the No-Party State

Dorcha

My family had always voted Labour and regarded the other two main parties with horror as being solely on the side of the rich and powerful. Their opinion was that Fianna Fail was a “Rich Man’s Party”, while Fine Gael was regarded as “The Farmer’s Party”. (A good neighbour of ours, a “big” farmer certainly campaigned for them.) But, as the years passed and I started to think for myself, I noticed that all political parties had one absolute thing in common: the good of the party always came first. The good of the country and the welfare of its people always came second in their considerations.

I could clearly see the reason for this. If it allowed its TDs to vote according to conscience – or according to private promises they had given their constituents – then the party faced the prospect of being split into factions with no guarantee of a united front against the other parties and a consequence danger of loosing power. Labour were a good example of how this could happen, because its TDs dissented with its leadership more than the other two and were a long way behind them in popular support.

Even so, I felt it was wrong that the parties that were supposed to serve the state were making their existence the sole reason for their existence, and putting it above the most urgent needs of the people. Rich people had a monopoly on their services and indeed most of the TDs themselves were wealthy. This led to a vicious circle: power attracted money and money bought power.

I looked at the only alternatives I knew about: socialism, and anarchy. Communism and Capitalism were just aspects of Socialism and Democracy, rather than political systems in their own right. Anarchy was too fragmented and focussed on individual groups and people, rather than on society as a whole. Socialism was not, surprisingly, that different to Democracy, except that it rejected people with personal wealth from a position of power. Both systems were supposed to be run by the people, but both suffered from the necessity of having a leader, or group of people, to run them, and do no other form of work. And, inevitably, this led to corruption.

People should be able to look after their own rights and interests - because they are best suited to doing so - but without infringing on other people’s rights and interests. I don’t think there are any “natural” laws, including moral ones, because in the natural state an individual’s “rights” and entitlements will obviously come before that of any other person. Human beings are not born perfect; they are capable of being moulded according to their environment and circumstances. Groups were formed to protect individuals who were not able to protect themselves individually. Groups joined groups with like-minded aims and thus became larger.

The largest example of a group at the moment is the European Union, composed of many separate nations, each containing their own groups, known as political parties. But the bigger the group becomes, the less the rights of individuals are considered. In times of intense personal pressure, groups tend to break up into their initial individual parts, sometimes - in extreme cases - to individual persons. The question is how to best protect the interests of the individual while at the same time, giving that person the protection of a group, and the answer, it seems to me, is individual democracy.

The type of system in place in most Western countries at the moment is Representative Democracy. That is, an individual represents the interests of a group of individuals, and should be responsible to that group alone. But if that individual becomes a member of a party, then the interests of the Party must come before the rights of the group that individual represents and thus makes Direct Representation impossible.

Then only way I can see out of this situation at the moment is to abolish parties altogether. To run the affairs of a country, a certain number of people, called ministers, are needed. Because an astronomical number of ministers are not needed to run a country, a list needs to be made out first for essential ministries. For example, those would include: Finance, Foreign, Trade and Social. I’m not an expert in this field, so let’s just assume there are only four. When an election is called, it is truly a national election, with no area especially represented. As many people as they wish put their names forward, and the other people vote on them, using Proportional Representation . In this case, the first four top names are elected to serve the country for – say four years. (In the event of a tie, those with the most first preferences will be elected.)

The elected people now get together to agree on the ministries. To get around the argument as to who does what, in the event of anyone being elected for a second term, the ministries will circulate, so that no one holds the same portfolio too long. The newly elected ministers then organize their departments and hire people to work in them. Guarantees to prevent abuse in the hiring of staff would be written into the constitution and reviewed every four years when a new government is formed. A key part of Individual Representation is that the ministers would be accountable directly to the electorate and if they were not perceived to be doing their jobs, would not be elected again.

That is as far as I have got with this idea at my present stage of my life. I have other things to do, of course, besides thinking up political systems; the present one was formulated originally to answer the question, when I complained too much: “Well, what would you do?

Denerick

If you can suggest an alternative to parliamentary democracy please do so. At present the entire premise of your argument rests on the assumption that people are fundamentally good. While I do not believe people are intrinsically evil, I do recognise that they tend to be motivated by self interest. Our Democratic Republic is a decent compromise between the madness of absolute liberty and absolute tyranny.

Dorcha

Denerick - My plan, such as it is, does not depend on people being fundamentally good. That's why I suggest that those who were elected be personally responsible to the people who vote for them. I don't think you've read my post correctly. The Electors would take the place of an "opposition" and act as watchdogs to keep those elected true to the job they were elected to do. They would be a much better "opposition" than the present lot, whose agendas may not be the same as those who elected them.

