Right to Run.

Kappar

I want to ask people what there views are on amending Art.16 section 1 sub-section 1 of the Irish Constitution to allow people of eighteen years or more to run for election to the Dáil. I think it is quite important for our society to treat all adults with an egalitarian sentiment.

I know some will say that 18 year old are not mature enough to be in the Dáil but even though I disagree with this statement should this judgement not be up to the electorate and allow them to use their franchise how they wish.

Anyway if you agree with me please sign my petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/art16/petition.html this will be submitted to TDs and to other relevant authorities.

Thank you.

DadaKopf

If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to run for office. I don't think there's any compelling, rational argument to keep it at 21.

If people cared enough and it was brought before the people in a referendum, I doubt it'd have any problem getting passed.

Sparks

The real question is why would you want to get into the Dail? It's not like it's actually providing a useful function anymore.

sceptre

Originally posted by DadaKopf
If you're old enough to run, you're old enough to run for office. I don't think there's any compelling, rational argument to keep it at 21.

Agreed.

simu

I also agree.

Many ppl remain immature all their lives:)

I think alot of young ppl would take an interest in politics if some of the TDs were younger.

I hate the way young ppl in Ireland (i.e. between 18 and 25, say) are treated in a patronizing manner by older ppl, politicians especially.

The minimum age for running for president (35, I think) should also be lowered.

Éomer of Rohan

Like I said when I commented on the petition page, if people are old enough to vote and therefore, by implication, to understand politics then they are old enough to hold the responsibility of public office; in fact is our duty to the ideals of democracy to keep public offices out of the hands of the same bureaucrats, old men and corrupt politicians that regularly occupy them. We should be encouraging young candidates for they are our future and will re-invigorate a stale democracy.

Victor

Oddly, this could create the situation where someone who had never, ever voted, could become a TD (possible, but unlikely at the moment).

Originally posted by DadaKopf
If you're old enough to run, you're old enough to run for office.

I was able to run from about the age of 3 or 4 ....

Typedef

Originally posted by Sparks
The real question is why would you want to get into the Dail? It's not like it's actually providing a useful function anymore.

Because of the priviledge TD's enjoy presumably.

I am aware of one TD, who didn't have a licence for over 20 years, since he could always say to a Garda.

"I'm on Dail business".

Sparks

Sounds about right Typedef. I mean, seriously, what's the point of being elected to the Dail when if you even try to point out that a TD is lying, you get hauled up by an ceann comhairle, and told that you will either retract your statement or be chucked out - irregardless of whether or not the TD actually is lying. It might make for a funny paragraph in the times when Willie O'Dea resorts to saying something is a "terminological inconsistency", but given how much it costs us for every TD to be in there, I expect a more professional service....

Kappar

Thanks for all the responses and Signatures keep 'em coming.

I hopefully plan to run for next election I'll be old enough then though but i still for strongly and suporting rights of yound people in Ireland.

The minimum age for running for president (35, I think) should also be lowered.

Yes, art. 12 section 4 sub-section 1. I would like to see it say eighteen but i can never see someone 18 years old making it but mabey someday.

Éomer of Rohan

The minimum age for running for president (35, I think) should also be lowered

Sure what difference does that make? The President is only a figure head in the republic, no?

Also, what age limits are placed on the prime ministership in the ROI? Are these set by parties who can choose what age a potential leader has to be?

Sparks

I want to ask people what there views are on amending Art.16 section 1 sub-section 1 of the Irish Constitution to allow people of eighteen years or more to run for election to the Dáil. I think it is quite important for our society to treat all adults with an egalitarian sentiment.

You know, I've actually been thinking about this, and the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get with the whole thing.

First off, those two sentences are completely unrelated. The minimum age limit for office being 21 is not a serious problem and it does not endanger the equality before the law of citizens. Stringing those two sentences together is at best ignorant, at worst disingenously manipulative.

Second off, the problem with TDs is not that an 18-year-old can't be a TD, it's that any tom, dick or harry that wins a popularity contest and becomes a TD can get put in charge of public spending without any qualifications whatsoever, academic or otherwise. That might be fine for the local pub quiz team, but this is the bloody country and out tax money we're talking about. I don't want some unqualified person making decisions regarding the economy or the justice system or the health system or foreign policy!

It's bad enough that Ahern never had to answer for faking his degrees, but the fact that the cabinet are appointed without any from of minimum requitements for the job is not just laughable, it's downright scary.

I say get a professionally appointed and publicly peer-reviewed administration in and monitor them by ensuring the right of the public to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue.

Éomer of Rohan

First off, those two sentences are completely unrelated. The minimum age limit for office being 21 is not a serious problem and it does not endanger the equality before the law of citizens. Stringing those two sentences together is at best ignorant, at worst disingenously manipulative

Alright, granted that it does not affect the equality of anyone before the law etc etc but at the same time, why is age a qualification for a governmental post? Many 18 year olds that I know have a better grasp of politics than many middle aged adults that I know - and the lower the age of being able to stand for office, maybe the more young TD's will get in to office and when that happens, maybe we will see some real shift to get the opinions of younger people heard.

It's bad enough that Ahern never had to answer for faking his degrees, but the fact that the cabinet are appointed without any from of minimum requitements for the job is not just laughable, it's downright scary

But this does not take into account the variety and diversity of our people; I may never complete a university degree (hypothetically speaking) but to be honest, I feel able to match anything Bertie or Tony can do because I am an intelligent person and I don't need some stupid test to tell me that; relate this to yourselves and tell me whether or not you agree. THAT is why there are no minimum requirements for the job - and obviously it would make sense to put a soldier in charge of the MOD, a diplomat in charge of the Foreign Office, an economist in charge of the equivalent of the Exchequer but it doesn't work like that because these people have pre-formulated ideas most of the time whereas a political appointee can utilise many sources to come up with objective policy.

Just as a by-the-by, do you agree with the IR£300 (I think that is it) sum that all candidates have to pay in order to stand in an election?

sceptre

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Just as a by-the-by, do you agree with the IR£300 (I think that is it) sum that all candidates have to pay in order to stand in an election?

Gone IIRC. Unconstitutional, unreasonable barrier to candidacy and all that.

Éomer of Rohan

Gone IIRC. Unconstitutional, unreasonable barrier to candidacy and all that.

Now that is strange; I was looking up www.irlgov.ie and it says that that still remains but obviously they haven't updated it in ages then.

Sparks

why is age a qualification for a governmental post?

It's not the age that the rule is there to enforce, it's a half-assed way of trying to ensure that the person is psychologically stable (ie., no teenage angst, no testosterone poisoning, etc, etc.). Ought to be replaced with a proper psychological work-up IMHO.

maybe we will see some real shift to get the opinions of younger people heard.

The problem isn't that "young people" aren't heard - the problem is that the voices heard are normally those representing vested interests.

But this does not take into account the variety and diversity of our people;

Yes it does. Variety and diversity do not have anything to do with competency - so a competency test doesn't affect the bias of the selection.

I may never complete a university degree (hypothetically speaking) but to be honest, I feel able to match anything Bertie or Tony can do because I am an intelligent person and I don't need some stupid test to tell me that

Firstly, for some jobs a degree of training is required as a necessity.
Secondly, we don't want someone that can do better than Ahern or Blair. We want someone that can do better than a relevant benchmark.

relate this to yourselves and tell me whether or not you agree. THAT is why there are no minimum requirements for the job

Yes, but recall that that rule was written when our educational system was so poor that literacy was a problem. Today we're a bit further on, and frankly most people wouldn't apply for a job they weren't qualified for. Can you see someone applying for the post of CEO without an MBA? And yet you can get responsibility for spending an equivalent amount of public money without any kind of qualification?
No thanks, I'd rather burn my own money!

