Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)

That certainly was a party political offering from Senator Leyden. The commission has a difficult job and must abide by certain parameters in regard to the optimal population per Dáil seat. The commission members try to do this job as best they can. It is worth bearing in mind that some constituencies are still significantly under-represented with a variation as high as -7.5% in one. In some other constituencies, however, there is overrepresentation. For example, in Waterford the variation is +6.07%.

I wish to draw attention to one aspect in which the electoral system is unfair. I speak from personal experience more than anybody with regard to what could be classified as a close count. I was one of the few people in favour of the proposed change to electronic voting because I believe a computerised system might allow for a fairer outcome. Senator Ulick Burke mentioned that a presiding officer in one particular polling booth had some 40 votes which were declared invalid because they were not stamped properly. When it comes to spoiled votes, it is a terrible heartache to think that one's political future may be determined on the basis of negligence on the part of presiding officers. Votes have been declared invalid even if a person has voted for one in good faith.

The reason I favour computerisation is that it would remove the human element from the electoral system. Where votes are declared invalid because they have not been properly stamped, it should be possible to determine whether those voting slips have come from a particular polling booth. Human nature being what it is, it is not inconceivable that voting slips may sometimes be incorrectly franked. I do not claim this happens in all cases but it is possible. I make this point as a person who saw votes declared invalid for that reason and it is a particular heartache.

Mistakes may be made especially at busy period, in the evening for example, when many people are trying to access the same polling booths. A gross injustice can arise in a transfer situation where it is determined that a person may have transfers of 800 to 1,000 votes to offer. The exact amount is irrelevant. The bundle of votes is taken from the top of the pile of the person already selected. It is an injustice because there is no guarantee that the votes from the top of the pile will favour one or other candidate, depending where they are. A more appropriate arrangement in a situation where Mr. X finishes with 9,000 votes and is 1,000 above the quota of 8,000 would be to count all the preference votes and then calculate percentages based on the exceeding number. This would be a fairer reflection. I am aware of occasions where people were asked to project after the first count on the basis of people who were subsequently successful. People may have predicted success based on the origin of many of the votes but it does not necessarily follow.

I favour computerisation because the mathematics would be taken out of this kind of manual control. A lot of people claim they would miss the tallies and the tumbling out of the polling booths. I shared that excitement for many years. A winner will undergo a certain degree of anxiety. Losers suffer greater anxiety. The process continues indefinitely and has a human dimension. The human dimension is that one's family is often present. My attitude to this situation is that, while a respectable delay may be intended between counts, I would prefer to know sooner rather than later and not be dragged through this long process. I see validity in avoiding the undue trauma which often arises in recount situations that continue beyond one day. It is a pressure cooker-type situation. It is a great kick and exciting for the people tallying. Maybe satisfaction and emotions are exhausted over a longer period. It would be better if it was conducted over a shorter timeframe. I say this from personal experience. I differ from many colleagues on this but I ask them, after experiencing a close count, to find a fairer system.

On the electoral register, I am sure the Minister of State has heard many times that the current system is not working. It worked in the past when we had vigilant parties who went through it with a fine tooth comb. Certain rural locations may have had vigilant revenue collectors. I know one gentlemen who sends a copy of his analysis of specific areas to me and other public representatives. I compliment that person because it is add and delete and reasons are provided. It is impossible to do this in larger urban areas because populations are rapidly expanding. In many cases, even if one was clued in to the local area, it is not as well known as it was in the past. The register may be analysed in, for example, Newcastle West, the electoral register for which probably exceeds 4,000 and where a number of families and their political persuasions may be personally known. However, in a number of situations, extended families remain on the register indefinitely, despite having moved to other locations and being recorded on other registers.

A certain fear exists in terms of removing people from the register for a simple reason. In the last local or general election, people who always voted were turned away. They could not understand why they were deleted. The current system is not working. The sooner we acknowledge that, recognise local authorities and change the system, the better for democracy and for the provision of the guided information which registrars require in order to provide people with the opportunity to exercise their vote.