Lantus

Agreed, I have long maintained that political parties are almost corporate entity's in themselves that work to protect their won interests while vying for re-election and continuation of the party lifestyle. Much the same as Unions who work to ensure no one ever gets fired (Of course not because then the income to the union would drop and they would make less money. Simples)

Most leading democratic countries are now 2 party states. US, UK, IRL and many others in Europe. Other countries that have a greater spread are trending towards 2 party states. It doesn't say a lot about our democratic system. A 2 party state os only marginally better than a single party state and over time those difference will diminish as the party's realise it's only a matter of taking turns in a civilised procession with little need to campaign, just wait patiently for public opinion to swing your way as voters get bored of the blues and vote in the reds. As memories are very short we forget we have been doing this for 50, 60+ years.

A world without parties is hard to imagine but not impossible. Firstly, and oddly I would suggest that we need a new party to come into power who's mandate it is to abolish parties. The new structure needs to be a coalition of individuals who come together with the express purpose of running the country. A reduced number of TD's who are not just selected by votes but who must also meet minimum standards of literacy and numeracy before they can even be selected. Selctions for specific roles need to be supported by relevant experience, especially finance. This is tending towards a technocracy.

For too long we have had the fat cigar smoking men in the halls of power and we desperatley need to change.

Business and politics needs to be seperated removing financial contributions which can influence policy for the greater good of the country. Politicians financial records need to be publicly open to ensure no backhanders and no connections with boards of directors. Expenses need to be radically cut and curtailed. Getting a job to run the country means often working in Dublin, not a time share between Dublin and 'somewhere else' Everyone else is expected to move to a job, it's stupid to expect anyone not to. Yet they do it all the time.

We are suffering terrifc nepotism and favourtism in Irish politics that is purpetuated through party politics. The better we rid ourselves of it the faster we can move forward.

Who's with me!

scallioneater

Lantus wrote: »

Agreed, I have long maintained that political parties are almost corporate entity's in themselves

I suggest that you read some of the writings of Michel Foucault. He posits that every institution strives only to preserve itself. Discipline and Punish.

Additionally, I don't know if it is possible to construct a non-party democratic system. It seems that they go hand in hand. I can't think of a non-party republic. The United States was designed to have a non-partisan political system, but parties quickly emerged. I don't think its possible to have a non-party parliament. Are there any examples of non-party parliaments?

Niall J Murray

Denerick wrote: »

If you can suggest an alternative to parliamentary democracy please do so. At present the entire premise of your argument rests on the assumption that people are fundamentally good. While I do not believe people are intrinsically evil, I do recognise that they tend to be motivated by self interest. Our Democratic Republic is a decent compromise between the madness of absolute liberty and absolute tyranny.

Hi Denerick.


My name is Niall Murray

I am interested in A New Way for our country and if you have any good ideas on what could be a possible solution to our problems please email me at <mod snip>

Niall J Murray

Lantus wrote: »

Agreed, I have long maintained that political parties are almost corporate entity's in themselves that work to protect their won interests while vying for re-election and continuation of the party lifestyle. Much the same as Unions who work to ensure no one ever gets fired (Of course not because then the income to the union would drop and they would make less money. Simples)

Most leading democratic countries are now 2 party states. US, UK, IRL and many others in Europe. Other countries that have a greater spread are trending towards 2 party states. It doesn't say a lot about our democratic system. A 2 party state os only marginally better than a single party state and over time those difference will diminish as the party's realise it's only a matter of taking turns in a civilised procession with little need to campaign, just wait patiently for public opinion to swing your way as voters get bored of the blues and vote in the reds. As memories are very short we forget we have been doing this for 50, 60+ years.

A world without parties is hard to imagine but not impossible. Firstly, and oddly I would suggest that we need a new party to come into power who's mandate it is to abolish parties. The new structure needs to be a coalition of individuals who come together with the express purpose of running the country. A reduced number of TD's who are not just selected by votes but who must also meet minimum standards of literacy and numeracy before they can even be selected. Selctions for specific roles need to be supported by relevant experience, especially finance. This is tending towards a technocracy.

For too long we have had the fat cigar smoking men in the halls of power and we desperatley need to change.

