John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)

There was an expectation that the introduction of e-mail, lap-top computers and so on would lead to the use of less paper. It is a curious fact that the opposite has happened. We seem to be felling forests by the new time in verifying what is on a computer screen in front of us. I am not convinced of the need for what Senator Bannon proposes.

Many of the points being made in this debate could equally have been made about the old paper system. I recall a European Parliament election count in 1994 when the Labour candidate was overhauling the last surviving Fianna Fáil candidate at a rate of approximately two votes to one. There was a general election on the same day and many voters voted, for example, numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the general election voting paper and then voted numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the European voting paper. In three of the four European constituencies, marking 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the voting papers was held to be a clear preference and was admitted. However, in the Leinster constituency the returning officer ruled that a paper marked 5, 6, 7 and 8 was not valid, and many thousands of such papers were excluded. Had they been included, it is conceivable the Labour Party candidate would have won the seat. He went to the High Court which ruled that the returning officer was perfectly entitled in law to take the view she did, although it was a different view from that taken in the other European constituencies. Everybody accepted that this was the law.

There could equally be a lengthy debate about the deficiencies in the manual system. I am an enthusiast for electronic voting. While I accept the findings of the commission and think it was prudent to delay implementation of the system until there is more confidence in it, having a paper trail would not necessarily be an advantage.