the electoral system, to abolish PR and to accept the system of election to this House that they are again putting before the country. The Fine Gael Party made the position known clearly then. We made it known to the people and the country that we believed in PR, that we accepted PR as the best method of election to this House and that we proposed to advise the people against any change and to advise them to hold on to the system that had served them so well. The people accepted that advice and notwithstanding anything that Fianna Fáil could do to encourage the people to change the system in 1959, the people decided by a substantial majority——

Will you quote the numbers?

(Cavan): Three times the majority the President got at the last election.

Hear, hear.

The number is 30,000.

(Cavan): 30,000 as against 10,000 of a majority for the President at the last election.

As against Tom O'Higgins.

(Cavan): That is a substantial majority. I have seen nothing, and we have seen nothing since 1959 to make us change the views we then expressed and then put before the people on this issue. We still believe in proportional representation——

49 per cent.

(Cavan):——as a fair system of election, as a method of obtaining stable government. It has been urged against proportional representation that it creates splinter Parties and that it fails to provide stable government. We find, looking back since 1959, that we had one Government in office. Can that be said to be unstable government?

We are here in spite of proportional representation because we are the better Party.

(Cavan): You are here because of proportional representation. I do not know what Deputy MacEntee has in mind or what he is campaigning for now. He tried to stay here in spite of Fianna Fáil. He tried to stay on the front bench as a Minister in spite of Fianna Fáil but they kicked him out. He still comes back like a Jack-in-the-Box interrupting me.

I genuflect to you.

(Cavan): Deputy MacEntee should take his kick in the pants from the Leader of his Party and behave himself like a good little backbencher. I will not insult him if he does not interrupt me. The fact is that we have not had a multiplicity of Parties during those years since 1959.

The Deputy is talking about things which happened years ago and he does not know what he is talking about.

(Cavan): I will talk about things that happened four years ago because you are tempting me sorely.

Will you say them outside? I would love to get £500 from you.

(Cavan): For what?

(Interruptions.)

That gets under his skin.

(Cavan): I want to say it has been alleged here with regard to proportional representation that it leads to a multiplicity of Parties. Again, looking back to 1959, we find that that is not just so. We have fewer Parties here now than we had then. We have two fewer Parties, I think, and another Party has come and gone.

Nobody knows better than you where they are and what happened to them.

You gave them the kiss of death.

(Cavan): It is an awful pity that Deputy MacEntee missed that vehicle or he might be somewhere else. We have not a multiplicity of Parties. We have three Parties in the State at the present time and the Minister obviously wants to get rid of another. It is because we believe in the system of proportional representation as a fair and adequate system of election to this House that we reject the amendment now before us. It is because we believe that this proposal would involve the abolition of proportional representation as operated here and because we believe that it means that proportional representation can only work properly in a constituency of at least three seats.

The amendment before the House at the present time involves the acceptance of the single-seat constituency. On an earlier discussion in this House, I put before the House the reason why I am against the single-seat constituency. It creates, in my opinion, what the Minister wants to create, the safe seat. I do not think that is good for the country. I believe it discourages an interest in public life and discourages an interest in politics.

Will we go back over the single seat again?

(Cavan): It deprives the electors of a choice as between the candidates of a particular Party.

That is not the matter before us at the moment.

(Cavan): Of course it is.

It was in order in discussing the previous section but it is not in order in discussing this amendment.

(Cavan): The amendment before us involves the acceptance of a single-seat constituency.

Which we have dealt with.

(Cavan): It involves the abolition of proportional representation.

It does not. That has been done.

(Cavan): The Minister talked irrelevancies for over one and a half hours and no one opened his mouth but himself. He has brought his Deputies in here, both old and young, who are now sitting behind him and who are determined to try to prevent me from speaking. I am just not going to let them do that.

Can I ask for a ruling as to whether we are in order in discussing the merits and demerits of single-seat constituencies which have already been discussed?

That is what I want a ruling on, whether we can go back all over it again.

Is it not a fact that this amendment itself advocates single-member constituencies and as such, we are entitled to discuss single-seat constituencies.

I suggest we are not.