- and obviously it would make sense to put a soldier in charge of the MOD, a diplomat in charge of the Foreign Office, an economist in charge of the equivalent of the Exchequer but it doesn't work like that because these people have pre-formulated ideas most of the time whereas a political appointee can utilise many sources to come up with objective policy.

Apart from the fact that not all of that makes obvious sense (a soldier in chager of the MOD would be illegal, wouldn't it?), there's the fact that a total lay idiot couldn't run a government office without some training in that office's business - and whomever trains them has a vested interest to train them in a mindset that favours the status quo.
So make it a requirement to have been trained already and you have more of a chance of the minister having a valid independent opinion.

(Mind you, I still think that direct democracy is a better idea, but if you're going to do the representative method, at least it should be done right!)

Éomer of Rohan

Ought to be replaced with a proper psychological work-up IMHO.

But then who decides where the bar for 'A OK' and 'flunk' is to be set for this psychological work up? And can they not be influenced by political opinions and so on?

The problem isn't that "young people" aren't heard - the problem is that the voices heard are normally those representing vested interests.

Agreed BUT at the same time, young people, who by definition are not part of the 'vested interests' group have to be heard as well - and even where the voices of vested interests silent, it is hard enough to be taken as credible by an adult, trust me on that.

Yes it does. Variety and diversity do not have anything to do with competency - so a competency test doesn't affect the bias of the selection

No, you made the point regarding Bertie and his fake 'degree' - and I am making the point that people should not be required to have a degree in anything before they could become Prime Minister or whatever. A competency test is altogether a different ball game; who is to set the grade for that particular test - if it is to be based on knowledge of political and world affairs, literacy, numeracy and basic things like that then fair enough but otherwise, we're into descrimination again.

Firstly, for some jobs a degree of training is required as a necessity.
Secondly, we don't want someone that can do better than Ahern or Blair. We want someone that can do better than a relevant benchmark.

As to the first part of that, what sort of training can you go through that will prepare you for being Prime Minister that Prime Ministers don't get when elected, given to them by the civil service. Diplomatics and all are taught to them when elected. The second part is irrelevent.

Yes, but recall that that rule was written when our educational system was so poor that literacy was a problem. Today we're a bit further on, and frankly most people wouldn't apply for a job they weren't qualified for. Can you see someone applying for the post of CEO without an MBA? And yet you can get responsibility for spending an equivalent amount of public money without any kind of qualification?

So what you are saying here is that someone with a degree is better qualified for political leadership and the leadership of the country than someone without? I think that is crap; especially given, as I pointed out, that people can be very intelligent and simply not interested in university or can have other qualities than simply book learning or whatever; character, charisma, principles and so on are just as important.

there's the fact that a total lay idiot couldn't run a government office without some training in that office's business - and whomever trains them has a vested interest to train them in a mindset that favours the status quo.
So make it a requirement to have been trained already and you have more of a chance of the minister having a valid independent opinion

I'd say in certain posts you could have members of boards.ie who would be qualified to deal with certain aspects of government; foreign affairs, ministry of the interior, things like that simply because they have knowledge of the affairs to be dealt with; it is the responsibility of the civil service to provide legal advice and to see that things happen, which is why they don't change from admin. to admin. The only requirement that should be placed on holding a ministerial position is that they have knowledge of the relevent issues of the day.

mike65

I'd raise the voting age to 25 and would'nt trust an 18 year old
to tell me time never mind legistate for my future...you are familair
with student union politics?

Mike.

Sparks

But then who decides where the bar for 'A OK' and 'flunk' is to be set for this psychological work up? And can they not be influenced by political opinions and so on?

There are clinical definitions. How else would psychiatrists be able to do their job?

Agreed BUT at the same time, young people, who by definition are not part of the 'vested interests' group have to be heard as well - and even where the voices of vested interests silent, it is hard enough to be taken as credible by an adult, trust me on that.

Maybe, but dealing with the bigger problem first is the usual problem-solving method...

No, you made the point regarding Bertie and his fake 'degree' - and I am making the point that people should not be required to have a degree in anything before they could become Prime Minister or whatever. A competency test is altogether a different ball game; who is to set the grade for that particular test - if it is to be based on knowledge of political and world affairs, literacy, numeracy and basic things like that then fair enough but otherwise, we're into descrimination again.

Competency in one are is not competency in another. Therefore you'd have different tests for different posts. Want to be Minister for Finanace? You'll need to demonstrate solid understanding of economics. Minister for Health? You need to understand medical administration. Minister for Defence? You need to be familiar with the structure of the army, how it works, what it requires in terms of funding and so on. Minister for Sport? You need to have an understanding of sport - and I don't mean when Kerry's next match is coming up, but how you go about running an arbitary sport club, how coaching is set up and run, what sport does for a nation overall and how that translates to core principles to be promoted (this is the inclusion vs. excellence debate).
And so on, and so forth....

As to the first part of that, what sort of training can you go through that will prepare you for being Prime Minister that Prime Ministers don't get when elected, given to them by the civil service. Diplomatics and all are taught to them when elected.

So we elect someone to office with no experience in the affairs he must then oversee....
Tell me Dave, does that not sound familiar to you?
Yup, that's right, it's the way that US presidents are elected. And the end result is that sometimes you get someone that's travelled and literate and reasonably intelligent and he does an acceptable job - and sometimes you get Dubya.

The second part is irrelevent.

No it wasn't. The point was that if you set your benchmark at the level of Ahern, you're saying that the metric is how well can you avoid making a decision and avoid blame. That's not the right metric, obviously...

So what you are saying here is that someone with a degree is better qualified for political leadership and the leadership of the country than someone without?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that someone with a background in economics is going to make a better finance minister. Likewise for other posts. These aren't meant to be vocations, recall, they're jobs.

character, charisma, principles and so on are just as important.

The first two make for an interesting person - not a good minister. They've got nothing to do with professionalism. Take a look at Hans Blix to see what I mean.
As to principles, you'll have to excuse me if I would prefer those principles to be enshrined in law rather then be reliant on human judgement.

I'd say in certain posts you could have members of boards.ie who would be qualified to deal with certain aspects of government; foreign affairs, ministry of the interior, things like that simply because they have knowledge of the affairs to be dealt with;

I dunno. There are certainly people here with sufficent experience and judgement to have an opinion on a topic that could be trusted for formulating public policy, but I've yet to see anyone here with sufficent expertise in a wide enough range of areas to handle ministerial posts in finance or foreign affairs or whatever at a level that those posts should be handled at. They'd do as good a job as those currently in charge, to be sure, but that's like having a human rights record that's better than Saddam Hussein...

it is the responsibility of the civil service to provide legal advice and to see that things happen, which is why they don't change from admin. to admin. The only requirement that should be placed on holding a ministerial position is that they have knowledge of the relevent issues of the day.

And sufficent experience and mental stability to make the correct choice...

DadaKopf

Sparks: blah blah. Even if an 18 year old ran, it's unlikely he/she would be successfully elected because society recognises life experience as a vital qualification. That's not so much a prejudice as it is a reality, which most people recognise. I expect our Constitution to be consistent and if we have a universal franchise, we have a universal franchise across sex and across age.

