Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)

I rise to support Senator Bannon and to provide the Minister of State with a practical example of an injustice under the current system. I hope the eventual introduction of electronic voting will address the problem. The current system is very unfair where there is a close race between candidates. It is fair that when a candidate exceeds the quota, his surplus is factored out in percentage terms. His second preferences are counted out. During the last general election count in Limerick West the surplus of the first candidate to exceed the quota was transferred with the result that a second candidate from the same party was elected by 800 or 900 votes. There is an inherent unfairness and injustice in simply taking those 800 or 900 votes from the top of the pile of surplus votes to be transferred. They could be from an area which is favourable to a particular candidate as happened in my case. Deputy Collins was elected in the western part of the constituency where I live although there is a tendency there to transfer votes within a party.

I am in favour of an electronic voting system for two reasons. Few people realise the emotional trauma which results from a long, close count for a candidate's family and close supporters. Tallymen enjoy the excitement of the process which they consider to be a blood sport. There is no doubt that one enjoys the process if one wins. If one is waiting while a process drags on after most people have left to celebrate, it is not so exciting. While one must accept the slings and arrows of electoral fortune, in a close contest an important function of an electronic system would be to take the random element out of the process. When a surplus is transferred to a second candidate, all preferences should be counted. The percentage factoring of votes in the case of the first candidate elected should be the same in the case of the second. The votes on the top of a pile may be from the area from which one candidate comes which will impact very unfairly on the others. Objectivity and fairness can only be achieved where all votes are counted and the same pattern followed in the case of a subsequent candidate that was followed for the first to exceed the quota.

I do not know if I could have made an issue of this at the last election. While I did not want to do so, I realise there is a defect in the system when it comes to distributing surpluses. Randomisation should be taken out of the process. I feel very strongly about this issue. If electronic voting is introduced, the system should be fair. While the human error element can be addressed by providing for delays between counts, an electronic system would result in much more scientific figures.

One reflects on all of these matters when one is involved in a close count. The number of votes which are not franked by presiding officers is a disgrace. It should be remembered that presiding officers are often playing with a candidate's livelihood. These presiding officers will preside in subsequent elections as that is the pattern. I often wonder where votes come from. In an urban area if a presiding officer does not like a candidate, he can fail to frank the ballot papers of a group of young people. They do not know or care that a ballot paper has to be franked. I would like to see questions asked in the presiding officer system where there is an excessive amount of unfranked votes to ascertain whether or not they come from a particular polling booth. In that scenario, an analysis should be carried out and the presiding officer involved should not preside in a subsequent election.