Eamonn Zaidan - Presidential Candidate

Zab

He is looking for a nomination so that the election is contested. The political parties have shut the door on "outsiders" being nominated, so he is attempting to get nominated through the local councils.

You can read more about him on his website.

http://www.eamonnzaidan.com/

seamus

He would also seem to be a David Bowie fan and moderator on a very weird message board: http://forum.wr.ca/?id=1302

Fair play to him. No chance though.

LizardKing

I think we need to have an election , no matter the cost , otherwise we are moving away from the proper democratic process, part 1 of the presidential section of the constitution states

"The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people."

We should get to vote ..

seamus

LizardKing wrote:

"The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people."

It would be bad if all the parties just endorsed one candidate to the position, and we had no choice really, but since she has already been elected by direct vote, and that same constitution gives her the right to put herself forward, I've no problem with it.

LizardKing

I have no problem with McAleese putting herself forward again , as is her right. My only problem is the collusion and under handed agreements being made by the political parties to stop an election. There are a number of people including Dana and this guy Eamon who would like to challenge McAleese in a democratic election. I think they should be given the opportunity and be allowed to do so. I think a constitution change should be made to put more emphasis on first part of the presidency constitution section and less on the actual nomination procedure.

flogen

I want to see an election, but only with candidates that are running for president, not running for a presidential election.

I'd support the likes of Ryan if he was still running because he might have something to put to the table, but to run on aim of getting the election contensted means that this guy would have completed his aims once he gets nominated, and so has nothing else to offer.

Run if you've something to say, not if you just want an election.

flogen

Zab

Just to be clear, I don't think that Eamonn is trying to get nominated purely so that there is an election. My initial post may have given that impression.

However, the way that the current system is so easily swayed by party politics seems out of order.

oscarBravo

LizardKing wrote:

I think we need to have an election , no matter the cost , otherwise we are moving away from the proper democratic process,

The highlighted phrase above always makes me nervous. There are very few things I'd support no matter the cost - most things have a price. It's easy to say the cost doesn't matter when you're not paying for it.

Tell me, LK: why is it so important to you to have an election for this one particular office? We get to exercise our franchise every couple of years anyway, so what's the biggie about the presidency?

LizardKing wrote:

We should get to vote ..

We will, if any candidate who can demonstrate that they're worth voting for can get nominated. If it was that important to any of the potential candidates to get a nomination, they would move mountains to get it.

All that said, I'm not particularly impressed with the FG direction to councillors not to support Dana, but that's because I disagree with party whips in general, rather than out of any shred of sympathy for her. I doubt she would have gotten the required support anyway, and the orders from on high give her a semblance of something legitimate to whinge about.

Also, I would have enjoyed watching her getting her ass handed to her on election day.

LizardKing

I was using the term "No matter the cost" to try to combat the current media opinions and political party opinions that an election is too expensive and a waste of money. I am of the opinion that the office is important and a figurehead for our country and proper attention and funds should be put towards it.

Tell me, LK: why is it so important to you to have an election for this one particular office? We get to exercise our franchise every couple of years anyway, so what's the biggie about the presidency?

I'm not normally interested in such matters however during my recent online ramblings , I read the presidential section of the constitution and came to the conclusion... its unfair on new candidates. I think as I've stated previously less power should be given to the elected parties to nominate candidates. The country should be given the opportunity to choose a president.

We will, if any candidate who can demonstrate that they're worth voting for can get nominated. If it was that important to any of the potential candidates to get a nomination, they would move mountains to get it.

This is a biased and unfair nomination process highlighted by the difficulty the recent big names have had in getting nominated ( Dana, Michael D etc.)
The fact of the matter is , it is nigh on impossible to get backing from the biased and party controlled councils or td's.