Ed Walsh banging the drum for a list based electoral system again

gizmo555

The bould Ed in today's Irish Times laments the paucity of science and business expertise among our politicians. He elides gracefully from this proposition to his claimed need for a list based electoral system -

"which provides a means by which national movers and shakers can be brought into government. Typically half the seats in parliament are reserved for those who are elected, as in our case, from local constituencies and the other half from lists of well-known national figures.

As a result, when the prime minister goes to appoint ministers a wide range of proven talent and experience can be drawn upon. The list system reduces clientism and ministers can take difficult decisions with less concern about re-election. They are released from the distraction and burden of constituency work and can give undivided attention to the ministerial job and the challenge of government."

What he really means, of course, is that these "movers and shakers" (among which, no doubt, he numbers himself!) couldn't be bothered putting themselves directly before the electorate and canvassing for their votes, an indignity which a list system would allow them to avoid. The problem for the voter, of course, is that a list system would also allow party bosses to ensure that their select few can in effect never lose their seats, no matter how low overall support goes, so long as they are high enough on the party list. We have little enough accountability in Irish politics as it is - this idea would put the tin hat on it.

Anyway, as has often been pointed out, a taoiseach feeling the need for specific expertise in the cabinet can nominate anyone they like to the Senate and then to a minsterial post. Funnily enough, the last time this was done, it was someone with a scientific background who was chosen - Professor James Dooge, appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs by Garret Fitzgerald in 1981. With all due respect to Professor Dooge, who now remembers anything about his record as a minister, apart from the unusual way in which he arrived in the post?

BlaasForRafa

gizmo555 wrote: »

The bould Ed in today's Irish Times laments the paucity of science and business expertise among our politicians. He elides gracefully from this proposition to his claimed need for a list based electoral system "which provides a means by which national movers and shakers can be brought into government. Typically half the seats in parliament are reserved for those who are elected, as in our case, from local constituencies and the other half from lists of well-known national figures.

As a result, when the prime minister goes to appoint ministers a wide range of proven talent and experience can be drawn upon. The list system reduces clientism and ministers can take difficult decisions with less concern about re-election. They are released from the distraction and burden of constituency work and can give undivided attention to the ministerial job and the challenge of government."

What he really means, of course, is that these "movers and shakers" (among which, no doubt, he numbers himself!) couldn't be bothered putting themselves directly before the electorate and canvassing for their votes, an indignity which a list system would allow them to avoid. The problem for the voter, of course, is that a list system would also allow party bosses to ensure that their select few can in effect never lose their seats, no matter how low overall support goes, so long as they are high enough on the party list. We have little enough accountability in Irish politics as it is - this idea would put the tin hat on it.

Anyway, as has often been pointed out, a taoiseach feeling the need for specific expertise in the cabinet can nominate anyone they like to the Senate and then to a minsterial post. Funnily enough, the last time this was done, it was someone with a scientific background who was chosen - Professor James Dooge, appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs by Garret Fitzgerald in 1981. With all due respect to Professor Dooge, who now remembers anything about his record as a minister, apart form the unusual way in which he arrived in the post?

You can't really base an argument on the short lived series of governments in the early 80's.

You only need to look at the recent heave against Enda Kenny to see the type of cabbages that populate the back benches of all parties (and the front benches in some cases...looks in Mary Coughlans direction).

While we have a system based on which TD gets the most medical cards for their constituents we are going to be stuck with a Dail full of people who are good at glad-handing and looking after their own arse rather than actually having relevant knowledge or experience which they can use for the betterment of the nation.

gizmo555

The points you make are all fair enough and I certainly wouldn't disagree that some electoral reform is needed. Where I differ from Walsh is in his prescription of a list system for what ails us.

He is naive anyway if he thinks a list system would result in an influx of scientific and business talent - in reality, as I say, it would be used by the party elite to ensure the political survival of the chosen few. All taoisigh have had the option of bringing anyone they want into the Senate and thence into cabinet, but in practice they don't (which is why there are so few examples to look at). Even Dooge proves my point - he wasn't chosen for his scientifc expertise, but because of his long track record as a Fine Gael senator - he was already a party insider.