Reference to what has been dealt with in section 1 is admissible but not a discussion of what the section is.

(Cavan): I do not propose to have a detailed discussion on anything that has been discussed before but I think if I were to accept the amendment now before the House I would be accepting the single-seat constituencies in which proportional representation cannot work. That is the point I am making and that is the point I want to make clearly. That is the reason and the grounds on which I oppose this amendment. I oppose it because as I say the system we have now has worked fairly and adequately down the years. The other arguments put forward by the Minister in dealing with Deputy Norton's amendment can be more properly dealt with by me on the section when this amendment is being discussed. I propose to deal with them then. Suffice it for me to say that on the grounds I have given we in this Party are against this amendment.

My first criticism of this amendment is that the words "proportional representation" are included in it. Like other speakers, I am not so greatly concerned about the actual form of election as with the size of the constituencies and the number of Deputies who represent them. I have always felt that there is a contradiction in referring to the transferable vote in the single-member constituency as having anything to do with proportional representation. You cannot have a proportion of a single member. A single member can represent only one Party, or himself, if he is an Independent. On that ground initially, I feel that this amendment is badly phrased. If we were to accept it in its present form, we could justifiably be accused of trying to mislead the electorate into believing we are retaining PR while, in fact, we are not doing so.

I would feel very much happier with the straight vote, the relative majority vote, because this is the system used in every other form of election we have in our society today. No other body of people goes to such lengths to calculate surplus and transferable votes, to calculate quotas, and so on. It is a complete illusion. The whole illusion springs from the general thinking which was regarded as being very liberal in the earlier years of this century and the later years of the previous one. People felt very deeply that there was something to be said for a proportional system. Subsequent history has shown that this theory, however excellent as a theory, completely disregarded the basic facts of human nature and human behaviour.

There was one point which I was surprised the Minister did not refer to, that is, that so long as you retain the transferable vote, you put undue value on the order of names on the ballot paper. Alphabetical order gives a very unfair but a very real advantage to those whose names begin with the earlier letters of the alphabet.

The Deputy is all right: he is B on the list.

That point has not escaped me. I did not have to change my name. There was one man, I understand, with the name of Walsh who was unable to secure election but who was very much more successful under the name of Breathnach. The real trouble is that when we are reading documents, we read them from the top to the bottom, and not from the bottom to the top—nor do we start in the middle.

I had personal experience of that in the election of 1957 when my name was second on the ballot paper. The first name on the ballot paper was that of Mr. Begley, who was a Clann na Poblachta candidate. They were viciously opposed to us, as we were to them. Certainly there was no love lost between us. The electorate displayed no enthusiasm for Mr. Begley and consequently he was the first man eliminated. Mr. Brady and I divided the great proportion of Mr. Begley's votes between us and I was promptly elected on the transfer of Clann na Poblachta votes which I am absolutely positive no one intended I should ever get.

Thank God for small mercies.

I was devoutly thankful. I had nearly enough on the first count and that brought me over the quota. No one can say that was a reasonable result of the count. I do not honestly believe that the voters who gave me or Mr. Brady their second preference votes did so deliberately out of love for us and our bright blue eyes. They were going down the ballot paper. They gave their No. 1 to the person they wanted and then said: "To hell, 2, 5, 4, 5" and went straight down the ballot paper. I know that was irresponsible from the point of view of Clann na Poblachta and most regrettable, but we have to face the facts of human behaviour. People will not pay attention to their subsequent votes. They vote No. 1. If there is a Party ticket, they may vote 1 and 2, or 1, 2 and 3, and then they throw their numbers around quite irresponsibly.

One has only to look at how the average person reacts to filling out a form. We have all had experience of this. People bring in forms and say: "Please will you help me to fill it in? How do I start?" You say: "At the top of the form you see the word `name'. Put your name there." They say: "Do I put my surname or my Christian name first?" You say that it probably does not matter so long as they make it perfectly clear. You then tell them that in the next line they see the word "address" and you tell them to fill in their address. You have to nurse people through perfectly ordinary forms. I am perfectly sure everyone of us has done it. The average person's mind seems to become a complete blank when faced with forms to fill in. If you ask them to do it in a hurry, they make a thundering mess of it. On that ground alone, I cannot display any enthusiasm for this amendment.