Then there's the argument: it's possible that someone could be elected into office who never voted. See above. Why is that bad? Is voting some rite of passage into adult political life? No, it's a duty, as is becoming a public servant. What might be the implications of this change? Change in party structure? Not a bad thing. More unaligned representatives? Not a bad thing. Increased voter volatility? Not a bad thing in the short term - which is what it would be. Politics might even become 'sexy' again. Certainly not a bad thing.

Victor

How about a test like this:

• Name the 32 counties.
• Name the members of the EU (15 + 10).
• What is the difference between a Bill and an Act?
• Name the government departments.
• How much is a litre of milk and a loaf of bread (most TDs couldn't answer this at the last election)?
• Name the constitutional officers (a little tricky).
• Name X number of senior international politicians.
• What are the main types of tax?
• How much is child benefit
• ... and so on.

And let the electorate judge, based on a marked scorecard.

Separately, have all politician undergo obligatory politics training in their first year in the Dáil (no exam).

Kappar

I'd raise the voting age to 25 and would'nt trust an 18 year old

Then don't vote for them.

Spark, I disagree with most of your veiws as I think they are anti-democratic, I am totaly in favour of deomcracy. I do agree with getting this right that you metioned "ensuring the right of the public to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue." I think that is fair but should we only allow people with a degree or intellegient people to vote in them and should we go further to only allow people with degrees and clever people to vote full stop.

Have all politician undergo obligatory politics training in their first year in the Dáil (no exam).

That's a good idea as long it's done fairly and not try to force any type of political ideas on them just explain how everything works etc.

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
How about a test like this:

• Name the 32 counties.
  

Why? Wont 26 do just fine?

Mike.

Sparks

mike65,
Nope, has to be all 32. Foreign affairs and all that

Kappar,

Spark, I disagree with most of your veiws as I think they are anti-democratic, I am totaly in favour of deomcracy.

But what kind of democracy? We live in a representative democracy, which a quick archive search will show you, I personally see as a very, very bad idea. Direct democracy, which I prefer, still requires an administration and an executive, and since the populus has greater control over the government, it makes more sense to restrict entry into either body according to competency.

I do agree with getting this right that you metioned "ensuring the right of the public to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue." I think that is fair but should we only allow people with a degree or intellegient people to vote in them and should we go further to only allow people with degrees and clever people to vote full stop.

And you're in favour of democracy? I don't mind the idea of restricting the right to vote to those that complete a basic education - but before implementing it there are several conditions:
1) That basic education must be completely and utterly free of charges to those going through it, and their guardians.
2) That basic education must contain courses in history, civics, politics, philosophy and ethics. In other words, it's not just to be an academic education, but must contain educational courses which are required to allow someone to make an evaluated choice on matters of public policy in full recognition of the consequences of that choice.

That's a good idea as long it's done fairly and not try to force any type of political ideas on them just explain how everything works etc.

Which won't happen if it's done by the Civil Service - which is how it's done now.

Originally posted by Sparks
Direct democracy, which I prefer, still requires an administration and an executive, and since the populus has greater control over the government, it makes more sense to restrict entry into either body according to competency.

But you'd have to get the great unwashed, including the un intelligent and incompetant to agree to that in a referendum first, a very unlikely prospect;)
mm

Sparks

But you'd have to get the great unwashed, including the un intelligent and incompetant to agree to that in a referendum first, a very unlikely prospect

Man,
So you're saying that the public would object to restricting the post of Minister of Finance to those that have economic qualifications, despite the fact that that person would have control over the country's economy?
I think you'll find that most people are somewhat more pragmatic. After all, it's not exactly impossible to get economic qualifications; and you'll find that in jobs where the job affects other people's lives (medicine is the first example that springs to mind), that they're not very tolerant of incompetency. So long as the qualification standard is reasonably attainable (ie. a BA in economics as opposed to the nobel prize in economics ), I would think that it would be passed. The key is being specific about the standards required and ensuring that those that want to get those qualifications have the opportunity to get them.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
The key is being specific about the standards required and ensuring that those that want to get those qualifications have the opportunity to get them.

Yerrah, not at all,the key is to get the ordinary,uneducated joe Soaps to vote yes for what you propose without giving them an inferiority complex.
Thats what is the very unlikely prospect.
Of course, qualified people should be doing the job of government.
Now what degree has Bertie again...?? He's not bad at his job and can't even drive.
mm

Sparks

Now what degree has Bertie again...??

None. He claimed to have a BA from UCD and qualifications from the LSE - and both schools have stated that he never attended, let alone graduated.

He's not bad at his job

That's a highly debatable point. In fact, it's a highly debated point!

and can't even drive.

He can, he just doesn't have a current licence.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
So you're saying that the public would object to restricting the post of Minister of Finance to those that have economic qualifications, despite the fact that that person would have control over the country's economy?

I would object (and not just cause I like playing Devil's Advocate).

Ministers are not elected, they are appointed from the elected TDs, yes? So, to restrict the post is not only saying "you must have X qualifications to do this job", but also that we don't trust our elected officials to be able to select appropriate people for the job from within their own ranks.

If you don't trust them to do this, then requiring the qualification is a waste of time. They can still

I know people with IT degrees who shouldn't be let near anything more computerised than a SpeakNSpell. I know people with various different degrees who basically are incapable of realising that the world doesnt owe them a living, and that "doing your job" is not the same as being employed from 9 to 5 (with work costing extra).

Why would economics qualifications be any different?

In truth, I don't believe they would be. Therefore, for me, it still boils down to either trusting the TDs to appoint someone they believe can do the job well, or not trusting them and expecting the job to be handed out as a nice little reward for some toady or bootlicker, or traded as part of some deal or whatever....

If its the former, I believe qualifications are irrelevant. If its the latter....I believe qualifications are irrelevant.

(Also remember that the Minister of Finance only needs to be able to listen to his advisors and manage the whole scene. He doesn't have to actually think up everything on his own.)

Back on topic.....I fully support the idea of allowing 18-yr olds to run. I agree - if you're old enough to elect, you're old enough to be elected.

The worst thing it could do is lead to an upsurge in youh voting, and lead to a new "force" in politics.

As for any comlpaints about these people not understanding the full implications, or this that and the other.......its the same thing as before....either you trust the electorate to make smart choices, or you dont. If you do, then age isnt a problem. If you dont, then age isnt the issue at all.

There's enough clowns in the Dail in any given government. I dont see how giving the 18-25s a chance to get in there could do anything worse than change the clown's faces.

jc

Sparks

Ministers are not elected, they are appointed from the elected TDs, yes?

Bonkey, we're effectively playing at "what-if" here, given the incredible amount that would have to be changed to accomodate these ideas. So I wouldn't take this as being a single change to be made to the current government - but as a possible alternative structure. Currently, the TDs choose who handles what Ministry. I'm proposing that that system be done away with alltogether and professionally qualified people be appointed to the job by direct election. Got an economics degree and want the job? Apply for it. Come election time, your resume is voted on.

but also that we don't trust our elected officials to be able to select appropriate people for the job from within their own ranks.

Apart from the fact that I regard unmitigated trust in politicians as being on a par with being a small tasty flightless bird with no natural enemies on an island suddenly discovered by hungry sailors; there is the fact that they must select from a small pool of candidates and as such may not have a good choice available. To use an engineering analogy, the filter is in the wrong place. We filter the population by popularity first and competence second - it should be the other way round...