Justin Collery

He's right. Ministers concerns should be on a national level and the only way to achieve this is by being elected nationally. There is a great deal of money wasted in the economy through ministers making decisions based on local concerns to ensure they are re-elected next time out.

It often strikes me as bazaar that it is possible to appoint a minister with powers to spend billions of Euro and yet they have no proven competency in managing any organisation, let alone the one they are charged with (i.e. a minister for finance with no experience of economics, accounts or budgets or managing the financial affairs of a large organisation).

Politics is essentially local. Most of our interaction with politicians is in relation to local concerns. This is their area of competence. You may have an excellent local TD from party X who you would like to vote for on that basis, but completely disagree with their parties economic policies. The electoral system should reflect this as it is a reality.

gandalf

Anything that removes the parish pump from National Politics in this country should be welcomed with open arms.

gizmo555

jcollery wrote: »

He's right. Ministers concerns should be on a national level and the only way to achieve this is by being elected nationally. There is a great deal of money wasted in the economy through ministers making decisions based on local concerns to ensure they are re-elected next time out.

How would you deal with the issue that a list system effectively means that those at the top of the list can never lose their seats in parliament?

The thrust of Walsh's argument is that it is beneath the dignity of busy "movers and shakers" like himself to put themselves forward directly for election.

whatawaster

gizmo555 wrote: »

How would you deal with the issue that a list system effectively means that those at the top of the list can never lose their seats in parliament?

Limited number of terms perhaps.

gizmo555

whatawaster wrote: »

Limited number of terms perhaps.

If these "movers and shakers" are so sh1t hot, why would we want to restrict the amount of service they can give the nation?

gandalf wrote: »

Anything that removes the parish pump from National Politics in this country should be welcomed with open arms.

We could make a good start in this direction and save some money into the bargain by reducing the number of members of the Dáil from 166 to the minimum constitutionally allowed - 142* (i.e., one member per 30,000 of the population).

[EDIT - *sorry, used the 1901 population figure by mistake, instead of the population from the last census!]

gandalf

gizmo555 wrote: »

We could make a good start in this direction and save some money into the bargain by reducing the number of members of the Dáil from 166 to the minimum constitutionally allowed - 108 (i.e., one member per 30,000 of the population).

I've been saying that we should reduce the number of TD's for years.

Here is a post from 2001 I made about that very subject

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36665&highlight=dail

Manach

There has been only two Seanad members ever to sit as Minsters (AFAIK), and that was only due to lack of TD numbers in a hung Dail. Whilst I'd be a tad skeptical of lists, using the Seanad does not seem to be viable alternative to obtaining specialise talent and expertise.

Cool Mo D

Manach wrote: »

There has been only two Seanad members ever to sit as Minsters (AFAIK), and that was only due to lack of TD numbers in a hung Dail. Whilst I'd be a tad skeptical of lists, using the Seanad does not seem to be viable alternative to obtaining specialise talent and expertise.

Just because it hasn't been used, doesn't mean it couldn't be.

The reason it hasn't been used is because the party have no interest in appointing 'experts' as ministers - preferring to reward long serving politicians with ministerial positions instead.

You can be sure that political patronage would vastly increase if each party had a certain number of safe seats guaranteed by a list system.

gizmo555

Manach wrote: »

There has been only two Seanad members ever to sit as Minsters (AFAIK), and that was only due to lack of TD numbers in a hung Dail. Whilst I'd be a tad skeptical of lists, using the Seanad does not seem to be viable alternative to obtaining specialise talent and expertise.

Just because it's rarely been used doesn't mean it's not viable. The lack of TD numbers reason you cite doesn't make sense to me. Once the numbers are there to form a government - even a minority government - by definition there are enough to form a cabinet. Anyway, specialist expertise and talent can be hired in to advise the government - it doesn't necessarily have to sit at the cabinet table. The fact remains that the Taoiseach has the option of filling two cabinet seats from the Senate nominees and the option has almost never been exercised. Until it is and we see the results, it's premature at best to say that we can't get suitable talent into cabinet because of our electoral system.

