In elections, it's the people who should count

Technical objections to e-voting aside, we are about to lose an invaluableand irreplaceable part of our political culture, writes…

Technical objections to e-voting aside, we are about to lose an invaluableand irreplaceable part of our political culture, writes James Wrynn.

Most of the discussion on electronic voting has centred on the issues of verification and the possibility of tampering with the software.

Initially there was also discussion on the instantaneous delivery of the result and the extent to which this was cruel to losing candidates. But this latter point has faded from the public debate, particularly with the promise of more humane political "execution" for losing candidates by a slightly delayed process of results delivery.

But missing is serious comment on the imminent demise of a hugely important part of our democratic system.

READ MORE

After each election, as the results gradually roll in, there is intense political discussion of the election issues, detailed exposition of the intricacies of our single transferable vote system and continuous interviewing of candidates from constituencies across the country. These are all interwoven in an unpredictable way that makes for gripping television and radio that attracts huge audiences.

On March 14th, there will be elections in Russia. It is very obvious that democracy is a fragile plant in that country and in many of the other former Soviet countries such as the Ukraine and Georgia. Regardless of one's view on the role of the US in Iraq, we observe the difficulty of the US in trying to establish overnight democracy in that country. In all of these examples, it is clear that democracy is not simply about elections.

Elections are the crystallising point of democracy. Elections only have real democratic content when the elements of democracy are deeply embedded in society.

These elements include independent and critical comment by media, informed discussion by citizens and continuous organised political activity by political parties that are truly rooted in society.

Genuine democracy also requires the broadest participation of citizens and party members in as many facets of politics as possible, a full understanding of the technicalities of the electoral system and, of course, fair elections.

Democracy in Ireland is deeply rooted and an intrinsic part of our society, through the presence of these characteristics to varying degrees. But participation in elections is gradually declining.

In the context of this decline, any activity that deepens engagement and strengthens understanding of our democratic system should be cherished.

Foreign journalists who visit Ireland at election time are almost always perplexed by our electoral system. Their comments range from bewilderment to mild amusement. But Irish people understand the PR system well and use it with great precision and sophistication.

This may range from absolute party loyalty down the ballot paper, cross-party transfers to elect an alternative government, or presidential candidate as in the case of Mary Robinson, to cross-party transfers to ensure a local candidate will represent them in the Dáil.

Or a voter can ensure that the candidate most opposed to that voter's political philosophy will not derive any chance benefit of the vagaries of PR, by giving every other candidate a preference and the "objectionable" candidate the last or no preference.

This sophistication and understanding of the system has not come about by accident. A crucial reason is that two-day exposition of the mechanics of the PR system. It takes place about every two years when we take into account general, local and presidential elections.

It is interesting to speculate on a scenario in 10 or 12 years' time, after five or six nationwide elections without this intensive national political tutorial.

A substantial section of the population, and in particular the younger population, which even at the moment does not strongly engage in politics or political issues, will no longer have experienced those two-day debates and detailed counts.

A declining proportion of the population at large will soon no longer understand how our electoral system operates and will not have experienced the detailed counts and transfer of votes and the interspersed debate on a range of political issues.

Somewhere around perhaps 10,000 party members participate in each election as tally people or observers at counts. It is a major event in the life of many political activists and an experience where many aspiring candidates learn some of the rudiments of politics.

The extended manual counting process and all that goes with it, and with so many involved, is a significant part of our political and democratic infrastructure. An activity with a huge level of public engagement will largely disappear with the advent of electronic voting. In many ways, its loss may be far more damaging to our democratic system than the remote but important possibility of electronic tampering.

Many politicians, political activists and members of the public were initially seduced into supporting the concept of electronic voting on the basis of a modernist/progressive stance. In any debate, where the options are presented as being "technologically advanced" versus "old-fashioned, manual and cumbersome", the former will triumph.

That would be the right result of the debate, if it were only about changing from manual to mechanically counting.

But the proposed change will change much more than that. It will eliminate an important and deeply embedded part of our democracy that greatly strengthens that democracy.

James Wrynn is chairman of the Labour Party's organisation committee