Why would economics qualifications be any different?

That's confusing the problem with 3rd level IT courses (take it from me, those problems are directly related to the nature of the subject, which is one of the youngest branches of systems science and as such has very little in the way of a body of methodology, in comparison to other areas of science and engineering. Economics is an older discipline and the general standard of their graduates, w.r.t. competency in economics, is somewhat higher) with the problem of determining competency for a post.

expecting the job to be handed out as a nice little reward for some toady or bootlicker, or traded as part of some deal or whatever

Which does happen and which is why the system has to be changed. Or is everyone okay with paying for the current circus we have?

Also remember that the Minister of Finance only needs to be able to listen to his advisors and manage the whole scene. He doesn't have to actually think up everything on his own.

Firstly, to say he can even listen to his advisors without either having training or completely abdicating the office of Minister of Finance to his advisors is a bit silly. Secondly, in order to make a choice on a policy issue (which is pretty much the core process of preparing a budget), he needs to understand the situation, which requires training.

I fully support the idea of allowing 18-yr olds to run. I agree - if you're old enough to elect, you're old enough to be elected.

I've got no real problem with a qualified 18-year-old running. But for me, the qualification matters more than the age. So if we got some prodigy with a PhD in economics at age 18 running, I'd vote for him over McCreevy in a heartbeat.

The worst thing it could do is lead to an upsurge in youh voting, and lead to a new "force" in politics.

No, the worst that could happen is that we could get a group of male 18-year-olds in Dail Eireann. 18-year-old girls are, in general, reasonably stable mentally. 18-year-old males are in general, choking on testosterone and would pretty much end up as the new Sinn Fein in Dail Eireann (ie. the party everyone else takes great pains to annoy and score points off). Of course, we might get the few who have managed (or been force by circumstance) to mature faster than average. But we were talking worst-case scenarios here...

There's enough clowns in the Dail in any given government. I dont see how giving the 18-25s a chance to get in there could do anything worse than change the clown's faces.

Perhaps because what we need is to get rid of the circus, not get new clowns...

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Bonkey, we're effectively playing at "what-if" here, given the incredible amount that would have to be changed to accomodate these ideas. So I wouldn't take this as being a single change to be made to the current government - but as a possible alternative structure. Currently, the TDs choose who handles what Ministry. I'm proposing that that system be done away with alltogether and professionally qualified people be appointed to the job by direct election. Got an economics degree and want the job? Apply for it. Come election time, your resume is voted on.

Fair points but 'what if' of these X number of ministers who get elected for there competences in their particular fields, have vastly differing political views. Who sits at the cabinet table to stop a war breaking out? Who decides what budgets get allocated to what departments (and don't say the minister for finance, because he'll possibly have people with similar ideas to him in the cabinet).

Or are you suggesting that all the polital parties give up on their individual candidates in constituencies and that everyone votes for a government based on the potential cabinets put forward by the various parties?

Sparks

Fair points but 'what if' of these X number of ministers who get elected for there competences in their particular fields, have vastly differing political views. Who sits at the cabinet table to stop a war breaking out?

I don't see how that differs from the current situation!

Who decides what budgets get allocated to what departments (and don't say the minister for finance, because he'll possibly have people with similar ideas to him in the cabinet).

Well, how is it done now? A group of people who are competing for leadership of the party slug it out, each trying to get the most pork for their constituency and department, and the end result is almost never optimal. I fail to see how that procedure is made worse by each of the participants being qualified professionals.

Or are you suggesting that all the polital parties give up on their individual candidates in constituencies and that everyone votes for a government based on the potential cabinets put forward by the various parties?

No, I'm proposing that each ministerial post is put to a vote, preferably staggered over a month or three. Why not do it that way? We're stuck with them for four years, why not have a week of televised analysis and debate on the merits of each candidate, see what the views of the shortlist are (the shortlist being chosen according to competency, selected some time ahead and with an appeals process), and then have the election over the weekend. Do that every week or fortnight for one ministerial post.
Frankly, I don't see the point in political parties when no human I've ever met has a single political stance for every issue. So why not allow for the choice of different people with different politics for different areas of political responsibility?

Besides which, none of this impacts on regional representation. There is, after all, no reason why the executive should not have a house of representative and a cabinet that are seperate. What would be lost?

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Frankly, I don't see the point in political parties when no human I've ever met has a single political stance for every issue. So why not allow for the choice of different people with different politics for different areas of political responsibility?

Yes politicians within parties have differences in their views but the party system means that someone can step in if there is a dissagreemant and say 'this is the way it's going to be'. How do you propose this happens with what you're suggesting?

It sounds like a better idea than what's there at present but to be turned into a practical solution, there has to be some mechanism for resolving the differences in views that will arise.

Originally posted by Sparks
None. He claimed to have a BA from UCD and qualifications from the LSE - and both schools have stated that he never attended, let alone graduated.

Yeap and despite that, to give him his due,he's up there with , Europes leaders as having done a comparably good job.I'd also profer that you will find many business people, who are doing exceptionally well in their field with nothing other than the leaving cert or less in some cases.
Regardless of the merits of your plan, how do you propose, telling them, they are not eligible for office, without insulting their inteligence?
You would automatically be creating a second class citizen there, because while not all of these people would be capable of doing a ministerial job, some would.
And indeed it's possible that , there are many housewives out there, who'd be good at it also, more so than a college graduate.
That applies also obviously to 18 year olds, who wouldn't have went to college, the ellectorate ultimately choose whether they are fit or not for office.

Incidently, I believe, Bertie never passed a driving test, or ever held a full licence, I'm not sure whether he has ever drove on a provisional, he only told the Dáil that he did not have a full licence.

Sparks

Imposter,

Yes politicians within parties have differences in their views but the party system means that someone can step in if there is a dissagreemant and say 'this is the way it's going to be'. How do you propose this happens with what you're suggesting?

Hang on a minute - that sounds suspiciously like you would advocate a dictatorship.

It sounds like a better idea than what's there at present but to be turned into a practical solution, there has to be some mechanism for resolving the differences in views that will arise.

The same mechanism that's used for every single company in the western world with good results should suffice, no? Debate, comprimise, voting and consensus.

Man,

Yeap and despite that, to give him his due,he's up there with , Europes leaders as having done a comparably good job.

As I've already said, that's both highly debatable and highly debated. Personally, I find the idea of Ahern being the public face of Irish politics to be rather disturbing, given that his brand of expertise is personified more by Jackie Healy Rae than by Kofi Annan...

I'd also profer that you will find many business people, who are doing exceptionally well in their field with nothing other than the leaving cert or less in some cases.

I'd point out that the private sector has a far more darwinian system of natural selection going on than the public sector. Those with talent succeed, those without don't. And I don't think you'll find too many people running large successful businesses without qualifications past the LC, not compared to those running businesses with MBAs and the like.

Regardless of the merits of your plan, how do you propose, telling them, they are not eligible for office, without insulting their inteligence?

Hmmm. Roughly the same way that I'd tell someone without qualifications that they weren't eligible to carry out brain surgery, or drive a car. It's not about intelligence per se, it's about knowlege, training and experience.

You would automatically be creating a second class citizen there, because while not all of these people would be capable of doing a ministerial job, some would.

