Vote yes, vote no or don't vote at all? While the yes/no better/ worse debate is what keeps the political clock ticking, the ever-decreasing electoral turnout is worrying governments throughout the world.
In the recent referendums on the Nice Treaty, the International Criminal Court and the removal of the death penalty from our Constitution, only 34 per cent of those entitled to vote actually bothered to do so.
In an attempt to curb voter apathy, several countries have been experimenting with alternative methods of ballot-casting, such as e-voting.
E-voting can be introduced in stages - from the most basic systems installed in polling stations to the most advanced, which would allow voting via the Internet from anywhere in the world.
On February 11th last year, the Government agreed to introduce e-voting in Ireland and redraft legislation to facilitate it.
Other European countries examining the e-voting option include Estonia, where the government announced its plans last March to have an online voting infrastructure in place for its 2004 general election. Germany has announced similar plans. France has examined the possibility, but only 4 per cent of French politicians recently polled believe that Internet voting should be introduced.
Setting aside last year's presidential debacle, the US has covered the most ground in this area. In the first use of e-voting in a legally binding public election, almost 40,000 of the 86,000 voters in the Arizona Democratic Primary cast their ballots online. The system was not without its glitches. The site went down for an hour on the first day of voting; some voters lost the PIN numbers they had been e-mailed; and Apple Mac users experienced particular difficulties.
The system in the pipeline for Ireland is very different to the one used in Arizona. It is being developed by Nedap in association with Groenendaal, both based in the Netherlands, where e-voting systems have been in use for 30 years. The Government put together a reviewing board to examine the packages on offer and Nedap was elected the most suitable.
The cost of implementing the system countrywide is quoted at £25 million. This includes 8,000 machines, other hardware and vote-counting software.
Nedap promises a complete electoral management system and it will be responsible - along with the Department for the Environment and Local Government - for its smooth implementation.
The system works on a polling station basis and appears to be the least complex of the electronic electoral systems being developed. Known as the Integral Voting System (IVS), it consists of an electronic voting machine, known as Powervote, which is housed in a suitcase. The suitcase opens to form a cubicle and presents voters with a touch screen with which to cast their votes.
PIN numbers and digital signatures are not required. Voters will register at their polling stations in the usual way. Instead of being handed ballot sheets, they will receive numbered tickets which they member of polling staff who controls access to the machine. They will then go to the voting machine, where the ballot sheet will be presented on screen with the title of the election, the parties involved and the names of the candidates. Next to each candidate's name will be their photo. The voter will then touch the circle opposite the chosen candidate. There is also an option to abstain.
When the polling stations close, a device called a ballot module, which stores all the election data, is removed from the machine and brought to a central count centre. Here, PCs are linked to a device that enables the data to be read from the modules. (This device is also used to programme the ballot modules for the next election - be it presidential or general, a referendum or by-election.)
The Government and Nedap point out that the system does not require ballot papers or counting by hand; it delivers quick, accurate results. But the benefits are primarily administrative and the system is unlikely in its current form to encourage a greater turnout, as the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Noel Dempsey, hopes. It does not enable voters living outside their constituencies, or absent on election day, to vote from any polling station in the country.
"Electronic voting is not going to solve the problem of falling turnout. That was not something we were pressing in terms of what the system could bring. It's much more deep-rooted: it's getting people to want to vote," says Roy Loudon of Nedap.
Michael Murphy, of the Department of the Environment, emphasises the importance of introducing the system in stages.
"Internet voting is still a bit off, despite what companies selling the systems will tell you. There are serious security concerns that have to be considered. By introducing e-voting in stages, we will be able to judge if our system needs to be reviewed and can take advantage of newer technologies."
While Nedap claims its system is more robust and adaptable to possible changes in electoral styles, it does not have confidence in Internet and online voting.
"The technology exists because there are people using networks every day with transactions and so on," says Loudon, but he is not convinced that they are advanced enough to uphold the standards required for an election.
It is possible to put a modem in the voting machine and set it up to a central system. This option has been examined for the purpose of sending results, but has been found to cause problems.
As polling stations all send the results at the same time, the network is likely to break down, explains Mr Anne Hoeflaack of Nedap.
"In Holland we have a network between PCs, not voting machines, to the central machine," he says.
"This is simply to improve efficiency," adds Loudon. "It's not detracting from the integrity of the system because you still have the module with the raw data so if necessary people can go back and check."
Nedap maintains none of the security risks posed by the Internet or remote access systems exist with IVS. Each module has a unique serial number marked on its case and stored electronically within it. Before the election, when modules are being programmed, the system loads each serial number. This means that when the count is taking place only those modules whose numbers are already in the system will be accepted. This ensures that no rogue modules can be inserted to distort results.
The voting machine automatically locks after each voter has cast his vote and can only be activated by the next voter. This ensures that voters cannot vote more than once.
The Dutch TNO Laboratories and PTB in Germany have carried out extensive tests on systems used in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. PTB (the highest authority in Germany for the field of metrology and physical safety engineering) is likely to carry out independent testing on the Irish system and further testing of the software is expected to be carried out here.
This system will change not only the face of elections, it will also affect the way they are reported. Voting will be conducted on one voting machine per polling station, operating continuously during election day. There will no longer be lots of This may affect the commentary and sense of tension, but Nedap can operate a WAP service, depending on the strength of the network and signals.
It was used in the Netherlands at an election in Utrecht. After reading the ballot module, a file was created in IVS and placed on a WAP site, so WAP-enabled phone users could dial in and get the results. The information included the percentage of polls counted, the percentage turnout and the percentage vote for each party.
IVS will not be ready for Ireland's next general election, but the Government intends to have it in operation countrywide for the European in 2004.