A lot of undue preference is still given to alphabetical order. It has been suggested in certain cases that the order on the ballot paper should be selected by lot. This would bring in the element of chance. There is a certain attraction to our nature about this element of chance. I do not think it is reasonable. The only way to get over the question of the order of the names on the ballot paper is to say that you will have the relative majority vote, the straight vote, that each voter will have one vote—one man, one vote— that he goes down the ballot paper and sees the man he wants and puts a cross or a 1—the actual method of marking the paper can probably be fixed up when it comes to an election. He has only one name to select and the order on the ballot paper is then entirely irrelevant. On that ground I would be delighted to see an end to the transferable vote.

So far as a difference in the overall result is concerned, I cannot see that there would be any great difference at all. It is just possible that the swing of public opinion would not be shown so vividly if we retained the single transferable vote as if we were to adopt the straight vote. That difference would be marginal only. The whole thing would be so different if we were looking back on a number of by-elections where the Government Party had been unsuccessful, these people would undoubtedly say: "Fianna Fáil are trying to rig the system to make sure they will get in the next time"—actually, they say that, anyway. Nobody can deny that proportional representation has served Fianna Fáil remarkably well. Even after the last referendum, when our proposal was not accepted, we still went on, under proportional representation, and won the next and subsequent general elections. The by-election results show that, as a Party, we have nothing to fear from the single transferable vote in the single-member constituency.

I do think that our people generally rather like this element of chance in elections. They tend to regard elections rather like racing and other sports where there is a large element of chance. There is a sort of sporting element about an election. You can see the favourite perhaps being overtaken, and all that, and there is tremendous excitement as the counts go on. I think there are some people who feel they would hate to see an end to that. They rather like this swinging of the electoral pendulum as a count proceeds. I cannot see any value in it. I think it only confuses the whole issue. There again, I would hope we could get some indication from someone, preferably Deputy Norton, I suppose, as to whether he knows of any firm grounds on which people would honestly prefer to have this single transferable vote retained. My researches so far have been rewarded by a reception of complete apathy. To my mind, I am appalled by this because I believe it is an extraordinarily important issue.

My mind goes back to 1959 when there was a real fight on and when meetings were being held all over the country, night after night, debates on the radio—television was not in operation—and tremendous activity and tremendous life about the whole campaign. I am rather alarmed because there is so little life this time. I do not know if it is because of the division of opinion, particularly within Fine Gael, but I can see no enthusiasm one way or another amongst ordinary members of the public. Certainly, so far as the ultimate result of a general election with single-member constituencies is concerned, I do not believe there will be any noticeable difference whether the voting is by single transferable vote or by the relative majority vote, or a straight vote, as we normally call it.

I do know that quite a number of people seem to like this business of putting in preferences but, at the same time, an enormous number of people do not. The result in Limerick, where 20 per cent of the Fine Gael votes were "plumpers" is something which needs some explanation. How many of the Labour votes were "plumpers" we shall never know.

Fifteen per cent.

(Cavan): Be truthful, if you can. They were not 20 per cent.

Nineteen and a half per cent.

I did not get the point the Deputy was trying to make.

Practically 2,000 out of 10,000.

Nineteen point six per cent.

I shall accept that amendment by Deputy Norton—19.6 per cent rather than 20 per cent.

You are coming round to my way of thinking. Keep it up.

The fact remains that, to all intents and purposes, 20 per cent of the Fine Gael votes were "plumpers". If that was the result, after all the propaganda against Fianna Fáil, all the effort to keep Fianna Fáil out at all costs, I cannot believe that the Labour supporters were any more prepared to use their preference votes than Fine Gael were. Of course, if there are blanks on the paper people will tend to fill them in. I still have got no explanation from anybody as to why there should be this very high proportion of non-transferable Fine Gael votes.