That's simply incorrect, not because there wouldn't be people capable of doing the job but without the qualifications - but because that problem now exists in that we have people who'd be able to do the job easily now but who don't have the connections or the funding to get elected. A proposed system can hardly be blamed for creating a problem that already exists...

Incidently, I believe, Bertie never passed a driving test, or ever held a full licence, I'm not sure whether he has ever drove on a provisional, he only told the Dáil that he did not have a full licence.

Which doesn't contradict what I said...

PHB

I heard this idea once at a debate but I thought i'd lash it down here despite personal quams with it

People would have to pass a simple test to be allowed vote.


For example, in the last abortion referendum :

What will happen if you vote yes?
What will happen if you vote no?

--

The plus side to this is that people would actually understand what they are voting on, and would be giving their opinions.
It would stop slightly the whole, "I've seen 72 yes posters but 200 no posters so i'm gona vote no"

Then again I think its un-democratic

Sparks

PHB, how can a basic and fair competency test be undemocratic when we don't allow people to vote for other reasons (such as being out of the country, being committed to mental health institutions, and so on.
Besides which, we're talking about different things - I'm talking about a competency test for the elected offical, you're talking about a competency test for the electorate...

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Hang on a minute - that sounds suspiciously like you would advocate a dictatorship.

Not at all. What i'm saying is that it's resolved like you mentioned here

Debate, comprimise, voting and consensus.

But in my opinion reaching this concensus with a cabinet that is drawn from very different political beliefs and as a result of the way the system is structured, this cabinet do not have to show a unified face in public. This IMO would probably lead to a constant state of dissagreement and abuses of the positions worse than what's there at the moment. After all most of the people that would apply for such a role would do so for some outside interest rather than trying to help their country or whatever reason can be given for it. If they didn't and they were so good they'd be in the private sector!

Sparks

But in my opinion reaching this concensus with a cabinet that is drawn from very different political beliefs and as a result of the way the system is structured, this cabinet do not have to show a unified face in public. This IMO would probably lead to a constant state of dissagreement and abuses of the positions worse than what's there at the moment.

How, specifically?

After all most of the people that would apply for such a role would do so for some outside interest rather than trying to help their country or whatever reason can be given for it. If they didn't and they were so good they'd be in the private sector!

But that's precisely the same situation that we're in at the moment with our current politicians.

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
How, specifically?

For example hiding behind your funding allocation as a reason why you can't do your job properly (as happens now), voting with like minded individuals (in cases of dispute) on issues you really don't understand (not being qualified and all). And what about any warped/corrupt/other ideas you bring from your training/qualification and/or previous experience of working in your area of expertise. Surely just because someone is 'qualified' to do a job doesn't mean they won't abuse it and sometimes those that are qualified find it easier to abuse the system than those who aren't as familiar with it.

But that's precisely the same situation that we're in at the moment with our current politicians.

So you want to replace incompetents with just more qualified incompetents?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm proposing that that system be done away with alltogether and professionally qualified people be appointed to the job by direct election. Got an economics degree and want the job? Apply for it. Come election time, your resume is voted on.

Voted on by whom? Other economically-educated people? After all, if I dont have an economics education, how am I qualified to choose someone to lead me based on his/her qualifications?

That also begs the question about the other positions. Can we identify qualifications for all of them?

And the Taoiseach...what would his qualifications have to be? He's responsible for everything...so he must need multiple degrees. Or does the highest job somehow not have the highest entry requirements?

I'd point out that the private sector has a far more darwinian system of natural selection going on than the public sector. Those with talent succeed, those without don't.

I would also point out that the private sector is generally far less considerate of the people as a result of being more considerate of the bottom line. One of the biggest criticisms of the IMF, for example, is that it is a pseudo-political financial body run by people who have come directly from the world of high finance, and who will return there once finished. The term "conflict of interest" springs to mind.

No, I'm proposing that each ministerial post is put to a vote, preferably staggered over a month or three. Why not do it that way? We're stuck with them for four years, why not have a week of televised analysis and debate on the merits of each candidate, see what the views of the shortlist are (the shortlist being chosen according to competency, selected some time ahead and with an appeals process), and then have the election over the weekend. Do that every week or fortnight for one ministerial post.

Given the levels of voter apathy when it comes to turning up for one vote, once every N years, just how likely is it that people are interested in comitting this amount of time?

The system we have is a compromise. Its failings become increasingly evident when the public dont care enough to make the system work. Too many of us elect based on who mummy and daddy voted for...or we choose a party for some reason. Forget checking out the candidates...seeing what they really believe in....expecting more than a handshake and more empty promises".

If we wanted our existing system to work better, it would. Its as simple as that. Any "what-if" alternative strikes me as automatically assuming that the public will be willing to go the extra mile to do things right. But if we had that drive with the existant system, wouldnt we be just as well off?

The system is not what made our current elections a popularity contest. We, the voters did. What is needed is not a change in the system, but rather in voter mindset.

jc

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

As I've already said, that's both highly debatable and highly debated. Personally, I find the idea of Ahern being the public face of Irish politics to be rather disturbing, given that his brand of expertise is personified more by Jackie Healy Rae than by Kofi Annan...

straight away , you are demeaning the viewpoints ( it's not that they didn't have plent of choice) of those that voted for Jackie Healy Rae...,( and Bertie for that matter )I rest my case regarding creating a second class of citizen.

And I don't think you'll find too many people running large successful businesses without qualifications past the LC, not compared to those running businesses with MBAs and the like.

I know plenty, theres at least two in my neighbourhood, one of whom is now 64, a millionaire and left school at 12.
He's been running the same business since his mid 20's and was as clever back then as now.

Hmmm. Roughly the same way that I'd tell someone without qualifications that they weren't eligible to carry out brain surgery, or drive a car. It's not about intelligence per se, it's about knowlege, training and experience.

How can you equate Brain surgery with , the running of a government, thats a specific skill, you can be born with the inteligence to learn about it, but you cannot do it unless you learn.
That doesn't apply in the same way to management skills, youdo not need a college education to have or apply management skills, it's something you either have or you haven't.
My millionaire friend has plenty management skills and , got a very basic education, but he had drive and determination, a very important qualification, and one you don't learn, you are born with it.

A proposed system can hardly be blamed for creating a problem that already exists...

But it can be critisised for advocating an exclusive entry to a job,not too dis-similar to what you give out about when you say

that problem now exists in that we have people who'd be able to do the job easily now but who don't have the connections or the funding to get elected.

We'd have people, who are 24 years of age now, with no academic qualifications, who would have it in themselves to be wealthy business people and yet be excluded from political office, because, the fruits of their drive and ambition haven't been proven yet.
mm

Sparks

Man,

straight away , you are demeaning the viewpoints ( it's not that they didn't have plent of choice) of those that voted for Jackie Healy Rae...

No. I think it's an incorrect choice to select a man whose personal standards are xenophobic, racist and corrupt. (I'm referring to specific incidents that I know of relating to JHR, but the corruption one is a matter of public record - his son received over 60% of Kerry's county contracts during JHR's term of office, despite not having the best record or the best bids). But there's a difference between disagreeing with a choice and demeaning the person that made that choice, and I'm not trying to do the latter.

I know plenty, theres at least two in my neighbourhood, one of whom is now 64, a millionaire and left school at 12.
He's been running the same business since his mid 20's and was as clever back then as now.

Man, that's two versus thousands. I said not many compared to those with qualifications.

