Constituencies based on voters rather than population

johnnyskeleton

This is undoubtedly a crazy idea but I'm in the mood for a crazy idea. It may also be contrary to a strict interpretation of representative democracy, although the reality of representative democracy doesn't exactly produce the best results either.

It's also in response to the suggestion that voting should be mandatory.

Would it make sense to base constituencies around the average level of voter turnout + newly registered voters rather than on population.

i.e. an area that has more people engaged with politics will have more seats.

As things stand, you can have a constituency where there is a lot of voter apathy, so the people who do vote in these areas will have more influence against a constituency where there is a high voter turnout.

It would also mean that there is also an incentive on politicians to get people to go out and vote, and there is also an incentive on people to vote themselves if they do wish to see a change.

As against this is the risk of possible ghettoisation of certain areas. However, that is already happening. As per figure 4 of this UCD research paper, http://www.ucd.ie/dempart/workingpapers/ireland.pdf , there is a higher voter turnout in rural areas than in urban areas.

My take on this, and I'm open to differring views, is that this has caused the rural focus of most parties. They know that in the cities there is a lot of apathy and that FF/FG will be viewed by city people as more or less the same. Therefore the big battleground is in relation to rural issues. But the majority of people in Ireland live in urban areas.

This, together with making fewer, larger constituencies, having voting on saturdays and perhaps even reducing the number of TDs (I know, I know) could be a step towards making Irish democracy fairer and more national based rather than local based.

Of course it could backfire, and the greater emphasis on active voters might concentrate power in places where parish pump politics is strong. However, it may be worth exploring at least, especially considering that we have one of the lowest voter turnout ratios in Europe.

the groutch

sounds like a good idea, might get more people out voting in the likes of Dublin Central if they faced the threat of being reduced to a 3 seater

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My take on this, and I'm open to differring views, is that this has caused the rural focus of most parties. They know that in the cities there is a lot of apathy and that FF/FG will be viewed by city people as more or less the same. Therefore the big battleground is in relation to rural issues. But the majority of people in Ireland live in urban areas.

I was always of the opinion that the tendency of a lot of rural people to be die-hard Fine Gael or Fianna Fail members discouraged governments from caring much about those areas because there were only so may voters that could swing either way.

Overheal

Should you also assign 3 teachers to a class of 10 attentive, bright, and intelligent students, and 1 teacher to a class of 50 full of checked-out chancers and C-average children?

Einhard

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is undoubtedly a crazy idea but I'm in the mood for a crazy idea. It may also be contrary to a strict interpretation of representative democracy, although the reality of representative democracy doesn't exactly produce the best results either.

It's also in response to the suggestion that voting should be mandatory.

Would it make sense to base constituencies around the average level of voter turnout + newly registered voters rather than on population.

i.e. an area that has more people engaged with politics will have more seats.

As things stand, you can have a constituency where there is a lot of voter apathy, so the people who do vote in these areas will have more influence against a constituency where there is a high voter turnout.

It would also mean that there is also an incentive on politicians to get people to go out and vote, and there is also an incentive on people to vote themselves if they do wish to see a change.

As against this is the risk of possible ghettoisation of certain areas. However, that is already happening. As per figure 4 of this UCD research paper, http://www.ucd.ie/dempart/workingpapers/ireland.pdf , there is a higher voter turnout in rural areas than in urban areas.

My take on this, and I'm open to differring views, is that this has caused the rural focus of most parties. They know that in the cities there is a lot of apathy and that FF/FG will be viewed by city people as more or less the same. Therefore the big battleground is in relation to rural issues. But the majority of people in Ireland live in urban areas.

This, together with making fewer, larger constituencies, having voting on saturdays and perhaps even reducing the number of TDs (I know, I know) could be a step towards making Irish democracy fairer and more national based rather than local based.

Of course it could backfire, and the greater emphasis on active voters might concentrate power in places where parish pump politics is strong. However, it may be worth exploring at least, especially considering that we have one of the lowest voter turnout ratios in Europe.

But wouldn't it effectively mean disenfranchising the population. Say, for example, I, in line with my neighbours, were apathetic and never voted, thus having the representation of my constituency reduced. In light of that, I decide that apathy is no longer an option, and decide to become more involved, and to vote whenever I get a chance. As do my neighbours. As far as I can see from your suggestion, there would be no way to take this new surge in voter engagement into account because the newly enthused voters wouldn't have their voices heard.

Also, if rural voters are less patahetic than their urban counterparts, basing constituencies on voter engagement will only lead to an increased focus on those rural areas. Which I think would be contrary to your aims in proposing this? Maybe I'm missing something though.