Business and politics needs to be seperated removing financial contributions which can influence policy for the greater good of the country. Politicians financial records need to be publicly open to ensure no backhanders and no connections with boards of directors. Expenses need to be radically cut and curtailed. Getting a job to run the country means often working in Dublin, not a time share between Dublin and 'somewhere else' Everyone else is expected to move to a job, it's stupid to expect anyone not to. Yet they do it all the time.

We are suffering terrifc nepotism and favourtism in Irish politics that is purpetuated through party politics. The better we rid ourselves of it the faster we can move forward.

Who's with me!

I am . my email is <mod snip>.

please email me any writings you may have on a possible solution to our situation. political and social .
I look forward to your response

Niall J Murray

scallioneater wrote: »

I suggest that you read some of the writings of Michel Foucault. He posits that every institution strives only to preserve itself. Discipline and Punish.

Additionally, I don't know if it is possible to construct a non-party democratic system. It seems that they go hand in hand. I can't think of a non-party republic. The United States was designed to have a non-partisan political system, but parties quickly emerged. I don't think its possible to have a non-party parliament. Are there any examples of non-party parliaments?

Could we be the first to try if there are none already.
please email me any writings you may have on the subject to <mod snip>

Thankyou

Batiste

What should we do then bring in the army and have a martial run state so they can beat the **** out of us,if we are percieved to be doing wrong?

Dorcha

Batiste wrote: »

What should we do then bring in the army and have a martial run state so they can beat the **** out of us,if we are percieved to be doing wrong?

No.

ISAW

Dorcha wrote: »

My family had always voted Labour and regarded the other two main parties with horror as being solely on the side of the rich and powerful.

Ironically both FF anf FG can be Traced to Sinn Fein and the leaders of 1916 who came from shopkeepers, teachers, poets and peniless trade union organisers (unlike their modern day rich, handy pension, union leaders) who fought against monarchic and aristocratic Imperialism so you probably could not be further from the truth.

Their opinion was that Fianna Fail was a “Rich Man’s Party”, while Fine Gael was regarded as “The Farmer’s Party”.

Again FF would traditionally represent more farmers then FG. Just FF tended to repersent small farmers and FG rich ones. And FG also represented a land ownership element and militarist/facist/statist police elements with the FG leanings to the Blueshirts and police and Army.

But, as the years passed and I started to think for myself, I noticed that all political parties had one absolute thing in common: the good of the party always came first. The good of the country and the welfare of its people always came second in their considerations.

Or you could say rather than parish pump local issues TD might come together under common banners or importance e.g. national independence and compramise on differences e.g. where a hospital is sited.
Niall Blaney who became an independent was won't to say that a house of independents wouldn't work.

I could clearly see the reason for this. If it allowed its TDs to vote according to conscience – or according to private promises they had given their constituents – then the party faced the prospect of being split into factions with no guarantee of a united front against the other parties and a consequence danger of loosing power. Labour were a good example of how this could happen, because its TDs dissented with its leadership more than the other two and were a long way behind them in popular support.

But not for the reason you give. Labour represented socialist ideals in a nationalist state.
And many of the socialist ideals were absorbed by other parties anyway.

Even so, I felt it was wrong that the parties that were supposed to serve the state were making their existence the sole reason for their existence, and putting it above the most urgent needs of the people. Rich people had a monopoly on their services and indeed most of the TDs themselves were wealthy. This led to a vicious circle: power attracted money and money bought power.

And Labour were an exception? They gave all their earnings to the party?
Give us a break!

I looked at the only alternatives I knew about: socialism, and anarchy. Communism and Capitalism were just aspects of Socialism and Democracy, rather than political systems in their own right. Anarchy was too fragmented and focussed on individual groups and people, rather than on society as a whole. Socialism was not, surprisingly, that different to Democracy, except that it rejected people with personal wealth from a position of power.

Odd don't you think considering "socialist" Bertie didn't have problems with wealth and power and "socialist" Labour leader and ex workers PArty Gilmore has no problem in his wife makinf a half million on inflated property prices?

Both systems were supposed to be run by the people, but both suffered from the necessity of having a leader, or group of people, to run them, and do no other form of work. And, inevitably, this led to corruption.

Not necessarily. one can have leadership without corruption. Well what do you mean by "corruption" anyway?

People should be able to look after their own rights and interests - because they are best suited to doing so - but without infringing on other people’s rights and interests. I don’t think there are any “natural” laws, including moral ones, because in the natural state an individual’s “rights” and entitlements will obviously come before that of any other person.

So then if ther are none how about thew natural law that " an individual’s “rights” and entitlements will obviously come before that of any other person. "?