One of the points always made in favour of the single transferable vote is that if you do not have it you will have wasted votes, people will have cast their votes and wasted them. That, to my mind, is just about as reasonable as saying: "If you go out to play a match and you lose, you have wasted your time; you might just as well never have played at all." That is not a fact and nobody would ever have believed it for a moment. An election is a serious operation. People cast their votes for one Party or another, one individual or another. Every vote is valuable, whether or not it gets the desired result. I do not accept for a moment this idea that you have to go around with the transferring of second, third, fourth and fifth preferences in order to prevent the wasting of votes. A vote is never wasted so long as it is cast. It is an indication of the will of the man who cast it and, as such, it has a value. It is wasted only if it is not cast.

At the moment, we are discussing an amendment to a Bill which, of course, is unusual in itself. Normally speaking, we are dealing with legislation but this Amendment of the Constitution Bill is not, in itself, legislation at all. It is only the framing of questions which will be put to the people for decision. In ordinary routine Bills, the decision rests with the Houses of the Oireachtas and their decision is final. In this case, the Houses of the Oireachtas have not the final decision and, so, we are not legislating at all. We are simply framing the questions to be put to the people for their decision—and the framing of the question is very important. You can frame it in such a way that it is a very loaded question or you can phrase it in such a way that it will give no lead or guidance whatsoever— and, in a very highly-technical matter such as this, I think it is essential that the Government which proposes this referendum should give some lead, some indication, as to what its own view is as to the wisest decision.

It is no use just to go up to a man in the street and to ask: "Do you like the single-member constituency?" You might as well ask: "Are you in favour of decimal currency?" That is a highly-technical matter. He may say: "Yes, I think I rather like it because it is easier to add and to multiply." However, there is more to it than that and, so, in this particular Bill before us, we are dealing with a very complex political issue, one which could easily affect the whole structure of our political system for very many years. Therefore, we have to phrase the question fairly and give the electorate some opportunity of making a wise decision.

(Cavan): Are you going to ask him: “Do you approve of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?”—whatever that may mean to him?

Some have suggested it would be preferable if we could have on the ballot paper alternatives such as: "Are you in favour of single-member constituencies? Are you in favour of the straight vote? Are you in favour of the single transferable vote?" Unfortunately that is not possible because we could get such an amount of cross-voting that it would be impossible to get a decision in the end.

I still think, as I have said, that the small single-member constituency is the vital part of this Amendment but we should indicate to the people that, in our view, the straight vote is the proper system to adopt in such constituencies. If I could get any indication that people are happy with the single-seat small constituency but for reasons, whether they know it or not, would still prefer the single transferable vote, then there might be something to be said for this amendment because we must phrase this question in some way that the electorate can use it intelligently and wisely without coming back afterwards and saying: "We only wish you had put it some other way."

We can have quite a lot of useful discussion on this amendment, particularly if we can get some indication as to how the public mind is going. If we frame the question wrongly, we shall get the wrong answer. In France at present there is a general election which in fact is being conducted rather in the form of a referendum and the issues are being over-simplified, so far as we can see, as if the issue really were: "Are you a good Frenchman or a bad Frenchman?" You can never get an issue as clear as that. In this particular case, we are asking the electorate for a decision which has to be an overall decision on single-member constituencies and on the form of voting to be adopted in these constituencies. We should give the lead in this and encourage people not to dither by trying to cling to a system to which I admit they have become accustomed but a system which means virtually nothing, which has far too much of the element of chance in it and which can discredit the whole electoral system.

The danger is much less in a single-member constituency but it is there, and rather than put up a smokescreen, if you like, by saying that we are to some extent retaining proportional representation, I think it is well to say single-member seats, single-member constituencies and the straight vote and have done with it. I believe the people can be led in that way and can accept it.

I hope we shall have further discussion about this but if any Deputy can give any indication from his own experience as to what the public view is, not just what is in the newspapers but the ordinary public view that people would feel happier by continuing to vote 1, 2 and 3. I might have another look at the matter but I shall take a great deal of convincing.

