THERE is renewed interest in electoral reform, and an Oireachtas committee is taking evidence on this subject. In my view, the key question is whether we need to replace our present multiseat PR system with a single-seat system, adjusted to ensure proportionality, writes GARRET FITZGERALD
Because of our multiseat constituencies, most of our politicians, including Ministers, are faced with the need to defend their seats against candidates from other parties and against members of their own party.
Thus in the last two elections, Fianna Fáil TDs lost five seats to members of the Opposition, but almost three times as many – 14 – to members of their own party. Again in the last election, the only seats lost by Fine Gael TDs were those of two members who were defeated, in one case by another party member and in the other case by an Independent who subsequently joined Fine Gael.
Out political system is unique in that it requires ministers to be members of the Dáil and requires them to stand for election in local constituencies – a dual role that is excluded by the constitutions of other western European states.
This has an enormous impact on the amount of time that all TDs, including ministers, spend on constituency work, an activity which in the case of ministers significantly reduces the time they can afford to spend on the duties of their office.
Finally, the burdens and uncertainties created by the present electoral system must discourage many from ever entering politics.
Two earlier proposals to change our electoral system, in 1959 and again in 1968, would have involved switching to the markedly non-proportional British electoral system. Given the dominant position of Fianna Fáil in Irish politics half a century ago, such a change would have secured huge Fianna Fáil majorities in the Dáil, even if their popular vote fell well below 40 per cent.
Both attempts at changing our electoral system were rejected in referendums. It is clear our voters will not accept any system under which the composition of the Dáil is not broadly proportional to popular support for the parties.
This requires that the outcome of elections in single-seat constituencies be supplemented by whatever number of additional members elected by a different process to secure a Dáil in which party representation would correspond to the popular vote.
This is the system employed in Germany. How would the additional members required for the purpose of proportionality be selected?
By employing national or regional party lists, from the top of which whatever number of candidates may be needed to produce a proportionally representative parliament are then added.
An important issue in any such system is what proportion of the final parliamentary body should be elected in single-seat constituencies, and what proportion need to be additional members drawn from party lists to secure a proportional outcome.
In my 1987 election manifesto, I suggested that two-thirds of the members should be elected in single-seat constituencies and that one-third should be additional members. However, several subsequent reviews that I undertook, based on the results of local elections in potential single-member constituencies, constituted by combining local authority areas, showed one-third would be too low a proportion.
This was because, with only one-third of additional members, Fianna Fáil – at that time by far the largest party – might have secured more seats in the initial batch of single-member constituencies than they would be entitled to in the finally constituted Dáil. The conclusion I reached therefore, was that the proportion of additional members would need to be 40 per cent to ensure strict proportionality.
There have also been a number of suggestions that the size of the Dáil should be significantly reduced. Constitutional provisions require that membership not be reduced below 141, (one per 30,000 population).
If one assumes a Dáil with 141 members, my analysis suggests there should be about 85 single-seat constituencies, the average population of which would be 50,000 – as against the existing multiseat constituencies of 80,000 – 130,000.
This would be a much more manageable size of constituency and the present situation where constituents sometimes bring their problems to several TDs – and sometimes to all the TDs in a constituency, up to five in number, would be eliminated.
In the light of the record of seats lost to other members of the same party, it is surprising that there has not been more pressure, at least in the two main parties, for reform of a system that so often destabilises the careers of so many of their TDs.
One of the reasons for this is TDs’ lack of trust in their own organisations. There is an unwillingness among Dáil members to accept a change in the electoral system that would give party management the power to influence their fate by determining the order in which those not selected for the 85 or so single-member constituencies would be positioned on the party list.
One factor that could influence the attitude of the Dáil would be the move by the Labour Party, with its increased electoral support, to put forward two TDs, rather than a single TD in some constituencies. Given that Labour has hitherto been free from the pressures that the electoral system places on the two main parties, in future this could make it more open to electoral reform.