Human beings are not born perfect; they are capable of being moulded according to their environment and circumstances. Groups were formed to protect individuals who were not able to protect themselves individually. Groups joined groups with like-minded aims and thus became larger.

Fairly waffly! What do you mean by "Human beings are not born perfect"? What is "perfect"?

The largest example of a group at the moment is the European Union, composed of many separate nations, each containing their own groups, known as political parties. But the bigger the group becomes, the less the rights of individuals are considered. In times of intense personal pressure, groups tend to break up into their initial individual parts, sometimes - in extreme cases - to individual persons. The question is how to best protect the interests of the individual while at the same time, giving that person the protection of a group, and the answer, it seems to me, is individual democracy.

Actually a REPUBLIC is a democracy regulated by LAW! You know?... the thing that gives people rights even if the majority denies them?

The type of system in place in most Western countries at the moment is Representative Democracy. That is, an individual represents the interests of a group of individuals, and should be responsible to that group alone.

That isn't true! They represent all their constituents even the ones that don't vote for them and the ones that cant vote! And the LAW prevents them from misrepresentation.

But if that individual becomes a member of a party, then the interests of the Party must come before the rights of the group that individual represents and thus makes Direct Representation impossible.

Your terminology is confused. It makes indirect representation difficult not impossible. And direct representation is always possible under law is locus standi is adhered to.

Then only way I can see out of this situation at the moment is to abolish parties altogether. To run the affairs of a country, a certain number of people, called ministers, are needed. Because an astronomical number of ministers are not needed to run a country, a list needs to be made out first for essential ministries. For example, those would include: Finance, Foreign, Trade and Social. I’m not an expert in this field, so let’s just assume there are only four.

There are under the constituion FIFTEEN.
Each parliament can call them what they like.

When an election is called, it is truly a national election, with no area especially represented.

Technically and constitutionally that is the case. Edmund Burke made a great speech on election about this. "I am not a member of Bristol. I am a member of Parliament" But guess what? .He lost his seat next time out!
But the point is that when elected your judgment has to be trusted until the next election. And might I point out the contradiction of you beginning with power in the hands f a few people and now you end up with the entire parliament being replaced by four people?

As many people as they wish put their names forward, and the other people vote on them, using Proportional Representation . In this case, the first four top names are elected to serve the country for – say four years. (In the event of a tie, those with the most first preferences will be elected.)

If you use PR then you can't have a fourth seat with a tie! The fifth person would not reach the quota! If three got elected and two didn't reach the quota then maybe it could happen but extremely unlikely . suppose they also get the same first preference vote? Then what?

The elected people now get together to agree on the ministries. To get around the argument as to who does what, in the event of anyone being elected for a second term, the ministries will circulate, so that no one holds the same portfolio too long.

Okay Ill take police Army and Justice. sorry guys the three of you are out of a job since I just surrounded your houses with troops and I'm taking over! That what happens when you have four people left to run the country without safeguards! Oh and tell the press they are to stop the presses on your way out will you?

The newly elected ministers then organize their departments and hire people to work in them.

Oh so no independent judiciary or police or Army? No academic freedom throught securoty of tenure and freedom of speech? remember what I stated about safeguards?

Guarantees to prevent abuse in the hiring of staff would be written into the constitution and reviewed every four years when a new government is formed.

It is already there! Mind you sacking the entire civil service, Gardai and Army every four years is a bit much isnt it?

A key part of Individual Representation is that the ministers would be accountable directly to the electorate and if they were not perceived to be doing their jobs, would not be elected again.

WE already have that! It is called an election. By the way you might take a look at Hugo Chaves constitution which allows for petitions and recalls.

That is as far as I have got with this idea at my present stage of my life. I have other things to do, of course, besides thinking up political systems; the present one was formulated originally to answer the question, when I complained too much: “Well, what would you do?

Thanks for sharing your views but I think they need a bit of work. at least you are thinking about it.

ISAW

Niall J Murray wrote: »

Could we be the first to try if there are none already.
please email me any writings you may have on the subject to <mod snip>

Thankyou

Niall please learn to use PM will you?

Oh and look up "Mondragon" in a search engine.

redto

just a thought on party politics.



the most popular party gets to form the government (possibly with the help of a minority) however they may not have the best/ most qualified people to be ministers to run the various departments, they may in fact have none.
Ministers tend to be appointed because of supporting the leader/ that constituency should have a minister/ he is senior, or some other black art.
Mary harney is a case in point. Either she is incapable of sorting out the health service or the health service is more powerful than the government, either way the job description is not being fulfilled, however she got reappointed many times. (If the health service is too powerful for the government of the day, we have a real problem)

should the potential minister not have to apply for the job, submit his/her cv and be subject to interview confirmation (perhaps similar to the u s system) and does the minister have to be elected?