How can you equate Brain surgery with , the running of a government,

I'm not suggesting that they are equivalent, I just picked the first example of a skilled job that came to mind.

thats a specific skill, you can be born with the inteligence to learn about it, but you cannot do it unless you learn.
That doesn't apply in the same way to management skills, youdo not need a college education to have or apply management skills, it's something you either have or you haven't.

Which is probably why Ahern has done as well as he has : but economics is not the same skillset.

drive and determination, a very important qualification, and one you don't learn, you are born with it.

Actually, I'd dispute that, but it's not really relevant.

We'd have people, who are 24 years of age now, with no academic qualifications, who would have it in themselves to be wealthy business people and yet be excluded from political office, because, the fruits of their drive and ambition haven't been proven yet.

No, no, no!. *sigh*
I said put a competency test in place for Ministerial posts. I thought that was clear from all the "Minister for this" and "Minister for that" discussion?
If you're 24 and haven't proven you can do the job yet, well, firstly there's time yet to do so, and secondly, you can still run to be a regional representative.

Bonkey,

Voted on by whom? Other economically-educated people?

Hmmm. Peer-review? No, maybe not... though it's tempting...

After all, if I dont have an economics education, how am I qualified to choose someone to lead me based on his/her qualifications?

Hence the TV analysis and debate. Plus, resume's would have to be checked. You could have peer review right there - let anyone apply in the year leading up to election, then freeze it a few months in advance, use peer review to pick the top N candidates and then hold the election based on that.

That also begs the question about the other positions. Can we identify qualifications for all of them?

Possibly not, but basic qualifications should still apply, even if it's only reading/writing/ethics/civics/etc. I'm not yet sure of what Ministerial post wouldn't have a readily identifable qualification though (apart from a Mandelson-type post).

And the Taoiseach...what would his qualifications have to be? He's responsible for everything...so he must need multiple degrees. Or does the highest job somehow not have the highest entry requirements?

Only makes sense that it should. Multiple degrees might not be needed though, just one with other courses in specific topics. Law would obviously need to be covered, as would political science, management, history, ethics, and so on, but there would be more of an emphasis on general qualifications - the Taoiseach should be a generalist after all.

I would also point out that the private sector is generally far less considerate of the people as a result of being more considerate of the bottom line.

Indeed, but the bad points of a system aren't generally a reason to avoid taking the better elements of that system as a template.

Given the levels of voter apathy when it comes to turning up for one vote, once every N years, just how likely is it that people are interested in comitting this amount of time?

Voter apathy is something I have an unanswered question about. Are people apathetic because they are - or are they apathetic because they feel their vote is relatively toothless? After all, at present we get to elect one person from a short list every five years, usually from a very short list of parties. We have no mechanism to ensure that they comply with campaign promises, and no mechanism to put one in place. We have no influence over decisions made by those in power, and now we've even seen binding referenda made a mockery of over the Nice treaty.

The system we have is a compromise. Its failings become increasingly evident when the public dont care enough to make the system work.

Ah, but there's the vicious circle. Much of the public doesn't vote because the system is seen not to work!

Forget checking out the candidates...seeing what they really believe in

But given the party system, there's no point in voting for an individual candidate - after all you've no way of knowing if that candidate will even become a Minister!

If we wanted our existing system to work better, it would. Its as simple as that.

I'm not sure about that jc, it strikes me that there are a lot of vested interests in the status quo.

Any "what-if" alternative strikes me as automatically assuming that the public will be willing to go the extra mile to do things right. But if we had that drive with the existant system, wouldnt we be just as well off?

Well, no. And that's the point.
We've mentioned the publically-called referenda idea before, for an example. It would solve some problems, it has a lot of potential - but people don't know how to bring it about (there is in fact no mechanism to do so, short of the government abdicating some power to the electorate outside of election season), so noone bothers. No drive - but that doesn't mean that the idea is unsound...

The system is not what made our current elections a popularity contest.

On the contrary, that's what the current system promotes.

What is needed is not a change in the system, but rather in voter mindset.

I won't argue that point, it'd be a foolish stance to take!
I just happen to think that voter apathy is tightly linked to perceived vote worth.

Imposter,
For example hiding behind your funding allocation as a reason why you can't do your job properly (as happens now), voting with like minded individuals (in cases of dispute) on issues you really don't understand (not being qualified and all). And what about any warped/corrupt/other ideas you bring from your training/qualification and/or previous experience of working in your area of expertise.[/quote]
But all these problems exist right now - and my idea gives the advantage of an assurance of a highly qualified cabinet. So if the worst is no better and the best is a step up....

So you want to replace incompetents with just more qualified incompetents?

"Qualified incompetent" is an oxymoron, which is the whole point of the idea.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

No. I think it's an incorrect choice to select a man whose personal standards are xenophobic, racist and corrupt. (I'm referring to specific incidents that I know of relating to JHR, but the corruption one is a matter of public record - his son received over 60% of Kerry's county contracts during JHR's term of office, despite not having the best record or the best bids). But there's a difference between disagreeing with a choice and demeaning the person that made that choice, and I'm not trying to do the latter.

I won't comment on what you've said about JHR, but his voters are the people whose opinions count, and they are the people, who look up to him and consistantly return him to office, because of what he does for them.
They are the same people who are very unlikely to vote yes in a referendum for what you are proposing.

Man, that's two versus thousands. I said not many compared to those with qualifications.

I can say with confidence, that there are thousands of people in this country,running business's very well without academic qualifications.

I'm not suggesting that they are equivalent, I just picked the first example of a skilled job that came to mind.

The first example that you took , just happened to be a job that definitely needs specific training alongside the drive and natural talent to do the job, which isn't always the case for a good manager who can delegate.
Regarding Drive and determination being a suffecient qualification to do a particular job, you say:

Actually, I'd dispute that, but it's not really relevant.

That again is very condesending towards those (and there are many) who achieve anything in Business without an Academic qualification.
And it is relevant, as arguably Bertie must have had lots of it to get to his current position.
It would be an essential ingredient( in the context of the subject of this thread ), for an 18 year old to suceed in office.
But life tells me, that at 18 or rather 21,very few would have the experience and wisdom to go immediately as far as someone ten or twenty years older.
Theres no need to impose a competency test for that to happen, it already does.

I said put a competency test in place for Ministerial posts. I thought that was clear from all the "Minister for this" and "Minister for that" discussion?
If you're 24 and haven't proven you can do the job yet, well, firstly there's time yet to do so, and secondly, you can still run to be a regional representative.

Yet that would still have to get over the hurdle of giving, the masses an inferiority complex.
Thats the perception JHR's voters already have if they are reading this, and why I think, the prospects of such a system getting voted in, by the electorate would be a very unlikely prospect.
mm

Sparks

Man,

I won't comment on what you've said about JHR, but his voters are the people whose opinions count, and they are the people, who look up to him and consistantly return him to office, because of what he does for them.

And I was born and raised in his constituency. I stand by my opinions on the basis of what I know of his area and his actions.

They are the same people who are very unlikely to vote yes in a referendum for what you are proposing.

Indeed, but mainly for reasons that have little to do with the merits of the proposal, and again I'm stating this from personal knowlege of a broad spectrum of the people from that area.

I can say with confidence, that there are thousands of people in this country,running business's very well without academic qualifications.

But the original call was for "large successful businesses", not just small enterprise businesses. We're talking about an analogue to responsibility for public monies here, recall, and that means reasonably large sums.

