The Irish Electoral System -Time for Change?
Introduction
An electoral system is needed as a means of voting method to determine representatives of the people through a democratic process which takes different forms in different countries but where the basic principles remain the same. That basic principle being a doctrine from the ancient Greeks: "maior et sanior pars" meaning the majority vote is presumed to be endowed with wisdom superior to that of a minority The notion of a legislating body is inherent in all democratic countries. By its very definition and also according to Collins Oxford English dictionary democracy is defined as "Government by the people or the elected representatives".
By virtue of this fact it is important therefore that our electoral system is fair and representative of the wishes of the Irish public as a whole. It is important that whatever system we use, the views of the public must be represented in the make up of the government. In Austria at the moment, Mr. Joerg Haider and his party received 25% of the vote and even though he is a Nazi sympathizer and powerful international people want to dislodge him (even though he has resigned as party leader), the bottom line is that 25% of the Austrian peoples views and wishes must be adhered to, whether you like it or not. If this is not the case and his party is ran out then the question of democracy would be severely tested. This would be dangerous for democratic liberties, as we would then have a case where the people's wishes are not being adhered to. This would then, not only bring into disrepute the Austrian electoral system, but every other electoral system including our own. ====================================================
Outline and brief history of the present system in Ireland
The present system in Ireland was copied from the brainchild of a Proportional Representation Society that was set up in Britain in 1884, which strongly believed that this was the fairest method of democratically electing representatives for the people. This society was extremely vociferous in its views on this subject and publicised a lot of its findings throughout Britain. There 1st chance to get their ideas passed began in 1909 when a Royal Commission on Electoral Systems was set up to find out which system would be best used to Britain. The PR Society campaigned long and hard to introduce the Single Transferable Vote (STV). However this was rejected but they did in fact achieve to spread the word that PR was a democratic electoral system to other countries including Ireland. In 1911, a Proportional Representation Society was set up and included Arthur Griffith in its members. Proportional Representation was 1st officially used in Ireland in 1918 when the Sligo Corporation was being elected. All parties involved with this election process were pleased, especially as minorities were given the respect they were due.
Shortly afterwards legislation was passed which meant that all local elections in Ireland introduced PR and provisions were made in The Irish Constitution of 1922 (Article 26). The STV system was brought into effect in 1923 under an Electoral Act. By 1929 PR had to be abolished in the 6 counties as they joined forces with the British Electoral system whish had the 1st past the post system along with single member constituencies. An attempt was made by the Eamon Devalera-led Fianna Fail government in 1959 to change the system to the British 1st past the post system but this was marginally beaten by 51.78% to 48.22%. Nine years later Jack Lynch had another referendum but fared even worse than his predecessor. At present there is an All-Party Committee in progress looking at different types of systems and will be reporting next April. ===================================================
Previous Proposals
1959 On August 28th 1958 the Irish Independent reported that ' a strong feeling existed' among politicians that PR might soon be abolished. This was confirmed on the 8th of September at a press conference where Taoiseach Eamon DeValera said that the matter was under consideration. By the 28th of October, when FF had had their Ard Fheis it was clear that a majority of FF delegates were strongly in favour of abolishing PR. FG didn't decide until the 1st of October that they were in favour of staying with PR, as were the other parties. The Bill for the 3rd amendment to the Constitution was introduced to the Dail by the Taoiseach on the 12th of November, which set in motion lots of debates and heated arguments. The main provisions of the bill were · The abolition of the STV and multi-member constituency. · The introduction of the single non- transferable vote · To set up a permanent commission under the chairmanship of a Supreme Court judge and 6 TD's.
On the 26th of November FG leader John Costelloe summarised their fears: · It would interfere with the legitimate rights of minorities; · It would be contrary to our democratic traditions · It would lead to unrepresentative parliaments and arrogant government. · It would make the ending of partition more difficult · It had not been demanded by public opinion, and · Therefore in present world conditions and in our economic circumstances, it will impair rather than assist the solution of our national problems. There were also fears expressed that Northern Unionists would be less likely to be coaxed into a United Ireland if PR were to be abolished as minorities would be at a disadvantage. The election was set for the 17th of June 1959 and both arguments were being well advertised to the general public. A member of the PR society called Miss Lakeman was particularly vociferous in supporting PR and this society printed pamphlets for the public supporting PR and a series of articles were published in the Irish Times written by Proinsias Mac Aonghusa which had a strong pro-PR bias.
A research group called Tuarim looked into the matter and came up with the conclusion that "The best possible alternative ought to be presented and the government should wait until an independent commission had found this alternative" The ICTU (which had 500,000 members) also urged its members to support PR as it had a "democratic system of election as opposed to dictatorial jobbery" The government used their own forms of resources to advertise for change using the Irish Press, posters and broadcasts from Raidio Eireann to air their point of view. Eventually 58.3% turned up to poll and the proposed amendment was marginally beaten by 51.78% against as to 48.22 for the proposition.
