John Gormley's electoral reform ideas

Sulmac

Main points highlighted in bold:

Minister advocates 'slimmed down' Dáil

MARY MINIHAN

Thu, Mar 04, 2010

A “SLIMMED-DOWN” Dáil with 100 TDs, half of whom should continue to be elected by proportional representation with the single transferrable vote and half through the so-called list system, would be progressive, Minister for the Environment John Gormley has said.

Mr Gormley yesterday told the committee on the Constitution, which is examining possible electoral reform measures, he would like to see a reduction in the number of deputies in the Dáil, which has 166 seats and 164 sitting TDs.

“I think we need about 100 seats in Dáil Éireann. Fifty could be directly elected and 50 by list . . . The Irish people would be quite reluctant to get rid of the current system. But perhaps with this halfway house that I suggest they would be ready to accept,” he said.

“You would get a slimmed-down Dáil. It would need to go hand in hand with changes to local government.”

Mr Gormley said a disadvantage of the list system was that “party apparatchiks” got to choose potential candidates.

A new independent electoral commission will make recommendations for changes to the electoral system for Dáil elections, including the number of deputies and their means of election, Mr Gormley said. He told the committee he was giving consideration to establishing the commission on a non-statutory basis and this would happen in the “timescale of this Government”.

The commission will make recommendations on the possibility of extending the franchise for local elections to those aged 16 or over.

Mr Gormley said he had always believed in getting more young people involved in politics and this “ought to be done first and foremost at a local level”. He said he would mandate the commission to set minimum standards for the taking and publication of political polls within the State to ensure fairness and accuracy.

The commission will also look at the issue of financing the political system and recommend revised guidelines on the declaration of donations for political purposes.

It will advise on mechanisms to increase the participation of women in political life, including the use of additional criteria for public funding to encourage more women and less well-represented groups. It will also make recommendations on the feasibility of extending the franchise for presidential elections to the Irish abroad.

Fine Gael TD Michael D’Arcy claimed Mr Gormley’s plan for a directly-elected mayor of Dublin would be a “waste of time and money”.

Mr Gormley replied that there would be a “queue around the corner” of Fine Gael candidates for the position. Mr D’Arcy’s Fine Gael colleague Denis Naughten said current constituency boundaries were an “unmitigated mess”.

Prof John Coakley of UCD’s school of politics and international relations, told the committee that when he was growing up in Mayo the transfer of Ballaghaderreen to Roscommon in 1898 was still remembered as a “deep injustice”.

© 2010 The Irish Times

I agree with him that most people would be reluctant to give up PR-STV completely, particularly due to the weakness of local government here. I think his idea of half STV/half list (somewhat like Germany and New Zealand, though they use FPTP instead of STV) is a good idea - though just 50 TDs elected by STV would mean a lot of 3 seat constituencies would be needed or a small number of larger constituencies (perhaps Euro constituencies or the eight regions?). I'd like a 100% list system but that has little chance of happening.

If he would add scrapping the Seanad to those proposals I'd be all for it - though would Fianna Fáil? :rolleyes:

Another thing that needs drastic reform is the shambolic voter registration system. They should base it on PPS Numbers, as other countries do.

rightwingdub

I'm for a 100% list system, it would hopefully get rid of parish pump politicians like Jackie Healy Rae and Michael Lowry, as for Michael Ring well thats another reason to introduce a list system.

bijapos

As Gormley said the above would be a starting point. I'm all in favour of it, the bigger the constituencies the better. I think Sulmacs idea of the 8 regions is good.

I saw Gormley on Oireachtas report last night, was pleasantly surprised and impressed for a change. It will be opposed by the usual "oh-f_ck-me-I-might-lose-my-place-on-the-gravy-train-so-I'd-better-scaremonger-the-rabble" shower of backbenchers, and Joe Duffy will have his ears full, but regional councils need more power in a lot of areas and we need to get rid of the idea of "local" TD's and I'm all in favour of this.

It will need a referendum, probably two. (One to reduce numbers and one for a new voting system).

Interesting to see FG and Lab and indeed FF's reaction to this.

gandalf

As Sulmac said I would prefer a 100% list system to remove Gombeen politics totally from this country.

The larger constituencies would deal with that to a degree.

I do not see the Greens being able to deliver this at all as FF are the party of parish pump politics.