The first example that you took , just happened to be a job that definitely needs specific training alongside the drive and natural talent to do the job, which isn't always the case for a good manager who can delegate.

I would beg to differ - managers need specific training as well, just nowhere near as much. But yes, a better example could be found. But did you see the point?

Regarding Drive and determination being a suffecient qualification to do a particular job

Actually I was trying to say that I thought drive and determination were not inherent properties of a person's character but could be learnt through experience.

Yet that would still have to get over the hurdle of giving, the masses an inferiority complex.

I still don't get this. No-one has an inferiority complex when told you can't drive a car without passing the test, or fly a plane without passing the PPL, or teach without a H.Dip, or whatever - this is simply the same thing. Presented properly and rationally, I believe it would be accepted. The problem would not be the electorate - the problem would be vested interests.

Thats the perception JHR's voters already have if they are reading this, and why I think, the prospects of such a system getting voted in, by the electorate would be a very unlikely prospect.

From what I know of JHR's voters, two things come to mind. Firstly, they don't have inferiority complexes, they're just used to a corrupt political system and have decided to go with it; and second, you don't want to use them as a guideline for creating a new political system.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks

Indeed, but the bad points of a system aren't generally a reason to avoid taking the better elements of that system as a template.

Certainly...as long as you can show that there is no connection between the bad and the good points.

As I said ..."conflict of interest" is already raising its head in what you are describing....so the question is how to avoid it (or show that it isnt there).

We've mentioned the publically-called referenda idea before, for an example. It would solve some problems, it has a lot of potential - but people don't know how to bring it about (there is in fact no mechanism to do so, short of the government abdicating some power to the electorate outside of election season), so noone bothers. No drive - but that doesn't mean that the idea is unsound...

But you describe how to do it in the same paragraph here as saying that people dont know how to get it done.

IF people cared enough, then there would be support for individuals, or a small party, who was going ot use its political power to move for such a reform. You effect political change by electing those who will change the system to the way you wish it to be changed, or you find people who can leverage it.

I mean...its generally accepted that the govt. didnt want to call the last abortion referendum...they were backed into it as a "purchase condition" of support for something else, werent they?

And thats my point. Something like abortion, which is emotive, gets people up in arms. There is enough popular support, that the government are willing to make concessions to the demands to prevent the protestors turning their emotion into votes which would give them what they wanted also.

On the contrary, that's what the current system promotes.

OK, but Switzerland (being a relatively good example of semi-direct-democracy) suffered a massive apathy of voting in the 70s and 80s, which was only turned around when the laws were changed to make it easier to vote.

This would begin to indicate that it is not necessarily the perception of the influience we have which is the prime factor.

Most of your suggested changes, on the other hand, require more and more voter involvement. While its a laudable ideal, I believe that it would lead to even greater apathy, not decrease it.

I just happen to think that voter apathy is tightly linked to perceived vote worth.

I would agree, but it is also a factor of the "opportunity cost" of voting. The more involved the process, the less interested people are. Its the inverse of what it should be, but thats the base problem I see - democracy works when we find a balance between involvement and responsibility. We dont have it in ireland, but I feel your suggested "improvements" would simply shove us to the other side of the balance....yielding no net improvement.


jc

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

And I was born and raised in his constituency. I stand by my opinions on the basis of what I know of his area and his actions.

Equally true of those, that don't hold your opinion and who vote for the man, and clearly there are enough of them.

Indeed, but mainly for reasons that have little to do with the merits of the proposal, and again I'm stating this from personal knowlege of a broad spectrum of the people from that area.

My comment,was in relation to peoples rights to disagree with the importance, you attach to implementing such a system versus, peoples right to choose.
The latter will and should always carry more weight.

But the original call was for "large successful businesses", not just small enterprise businesses. We're talking about an analogue to responsibility for public monies here, recall, and that means reasonably large sums.

So what are you saying here, that a person who runs a good ship, that doesn't make multi millions, should be dis-qualified from attaining high political office on account of having no Academic qualifications?
Don't put that in your election literature, if you want to run for the Dáil;)

I still don't get this. No-one has an inferiority complex when told you can't drive a car without passing the test, or fly a plane without passing the PPL, or teach without a H.Dip, or whatever - this is simply the same thing. Presented properly and rationally, I believe it would be accepted. The problem would not be the electorate - the problem would be vested interests.

you are asking the electorate to change the current system whereby anyone could aspire to run for high political office.
In doing so you would be laying down conditions, which would rule out people who would otherwise feel they were competant to run for office.
Thats saying people would not vote for such a proposition, it's not saying that there is no merit in the proposition.
For what it's worth, I'd have more common ground with you if I thought, that your position would be that those with a sufficient track record in management ( regardless of what size their business was) could still run for office.

But I still believe, you wouldn't get it past the masses as , there would be two perceptions out there: 1. That you are trying to make the position for the elite only and 2. That you are asking people to declare themselves as incompetant if they don't meet your criteria.
mm

Kappar

And you're in favour of democracy? I don't mind the idea of restricting the right to vote to those that complete a basic education - but before implementing it there are several conditions:

I don't agree with it, i was putting the question to you and it was meant to be ludicrous you were suposed to oppose it also
This is how it used to be in Britain and i imagine Ireland in pre 1900ish were only gradutes and land owners could voite this was then changed.

Sparks

Kappar

This is how it used to be in Britain and i imagine Ireland in pre 1900ish were only gradutes and land owners could voite this was then changed.

Unfortunately, the system of representative democracy that made sense then managed to survive, despite the fact that the circumstances that made it a good idea have since changed to those that make it a bad idea
Man,

Equally true of those, that don't hold your opinion and who vote for the man, and clearly there are enough of them.

Indeed. That doesn't change my opinion of him, however, and there's no possible argument that it should, since it's my personal opinion.

My comment,was in relation to peoples rights to disagree with the importance, you attach to implementing such a system versus, peoples right to choose.
The latter will and should always carry more weight.

I'm not sure where we disagree then. In fact I'm not even sure what you meant by that first sentence!

So what are you saying here, that a person who runs a good ship, that doesn't make multi millions, should be dis-qualified from attaining high political office on account of having no Academic qualifications?

No, I'm saying that running a corner shop provides less qualifications for running a government ministry than running a large successful business where the monetary amounts dealt with and the sizes of the projects taken on, are at least comparable.

you are asking the electorate to change the current system whereby anyone could aspire to run for high political office.

Actually, in reality that's not the system. There are other qualifications required to run for office - mental competency for example

In doing so you would be laying down conditions, which would rule out people who would otherwise feel they were competant to run for office.

There are lots of 18-year-olds that feel they are competent to drive at 100 mph on country roads - it doesn't mean they actually are!

For what it's worth, I'd have more common ground with you if I thought, that your position would be that those with a sufficient track record in management ( regardless of what size their business was) could still run for office.

Ah, but the size of business, as shown above, is a significant factor.

But I still believe, you wouldn't get it past the masses as , there would be two perceptions out there: 1. That you are trying to make the position for the elite only and 2. That you are asking people to declare themselves as incompetant if they don't meet your criteria.

Well, 1) is incorrect as it's not the elite, but the qualified.
2) is simply incorrect because everyone is already incompetant in many areas (I'm not a competent skydiver, surgeon, scuba diver, rally driver, tae-kwon-do instructor or woman, for example) and it doesn't bother them because they don't have interest in those areas and wouldn't expect to stroll in off the street to them with no training anyway.

bonkey,

Certainly...as long as you can show that there is no connection between the bad and the good points.