View

There are two main list based electoral systems - open and closed.

In a closed system, the party orders the candidates and the voter cannot alter the default order.

In an open system, the party orders the candidates but the voter can "re-order" the list (i.e. indicate a preference for one or more candidates of the party that is different to the default party choice).

The main advantage of a list system is, since a person votes for a party it puts the emphasis on the policies of the party, not on whether (the party's) Joe or Mick would be a better politician.

joolsveer

I heard him recommending Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs, as the type of mover and shaker that he would like to see in cabinet. It is good to see a banker being praised as good enough for government.

View

jcollery wrote: »

Politics is essentially local. Most of our interaction with politicians is in relation to local concerns.

Well, that currently is our system but, realistically, local concerns should be dealt with by local politicians. National politics should be concerned with national issues - for instance, the Minister of Finance should be concerned about running the economy (properly), not on getting potholes fixed in his constituency.

gizmo555

View wrote: »

There are two main list based electoral systems - open and closed.

In a closed system, the party orders the candidates and the voter cannot alter the default order.

In an open system, the party orders the candidates but the voter can "re-order" the list (i.e. indicate a preference for one or more candidates of the party that is different to the default party choice).

It's clear from Walsh's writings on this topic that his conception of a list system is a method of parachuting "movers and shakers", as he puts it, into cabinet, without them having to go through a process of personally making the case for their individual suitability for office to the electorate.

joolsveer wrote: »

I heard him recommending Peter Sutherland, chairman of Goldman Sachs, as the type of mover and shaker that he would like to see in cabinet. It is good to see a banker being praised as good enough for government.

Sutherland is a Fine Gaeler of old, so if Enda's Taoiseach and therefore in a position to nominate him after the next election, there's no reason why he couldn't be nominated to the Senate and then appointed a minster - if he was willing to serve.

Nijmegen

Only two members of the Senate can be in government, if I recall, and the two posts barred to them are Taoseach and Minister for Finance. In the latter case, that'd be somewhere I'd want the most expertise!

Here in Ireland we have a peculiar system not used in many other countries. TD's literally do have to fill in passport applications and hand deliver them, and attend every funeral or by God the next election will be theirs. Meanwhile, they're supposed to sign off on 20 odd billion in bailouts to Anglo, figure out if homosexuals should be allowed marry and have children, and keep our government to account?

If a political party appoints someone to be in government, that party will need to have satisfied the electorate that their policies are best, and the people they choose will reflect those policies. I'd rather elect a government than a single person.

The issue in Ireland would be the same as with the senate, with the list system being used to elect the unelectable eejits of the parties, rather than real talent.

The fact is, the Irish people don´t demand enough of governments to get talent. If the government thought it wouldn´t be elected if they didn´t have heavyweight experts in serious positions of power, we´d empty business and academia of the best and brightest like a shot.

BlaasForRafa

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's clear from Walsh's writings on this topic that his conception of a list system is a method of parachuting "movers and shakers", as he puts it, into cabinet, without them having to go through a process of personally making the case for their individual suitability for office to the electorate.

To an extent taking some of these decisions away from voters may be a good thing. Especially in cases where the likes of shysters like Michael Lowry and Beverly Cooper-Flynn constantly get big votes from the electorate but are as crooked as a west mayo boreen.

gizmo555

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

To an extent taking some of these decisions away from voters may be a good thing. Especially in cases where the likes of shysters like Michael Lowry and Beverly Cooper-Flynn constantly get big votes from the electorate but are as crooked as a west mayo boreen.

But whose judgement would you substitute for that of the people?

As Churchill said:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

BlaasForRafa

gizmo555 wrote: »

But whose judgement would you substitute for that of the people?

As Churchill said:

Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Well I did say "to an extent". Plus Churchill had the luxury of being able to appoint people with relevant experience from the Lords.