Listening to Deputy Booth, I felt he was rather like the man who went out in the middle of the field beating the air and found he was beating nothing because I do not know what Deputy Booth was saying. Does anybody else? He has been rambling around here on this amendment, saying that he hopes there will be much more discussion about it and asking would everybody kindly tell him what their soundings of public opinion may be, and if they do, that he will very kindly consider the matter,

May I remind the Deputy that his freedom of choice is gone? Big brother has spoken. The Government have declared that they are against Deputy Norton's amendment, and no matter what further information Deputy Booth may get here, he will walk when he is told to walk and in the direction in which he is told to walk. This is not a free discussion. The political Party opposite is not a free Party to discuss these things. We know their record well; we know that a Constitution Committee was established, a consultative Committee, upon which Deputies from all Parties served and gave a considerable amount of time helping to formulate or consider amendments of the Constitution. We know well that in the work of that Committee this whole question of our electoral system was considered from beginning to end and nobody suggested at any stage that we should introduce, or endeavour to change our system to the British system of election.

The only thing that was discussed was the proposal enshrined in Deputy Norton's amendment and it was agreed that no decision would be taken in the Committee, that the arguments for and against should be stated by those who wished to put arguments for and against. Nevertheless, Deputy Booth's leaders, when the Committee's report was published, proceeded to put forward something that was never considered in that Committee. That is indicative of a decision by hard-boiled men not concerned with responsible thought even inside their own Party but out to get as effectively as possible control of this Parliament and our institutions——

With Deputy O'Higgins's Leader's support.

That is not so.

The majority of one.

He must have changed his mind.

The Minister is saying something which is untrue and if he says it again he will be saying it knowing it to be untrue.

We thought we could believe Deputy Cosgrave when he spoke.

I think many people have already made up their minds on this matter even though Deputy Booth finds in his meanderings around his constituency no enthusiasm. Of course there is not. Supporters of Deputy Booth's Party step to the other side of the road when he tries to buttonhole them about this proposal. They know well what they are going to decide and know that this referendum proposal is a dead duck, that it has not a chance to get off the ground, that it is a waste of public time to discuss it here and a waste of public money to put it before the people. It will not succeed. The Government were told it would not succeed. I am certain that view was strongly expressed at the Fianna Fáil Party meeting before this was announced in the early part of the year. Whatever doubts anyone may have had then should certainly have been resolved since. There is a firm public commitment in this country to support proportional representation——

Not by Fine Gael.

I know well the dithering, thumb-sucking and nailbiting that have gone on in Government circles over the past eight weeks or so. They tied a tin can to their tails and their trouble has been to get it off. They expected Deputy Norton to get it off but that has not succeeded. The Government were faced with Hobson's choice: either they could somersault and accept Deputy Norton's amendment which would make it perfectly clear that their credibility had disappeared, or they could stay where the impetuous members had got them at the beginning of the year by sticking to the original proposal, knowing, as I am sure they know now, that it is bound to be defeated.

This is a bad situation for the country. We accused the majority of the Fianna Fáil Party, or whoever were responsible for bringing about this proposal in the beginning of this year, of endeavouring to change the electoral system in order to perpetuate their control of our political institutions. That charge was made. That charge we here and now repeat. There is nothing wrong, I suppose, about ambitious men seeking perpetual power, but there is, I believe, enough concern amongst the ordinary people to resent such a move any time it is made. We can now repeat that accusation with greater force because what is referred to in subsection 2º of Part II of the Schedule we are discussing is a proposal that: "The members shall be elected on the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote"—a collection of words got together after research and deep thought in order to conceal the fact that what is proposed is that members shall be elected on the British system of election.

That is the system we we have now.

We have the system which Arthur Griffith proposed to the Irish people, and Arthur Griffith's views in that regard were accepted.

A system developed for rebel British colonies.

The British system of election, first past the post, may be simple. Knocking a man down with your fist is a simple operation.

It depends on who the man is.

It may be simple, but what we are concerned with is whether it is democratic.

How did Fine Gael elect their own Leader? Was it PR?

(Cavan): How did Fianna Fáil elect theirs? They were running up to the Front Bench and down to the Back Benches. It was a disgraceful performance.

We elected him on the straight vote, the same as Fine Gael and Labour.

Deputy O'Higgins, on the amendment.