1968 The 2nd referendum on changing the electoral system was brought about by the Taoiseach in 1968, the late Mr. Jack Lynch. His main reason for wanting change was that under PR, whichever government was in control was unlikely to have a majority role, which would lead to deadlock when trying to introduce and vote on policies. He felt that this would streamline voting in Dail Eireann and make running the country more efficient. FG immediately disagreed, as did most of the newspapers and trade unions. FG leader Liam Cosgrove had said that the public agreed to maintain PR only nine years previously and that it would be a waste of time and money to have a referendum. The Kinsale district executive of FG condemned holding the referendum and wanted the £100,000 spent on it too be redirected to helping the homeless in Ireland. Public bodies in Monaghan, Wexford, Louth, Limerick and Cork all condemned the referendum. Most newspapers (with the exception of the Irish Press) all went against the referendum as did the academics and trade unionists. Lynch didn't grab the public's attention and didn't make a strong enough case to change the system and this was reflected in a big loss of 39.2% against PR with 60.8% for the present system. ===================================================
In Favour of PR
1) First of all, it makes nearly every vote count and none would be wasted, as is the case in Britain in the 1st past the post system. It means that in most 5 seater constituencies it is probable that that each of these 3 major parties would get at least one seat. In the British general Election of 1983 most people should have stayed at home instead of voting because across the country 3 Million Tory votes, 4 Million Labour votes and 7 Million Alliance votes were wasted in this way. This scenario would never happen in Ireland where electors can choose between different candidates and choose in a 1-2-3-4 preference of which they prefer. By making every vote count, democracy is maintained.
2) Under the present system the people elect TD's. If however, a list system were introduced party politics would play a major part in trying to get your own name to the top of the list. Whoever decides the list will want to help out friend and people they might want give a favour to. (As if the Irish public didn't need any more bribery scandals!!)This would also weaken the chances of fresh faces being given a chance as someone with 30 year Dail experience will more than likely be elected ahead of an up and coming 27 year old politician. If the AMS system was introduced it would more than likely mean that FF TD's would be doing all the constituency work while the majority of FG/Labour will be list deputies. This would seem unfair and disproportionate as all parties should have an equal communication channel to their constituents and would be unfair that thew FF TD's be left off to do the 'messy' ground work. ======================================================================== Against the Present System
There are several reasons why the present system is ineffective:
1) Some odd election results: In 1965 and'69 FF gained an overall parliamentary majority with under half the votes less than the combined opposition of FG/Labour. However, despite getting a higher vote in 1973 than '69, FF were swept out by FG/Labour who actually polled a lower share of the vote than in 1965 or in 1969! This was also true for the Labour party share of the vote increased yet lost seats between '65 and '69.
2) Gerrymandering In Ireland especially, there are several reasons for these odd results. One of the most infamous reasons was the way boundaries were shifted or as it was known 'gerrymandered'. FF were responsible for revisions of constituency boundaries in 1935,'47, '61 and '69which tried to establish 3 member seats where the party was strong with the hope that they would condense their power and get all 3 FF TD's in and changed 5-seaters to 4 seaters where they were weakest and tried to cut out 5-seat constituencies altogether. This tactic backfired during the FG/Labour coalition in 1974 when Minister James Tulle implemented changes, which backfired in favour of FF. This became known as a 'Tullymander'.
3) Bye-elections There is the problem of Alternative Vote at Bye-elections where only one member can be elected thus making it impossible to achieve true proportionality. Thus if the outgoing or deceased TD is from a minority or independent group the chance of someone from their own type being reelected is extremely slim.
4) Equality The present system also discriminates on minorities such as gender, color, colour, race , religion etc. As Minister Dempsey said: "Only 12% of TD's are women and the percentage of female senators is much the same, although they make up 51% of the electorate. No minorities are represented." The same happens in Britain. In 1983 General Election 52% of the electorate were women yet out of 650 MP's only 23 were women i.e. 3.5%. However a lot of this has to do with the social culture within each culture towards feminism. Scandinavian countries have a greater percentage of women than any other countries with 26% of representatives of Finland are women, 23.4% in Denmark, and Sweden 22.6%. Britain, the US and New Zealand are the worst with between 3.5% and 4.3% female representation. Ireland was 8.4 % in 1982 but has increased to 12% now. The problem with these minorities is that they will not get together with other minorities and there is no sense of unity about them and usually ends up trading off one another.
5) Local Community links with the TD's : Vital links between local communities and TD's are aiming primarily to please their hardcore supporters that are closer to home. E.g. Jackie Healy Rae was elected for South Kerry but it is fair to say that the amount of improvements in his hometown village of Kilgarvan has improved disproportionately than any other similar village in the same constituency.
6) Behind the scenes maneuvering: The general public is sceptical of bargaining that goes on behind closed doors. The "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" syndrome is prominent in Ireland. This can be seen to an even greater extent when the likes of Charles Haughey, Michael Lowry et al have allegedly taken bribes for granting planning permission and other favours. As a result it breeds disillusionment amongst the general public.
7) Inefficient Coalitions PR tends to give minority groups and independents greater power than they probably deserve by helping them to form coalition groups, which can ultimately make or break coalition governments. This can be seen at present with the FF/PD government and in the past with the Rainbow Coalition. As a result government progress can be hindered as independents can 'squeeze' the governments for favours in order to keep them voting for the government. Tony Gregory and Jackie Healy Rae are past masters at this practice!
