Jim Gavin’s name should not be on the ballot paper for the presidential vote next week. It has been suggested that the decision not to remove his name after he withdrew from the contest is defensible from a logistical and administrative point of view, given the processing and printing of ballot papers after the close of nominations and the issuing of postal ballots. But the decision raises troubling questions about the election count, which should have been addressed given his early withdrawal.

The Electoral Act of 1992 includes a provision for the relevant minister – in this case James Browne, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage – to issue an order of modification for the conduct of an election in cases of “emergency or special difficulty”. The Gavin case clearly represents a “special difficulty”, but there has been no clear explanation from Browne as to why he avoided making use of such an order. Surely voters are entitled to know? And why did it take so long to decide? Browne was crystal clear in his endorsement of Gavin, writing that he would “be an outstanding president of Ireland”. He has offered no such clarity about why it remains theoretically possible that Gavin could be elected president after his withdrawal from the campaign.

That is highly unlikely, of course, especially given Thursday’s

© The Irish Times