Feargal Quinn (Independent)

The Senator is right. One could argue that the current system supports the status quo, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. An interesting point is that in countries like France and the United States, there are usually only two or three main candidates who are left in the running, although there may be others to begin with. On the last time out here, we had seven who were all vying for time in the media and equal coverage in debates. Considering that quite a few of them did not reach enough votes to cover their expenses, would this point to the threshold being too low? Should we not introduce another round if there are too many candidates?

On the nomination process, is 35 the right age limit? Why can a person technically become Taoiseach at 21, a position of much greater power than the Presidency, but one cannot be a presidential candidate unless one is 35? Surely in the time of the Internet and online voting, as happens in France with ex-pats, we could allow everyone to put forward their nomination and set a threshold. France utilises unique technology that encrypts and digitally signs online votes before they are cast, directly in the voter's device. The system claims to be able to prevent anyone, including the system's administrators, from violating voter privacy or jeopardising election results.

In the 2012 US elections, more than two dozen states will accept some form of electronic or faxed ballots, mostly from military or overseas voters. Estonia was an early adopter of this technology; a record 25% of voters there cast Internet ballots in 2011. In Ireland, we claim to be at the cutting-edge when it comes to technology, so we should be doing the presidential nomination and subsequent election in this manner. Has the Minister of State studied the Estonian and French examples? If not, I suggest he should do so. This is the way to go in all electoral processes. It is possible to examine what other countries have done and learn from them.

The constitutional convention will be looking at such matters, but I suggest that we should not limit ourselves to the restrictive proposals or suggestions that have been made. We are not limited to them, of course. In the forthcoming convention, we will have an opportunity to re-examine these matters. This debate has been useful, helpful and worthy of the consideration of the constitutional convention.