Conorpur

One thing I wonder about is it it possible for people to use the internet to make voting decisions for the country. Somehow it is assumed that normal people are irrational and we must be placed a safe distance from the decision making process.
We have a system of politics where no matter who comes in power the same policy's continue. Ireland like all countries is controlled by a powerful elite be it political, legal, media or business. This elite will never willingly hand away power or wealth gained, they seeing the population as subjects to be dictated to.

The technology I think is quite basic a website where the all people have a secure password access to talk, vote and poll over the vast range of issues that affect our lives. Of course there is problems of implementation and the overseeing of such a undertaking but could it be worse than the system we have now.
Even if it was simply polls that were carried out a clear message could be given to the politicians, and not be told what we think we want.
I think only the people of our land can make the decisions for the good of our land. People will make rational decisions for the good of the land far better as the powerful elites with there many vested interests.
The role of the media is very closely tied to preventing any change in who are the controllers in the Country, the also produce fear in the public that without the safe hand of control from our fatherly elite we would fall to a state of despair.
I see this simply as making our country democratic which for all the talk from our great leaders I see little in practice.

oscarBravo

Conorpur wrote: »

One thing I wonder about is it it possible for people to use the internet to make voting decisions for the country.

Dear gods, no. As someone who has been heavily involved in software development and networking since the 1980s, take my word for it: it's just not feasible to design a system that allows for a secret ballot over a public network. It's all too easy to believe that any technical problem can be solved, but some problems are effectively intractable.

That's leaving aside the question of whether it's even a good idea. Sometimes a government has to make decisions that are in the national interest, but that are not popular. If the last budget had gone to a public vote, it would have been roundly defeated - but what then?

People will make rational decisions for the good of the land...

No, they won't. Some people will put the national interest ahead of their own personal interests; most people won't. And that's assuming the average Joe is even qualified to know what is in the national interest.

Our representative democracy has its flaws, true. But mob rule? Hell no.

Conorpur

[Dear gods, no. As someone who has been heavily involved in software development and networking since the 1980s, take my word for it: it's just not feasible to design a system that allows for a secret ballot over a public network. It's all too easy to believe that any technical problem can be solved, but some problems are effectively intractable.] Quote

Is it so impossible? with online banking and international finance being carried out over the internet where safety of the users information is very important and that only the account holder makes decisions over his own account, is this not somehow a example where a well based web system could be built to gather in a open, transparent manner peoples wishes.
Naturally I am no IT expert and I see that too simply, but the internet continues to amaze with new ideas on human interaction.




[That's leaving aside the question of whether it's even a good idea. Sometimes a government has to make decisions that are in the national interest, but that are not popular.] Quote


This is true if I am allowed to make a national decision alone, or we say I and my land developer friends, then naturally I will change laws to favour my particular group. I will take little account of others affected by this decision.

Therefore I think all people affected by the decision should have a say in the decision.



[Our representative democracy has its flaws, true. But mob rule? Hell no.][/QUOTE]


What is meant by mob rule. For me a unruly demonstration by a large gathering that turns to violence. Can we really compare the people of Ireland to this.
For me if I had a vote on a issue say the budget or taking over the banks debt and this vote decision I share with the people of Ireland. Now I could take maybe one minute to think about this and say "oh!" I must pay more taxes I will simply vote against it.
Now if the whole country does this tomorrow me have no budget, but are the general public so self centred and short sighted. If I look at a budget I know it cannot be made simply to suit me. I have to look what is the best long term decision for me and the people important to me. Not only that the majority must also make the same decision for this decision to be accepted.

Now if the budget is rejected or it is decided by the people of Ireland or that actually this bank debt is not our debt then we can start (the people of Ireland) to figure out new solutions. That for me is Democracy.

I think the average Joe can make just as rational decisions as politician's (actually I think far more rational). He does not because he has no voice. When he has no say or voice he takes no interest. Politics as a spectator sport is not so interesting but if the average Joe knew he made a difference he would be far better versed in the issues.

Sorry have not got the hang of putting in quotes.

oscarBravo

Conorpur wrote: »

Is it so impossible? with online banking and international finance being carried out over the internet where safety of the users information is very important and that only the account holder makes decisions over his own account, is this not somehow a example where a well based web system could be built to gather in a open, transparent manner peoples wishes.
Naturally I am no IT expert and I see that too simply, but the internet continues to amaze with new ideas on human interaction.

