RON for next General Election?

Sleepy

Since the political parties of Ireland consistently leave us in the position where election day is a matter of choosing the 'least worst option' on the ballot sheet, is it time to consider introducing the Student Politics concept of 'Re-open Nominations' in our General Elections?

If a constituency was being offered poor options by the parties this would then give them a mechanism to force the parties to offer better candidates for the second round of voting and, with any luck, gradually improve the standard of TD in this country.

Or am I giving the Irish electorate too much credit?

DrumSteve

Sleepy wrote: »

Since the political parties of Ireland consistently leave us in the position where election day is a matter of choosing the 'least worst option' on the ballot sheet, is it time to consider introducing the Student Politics concept of 'Re-open Nominations' in our General Elections?

If a constituency was being offered poor options by the parties this would then give them a mechanism to force the parties to offer better candidates for the second round of voting and, with any luck, gradually improve the standard of TD in this country.

Or am I giving the Irish electorate too much credit?

To be honest though student elections are just a popularity contest... nothin different than regular elections. also how do you judge if they are a better candidate? What would stop someone from waiting until the second round to put themselves forward?

And yes you are giving the electorate too much credit... Look at the people in there now.

Manach

Sounds a good idea, even though the logistics of holding a second poll might be tricky, the cost of having a poor elected legislator would be worse.

imme

Sleepy wrote: »

If a constituency was being offered poor options by the parties this would then give them a mechanism to force the parties to offer better candidates for the second round of voting and, with any luck, gradually improve the standard of TD in this country.

Or am I giving the Irish electorate too much credit?

where do you expect the ´new´candidates to come from?
are there ´top drawer´candidates waiting in the wings?

what a stupid thread.:o

Sleepy

Wow, intelligent contribution there imme.

My point is that the current average standard of TD is atrocious. However, given the Irish party system we have no mechanism to signal to the parties that we're unsatisfied with the candidates they're offering us through their selection processes other than voting for whoever we consider to be least offensive (or abstaining as so many voters do). A "None of the above" option would provide that mechanism and let us say we're not happy to vote for any of these shysters, find someone else that's not a crook / imbecile / such-and-such's nephew...

I'd have thought this could only lead to improved standards as we should be able to force the parties to at least attempt to select genuinely good candidates.

Cookie_Monster

IT should be part of certain elections, where there are limited numbers of candidates or only one. A better system however would be like Germany where you are not voting for a person but a party who simply select a decent person after, of course that would also fail over here due to cronyism etc

The last presidential "election" for example should have been McAleese or RON, not simply not held and completely undemocratic.

imme

Sleepy wrote: »

Wow, intelligent contribution there imme.

My point is that the current average standard of TD is atrocious. However, given the Irish party system we have no mechanism to signal to the parties that we're unsatisfied with the candidates they're offering us through their selection processes other than voting for whoever we consider to be least offensive (or abstaining as so many voters do). A "None of the above" option would provide that mechanism and let us say we're not happy to vote for any of these shysters, find someone else that's not a crook / imbecile / such-and-such's nephew...

I'd have thought this could only lead to improved standards as we should be able to force the parties to at least attempt to select genuinely good candidates.

if voters are not happy with the choice on offer it's too late when the ballot paper is in front of you. The election cannot be run again when one isn't happy with what's in front of them.

The time to get 'better' candidates (whatever they might be, or where ever they may come from) is before the election is even called).

If aperson isn't happy with the calibre of proposed candidates, the time to effect change is at selection time for the party involved.

Alternatively one should look to engage, by setting up a new party, or campaign etc.

It's too late when the ballot paper is in front of you, don't you think?

thebman

imme wrote: »

if voters are not happy with the choice on offer it's too late when the ballot paper is in front of you. The election cannot be run again when one isn't happy with what's in front of them.

The time to get 'better' candidates (whatever they might be, or where ever they may come from) is before the election is even called).

If aperson isn't happy with the calibre of proposed candidates, the time to effect change is at selection time for the party involved.

Alternatively one should look to engage, by setting up a new party, or campaign etc.

It's too late when the ballot paper is in front of you, don't you think?

A RON option would be equivalent to voting for none though and could give a good indication of the apathy at the choice of candidates among the people that care enough about politics to turn up but aren't happy with any of the choices.

This indication of support that is essentially up for grabs would be useful information for people thinking of starting parties and the existing parties as if this is a sizable percentage they can try to work out through survies afterwards why these people feel these way.

It also would put it on official record instead of spoiled votes and opinion polls being the only real indication at present of dis-satisfaction of candidates.

Sleepy

imme wrote: »

if voters are not happy with the choice on offer it's too late when the ballot paper is in front of you. The election cannot be run again when one isn't happy with what's in front of them.

The time to get 'better' candidates (whatever they might be, or where ever they may come from) is before the election is even called).

If aperson isn't happy with the calibre of proposed candidates, the time to effect change is at selection time for the party involved.

Alternatively one should look to engage, by setting up a new party, or campaign etc.

It's too late when the ballot paper is in front of you, don't you think?

What you propose would require every voter in the country to be involved at a party level.

This, for better or worse, will never happen.

ninty9er

RON is not a candidate in all 3rd level institutions. He exists:D mainly the more politicised ones and this results in negative campaigns. He also ends up costing the organisation more as elections don't come cheap.

We don't have RON in UL and frequently have unopposed individuals deemed elected at close of nominations. This is more prevalent in part-time positions, though our current VP Education is an unopposed candidate and 2 years ago 3 of 5 full-time officers were unopposed. They do however have to be ratified by an AGM.

sparkling sea

thebman wrote: »

A RON option would be equivalent to voting for none though and could give a good indication of the apathy at the choice of candidates among the people that care enough about politics to turn up but aren't happy with any of the choices.

This indication of support that is essentially up for grabs would be useful information for people thinking of starting parties and the existing parties as if this is a sizable percentage they can try to work out through survies afterwards why these people feel these way.

It also would put it on official record instead of spoiled votes and opinion polls being the only real indication at present of dis-satisfaction of candidates.

It sounds like a good idea, but the clique within the parties would still decided who goes forward - would this method really allow for better candidates. I think it would more then likely be same problems as we have now.

Its the political culture that's the problem.

thebman

sparkling sea wrote: »

It sounds like a good idea, but the clique within the parties would still decided who goes forward - would this method really allow for better candidates. I think it would more then likely be same problems as we have now.

Its the political culture that's the problem.

Well if existing parties don't want the marketshare then new parties will form.

Its essentially free market principles applied to politics. If there is a visible cap in the market, someone will fill it.

The existing political structure can't stop new parties forming or stop them becoming popular through having policies people want. The problem is new and existing parties are failing to produce the policies people want or failing to communicate them to the people.

sparkling sea

thebman wrote: »

Well if existing parties don't want the marketshare then new parties will form.

Its essentially free market principles applied to politics. If there is a visible cap in the market, someone will fill it.

The existing political structure can't stop new parties forming or stop them becoming popular through having policies people want. The problem is new and existing parties are failing to produce the policies people want or failing to communicate them to the people.

Why do you think existing parties don't was the market share?

There is a cost attached to setting up a new party - only people from certain socioeconomic backrounds can realistically do this - however these people are in the main catered for by existing parties and/ or cronyism so why would they bother.

I suppose the criminal classes could also go down this route but as they operate outside the rule of law, why would they bother?