The question is whether the first past the post system is democratic or not. Simple it is; with single seats, more simple still, but democratic—certainly Arthur Griffith did not think so. Certainly the framers of the Constitution of 1922 did not think so. President de Valera as Taoiseach did not think so, and the people of Ireland did not think so when they adopted PR twice in the past 45 years. It is not democratic for this simple reason, that it may result in the election to Parliament of a member who has not the support of the majority of his constituents. There is no way in which you can disguise that fact; the British system of election may result, and frequently does result, in the election of a member whose politics do not reflect the view of the majority of his constituents.

Neither do any of the other candidates.

Is the Deputy seriously suggesting that Britain has not got a democratic system?

I certainly am.

Or America.

Nowhere only here. They are all out of step except us.

The Minister for Local Government will interrupt once too often. One of his colleagues has advised the nationalists of Wales and Scotland not to make the same mistakes we did. Where is the nationalism of Fianna Fáil? We have the Minister for Education doling out bromides to the people of Wales and Scotland telling them they should not have gone the road we went. If Irish nationalism is to be belittled and Irish freedom besmirched by members of the Government, I do not know where the country is going.

I would not believe that.

I would advise the Minister to read the wise and carefully put together phrases of the Minister for Education and perhaps he will think again about it. We shall deal with it on another occasion. I am saying that any system which can result, in any constituency, in the election of a person who has not the support of the majority of his constituents is a system which is undemocratic. It may work all right; it may in fact be regarded as democratic by countries that wish to retain it. Here in this country when we started off to form our own Parliament, to establish our own institutions and to give our own concept of what Irish freedom should mean, it was a free decision to adopt PR.

I am utterly fed up with the kind of cant that has been used in place of arguments by the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Local Government, in particular, who suggest that PR was just another one of the wrongs that Britain did this country. That is rubbish. Proportional representation was first demanded by the Sinn Féin Party and the Sinn Féin organisation. I would have hoped there would be enough of the traditions of Sinn Féin still left in Fianna Fáil to recognise that, and enough respect for the Leader of Sinn Féin, the late President Arthur Griffith, to recognise that his views in this regard at least had the merit of sincerity. Proportional representation was our decision taken at different times by different generations of people interested in Irish affairs. It was not foisted or forced on us by anybody. We freely adopted it in 1922 in the Constitution of that year.

Proportional representation, while it was inserted in the Constitution, was deliberately left flexible. The provision in the 1922 Constitution was merely that election to Oireachtas Éireann should take place with the system of PR. At that time PR had only been known to this country; we had only had a very limited experience of it in one part of the country, and it was not known sufficiently well for general election purposes. Therefore the framers of the 1922 Constitution deliberately left the details of the system flexible, providing that the system should be there because it was one of the principles of Sinn Féin; it represented part of the bond of faith which they entered into on the formation of the State.

We know that after 1922, in the story of Ireland in the ten years after that, there were general elections, and difficulties of one kind or another were overcome, but there was a growing respect for the institutions established in 1922 and a growing concern for the preservation of law and of order. When in due course in 1936 another Government and another Leader invited the people to alter the Constitution and to adopt a new Constitution, the question of proportional representation was again considered. Speaking at that time, at the time of the Constitution debates in this House, the then Leader of Fianna Fáil, the present President, said: "The system we have we know. The people know it. On the whole it has worked out pretty well. I think we have a good deal to be thankful for in this country." That was a reflective speech by the then Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was reflecting on the actual experience of the previous 15 or 16 years, reflecting on it at a time when a new Constitution was being debated here.

I take it, Sir, that we are all at liberty to discuss the multi-member constituency and the transferable vote; in other words, that we are all entitled to deal with this on the same basis as on Second Reading? Is that agreed or is it only Deputy O'Higgins who can do it?

The position is that it was agreed to take Parts I and II together and the Schedule and reference to this——

Then I can deal with the whole position.

We know what the Minister can do. I do not know whether he will do it or not.

Before the Deputy leaves Mr. de Valera, would he be good enough to tell us what Deputy John Costello and Deputy James Dillon said about proportional representation on that occasion?