We have this conversation regularly about electronic voting, where people keep claiming that if online banking is possible, then online voting must also be possible.

They're solving different problems. Yes, online voting is as straightforward as online banking - if you choose to discard the principle of the public secret ballot, and cheerfully accept the possibility of widespread voter fraud, voter intimidation and vote buying.

These are not major problems at the moment because our electoral system has safeguards built in to prevent them. The major safeguard is that votes are cast anonymously in public view, and counted under public scrutiny.

Trust me: these are intractable problems even when dealing with periodic elections, never mind weekly plebiscites.

This is true if I am allowed to make a national decision alone, or we say I and my land developer friends, then naturally I will change laws to favour my particular group. I will take little account of others affected by this decision.

Therefore I think all people affected by the decision should have a say in the decision.

You've totally missed my point.

People are, by and large, poor decision makers. The ability to make a decision with profound and long-term consequences is a skill that generally requires expertise, specialisation and experience; or at the very least access to advisers with these traits.

Listening to the reaction to this week's budget, it's clear that it would never have been passed by public vote. Which begs the question: what kind of budget would be passed by public vote, and would that budget be the right one for the country at this time?

Are you making the mistake of believing that what the people want at any given moment in time is the same as what the people need? Or the equally dangerous mistake of believing that people will ignore their wants and vote for unpalatable needs?

Do you believe the electorate would have voted for counter-cyclical budgetary policies to prevent the property bubble, for example?

What is meant by mob rule. For me a unruly demonstration by a large gathering that turns to violence. Can we really compare the people of Ireland to this.

That's a riot. Mob rule is characterised by short-term thinking by a large group of angry people.

For me if I had a vote on a issue say the budget or taking over the banks debt and this vote decision I share with the people of Ireland. Now I could take maybe one minute to think about this and say "oh!" I must pay more taxes I will simply vote against it.
Now if the whole country does this tomorrow me have no budget, but are the general public so self centred and short sighted.

Honestly? Yes.

Think about it: we get to vote every five years or so, and we still vote self-centredly and short-sightedly. In the last election we voted for the government who created the property bubble and promised us it would last forever. Why do you trust the people who voted for an incompetent and venial government to vote competently and selflessly on the issues directly?

If I look at a budget I know it cannot be made simply to suit me. I have to look what is the best long term decision for me and the people important to me. Not only that the majority must also make the same decision for this decision to be accepted.

Now if the budget is rejected or it is decided by the people of Ireland or that actually this bank debt is not our debt then we can start (the people of Ireland) to figure out new solutions. That for me is Democracy.

It's democracy in its purest form, and it's completely unworkable.

Take a look at what you've proposed: we, the people, can figure out new solutions. How does that happen? Do you solicit five million opinions and try to achieve consensus between them? Not feasible. Instead, you could distill out a number of different perspectives that each seems to have a broad level of popular support, appoint representatives to champion each of those perspectives. You could gauge the relative support for each perspective by having people vote for the champions.

Can you see where this is going, and why?

I think the average Joe can make just as rational decisions as politician's (actually I think far more rational). He does not because he has no voice. When he has no say or voice he takes no interest. Politics as a spectator sport is not so interesting but if the average Joe knew he made a difference he would be far better versed in the issues.

The average Joe had a voice in the Lisbon referenda. There was a truly terrifying level of misinformation on both sides of that campaign (but much more on one than the other).

The average Joe didn't read the treaty. The average Joe voted one way or the other based on a hazy distillation of the combination of truth and lies he was bombarded with for weeks.

How many average Joes will familiarise themselves with the intricacies of the bond markets before making a decision on how Ireland should be financed for the next ten to fifteen years? How many of those average Joes will prioritise the long-term economic recovery of the country over their short-term (and very real) personal financial difficulties?

Sorry have not got the hang of putting in quotes.

[noparse] Put the bits you want quoted in quote tags

like this

, to get something [/noparse]

like this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bryanw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Try telling that to Vincent Browne!

Dorcha

Why can’t people read what I’ve written before commenting on it. ISAW thinks that my parents’ view of the present parties is my own view. Read it again, ISAW.


ISAW thinks I feel Labour are an exception to something, or other. I regard all parties as being motivated by the same reasons. Read it again, ISAW.


ISAW think that I think Bertie Ahern and Eamon Gilmore are examples of capitalism and socialism. I never made any such comparison. Read it again, ISAW.


