Independent's in the general election..Why?.

arybvtcw0eolkf

From the offset I'll confess to being a political dope - haven't a breeze!.

So I was wondering, why are independent's allowed run in the general elections when at best (to me) they're only interested in local issues and at worse will hold a weak party to random (Lowery & Healy Rea) and damage the country further.

Don' eat me, its an honest question.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Thanks, so I guess in light of knowing that now I'll ask - does it make sense to have independents run in the general election?.

Mongarra

It probably makes sense for them to run if they are not, and do not want to be, members of a recognised party and are dissatisfied enough with the established parties' policies.

However, whether it makes sense to vote for them is another matter. Unless they can form an alliance with other like-minded independents, in which case they will become something akin to a party, they will have little or no influence (with the OP's point about Lowry and Healy-Rea taken where there is a government with a small or no majority).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pete_Cavan

I started a thread a few weeks ago about independents but didnt get any response on it. Anyway here was my OP;

What effect can independent TDs have? Independents are generally (although not exclusively) single issue candidates or gombeens. It is very unlikely that independents will form part of a government, and even if they do, they will be such a small part of that government that they will have little or no influence. There are a lot of independents running in this election and there is quite a lot of support for independents in general with a good chance a record number will be elected. There seems to be a strong chance the next government will be made up of a FG/Lab coalition. This coalition would be very strong and would not need any independents. It is quite likely we will have as many as 20 independents, many (if not all) of whom may not even be able to speak in the Dail.

In order to gain full speaking rights, a group of independents and/or small party(s) have to join together and form a Technical Group*. Without full speaking rights, what is the point in them being there? It would be interesting to see how many people who plan to vote for independents are aware that the person they elect to represent them may not even have the oppertunity to speak in the Dail. And how many people would vote for an independent if they knew this fact?

Should independent candidates be forced formed such a Technical Group before being allowed to run for election in order to ensure that the people who elected them at least have a voice in the Dail? Is it not a bit dishonest to run for election based on the promise of bringing about change and offering something different when you may have zero influence at all?

That was a bit long-winded but in a nutshell, my question if two fold;

1. What effect can independents have on their own and is it worth having them
2. Would independents be more effective if they were forced to from a Technical Group before they are even allowed to put themselves up for election

*The Technical Group would be different from a party because the members of that group would not necessarily be bound by a party whip.