If Deputy MacEntee is not careful, I would remind him that I have a lot of quotations.

Go ahead. Shall I tell you?

Do please, when I sit down.

I will do that.

(Interruptions.)

The quotation which I have read was not merely an aside: it was a considered statement. He went on to say: "We have to be very grateful that we have had the system of proportional representation here." Further on he said: "It gives a certain amount of stability and from the system of the single transferable vote we have fair representation of all Parties." The point I want to make is that that opinion was expressed in the calm of a discussion which could have been a formative discussion, at a time when everything was being reformed and looked at and when a new Constitution, a new fundamental law, was being suggested and put forward and that opinion was not coerced and was not a forced opinion. Nobody compelled that expression of view. It came, I assume, from a responsible Leader of Government to a House that after all was sitting almost as a constituent assembly.

The President having expressed that opinion, the Article with which we are concerned here was solemnly put forward to the effect that:

The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by the means of the single transferable vote. No law shall be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three.

Where the old Constitution had been flexible, where it stated merely that the system of election shall be proportional representation, now after the period of test, after 17 years have rolled by, after the institutions of this State have withstood assault and battery and denigration, after all these things had been put behind us in his day the then Taoiseach having praised proportional representation, put it in a more rigid form in the new Constitution and specifically provided that the system shall not merely be the system of proportional representation but spelled out that it shall be by means of the single transferable vote, with the minimum number of seats of three.

It is no good Deputies on the opposite side becoming irritated at being asked to reflect on that. There is no point in it. We must remember that that was a decision; it may have been wrong at the time, but at least it was a decision made without heat, made without rancour, without anyone being able to suggest that there was a bad motive behind it. It was made at a time when the entire affairs and institutions of this State were possibly coming through a profound change. So it was that——

An effort was being made all right to establish Fascism.

I do not know what we are going to do with the Minister for Local Government. He is incapable of making a valuable contribution to this House.

I agreed that there was an attempt being made to change the system.

In any event, the Constitution containing this proposal went to the people and it was approved by the people in 1937. For the second time, PR was adopted and accepted by the people. I want to know where in 1937 was British power or British force forcing the then Taoiseach to say this and to put it into the Constitution? Who then was suggesting that the British made him do it? Did they? You find the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for External Affairs talking nonsense of that kind. It was a free decision, made freely by the Leader of Fianna Fáil in 1937 and subsequently supported by the people when the Constitution was enacted and so having tested proportional representation, we continued with it.

I am not going to go over subsequent affairs. Times march on and circumstances change; people who hold one opinion at one time are quite entitled to change their view and hold another opinion at another time. But coincidental with the imminent departure of the then Leader of Fianna Fáil from active parliamentary politics, the proposal was put forward in 1959 to do away with PR and to adopt the British system of election. That was defeated. It is a matter for debate as to whether the majority was large or not. Fifty per cent of the people voted and that was not a very high proportion. It did not indicate a very healthy intelligent participation in the dialogue going on about our electoral system. The majority was 30,000 and the proposal was defeated.

I am not saying—whether I said it or not, it would make no difference— that the Fianna Fáil Party are not entitled to try this again. Of course, they are, if they want to be irresponsible and if they want to waste time and money, which they are certainly doing. They are bringing forward now precisely the same proposal as was rejected by the people nine years ago. They are bringing forward a proposal that was not even considered by the Committee on the Constitution. They are bringing it forward, and this is the accusation we make against them, because they see this as the surest and most certain way of maintaining themselves in office. What Deputy Norton proposes does, at least, necessitate for the election of a member to this House that the member, in order to get elected, must have a majority of all effective votes. Any member who is elected as a result of a by-election to this House under our system can say, at least, that he has been sent here by a majority of the votes effective at the time. At least, under Deputy Norton's amendment, there is a searching round to get a majority for the election of a member, but Fianna Fáil will not have that.

Will the Deputy?