==================================================================
Possible Alternatives
Professor Michael Laver is currently touting the additional Member System (AMS) in his recent book " A New electoral system for Ireland". This system is being used by the New Zealand & German countries for their elections & has proved to be extremely popular. Politicians can either be elected in their single seat constituencies by the public or could get a 2nd chance if elected by their party from their own Party list. One of the main features of the AMS is that TD's would be divided into 2 different types of sections:
1). The 1st type will be 'constituency deputies' who would be more independent of their parties and would be more closely linked to their constituency problems and the public in their local area.
2). The list deputies would in general stay away from the daily beck and call of local constituency people. As such they will not be responsible for any specific geographic area but if they wish they may lend a hand. Their main role would be as an executive in the daily dealing with national, social and economic matters involving the Dail and Ireland. This point about workload was put into perspective by the Minister of Environment Noel Dempsey (1998) during Seanad debates on the Electoral (Amendmant)(No.2) Bill, 1988: Committeee and Remaining Stages: " The parliamentarian spends 85% of his time dealing with his constituency and 15% of his time doing the job he should do at a national level. That will remain the case unless we change the electoral system."
The main drawbacks for this type of system would be that Fianna Fail TD's would win the majority of the constituency type deputies as Fianna Fail have in most areas one extremely popular candidate who would always top the polls. As a result, all the FF TD's would be doing the 'donkey work' i.e. the constituency work while almost all of the other list type TD's will be able to concentrate on executive type matters. Another problem is that if AMS were to be introduced a threshold level of either 2% or 5% would be introduced which would almost definitely mean that independent TD's and small parties would have little or no chance of being elected.
The list system would also bring up a number of issues:
1). There will be a division between central government and local government, as different TD's would have different functions.
2). Behind the scene maneuvering and bargaining would be rife, as deals will be struck which could lead to public disillusionment.
3). One would have to question whether the listing system is democratic. The people will have no control over which the party puts on the list. Could you imagine a situation wher4e disgraced TD Denis Foley in North Kerry would obviously not be put forward for local election but was decided by his peers to gain election by the List system. This would lead to uproar. Perhaps the government could consider a suggestion made by the Hansard report (1974) where the most successful losing candidates would gain election to the List system as opposed to the party electing the candidates who would be a fairer system.
This could have been seen at its most harmful when in the 1986 French General Election when leading figure heads were pushed into areas where they had no local roots just to make certain that that the party would get elected. Many local candidates had to give up their places to what they called parachutes from Paris. In one case the then Socialist Culture Minister, a Parisian found himself canvassing in one of the deepest rural areas, even though he admitted to have absolutely no agricultural knowledge whatsoever.
In Britain & France, they use a Non-PR system called 'first past the post'. This is an extremely dubious system where there is one seat per constituency. This 'winner takes all' approach has given disproportionate results down through the years and also means that the majority of votes are useless as they are non-transferable. The labour government lost power in 1951 to the Conservatives despite having 1% more votes, while they won power in February 1974 despite having more than 1% less votes than the Tories. Margaret Thatcher gained a landslide victory in 1983 winning 58 more seats than the previous election in 1979 despite the Tory vote declining by 1.5%. Also in 1983 the Liberals and Social Democrats polled 25% of the votes but secured only 4% of MP's.
The question to be asked with this system is: Is this a democratic system of voting for the people? Given the facts above, I would categorically avoid this system. Another system presently in use is called the 'preferential list PR' system which is currently in use in countries like Greece, Finland, Austria & Denmark. In Denmark they have multi member constituencies with open lists which allow voters to chose between individual candidates or the party of their choice. This would be one way of guaranteeing a close bond between our TD's and their constituents. This is important for a country in Ireland where a lot of dealings are done informally and off the cuff.
There is also a non-preferential list system. A lot of countries have systems where constituents can choose between various lists of candidates put forward by officially recognised parties and seats are allocated between parties in proportion to their votes. Examples of this are in Spain, The Netherlands, Sweden & Norway. A lot of systems are tailor made for each particular countries needs e.g. in the Netherlands most of the regional systems are divided into multi-member constituencies and the votes cast rarely divide neatly into the seats available. Conclusion In conclusion I believe that as the debate is beginning to unfold again that the government should be extremely patient and wait until all different election systems have been thoroughly examined. The system that I think would be most beneficial for Ireland is the AMS system currently in use in Germany. Politicians can either be elected in their single seat constituencies by the public or could get a 2nd chance if elected by their party from their own Party list.
By using this system Irish pol9iticians would be able to focus on their jobs more clearly and fulfil the goals of the All-Party Committee, which are stated as: "To enable TD's to more effectively fulfil their role as legislators". While the current system is extremely democratic I believe that we have too many TD's so by having a single member constituency peoples democratic rights will not be affected.
The constituency deputies will deal with local government issues and the List deputies will deal with Dail issues. Thus, TD's work will be streamlined and the government will be able to operate more efficiently and effectively while at the same time keeping Ireland a democratic state where everyone can have a fair say and a fair vote.