One of the legacies of the Celtic Tiger economy is a commitment to the introduction of electronic voting. The former minister for the environment, Mr Dempsey, championed a modernisation of the voting system in cash-rich times and his successor, Mr Cullen, is now arranging for its use in next year's local and European elections.
Unfortunately, the project was embarked upon with little public debate. And there has been no obvious response to the various concerns expressed by its opponents. This lack of transparency was underlined during the week when an Oireachtas committee asked Mr Cullen to suspend all further investment until it had reviewed the procedures and safeguards involved.
An electronic voting system is expected to cost the State about €38 million. It will replace the old-fashioned system of paper ballots and the long, manual counts that informed the public over two or more days about their newly elected representatives and the likely composition of the government.
Critics of the proposed system argue that it will dramatically reduce public awareness of politics, along with public understanding of how proportional representation works. They also say it will diminish the security and transparency of the election itself because of the nature and vulnerability of the proposed electronic system.
These are very serious issues. At a time when public interest and participation in the electoral process are falling, they should have been ventilated more fully. One-third of the electorate has little interest in politics. In such circumstances, any development that might damage public trust and cast doubt on the security and accuracy of the electoral process should be approached with the utmost caution.
With local and European elections only six months away, the Coalition Government is likely to press ahead with electronic voting. Its use in three Dáil constituencies in the general election of 2002 provided early and, so far as anyone knows, accurate results. But the Oireachtas Committee on Environment and Local Government was warned, last Wednesday, that security considerations required the system to be radically modified before it is used in the coming elections.
In particular, it was suggested a paper record should be retained in each polling station of every electronic vote cast, so that it could be used for spot-checks or recounts. The introduction of such a security back-up arrangement would, no doubt, cost money. But the need to preserve public confidence in our electoral system must override any considerations of cost.