Indeed.

As I said ..."conflict of interest" is already raising its head in what you are describing....so the question is how to avoid it (or show that it isnt there).

But you describe how to do it in the same paragraph here as saying that people dont know how to get it done.

Well, yes - but the point was that the odds of a politician giving up power were exceptionally low...

IF people cared enough, then there would be support for individuals, or a small party, who was going ot use its political power to move for such a reform.

But how could you ever trust them to not pull a bait-and-switch?

You effect political change by electing those who will change the system to the way you wish it to be changed, or you find people who can leverage it.

Yes, but you're talking about someone that will voluntarially give up power to a larger group of people - and I've yet to see that outside of "The West Wing"....

I mean...its generally accepted that the govt. didnt want to call the last abortion referendum...they were backed into it as a "purchase condition" of support for something else, werent they?

Yes, in return for support from an Independent in Wicklow... what, me name names?

And thats my point. Something like abortion, which is emotive, gets people up in arms. There is enough popular support, that the government are willing to make concessions to the demands to prevent the protestors turning their emotion into votes which would give them what they wanted also.

Yes, but that argument is self-defeating because you're saying that politicians will effect change to maintain their political power. If that change was to give up their political power, the leverage no longer exists.

OK, but Switzerland (being a relatively good example of semi-direct-democracy) suffered a massive apathy of voting in the 70s and 80s, which was only turned around when the laws were changed to make it easier to vote.
This would begin to indicate that it is not necessarily the perception of the influience we have which is the prime factor.

But how much of the difference in the "national character" or "national psyche" (for want of a better term) and how much is the ease of voting? I'd argue that until we do it, we won't know...

Most of your suggested changes, on the other hand, require more and more voter involvement. While its a laudable ideal, I believe that it would lead to even greater apathy, not decrease it.

There would be an aspect of that - which is why mandatory civics&ethics&politics courses are needed for the JC and LC cirricula as a long term solution.
But I'm still not sure if it would be the dominant factor. After all, the recent surveys of voters have shown that the majority rated our system as only "fair" or worse.

I would agree, but it is also a factor of the "opportunity cost" of voting. The more involved the process, the less interested people are. Its the inverse of what it should be, but thats the base problem I see - democracy works when we find a balance between involvement and responsibility. We dont have it in ireland, but I feel your suggested "improvements" would simply shove us to the other side of the balance....yielding no net improvement.

Interesting. I'm going to have to think about this one JC.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
No, I'm saying that running a corner shop provides less qualifications for running a government ministry than running a large successful business where the monetary amounts dealt with and the sizes of the projects taken on, are at least comparable.
[/B]

That rules out any sucessfull business person then whose turnover is (while admirable for the area they operate in) considerably less than a government department....more reason for, my conclusion that the public would not pass such a proposition, it's too elitist.

In relation to existing reasons ruling out one serving in high political office, You said:

Actually, in reality that's not the system. There are other qualifications required to run for office - mental competency for example

You could have mentioned, people on life support also, and you'd be talking about a tiny minority of the population.
I'll give you another tip, when you get the referendum on this subject, don't mention either of those , as it will weaken your case;)
Your assertion that:

everyone is already incompetant in many areas (I'm not a competent skydiver, surgeon, scuba diver, rally driver, tae-kwon-do instructor or woman, for example) and it doesn't bother them because they don't have interest in those areas and wouldn't expect to stroll in off the street to them with no training anyway.

avoids the point that people are now in office who do not have the qualifications or are incompetant to hold high political office as you see it in the system you are advocating.
I was simply stating that you would be asking people to change that situation.
In other words ordinary people could not aspire to hold high office.
Take Joe Jacob for example, his C.V here for instance, tells us he has only had a leaving cert education and from there went on to run a small country pub.
People's competency for office would be re-defined with what you are advocating, in such a way as to rule out those who could already aspire to high office, without major academic experience, or running a multi-million Euro business.
Thats not going to wash with the great Irish Public.
You are right, I'm not argue-ing with you that, incompetant people should be in office, they should not.
But defining the level of competancy required is not cast iron, and to my mind , our current system doesn't favour un intelligent/ incompetant people entering office.
But then I've stated earlier that, I think ( whether I agree or disagree with his policies ) Bertie is doing a reasonable job when compared to his peers in other countries.
So If I think that we ain't going to agree on competency levels here are we?
mm

Sparks

That rules out any sucessfull business person then whose turnover is (while admirable for the area they operate in) considerably less than a government department.

No, it rules out those that have no experience with large projects. There is a difference in running projects the size of (say) the M50 constuction, as opposed to running a corner sweetshop.[/quote]

You could have mentioned, people on life support also, and you'd be talking about a tiny minority of the population.
I'll give you another tip, when you get the referendum on this subject, don't mention either of those , as it will weaken your case

The point was that we do have competency tests allready - we're just discussing raising the bar for those that want to run the country. Oddly enough, the mental attitude that says that I'm talking about elitism would be more than happy to raise the bar for people who are trying to govern those with the attitude...

avoids the point that people are now in office who do not have the qualifications or are incompetant to hold high political office as you see it in the system you are advocating.

No, those people are what I would describe as the motivation for bringing in these changes. Or are you saying that they've done the best job possible?

In other words ordinary people could not aspire to hold high office.

I'd be less willing to use the word "ordinary" in that context.
Again, we're not testing for intelligence here, we're testing for experience, knowlege and competency.

Take Joe Jacob for example, his C.V here for instance, tells us he has only had a leaving cert education and from there went on to run a small country pub.

Would you argue that Joe Jacob could be a better Minister for Finance than, say, Michael O'Leary, or Dermot McAleese?

People's competency for office would be re-defined with what you are advocating, in such a way as to rule out those who could already aspire to high office, without major academic experience, or running a multi-million Euro business.

The point is that if you can have a Dermot McAleese, why would you want a less-qualified person (assuming similar political ideologies)? And we're not talking about major academic experience, we're talking about a basic standard to apply for the job, and then we just choose the best qualified candidate.

Thats not going to wash with the great Irish Public.

You keep saying this, but I don't think you're correct. The possible outcome of a better-run economy and government would, I believe, overrule any (incorrectly) perceived elitism. Besides which, the average voter has no political ambitions and wouldn't be too bothered.

But defining the level of competancy required is not cast iron, and to my mind , our current system doesn't favour unintelligent/ incompetant people entering office.

I would argue that the fact that the system makes it possible is not a good thing, and sufficent reason to change the system. Some jobs are too critical to risk incompetence along with all the other risks that go with the job.

But then I've stated earlier that, I think ( whether I agree or disagree with his policies ) Bertie is doing a reasonable job when compared to his peers in other countries.
So If I think that we ain't going to agree on competency levels here are we?

Given that our inflation rate is twice the EU average even at a 3-year-low, that our cost of living is higher than in St.Tropez, that our public transport infrastructure is a cruel joke and our disabled services are worse, that our health system is close to breaking point, that our FOI act has been gutted, our police have a long list of convicted gardai for serious offences, the N.Ireland situation is facing Yet Another Crisis (tm), our neutral status has been made into an international joke, and our referenda have been mocked by the nice debate (and that's just the top few), I don't think we'll be agreeing on Ahern's record at all...