Sulmac

I remember reading a while back his plan for local government reform was to introduce elected assemblies for the eight regions with real powers. However this was in addition to, rather than replacing, the current county/city/town/borough system.

I also did the mathematics (I'm that sad), and basing it on regions would throw up one serious problem - that of Dublin. Obviously, we couldn't have each region having equal representation (it wouldn't work out at a nice round 50 either) but we could easily base it on population. However, if you work it out, Dublin would have a massive amount of TDs compared to every other region (I'm basing this on having 50 TDs elected by STV, 50 by list).

Region Population (2006 Census) Per cent of population Number of STV Seats
Border 468,375 11.05 6
Dublin 1,187,176 28.00 14
Mid-East 475,360 11.21 6
Midland 251,664 5.94 3
Mid-West 361,028 8.52 4
South-East 460,838 10.87 5
South-West 621,130 14.65 7
West 414,277 9.77 5
State 4,239,848 100.00 50
National List 50
Total Dáil Seats 100


Dublin could be split into two or three separate districts, but that would be kind of beside the point.

Also, try getting the people of the Midlands to vote for reform that, although no different in terms of proportion to what we have today, leaves them with just three TDs.

He could have meant something like ten five-seater constituencies, or a mix of three/four/five-seaters (basically what we have now but covering larger populations). Though I don't see the point undergoing a major reform without having some kind of coherent and joined-up system - where local/regional/whatever government structures are "matched" in the national structures.

I was also wondering, by bringing in a mixed STV/List system did he intend for it to be MMP (which I would agree with) or MMM (which I would be very strongly against).

There is one major benefit to the region-based system (for local government especially) though, namely that they all are centred around one large urban area - such as Cork for the South-west or Athlone/Mullingar/Tullamore for the Midlands. This is perfect when considering recent reports like this one that are telling us to focus development around these key hubs.

But, of course, try getting these "common-sense" approaches accepted by those whose job depends on fixing potholes throughout the parish, or attending funerals.

Euro_Kraut

Sulmac wrote: »

I also did the mathematics (I'm that sad), and basing it on regions would throw up one serious problem - that of Dublin. Obviously, we couldn't have each region having equal representation (it wouldn't work out at a nice round 50 either) but we could easily base it on population. However, if you work it out, Dublin would have a massive amount of TDs compared to every other region (I'm basing this on having 50 TDs elected by STV, 50 by list).

Good post.

Dublin already has many more TD than other regions. Generally less votes are actually need to win a seat in Dublin constituencies that in rural areas. For example in 2007 6,769 votes were needed to win a seat in Dublin South East, while 11,159 were needed in Galway Easy (both 4 seaters). (see: http://electionsireland.org/results/general/30dail.cfm)

You will generally find that pattern when comparing urban v rural constituencies. It occurs partly because rural consistences have higher turnouts. A new system could address this anomaly.

I would like to see a system that rewards regions with higher turnouts with extra representatives. It could be a great way of boosting voter turnout and countering voter apathy.

Scofflaw

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Good post.

Dublin already has many more TD than other regions. Generally less votes are actually need to win a seat in Dublin constituencies that in rural areas. For example in 2007 6,769 votes were needed to win a seat in Dublin South East, while 11,159 were needed in Galway Easy (both 4 seaters). (see: http://electionsireland.org/results/general/30dail.cfm)

You will generally find that pattern when comparing urban v rural constituencies. It occurs partly because rural consistences have higher turnouts. A new system could address this anomaly.

I would like to see a system that rewards regions with higher turnouts with extra representatives. It could be a great way of boosting voter turnout and countering voter apathy.

I'm not sure about your figures there - the two votes look like this:

Chris Andrews| 6,600|19.50%|0.98|3| Made Quota|1|
Lucinda Creighton| 6,311|18.65%|0.93|5| Made Quota|2|
Ruairi Quinn| 5,636|16.65%|0.83|5| Made Quota|3|
John Gormley| 4,685|13.84%|0.69|5| Elected|4|

Paul Connaughton| 6,886|12.34%|0.62|8| Made Quota|1|
Michael Kitt| 8,796|15.77%|0.79|8| Made Quota|2|
Ulick R Burke| 5,149|9.23%|0.46|9| Made Quota|3|
Noel Treacy| 7,524|13.49%|0.67|9| Elected|4