ISAW wants to know what I mean by “corruption”. I mean anything that deviates from its original intent. What’s your definition, ISAW?


ISAW thinks I wrote “the natural law”, when I wrote “the natural state”. Read it again, ISAW.


ISAW asks what I meant by “human beings are not born perfect”. I meant that they didn’t have experience of life. I didn’t make myself clear there, ISAW. For that I apologise.

ISAW thinks I said that a republic is not a democracy. I never mentioned republics. And democracies are flawed to some extent. If they weren’t, I wouldn’t be trying to come up with something different. Read it again, ISAW.

ISAW thinks I wrote that a person only represents people who voted for him. Read it again, ISAW.


ISAW says “Your terminology is confused. It makes indirect representation difficult not impossible. And direct representation is always possible under law is locus standi is adhered to.” I’ll agree to a difference of opinion on this one. I see it different to the way you see it. Depending on the way we see it, we could both be right.


ISAW thinks that the number of ministries I gave as an example is the number I think exist in Ireland at the moment. Read it again ISAW.


ISAW thinks that I am proposing a parliament of four people. Read it again, ISAW.


ISAW appears to never have heard of transfers, although he thinks he understands PR. All right, I didn’t specifically say it, but the last seat – in the event of a tie -would be decided on the amount of transfers from the other candidates. I didn’t make myself crystal clear there. But I don’t claim that it’s a finished Job.


We are starting a new system here, ISAW, and there can’t be an independent judiciary until we create them. How do you suppose all those governing systems started. Just popped out of an Easter egg?


If you don’t take steps to keep the system pure, then it won’t remain pure. (Don‘t forget, by the way that this government is directly responsible to the people.)


At least you understand that I am still working on it. I’m not proposing to take over the world, or anything like that. I am just trying to work out a system that is as unjust as possible. As I have explained, I haven’t gone to all this trouble for fun; I’d much rather be writing fiction. I was asked many times what system I would like to see. This was my answer.

recedite

Dorcha, you might want to edit the second last line there above
Your ideas are interesting. I see three main differences to the existing system.
1. You dispense with the middle layer (the other Dail TDs). It is commonly assumed that these TDs will protect against a renegade/corrupt government. Government BTW is the collective authority of the group of ministers you describe, often referred to as "The Cabinet" in recent years for some reason, perhaps because people are then free to vilify an abstract notion (govt) rather than vilify each and every member personally(cabinet). Lets suppose these ministers tried to introduce bad legislation.
Under your system there is no safeguard. Under the current system, they would in theory be unable to pass the legislation because a Dail majority would be required. But in practice, the party whip is brought to bear, and the opposition is outvoted. So there is no compelling reason for having the rest of the Dail, it merely rubber stamps the govt wishes. Which brings us to point 2.

2. You propose to dispense with the party system.
There is no mention of parties in our constitution, or that of the USA, but they just appear spontaneously within large groups of representatives, purely to form a self interested voting block, as you say. In bypassing the Dail, you seem to succeed in bypassing that problem. But a Party or Interest Group could still exist on the ground, put forward a candidate, and if the person got elected, be a hostage to that interest group.

3. National Electoral List. Various List systems are used in other countries eg New Zealand is one, but normally to elect a whole assembly.
With your proposal, someone like Shane Ross would stand a good chance of being one of the govt. ministers, instead of just being an independent ranting from the opposition benches (which is probably what will happen to him). Conversely, Ivor Callely would find himself out of a job.
Not a bad result then, IMO.

Local Government would have to be strengthened and people would still vote for local councillors on local issues. These people are already elected directly, pretty much as you are proposing for national govt, but they are currently infected with the party mentality imposed by their bosses at Party HQ.

Dorcha

Thanks for your interesting analysis of my ideas, Recedite. I take your point that there is nothing in it to prevent a government so elected from declaring a dictatorship and abolishing the need to go back to an electorate. Back to the drawing-board!


I see now the error in the second-last line of my original post, but I am unable to change it, as it appears one is allowed only a few edits, and there also seems to be a time limit after which the edit button disappears.

I must be more careful in future. (But I always say that.)

recedite

Dorcha wrote: »

I take your point that there is nothing in it to prevent a government so elected from declaring a dictatorship and abolishing the need to go back to an electorate.

The Constitution prevents that. Any changes to a dictatorship would have to be approved by the people in a referendum. The Dail is no use for anything once the govt has a majority, which it has anyway by definition. Its very rare that a govt votes for an opposition bill, and only then because its something obvious and they are too lazy to draught their own.
Hitler was elected to power, and the assembly were unable to stop him becoming a dictator.
So your plans are still good. Healy Rae would be a county councillor under your system, where he belongs.

