THE large-scale introduction of postal voting in this week's local council and European elections has been ill-starred.

Misprinted ballot papers and late deliveries have tarnished the experiment. So too has the rather cumbersome and complicated means of verifying and packaging individual votes.

These difficulties can legitimately be described as teething problems, from which lessons can be learned and the whole process improved.

There will always be those who favour the ritual of the polling station, the voting booth and the ballot box. But in essence, while such a method of voting may have tradition on its side, it has few advantages.

Politicians of all persuasions are rightly concerned about apathy and the need to engage the public. Restricting voting to one day at a place some distance from your home encourages apathy.

Low participation in elections favours the extremist parties who, by their nature, are able to galvanise their supporters to cast their votes.

It is not in the interests of democracies to have election results which fail to represent the wishes of the whole electorate.

Postal voting encourages engagement in politics.

It gives people the time and opportunity in the comfort and familiarity of their own home to consider carefully how they will vote.

And crucially, it encourages more people to vote in elections.

Already, with the deadline for casting votes still two days away, the turn-out for the European elections in our region is already higher than five years ago.

Because of that factor alone we have a duty to continue with the experiment and ensure it works as effectively and efficiently as possible.