They don't look very different at all on first preferences. Here's Longford-Westmeath:

Willie Penrose| 9,692|17.65%|0.88|5| Made Quota|1|
Mary O'Rourke| 8,215|14.96%|0.75|7| Made Quota|2|
Peter Kelly4| 7,720|14.06%|0.70|7| Made Quota|3|
James Bannon| 7,652|13.93%|0.70|7| Elected|4

and Clare:

Timmy Dooley| 10,791|19.14%|0.96|4| Made Quota|1|
Tony Killeen| 8,321|14.76%|0.74|7| Made Quota|2|
Pat Breen| 7,036|12.48%|0.62|8| Made Quota|3|
Joe Carey| 5,818|10.32%|0.52|9| Elected|4|

and Dublin South-West:

Conor Lenihan| 8,542|20.51%|1.03|1| Made Quota|1|
Brian Hayes| 8,346|20.04%|1.00|1| Made Quota|2|
Pat Rabbitte| 8,325|19.99%|1.00|2| Made Quota|3|
Charlie O'Connor| 7,813|18.76%|0.94|6| Made Quota|4|

I don't think there's a statistically significant pattern there, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Aidan1

Another minor issue - what happens to independents and smaller parties in an MMP situation?

If a threshold is applied (as it should be), we'd lose the raft of independents out there. Not exactly a bad thing to many people, but the question remains as to whether or not people would accept such a dramatic change to our political system.

StupidLikeAFox

Just a quick question RE the list system, does this involve voting for your favourite party and letting the party decide who will fill the seats? Would that not mean more cronyism as the party heads will just install their friends, as opposed to someone who is a good politician but might not have as many allies in the party?

gizmo555

ColHol wrote: »

Just a quick question RE the list system, does this involve voting for your favourite party and letting the party decide who will fill the seats? Would that not mean more cronyism as the party heads will just install their friends, as opposed to someone who is a good politician but might not have as many allies in the party?

Yes, it would.

This for me is the main reason that a list-based electoral system would be a Very Bad Thing. Once someone has clawed their way sufficiently high up the internal party hierarchy there is essentially no way they can lose their seat, barring complete meltdown in overall party support. Individual politicians on the list could never be held personally to account by the electorate.

Aidan1

Individual politicians on the list could never be held personally to account by the electorate.

But an individual politician could drag down the vote of an entire party, which cannot happen under the current system where merely being a good constituency operator is sufficient to get elected, over and above any larger notion of competence.

Sulmac

Aidan1 wrote: »

Another minor issue - what happens to independents and smaller parties in an MMP situation?

If a threshold is applied (as it should be), we'd lose the raft of independents out there. Not exactly a bad thing to many people, but the question remains as to whether or not people would accept such a dramatic change to our political system.

MMP allows for there to be independents through the constituency elections. That said, if FPTP was used in the constituencies the chance of an independent getting elected would be very slim, which is why a STV/MMP system would be better for those that prefer independents over parties. If an independent was popular enough (nationally), they could also have a "list" with just themselves on it as a back-up.

Though to be honest, I would love to see an end to the Healy-Rae types (independents and party-members) that currently infest the Dáil - I do like some independents, though.

Small parties do VERY well through MMP (through the list section), one only has to look at New Zealand's experience where they have went from a two-party system to a very diverse (and healthy, in my opinion) multi-party system.

ColHol wrote: »

Just a quick question RE the list system, does this involve voting for your favourite party and letting the party decide who will fill the seats? Would that not mean more cronyism as the party heads will just install their friends, as opposed to someone who is a good politician but might not have as many allies in the party?

Another excellent point, though this can be easily remedied. The list system used could be an open list (as used in Finland) by which you not only vote for a party, but a certain politician within the party (at a national level). Though to be honest, I'm not sure any country that uses MMP uses open-lists over closed-lists.

Another solution would be to hold (legally-binding) party primaries for list rankings, which happens in a few European countries (or so I was told).

gandalf

Aidan1 wrote: »

Another minor issue - what happens to independents and smaller parties in an MMP situation?

If a threshold is applied (as it should be), we'd lose the raft of independents out there. Not exactly a bad thing to many people, but the question remains as to whether or not people would accept such a dramatic change to our political system.

Personally I would think that's a positive as well. Nearly all the independents are there over a single issue or to scrounge all the can for their local area normally to the detriment of national politics.

If they want to represent local areas as councillors and they should. Councillors should be full time under a reconstructed council system with proper local powers.

bijapos

ColHol wrote: »

Just a quick question RE the list system, does this involve voting for your favourite party and letting the party decide who will fill the seats? Would that not mean more cronyism as the party heads will just install their friends, as opposed to someone who is a good politician but might not have as many allies in the party?

A couple of points on this:
1. If you're not happy with the candidates vote for a different party.
2. Party and constituency heads presently vote for their cronies to represent constituencies, just look at the number of sons and daughters who run for their parents constituencies. This is usually dictated from above. The decision as to who runs will always lie with the party members/hierarchy. If the candidate is unpopular the party must live with this decision.
3. The other advantage is that any TD involved in questionable activity (O'Dea, O'Donoghue, Sargent) can be removed from being a TD straight away and be replaced by the next on the list. It would then be up to the party to decide if that person is suitable to run at the next election.

Sulmac

Just thought I'd also post the Indo's take on it:

Leader pines for a bit of German efficiency
By Fionnan Sheahan
Thursday March 04 2010

ENVIRONMENT Minister John Gormley wants just 100 TDs in the Dail, with 50 elected directly from regular constituencies and 50 from a list.

But Mr Gormley gave no indication the Government was actually planning to make any such changes or any timelines for a reform.

The Green Party leader said he would personally favour a radical change to the way TDs are elected.

He said the system in this country lends itself to a particular type of on-the-ground politics.

Mr Gormley said the political system in other countries did not facilitate this type of activity.

"There are occasions when I envy my colleagues in the German Greens, who find it quite alien. They are in parliament to legislate," he said.

The minister said there needed to be some form of regional government, allied to the Dail reducing to 100 seats -- 50 directly elected and 50 by a list system.

Apparatchiks

He said the existing PR system could still be used in the list system to ensure those with the most votes still got elected and to avoid party apparatchiks to control who got nominated and elected.

"To my way of thinking, that is certainly the way forward," he said.

Mr Gormley also said he hopes to publish a White Paper on electoral reform before the summer.

The minister said he is currently in consultation with Fianna Fail on the proposals, with Transport Minister Noel Dempsey taking the lead role for the senior coalition partners.

"The reforms we are proposing are quite radical and politically sensitive. That is why we have to get it right," he said.

Mr Gormley said the White Paper might include reducing the voting age to 16 and the appointment of an Independent Electoral Commission.

- Fionnan Sheahan

Independent.ie

The bit in bold also reminded me that Dempsey has also been quite vocal on electoral reform, supporting the notion of an MMP system the same as in New Zealand (with single-seat constituencies instead of multi-seat ones, like Gormley is proposing).

Dempsey calls for electoral reform
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 16:54

Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey has said he believes a complete reform of the electoral system is necessary.

Speaking at the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which is considering electoral reform, Minister Dempsey said single seat constituencies with a list system would serve us better as a modern democracy.

He said the current system is too focused on the local level.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1118/politics.html

He also called for such reform back in 1999, as shown by these two stories: The Irish Examiner, The Irish Times.

Liam Byrne

Why is Gormley suddenly pretending to be interested in better representation ?

He certainly wasn't interested in representing me (despite my misguided vote for his party at the last election) when he refused to pull out of Government.

If he really wanted more people who are capable and who had a mandate, he'd have pulled his support from the current fiasco.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why is Gormley suddenly pretending to be interested in better representation ?

He certainly wasn't interested in representing me (despite my misguided vote for his party at the last election) when he refused to pull out of Government.

If he really wanted more people who are capable and who had a mandate, he'd have pulled his support from the current fiasco.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't represent just you Liam In fact, unlike most parties he went back to his membership to revalidate his mandate last October post the revised PfG negotiations. .

Part of the GP shopping list during those negotiations was electoral reform, hence the recent statements . .

sceptre

The Greens staying in or withdrawing from the government is nothing to do with the topic of this thread. The hint about the topic of the thread is in the title and opening post. I shouldn't have to keep reminding people not to turn everything into a "waaaa, election please" thread, nor do I propose to do so. On-topic please or don't bother. General notice without expiry. Complaints to me via PM.

/mod

Eliot Rosewater

A very interesting topic.

Any kind of devolution of power to smaller governing areas is good, in my opinion. I'd love to see a federal system enter the Republic. That way citizens of each individual State could decide their own policy, even if external citizens to that State disagreed.

One possibility would be to convert the Senate into a "Council of States" house where States are represented disproportionately like in the European Parliament. Under the system States would be given powers from Dublin either through the constitution or normal legislation. To devolve powers would require a majority in both the Dáil and the new Senate, but to take powers away from the States would require a two thirds majority in the Senate. This would ensure State independence, which is an advantage of a federal setup.

Of course it would be more expensive than simpler reform.

I would like to see local government bodies, such as county councils or my hypothetical States, be given real power, even possibly including the setting of Social Welfare rates (which would necessitate some tax-raising powers too).

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A very interesting topic.

Any kind of devolution of power to smaller governing areas is good, in my opinion. I'd love to see a federal system enter the Republic. That way citizens of each individual State could decide their own policy, even if external citizens to that State disagreed.

One possibility would be to convert the Senate into a "Council of States" house where States are represented disproportionately like in the European Parliament. Under the system States would be given powers from Dublin either through the constitution or normal legislation. To devolve powers would require a majority in both the Dáil and the new Senate, but to take powers away from the States would require a two thirds majority in the Senate. This would ensure State independence, which is an advantage of a federal setup.

Of course it would be more expensive than simpler reform.

I would like to see local government bodies, such as county councils or my hypothetical States, be given real power, even possibly including the setting of Social Welfare rates (which would necessitate some tax-raising powers too).

I would say that without tax-raising powers there's little point!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Traumadoc

If this was introduced, would the greens win any seats? ( would that be a bad thing?)

Sir Oxman

I agree the topic is both interesting and I think vital for this country if it is drag itself out of parish pump gombeenism.
National legislators should legislate nationally and of course, local govt must be given more power. The scope for reform is immense IMO.
Despite my ire at nearly all things FF or Green, I do acknowledge that Gormley and indeed Dempsey (!) have been calling for this debate/reform for ages.

Sulmac

Here's the article mentioning elected regional assemblies:

Elected regional assemblies expected in new government plan
14 February 2010 By Pat Leahy Political Editor

A new system that would leave Ireland with three tiers of government is expected to be proposed in a white paper to be published before the summer.

The new system of regional government would include elected regional assemblies, and would result in Ireland having local, regional and national government tiers - as in many European countries. The legislation giving effect to the new system will be introduced next year, if Fianna Fáil and the Green Party agree on the proposals, which are being discussed by a cabinet sub-committee.

The Sunday Business Post understands that the regional government structures, answerable to elected regional assemblies, are likely to be granted a range of powers.

Some of these powers would be devolved from central government and some - such as planning - are likely to be transferred from existing local authorities.

Some in Fianna Fáil fear that the new proposals would erode the power of the 34 existing local authorities, and the party has set up an internal group to examine the plans.

There is particular unease among senators - who rely on county councillors for their support - about proposals that would limit the current councils’ powers. As well as elections to regional assemblies, the new structures are likely to feature more directly-elected mayors. The government last week approved the principles of legislation to allow for a directly elected mayor of Dublin.

The Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, has promised that an election for the post will take place this year, although it is unclear what powers a new mayor would have. It is thought, however, that Dublin will retain its existing four mayors, who are heads of the four Dublin local authorities.

The legislation is also likely to be influenced by the findings of the Local Government Efficiency Review Group, set up as a successor to An Bord Snip Nua with the intention of identifying savings in local government.

Sources say that there is significant scope for reducing costs in local government by pooling or sharing services between local authorities.

ThePost.ie

...no mention of tax-raising powers, I noticed.

View

ColHol wrote: »

Just a quick question RE the list system, does this involve voting for your favourite party and letting the party decide who will fill the seats?

It depends on which list system is used. There are two main types - closed and open. In both systems, the party decides the order of the candidates. In an open list system though, the voter can re-order one or more of the candidates to suit the voter's preference. In a closed system, the voter cannot do this (i.e. they can only vote or not vote for the party).

In practise, with an open list system, most people just vote for the party and don't re-order the party's choice.

Were to have such a system, I am not sure in would make much difference. The smaller parties would probably just nominate one candidate like they do now, and most FF or FG nominations are almost predictable in how they will be elected.

View

I believe that we could have used another voting system for the European elections as it is up to each member state what to use currently (altough there are suggestions of standardising this).

PR-STV is specified for Presidential, Dail and Seanad elections in Bunreacht na hEireann. There is no system specified for Local elections and European elections aren't even mentioned.

Shame we missed the chance for some experimentation last June...

Sulmac

View wrote: »

I believe that we could have used another voting system for the European elections as it is up to each member state what to use currently (altough there are suggestions of standardising this).

PR-STV is specified for Presidential, Dail and Seanad elections in Bunreacht na hEireann. There is no system specified for Local elections and European elections aren't even mentioned.

Shame we missed the chance for some experimentation last June...

The renewed Programme for Government mentions examining the possibility of a national list system for the European elections. Note the words in italics, though.

It's something I would definitely support, as part of a wider reform of the political system. Both the system for the European and local elections can be changed quite easily by statute, as you mentioned.

Euro_Kraut

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure about your figures there - the two votes look like this:

...........
I don't think there's a statistically significant pattern there, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think it is more helpful to look at the quota i.e. How many Voters per TD. The actual number of first preferences received by each candidate is a function (largely) of the number candidates in the field and their relative strength.

Let look at some rural 4 Seaters:
Galway East: 11,159
Clare: 11,278
Longford/Westmeath: 10,984
Cork East: 10,762

Average: 11,047

Now look at some Dublin 4 seaters:
Dublin South East: 6,769
Dublin South West: 8,331
Dublin Mid West: 7,468
Dublin Central:6,928

Average: 7,374

So, just taking those constituencies the rural quotas are 49.79% higher than Dublin. By right those constituencies would also have 50% more representation but that is not the case.

It would be an interesting exercise to repeat this throughout the country.

Euro_Kraut

Another interesting anomaly.

In the 2007 General Election, 55,794 voters in Galway East got to send 4 TDs to the Dail, while 47,531 voters in Dublin South Central got to send 5 TDs. Even more amazing almost as many votes were cast in Roscommen South Leitrim (46,077) as in Dublin South Central. Yet Roscommen South Leitrim only gets 3 TDs.

Any new system would have to rebalance this.

invinciblePRSTV

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

So, just taking those constituencies the rural quotas are 49.79% higher than Dublin. By right those constituencies would also have 50% more representation but that is not the case.

It would be an interesting exercise to repeat this throughout the country.

In the 2007 General Election, 55,794 voters in Galway East got to send 4 TDs to the Dail, while 47,531 voters in Dublin South Central got to send 5 TDs. Even more amazing almost as many votes were cast in Roscommen South Leitrim (46,077) as in Dublin South Central. Yet Roscommen South Leitrim only gets 3 TDs.

Your sample is a classic case of sampling error. If you divide the total number of Dail seats for the Dublin Region (47) into the total number of Dail seats (166) you get 3.53191489.

Now divide the population of the county and city of Dublin by those 2006 CSO figures into the national population and you get 3.57137274

As you can see the % of population per county equates approximately to Dail seat representation.

Is this coincidence? of course not! in the boundary commission terms of reference for drafting constituencies it is made clear that constituencies should, where possible, reflect county boundaries. This ties in with the constitution allowing for TDs to represent between 20-30k people. This is why certain constituencies which are 3/4 seaters may look slightly over or under represented like above, but if you add up nationally Dail seats per county then a clear consistent population/seats ratio will emerge.

Lets compare Dublin South Central to Roscommon - S. Leitrim and Galway East. DSE had a turnout of 55.73% (48320) and R-S.L had 73.8% turnout(46077). I haven’t crunched the numbers as its too late but it can be seen that DSE’s total electorate is clearly in the 90,000 -110,000 bracket, putting it comfortably in the 5 seat bracket range.
R-S.L on the other hand barely has a 60,000 total electorate which puts it comfortably in the 3 seater range, if you put in Leitrim north into this constituency from Sligo – N.L you could add an extra seat but then you’d leave Sligo short of the numbers required for a 3 seater constituency there.


Back on Topic!

To quote David Farrell, is electoral reform the wrong answer to the right question?

PR-STV is a fine electoral system, the real problem is the size of Irish constituencies which are facilitators for clientilist/brokerage politics. This ties in with the centalization of power at national level (particulary since 1977).

As mentioned in article above, a decentralization of powers in certain areas to devolved regional structures to replace the current county/city/town council structures and take the parish pump out of national politics will allow for a reduction in TD numbers.

In turn larger constituencies returning fewer TDs will mean, hopefully, the cream rising to the top and we get politicians who only have to focus on national issues rather then his own backyard!.

For more info on proposals on electoral system reform i suggest a review of the debates and submissions to the joint ctte on the constitution which have been ongoing for the past few months, fascinating stuff!.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/Committees30thDail/J-Constitution/Homepage.htm

Sulmac

Seems local government "reform" is also an issue in Tipperary:

'Tipperary's councils will meet to discuss 'reunification'

MICHAEL PARSONS

Fri, Mar 19, 2010

THE QUESTION of the “reunification of Tipperary”, a county administratively divided at local authority level has been moved forward with plans for the two county councils to meet to discuss the issue.

It follows a proposal from Cllr John Hogan, a Fianna Fáil member of North Tipperary County Council which is based in Nenagh, who claimed the “premier county” was “losing out on investment, infrastructure and tourism” because of its separate north and south administrative areas and parliamentary constituencies.

Tom Hayes, a Fine Gael TD for Tipperary South, which is based in Clonmel, said: “There is duplication in every county but that needs to be sorted out at national level.”

He had no objection to councillors meeting “to thrash out the feasibility” of the reunification of Tipperary but “would question the benefit to the south of the count”.

However, Mr Hogan was fired up by the idea.

“Under British rule the county was divided into the North and South Ridings because they couldn’t control the rebels”, but these divisions had survived independence and the county still had two separate county councils and two Dáil constituencies, each returning three TDs.

He said despite the county having three Fianna Fáil TDs and “one supposed supporter” (the Independent TD, Michael Lowry), which was “enough to bring down the government”, the county was “losing out on structural funds” and its hospitals and third-level education facilities were “being downgraded”.

He questioned the value of Mr Lowry’s alleged “deal” with the Government, which he claimed had “delivered nothing of substance for Tipperary”.

Mr Hogan, who represents the Templemore electoral area, said there was a need to create a “new focus” and to “restore pride in the county”, like that felt by people when they “sing Slievenamon at a relative’s funeral or wave the Tipperary flag in Croke Park”.

He deplored the lack of coherence in marketing tourism, “with the south of the county in the southeast region and the north in the midwest region”.

The people of Tipperary “need to think like the Kerry people think”, he said, pointing out that “if you go into a hotel in Killarney and it’s booked out, they’ll send you to another one”.

But, in Tipperary, he claimed, “people just look after their own little pocket” and that “a visitor to the Rock of Cashel would never be directed to visit Lough Derg”. Mr Hogan said in addition to creating “just one county council”, he would also like to see the county’s two Dáil constituencies merged.

He was dismayed that, during a rare recent meeting of the two county councils (to discuss an education matter), “many of the councillors didn’t even know one another”.

However, they have agreed to put the reunification proposal on the agenda for a meeting “in the next month or so”.

Divided Tipperary: The Facts

Tipperary has two three-seat Dáil constituencies: Tipperary North (FF 1; FG 1; Ind 1); Tipperary South (FF 2; FG 1); Co Tipperary has 113 councillors on nine councils.
North Tipperary County Council is based in Nenagh. South Tipperary County Council is based in Clonmel. Clonmel has a borough council.
Carrick-on-Suir, Cashel, Nenagh, Templemore, Tipperary and Thurles have town councils.

• Tipperary has two three-seat Dáil constituencies: Tipperary North (FF 1; FG 1; Ind 1); Tipperary South (FF 2; FG 1); Co Tipperary has 113 councillors on nine councils.
• North Tipperary County Council is based in Nenagh. South Tipperary County Council is based in Clonmel. Clonmel has a borough council.
• Carrick-on-Suir, Cashel, Nenagh, Templemore, Tipperary and Thurles have town councils.

© 2010 The Irish Times

At the very least, if nothing else is done, I would agree to merging the two county councils. However, I still feel a strong regional government system (which is based around the regional cities) is a far better solution, regardless of how it "divides" Tipperary - or any other counties/provinces/whatever.

I also thought the idea to merge the two Dáil constituencies into one was interesting - particularly as it would have six seats and be larger than currently allowed by statute!