Belfast

Dorcha wrote: »

My family had always voted Labour and regarded the other two main parties with horror as being solely on the side of the rich and powerful. Their opinion was that Fianna Fail was a “Rich Man’s Party”, while Fine Gael was regarded as “The Farmer’s Party”. (A good neighbour of ours, a “big” farmer certainly campaigned for them.) But, as the years passed and I started to think for myself, I noticed that all political parties had one absolute thing in common: the good of the party always came first. The good of the country and the welfare of its people always came second in their considerations.

I could clearly see the reason for this. If it allowed its TDs to vote according to conscience – or according to private promises they had given their constituents – then the party faced the prospect of being split into factions with no guarantee of a united front against the other parties and a consequence danger of loosing power. Labour were a good example of how this could happen, because its TDs dissented with its leadership more than the other two and were a long way behind them in popular support.

Even so, I felt it was wrong that the parties that were supposed to serve the state were making their existence the sole reason for their existence, and putting it above the most urgent needs of the people. Rich people had a monopoly on their services and indeed most of the TDs themselves were wealthy. This led to a vicious circle: power attracted money and money bought power.

I looked at the only alternatives I knew about: socialism, and anarchy. Communism and Capitalism were just aspects of Socialism and Democracy, rather than political systems in their own right. Anarchy was too fragmented and focussed on individual groups and people, rather than on society as a whole. Socialism was not, surprisingly, that different to Democracy, except that it rejected people with personal wealth from a position of power. Both systems were supposed to be run by the people, but both suffered from the necessity of having a leader, or group of people, to run them, and do no other form of work. And, inevitably, this led to corruption.

People should be able to look after their own rights and interests - because they are best suited to doing so - but without infringing on other people’s rights and interests. I don’t think there are any “natural” laws, including moral ones, because in the natural state an individual’s “rights” and entitlements will obviously come before that of any other person. Human beings are not born perfect; they are capable of being moulded according to their environment and circumstances. Groups were formed to protect individuals who were not able to protect themselves individually. Groups joined groups with like-minded aims and thus became larger.

The largest example of a group at the moment is the European Union, composed of many separate nations, each containing their own groups, known as political parties. But the bigger the group becomes, the less the rights of individuals are considered. In times of intense personal pressure, groups tend to break up into their initial individual parts, sometimes - in extreme cases - to individual persons. The question is how to best protect the interests of the individual while at the same time, giving that person the protection of a group, and the answer, it seems to me, is individual democracy.

The type of system in place in most Western countries at the moment is Representative Democracy. That is, an individual represents the interests of a group of individuals, and should be responsible to that group alone. But if that individual becomes a member of a party, then the interests of the Party must come before the rights of the group that individual represents and thus makes Direct Representation impossible.

Then only way I can see out of this situation at the moment is to abolish parties altogether. To run the affairs of a country, a certain number of people, called ministers, are needed. Because an astronomical number of ministers are not needed to run a country, a list needs to be made out first for essential ministries. For example, those would include: Finance, Foreign, Trade and Social. I’m not an expert in this field, so let’s just assume there are only four. When an election is called, it is truly a national election, with no area especially represented. As many people as they wish put their names forward, and the other people vote on them, using Proportional Representation . In this case, the first four top names are elected to serve the country for – say four years. (In the event of a tie, those with the most first preferences will be elected.)

The elected people now get together to agree on the ministries. To get around the argument as to who does what, in the event of anyone being elected for a second term, the ministries will circulate, so that no one holds the same portfolio too long. The newly elected ministers then organize their departments and hire people to work in them. Guarantees to prevent abuse in the hiring of staff would be written into the constitution and reviewed every four years when a new government is formed. A key part of Individual Representation is that the ministers would be accountable directly to the electorate and if they were not perceived to be doing their jobs, would not be elected again.

That is as far as I have got with this idea at my present stage of my life. I have other things to do, of course, besides thinking up political systems; the present one was formulated originally to answer the question, when I complained too much: “Well, what would you do?

In America they have political parties, but do not have a party whip. So member of the house and senate are free to vote whatever they what on bill before them.
What you seem to be objecting to is the whip system.
I believe Charles Stewart Parallel invented the party whip system we use today.

I suggest that if no of the candidates were of liking of the elector there should be an option to vote none of the above.
if none of the above wins a seat.
There is a new election to fill that seat. None of the reject candidates are allowed to stand for that election.