The electorate in part (many parts one could possibly say, seeing that as well as the crooks there are more cabbages in the Dail than in a fair sized greengrocers) seem to vote in some because of outright parish-pump clientilism (getting passports, medical cards etc) or in some cases out of sheer contrariness (Lowry, Cooper-Flynn, although I'm sure theres probably a fair bit of clientilism there as well)

The standard of politician in the Dail currently is woeful and its down to the system and the electorate and really something needs to be done about it or we are going to get more of the same again and again and again...

oscarBravo

gizmo555 wrote: »

But whose judgement would you substitute for that of the people?

That of the people's elected representatives? In the US, cabinet members are appointed by the president and approved by congress. There's a lot to be said for it.

gizmo555

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Well I did say "to an extent". Plus Churchill had the luxury of being able to appoint people with relevant experience from the Lords.

Once again, the Taoiseach can nominate anyone to the Senate and thence to cabinet. It's true that there are limitations on the posts they can hold and there can only be two ministers from the Senate, but I'd rather see the existing powers actually used before concluding that these limitations are a serious problem.

For example, Walsh complains that there's not enough business and managerial experience in the cabinet. Why not give Senator Feargal Quinn, one of the most successful and highly respected businessmen in the country, a ministerial position? (And he has the credibility of actually having been elected to the Senate as opposed to having been put there by the Taoiseach.)

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The standard of politician in the Dail currently is woeful and its down to the system and the electorate and really something needs to be done about it or we are going to get more of the same again and again and again...

I agree - there's a number of initiatives we could take without constitutional change. For example, cut the number of TDs to the constitutional minimum. Or, get rid of all 4 and 5 seat constituencies, which have the effect of hugely increasing intra-party competition between TDs and encouraging the worst excesses of parochial clientelism.

I see no justification, however, for a list system which would allow an unaccountable elitist few to monopolise political power.

gizmo555

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Well I did say "to an extent". Plus Churchill had the luxury of being able to appoint people with relevant experience from the Lords.

Once again, the Taoiseach can nominate anyone to the Senate and thence to cabinet. It's true that there are limitations on the posts they can hold and there can only be two ministers from the Senate, but I'd rather see the existing powers actually used before concluding that these limitations are a serious problem.

For example, Walsh complains that there's not enough business and managerial experience in the cabinet. Why not give Senator Feargal Quinn, one of the most successful and highly respected businessmen in the country, a ministerial position? (And he has the credibility of actually having been elected to the Senate as opposed to having been put there by the Taoiseach.)

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The standard of politician in the Dail currently is woeful and its down to the system and the electorate and really something needs to be done about it or we are going to get more of the same again and again and again...

I agree - there's a number of initiatives we could take without constitutional change. For example, cut the number of TDs to the constitutional minimum. Or, get rid of all 4 and 5 seat constituencies, which have the effect of hugely increasing intra-party competition between TDs and encouraging the worst excesses of parochial clientelism.

I see no justification, however, for a list system which would allow an unaccountable elitist few to monopolise political power.

BlaasForRafa

gizmo555 wrote: »

I see no justification, however, for a list system which would allow an unaccountable elitist few to monopolise political power.

Perhaps. At the moment though I'm swinging more towards an elitist few that could do the job rather than a rabble of cabbages and thickos we have at the moment.

gizmo555

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

At the moment though I'm swinging more towards an elitist few that could do the job

There's the rub . . . .

View

gizmo555 wrote: »

It's clear from Walsh's writings on this topic that his conception of a list system is a method of parachuting "movers and shakers", as he puts it, into cabinet, without them having to go through a process of personally making the case for their individual suitability for office to the electorate.

He is perfectly free to advocate for a closed list electoral system if he so chooses. My point was there is more than one list electoral system and we shouldn't dismiss list electoral systems out of hand without at least considering the open list electoral system.

Since no other country, apart from Malta, uses our PR-STV system for elections to their (national) parliaments, that isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of it as a system.

gizmo555

View wrote: »

He is perfectly free to advocate for a closed list electoral system if he so chooses. My point was there is more than one list electoral system and we shouldn't dismiss list electoral systems out of hand without at least considering the open list electoral system.

This thread is about Walsh's proposals for a list based system and not any other flavour. Just as he is free to advocate for them, we are free to find fault with them.

Nijmegen

Why not give Senator Feargal Quinn, one of the most successful and highly respected businessmen in the country, a ministerial position? (And he has the credibility of actually having been elected to the Senate as opposed to having been put there by the Taoiseach.)

Because then you would have to leave out one of your political loyal boys from the big table, where there's only so many seats, thus causing sour grapes and hastening your departure from the top spot.

Who gave you the impression that ministerial posts are handed out on merit?

gizmo555

Nijmegen wrote: »

Who gave you the impression that ministerial posts are handed out on merit?

Indeed. And what gives Ed Walsh the impression that if his proposed list system was introduced, places on the list would be allocated to the people he'd like to see in government, as opposed to what we know would happen, i.e. the lists would be filled with party hacks.

danbohan

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Perhaps. At the moment though I'm swinging more towards an elitist few that could do the job rather than a rabble of cabbages and thickos we have at the moment.

I'm swinging more towards an elitist few that could do the job

you mean like what was running the banks ,?
thats the problem with ireland you cant trust anybody to do a better job , i am all for removing the thikos but can you trust the ones from a list either , i dont think so

Nijmegen

gizmo555 wrote: »

Indeed. And what gives Ed Walsh the impression that if his proposed list system was introduced, places on the list would be allocated to the people he'd like to see in government, as opposed to what we know would happen, i.e. the lists would be filled with party hacks.

It requires that the people demand it. If a political party was elected on the basis of the intelligence of its members, we'd have intelligent ministers.

View

gizmo555 wrote: »

This thread is about Walsh's proposals for a list based system and not any other flavour. Just as he is free to advocate for them, we are free to find fault with them.

You started the this thread by dismissing list electoral systems, without making any attempt to distinguish between them - it is this I was responding to specifically.

You also included the following comment:

gizmo555 wrote: »

The problem for the voter, of course, is that a list system would also allow party bosses to ensure that their select few can in effect never lose their seats, no matter how low overall support goes, so long as they are high enough on the party list.

This is incorrect - even with a closed list system, the reality is that if no one votes for a party, they do not get people elected. Likewise, I doubt many people would get elected from the "Communist Party of Ireland" list, were we to introduce such a system, as they would attract only a small minority of voters.

Lastly, it should be pointed out, that, to all intents and purposes, we already operate de facto list systems as it is.

For the smaller parties (i.e. not FF or FG), it is a closed list system - as you don't get multiple candidates from Labour, the Greens or SF on the ballot in your average constituency, you don't get to select which member of these parties might represent you in the Dail.

For the larger parties, it is an open list system - the decision is essentially which person will be the FF or FG TD (or TDs) for the constituency, rather than "Will we have a TD from these parties"? In most cases, that decision is largely irrelevant as, practically without exception, individual TDs tend to vote the party line in the Dail thus defeating what was initially intended to be main advantage of the PR-STV electoral system.

thebman

Saying the list system means no accountablity is wrong though isn't it? It just means you hold the entire party responsible for the entires parties decisions so you judge them on overall performance rather than indviidual efforts as we do presently.

Justin Collery

I've said this before, I'd like a list system were I can vote for the main ministries. Each party puts forward their best candidate and anyone else can apply also (may need primaries) and who ever gets most votes becomes the minister. Policies would be clearly outlined, ministers would be accountable to the country, and both party policies as well as individual ministerial performance get voted on every election.

Sleepy

Anything that stops a Healy Rae, a Lowry or a Cooper-Flynn from being paid money out of our taxes is a good thing.

View

jcollery wrote: »

I've said this before, I'd like a list system were I can vote for the main ministries. Each party puts forward their best candidate and anyone else can apply also (may need primaries) and who ever gets most votes becomes the minister. Policies would be clearly outlined, ministers would be accountable to the country, and both party policies as well as individual ministerial performance get voted on every election.

I suspect that you ended up with the various Ministers being Bertie A clones - popular, no sharp edges, covert "ideology", always compromise when faced with tough decisions...

View

Sleepy wrote: »

Anything that stops a Healy Rae, a Lowry or a Cooper-Flynn from being paid money out of our taxes is a good thing.

That would be the voters - then again they seem to like, possibly even want, that sort of behaviour.