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

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.