We are not in Government and this is not our Bill. Our position is quite clear. We stand for proportional representation in every detail. Why will Fianna Fáil not have it? The motive are now quite clear. They will not have it because it is too chancy. They would have to get a majority in the majority of constituencies in order to remain in office. There is too big a gamble. It is much simpler to have the first past the post system and democracy does not count. I do not know what trouble may be going on in the Fianna Fáil Party. Obviously Deputy Booth was fishing; he used the phrase that he thinks the Government should give a lead, that they should not dither, and so on and so on.

I said the people should not dither.

They should be given a lead by the Government.

That is right.

The Deputy has the lead—the same lead as was given nine years ago, the same proposal now. No matter what information may be given to Deputy Booth, he has got to vote for this particular measure, unamended, no change, and he has got to do that because a decision has been come to, presumably by the majority in the Fianna Fáil Party, that this system, undemocratic as it may be, is worth the gamble because, if they succeed, it will mean the political jackpot for them.

Which way will Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Oliver Flanagan and company vote? According to their principles or according to Party instructions?

(Cavan): How many meetings had Fianna Fáil about this last week?

They want to perpetuate Fianna Fáil in Government; that is what Deputy Cosgrave wants.

In my view, discussion here is now a waste of time. The referendum itself will be a waste of money. I do not think I have anything further to add. I should like to see the debate conclude as quickly as possible. I should like to see this referendum cleared out of the way as quickly as possible. There are more urgent things for this Dáil and this Government to do. There are bigger problems facing our people, bigger problems than indulging in the luxury of changing our electoral system. There is urgent work that requires to be done.

Some statements made by the two Opposition speakers call for some reply. I noticed that neither attempted to controvert any of the arguments I put forward about the un-justifiableness of the transferable vote. Deputy Fitzpatrick claimed that Fine Gael always accepted proportional representation as the best system. I do not know whether or not he means since they became the Fine Gael Party. I have not got the exact date on which that transformation took place, but certainly on 25th May, 1937, Deputy McGilligan was not in favour of the system. He said:

It was always held with regard to proportional representation, which this country adopted, that we had adopted the worst possible system.

Again, in 1947—I am not quite sure if this was one of the periods during which Deputy Dillon was outside the fold of the Fine Gael Party, but I think he is in it now—at column 1714 of Volume 108 of the Official Report, Deputy Dillon stated:

I believe that the evil in this Bill is the evil that it is neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. If you are going to have proportional representation, it is perfectly obvious that you should have five- or seven-seat constituencies. Personally, I think proportional representation is a fraud and a cod, and that it ought to be abolished.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy O'Higgins seemed to be unaware of what Deputy Dillon said about PR in 1937. Perhaps he would listen to it now.

I think it was 1947.

It was 1947. It was Deputy McGilligan in 1937 and Deputy Dillon in 1947 and Deputy Costello in 1959.

This has made Deputy MacEntee's afternoon for him.

Again, as column 1715, Deputy Dillon had this to say:

Proportional representation is, in fact, as we all know in our hearts, the child of the brains of all the cranks in creation. So far as this country is concerned, it was tried out on the dog. I doubt if any other sane democratic country in the world has put it into operation in regard to its Parliament. It may have in regard to its corporations or county councils. The single transferable vote is quite another story. I think it is true to say that the kind of proportional representation that we have operating in this country has not been adopted in any other country.

There are many other prominent Fine Gael speakers on record as having similar opinions.

(Cavan): Tell us what the President said.

Deputy Fitzpatrick says proportional representation was always accepted by Fine Gael as the best system. The fact is Fine Gael have always operated in accordance with one principle, being against anything proposed by Fianna Fáil. Both Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy O'Higgins tried to make some capital out of the fact that the draft Constitution of 1937 retained the system of proportional representation which they had accepted in the Irish Free State Constitution of 1922. Obviously these Deputies think the people do not remember what the 1937 Constitution set out to do; it set out to get rid of the Irish Free State Constitution and to get rid of the dominion status they sought to saddle on this country for all time.

(Cavan): Freedom to achieve freedom.

They forget the bitterness of the campaign that was being waged by fascist methods and by every weapon of misrepresentation to try to retain here in this country the status of the Irish Free State—dominion status.

Tugadh tuairisc ar a ndearnadh; an Coiste a shuí arís.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn