In praise of the Irish system.

Rabble Rabble

There are constituencies in the UK where the same party has ruled for 100 years. In Ireland, even in a static election the last seat, or two, is up for grabs.

This election the churn in the Dail has been amazing, most constituencies changed their top vote getter, sometimes he didnt even come in 4th, and all had new candidates elected.

orourkeda

Or did the irish electorate engage their grey matter for a change?

InTheTrees

Its a beautiful thing to watch and so much more democratic than our neighbours way of doing it.

Lucifer_666

I keep hearing about it being so much "more democratic" than the other way but I don't see how people can say that
Whats so undemocratic about having one vote in which you decide on one person that you want elected...the people count up all the votes and those who get the most get the seats...simple...quick and fair There is no quota or multiple counts or ever lasting counts, just who gets the most wins as it should be!
I really do feel that there is a sense of superiority here with this...like us Irish have to flex our intelligence to the rest less enlightened cultures of the world and show them real democracy when in fact we have instead confused complexity for democracy...

Its a beautiful thing alright.....a beautiful waste of an extra day

loldog

It's made a TD out of Ming the Merciless. QED.

.

amacachi

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

I keep hearing about it being so much "more democratic" than the other way but I don't see how people can say that
Whats so undemocratic about having one vote in which you decide on one person that you want elected...the people count up all the votes and those who get the most get the seats...simple...quick and fair There is no quota or multiple counts or ever lasting counts, just who gets the most wins as it should be!
I really do feel that there is a sense of superiority here with this...like us Irish have to flex our intelligence to the rest less enlightened cultures of the world and show them real democracy when in fact we have instead confused complexity for democracy...

Its a beautiful thing alright.....a beautiful waste of an extra day

While the Irish system is far from perfect it's better than parties getting a majority with 40% of the vote.

Lucifer_666

lol its not all bad then still waiting though for that guy to arrive opening up his trench coat to shocked FFers ...if only there was a Freddy "The Flash" Gordon to go with Ming

d15ude

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There are constituencies in the UK where the same party has ruled for 100 years. In Ireland, even in a static election the last seat, or two, is up for grabs.

compared to the uk the irish system might be better.
compared to a few other european systems it is not!

Sibylla

The Irish system is better but still flawed, Fianna Fail had a monopoly on power for too long and basically did what they liked while lying to the electorate.
It's a good day for politics seeing them out.

Lucifer_666

amacachi wrote: »

While the Irish system is far from perfect it's better than parties getting a majority with 40% of the vote.

Is it?? and would that not be quite a rare thing to happen? besides for the past .....(er..forever) we have been voting in FF what difference would it make?

Blowfish

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

I keep hearing about it being so much "more democratic" than the other way but I don't see how people can say that
Whats so undemocratic about having one vote in which you decide on one person that you want elected...the people count up all the votes and those who get the most get the seats...simple...quick and fair There is no quota or multiple counts or ever lasting counts, just who gets the most wins as it should be!
I really do feel that there is a sense of superiority here with this...like us Irish have to flex our intelligence to the rest less enlightened cultures of the world and show them real democracy when in fact we have instead confused complexity for democracy...

Its a beautiful thing alright.....a beautiful waste of an extra day

The reasoning is simple. If you think about it, in your system if there are 10 people running and only 3 seats, anyone voting for the 7 candidates at the bottom have effectively wasted their votes and had zero influence on the electoral process. There would be little to no point in voting for anyone who wasn't almost certain to be elected.

If instead their votes are transferred as in Ireland, the votes for the bottom 7 candidates will still make a difference due to their second/third etc. choice, i.e. very few votes are wasted and pretty much everyones vote will actually make some sort of a difference.

swampgas

Blowfish wrote: »

The reasoning is simple. If you think about it, in your system if there are 10 people running and only 3 seats, anyone voting for the 7 candidates at the bottom have effectively wasted their votes and had zero influence on the electoral process. There would be little to no point in voting for anyone who wasn't almost certain to be elected.

If instead their votes are transferred as in Ireland, the votes for the bottom 7 candidates will still make a difference due to their second/third etc. choice, i.e. very few votes are wasted and pretty much everyones vote will actually make some sort of a difference.

+1

In fact the UK system makes it really hard for anyone to get elected except the two main parties. Many Lib Dem supporters have tended to vote Labour, rather than risk wasting their vote.

There may be better systems in Europe, but the UK system is definitely not one to aspire to; in fact in the UK there will be a referendum later this year on changing the system to AV.

A Dub in Glasgo

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

Is it?? and would that not be quite a rare thing to happen?

Rare? It happens most of the time. It is actually the common thing to happen!

loldog

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

Is it?? and would that not be quite a rare thing to happen? besides for the past .....(er..forever) we have been voting in FF what difference would it make?

Happens all the time in the UK. Take the 2005 UK General Election.

Labour got 35.2% of the votes and won 355 seats

Conservatives got 32.4% of the votes and 198 seats.

It's a grossly misrepresentative system.

.

Victor

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

I keep hearing about it being so much "more democratic" than the other way but I don't see how people can say that
Whats so undemocratic about having one vote in which you decide on one person that you want elected...the people count up all the votes and those who get the most get the seats...simple...quick and fair There is no quota or multiple counts or ever lasting counts, just who gets the most wins as it should be!

FPTP tends to create a two party parliament invariably with only the strongest party in any given place represented. The is only about 3 Independents in Westminster. Labour hold the cities, the Conservatives the English countryside, the LibDEms parts of Scotland and western England and the regional Welsh/Sottish/Northern Irish parties have strong control in small areas. The chance of a new or different party emerging is almost impossible.

I really do feel that there is a sense of superiority here with this...like us Irish have to flex our intelligence to the rest less enlightened cultures of the world and show them real democracy when in fact we have instead confused complexity for democracy...

Possibly, but you have to admit that the UK is moving towards PRSTV (regional and European elections) and possibly AV for general elections.

Scartbeg

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its a beautiful thing to watch and so much more democratic than our neighbours way of doing it.

So much more democratic, that we have three times more elected members pro-rata than our neighbours. In the UK there's one MP per 100,000 population, here its about one per 30,000.

I don't feel very democratic though when I only get to vote once every 5 years based on a loosely worded manifesto and the resulting government (who more than 60% of people didn't vote for) claim this as a mandate for everything they do. I may agree with party X on their economic measures, but not on stag hunting or energy policy. I can lobby my TD on issues, but they will be made to vote with the party.

I would like to see frequent referendums on issues of national interest, as in Switzerland where you need 100,000 votes to have a proposal put to the people.

Will be interesting to see what proposals for constitutional reform are put before the people in the next dail. To ask TDs to cut their numbers is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

loldog

Scartbeg wrote: »

So much more democratic, that we have three times more elected members pro-rata than our neighbours. In the UK there's one MP per 100,000 population, here its about one per 30,000.

I think it's good to have a sizeable number of members in the Dáil chamber, if you cut the numbers down too much it all gets a little too personal and cozy.

.

RachaelVO

Sibylla wrote: »

The Irish system is better but still flawed, Fianna Fail had a monopoly on power for too long and basically did what they liked while lying to the electorate.
It's a good day for politics seeing them out.

I don't think you can blame the system for FF staying in power, that would go to the people who voted for them. Same thing with the independents, look at Michael Lowry he's back in his seat, despite not having any for of a national agenda just a local one! FF stayed in power because the just put the number beside their candidates and they were elected. Simple

murphaph

I think the multi-seat constituencies that are required by PRSTV have led more or less directly to our economic ruin. Our TDs spend FAR too much time addressing highly local issues to "be seen to be doing great work in the community" to the detriment of their national responsibilities as law makers and watchdogs in Dail Eireann.

If a TD under our system is seen to neglect the constituency (by doing his or her job in Dail Eireann) they are usually crucified by the electorate in favour of twats who go around "securing planning permission" or a "replacement hip" for their constituents.

I would be in favour of ultimately replacing our system with a national party list where parliamentarians have NO LOCAL OBLIGATIONS (as in the Netherlands) and local things are left to county councillors.

The UK system is not one to aspire to as there is still a geographic link between MPs and constituencies IMO but I still prefer it over our multi seat constituencies.

ei.sdraob

orourkeda wrote: »

Or did the irish electorate engage their grey matter for a change?

I doubt it

Did you see whats happening in Galway West ( O'Cuiv + Grealish ) and East ( Kitt )

mikemac

murphaph wrote: »

I would be in favour of ultimately replacing our system with a national party list

So instead of voting for someone I know and respect, I'll be voting for party hack number 23 and I've never heard of them?

The list system is a way forward but you can see why people will have to be educated about it

murphaph

feelingstressed wrote: »

So instead of voting for someone I know and respect, I'll be voting for party hack number 23 and I've never heard of them?

The list system is a way forward but you can see why people will have to be educated about it

Yes I understand that people feel comfortable voting for someone they know, but it's people we know who have led us to the brink of economic extinction, so hopefully that will form the bulk of lesson 1 as to why a national list would be better for "Ireland" (while it may not be better for my particular small part of Ireland).

There is no way that a country can be effectively run by electing 166 independents. We pretty much all acknowledge that the effective running of a modern democracy requires politicians to band together in the form of parties in which the members have broadly similar outlooks.

Given that most of us accept that parties are required, then people should be voting on the national manifesto of these parties and nothing else.

I do think however that this election shows a mind shift here. People did take more interest in the national picture because they are finally realising that a poor or non-functioning Dail will result in there being no money available for that local parish hall roof etc.

IngazZagni

murphaph wrote: »

Yes I understand that people feel comfortable voting for someone they know, but it's people we know who have led us to the brink of economic extinction, so hopefully that will form the bulk of lesson 1 as to why a national list would be better for "Ireland" (while it may not be better for my particular small part of Ireland).

There is no way that a country can be effectively run by electing 166 independents. We pretty much all acknowledge that the effective running of a modern democracy requires politicians to band together in the form of parties in which the members have broadly similar outlooks.

Given that most of us accept that parties are required, then people should be voting on the national manifesto of these parties and nothing else.

I do think however that this election shows a mind shift here. People did take more interest in the national picture because they are finally realising that a poor or non-functioning Dail will result in there being no money available for that local parish hall roof etc.

While I do agree that there is a fair share of local issue first politicians, overall I completely disagree with you. I disagree that we should vote for manifesto first, candidate second. A party may have a great manifesto that you agree with but who knows, maybe the candidate is a complete loony who you know nothing about. With the current system I can vote for the manifesto and the candidate. In fact I can even walk down the road and go into the constituency office and maybe even talk to the candidate himself to find out if this candidate has a sound head and is he the right guy for the job. In a national system you can't do that..
Also either way, even with a national system, there will always be a tendency for a TD to get what's best for his home area and if we got TD's that are unevenly geographically spread then we end up with an uneven focus on certain areas creating its own issues.

Lucifer_666

I'm just going to throw this out there but Not every vote has to have some influence on the whole outcome,
If somebody voted for a candidate that ended up getting only a few votes well so be it....
Its also really hard to hear that apparently the Irish electoral system fends off misepresentation in the vote in other words we the electorate could have voted others in for years when FF and FG dictated our politicatical arena? Yeah right:rolleyes:

I don't see any difference in the UK Conservatives and UK Labour parties and FF and FG here both usually massive parties that are expected to win in elections
Also remember the Liberal Democrats are now in power with the Conservatives in ther UK because more people voted for them
in the last election
Besides I don't think there would be that much of a difference particularly in this election on the outcome had Ireland employed the UK electoral system instead
but it would have been a hell of alot faster

Victor

murphaph wrote: »

I think the multi-seat constituencies that are required by PRSTV

Multi-seat constituencies aren't obligatory, we could have single seat constituencies.

I would be in favour of ultimately replacing our system with a national party list where parliamentarians have NO LOCAL OBLIGATIONS (as in the Netherlands) and local things are left to county councillors.

The UK system is not one to aspire to as there is still a geographic link between MPs and constituencies IMO but I still prefer it over our multi seat constituencies.

The difference is that the power blance is very different in the UK. Health, policing and transport have much greater input from local government in the UK.

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

Also remember the Liberal Democrats are now in power with the Conservatives in ther UK because more people voted for them in the last election

Actually, the Liberal Democrats lost seats in last year's election.

Lucifer_666

Fair enough Victor but my point about them being also a viable possible alternative to the big two in the UK still stands......well they are as much a viable alternative as Labour is here in Ireland

swampgas

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

Fair enough Victor but my point about them being also a viable possible alternative to the big two in the UK still stands......well they are as much a viable alternative as Labour is here in Ireland

You must be joking.

In the Irish system, the number of TDs per party pretty much matches the percentage of votes cast by the electorate.

In the Irish system, the transferable vote means that smaller and new parties get seats that reflect the true level of support from the electorate.

In the UK system neither of these things is true.

The Lib Dems seem to be risking their entire political future on getting reform (AV) of the voting system. The Conservatives will fight it tooth and nail as it would prevent them ever getting a majority again. Labour have made noises in the past about supporting some sort of electoral reform but have as much to lose as the Tories. The reason the Lib Dems are prepared to risk so much to get this reform is that it will hugely increase the number of seats they would get in any future election.

The Irish and UK systems couldn't be more different, and the Irish one is (IMO) far far better.

Rabble Rabble

murphaph wrote: »

I think the multi-seat constituencies that are required by PRSTV have led more or less directly to our economic ruin. Our TDs spend FAR too much time addressing highly local issues to "be seen to be doing great work in the community" to the detriment of their national responsibilities as law makers and watchdogs in Dail Eireann.

If a TD under our system is seen to neglect the constituency (by doing his or her job in Dail Eireann) they are usually crucified by the electorate in favour of twats who go around "securing planning permission" or a "replacement hip" for their constituents.

I would be in favour of ultimately replacing our system with a national party list where parliamentarians have NO LOCAL OBLIGATIONS (as in the Netherlands) and local things are left to county councillors.

The UK system is not one to aspire to as there is still a geographic link between MPs and constituencies IMO but I still prefer it over our multi seat constituencies.

No democratic link to a constituency is not a real democracy. Also the list system can veer between radicalism very quickly. The rise of anti-immigration and anti-islamic parties in the list system countries being a case in point.

The problem with Irish "clientalism" is the size of the electorate per TD and the lack of local control. Reduce the Dail to 100 and allow local taxes, and you are done.

( All democracies have politicians who do something for their constituencies)

Rabble Rabble

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

I'm just going to throw this out there but Not every vote has to have some influence on the whole outcome,
If somebody voted for a candidate that ended up getting only a few votes well so be it....
Its also really hard to hear that apparently the Irish electoral system fends off misepresentation in the vote in other words we the electorate could have voted others in for years when FF and FG dictated our politicatical arena? Yeah right:rolleyes:

I don't see any difference in the UK Conservatives and UK Labour parties and FF and FG here both usually massive parties that are expected to win in elections
Also remember the Liberal Democrats are now in power with the Conservatives in ther UK because more people voted for them
in the last election
Besides I don't think there would be that much of a difference particularly in this election on the outcome had Ireland employed the UK electoral system instead
but it would have been a hell of alot faster

If Ireland had the UK system Fine Gael would probably be at 120 seats, most independents would not have been elected ( except Shane Ross), Labour would be 10 or less, and FF would be about 2.

Rabble Rabble

Scartbeg wrote: »

So much more democratic, that we have three times more elected members pro-rata than our neighbours. In the UK there's one MP per 100,000 population, here its about one per 30,000.

Um, yeah I suppose that would be more democratic.

I don't feel very democratic though when I only get to vote once every 5 years based on a loosely worded manifesto

You vote every five years ( like the UK) unless the government is brought down. I believe this Dail lasted 2, or so.

and the resulting government (who more than 60% of people didn't vote for) claim this as a mandate for everything they do. I may agree with party X on their economic measures, but not on stag hunting or energy policy. I can lobby my TD on issues, but they will be made to vote with the party.

That exact wording would apply with bells on, to the UK system. The coalition in Ireland will probably have the support of most of the electorate, in the UK that is almost never the case.

I would like to see frequent referendums on issues of national interest, as in Switzerland where you need 100,000 votes to have a proposal put to the people.

Ireland has a mechanism for that. Be careful what you wish for.

Will be interesting to see what proposals for constitutional re
form are put before the people in the next dail. To ask TDs to cut their numbers is a bit like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

True, and it would be opposed by independents too

People in favour of FPTP who dislike FF should realise that FF tried to get FPTP in the 60's. In a referendum. Then they would have guanranteed themselves full government for years, without even the Fitzgerald coalition intervening,

heyjude

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

Is it?? and would that not be quite a rare thing to happen? besides for the past .....(er..forever) we have been voting in FF what difference would it make?

We haven't been voting in Fianna Fail majorities, but Fianna Fail has always managed to find a smaller party(including Labour, the PDs and the Green Party) and/or group of independents that have been willing to form or support a Fianna Fail led government. If the smaller parties/independents refused to cooperate or if there weren't enough of them, then Fianna Fail would have been out of office years ago.

Sir Oxman

Lucifer_666 wrote: »

I'm just going to throw this out there but Not every vote has to have some influence on the whole outcome,
If somebody voted for a candidate that ended up getting only a few votes well so be it....
Its also really hard to hear that apparently the Irish electoral system fends off misepresentation in the vote in other words we the electorate could have voted others in for years when FF and FG dictated our politicatical arena? Yeah right:rolleyes:

I don't see any difference in the UK Conservatives and UK Labour parties and FF and FG here both usually massive parties that are expected to win in elections
Also remember the Liberal Democrats are now in power with the Conservatives in ther UK because more people voted for them
in the last election
Besides I don't think there would be that much of a difference particularly in this election on the outcome had Ireland employed the UK electoral system instead
but it would have been a hell of alot faster

What is the problem with the speed of the counting?
Generally, the people wait every five years to vote and your main complaint is that the result isn't known within a few hours.

murphaph

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

No democratic link to a constituency is not a real democracy. Also the list system can veer between radicalism very quickly. The rise of anti-immigration and anti-islamic parties in the list system countries being a case in point.

The problem with Irish "clientalism" is the size of the electorate per TD and the lack of local control. Reduce the Dail to 100 and allow local taxes, and you are done.

( All democracies have politicians who do something for their constituencies)

The Germans use a 5% rule. In Germany a party must receive 5% of the national vote to be eligible for a single seat in the Bundestag. I'd argue that it's easier in Ireland to elect a nut-job right wing Nazi than it is in Germany.

@Victor: You are technically correct but if there's only one seat under PRSTV then it's more commonly known as Instant Runoff (in the states) or Alternative Vote (UK). It is a special case of PRSTV but almost nobody would talk about PRSTV and not mean it in a multi-seat sense. If they mean single winner STV then they'll call it AV/Instant Runoff and not PRSTV which is why I made my point the way I did, apologies for any confusion.

My main issue is with muti-seat constituencies. If we dropped them and kept PR using the AV system it would be a huge step forward in my eyes. A further step forward would be a national list IMO.

K-9

Blowfish wrote: »

The reasoning is simple. If you think about it, in your system if there are 10 people running and only 3 seats, anyone voting for the 7 candidates at the bottom have effectively wasted their votes and had zero influence on the electoral process. There would be little to no point in voting for anyone who wasn't almost certain to be elected.

If instead their votes are transferred as in Ireland, the votes for the bottom 7 candidates will still make a difference due to their second/third etc. choice, i.e. very few votes are wasted and pretty much everyones vote will actually make some sort of a difference.

Exactly. If you use your vote wisely and strategically, it can be very sophisticated.

Under a single vote system your vote is wasted completely if your candidate loses. Under PR your vote keeps transferring so that your more preferable choices might get in.

Victor

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

You vote every five years ( like the UK) unless the government is brought down. I believe this Dail lasted 2, or so.

Um, 3 years and 9 months or so.

murphaph

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly. If you use your vote wisely and strategically, it can be very sophisticated.

Under a single vote system your vote is wasted completely if your candidate loses. Under PR your vote keeps transferring so that your more preferable choices might get in.

You mean under PRSTV. PR has many variations, most of which do not involve transferable votes.

We have to draw a line somewhere. Say a 5 seater and I'm not happy with any of the winners. Should we make it a 6 or 7 seater to allow "my guy" to get a seat?

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

We have to draw a line somewhere. Say a 5 seater and I'm not happy with any of the winners. Should we make it a 6 or 7 seater to allow "my guy" to get a seat?

Which is why you get a preference.

Fratton Fred

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There are constituencies in the UK where the same party has ruled for 100 years. In Ireland, even in a static election the last seat, or two, is up for grabs.

This election the churn in the Dail has been amazing, most constituencies changed their top vote getter, sometimes he didnt even come in 4th, and all had new candidates elected.

I think that says a lot more about fianna fail than it does the system to be honest.

I'm not a big fan of the UK system, but I'm not a big fan of the Irish one either. I don't like the scatter gun approach to voting. I think one person should have one vote.

I also think we have too many TDs. Why in earth do we need four in Dun Laoghaire?

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Which is why you get a preference.

Right. But we have to draw the line somewhere, so we draw it at a minimum of 3 in Ireland, but there will still be thousands of people in a constituency who didn't have any of those 3 on their ballot paper. Why not draw the line at 1 (with AV, not FPTP) TD per constituency? (I would prefer a national list, so no geographical constituency at all, like Holland).

You would still get a preference and your vote would not be "wasted" if your 1st preference was eliminated on the first count, but we'd only have one TD per constituency, with more constituents in it, hopefully reducing drastically the clientism that exists in Irish politics.

We had an issue with PP last year. Didn't get something we wanted. Got a text from a candidate in this GE about "seeing what he/she could do about it" after. This sort of codology needs to be knocked on the head and a first step would be to eliminate the "inner constituency competition" between TDs that wastes so much of their time (paid for by us!).

Rabble Rabble

murphaph wrote: »

Right. But we have to draw the line somewhere, so we draw it at a minimum of 3 in Ireland, but there will still be thousands of people in a constituency who didn't have any of those 3 on their ballot paper. Why not draw the line at 1 (with AV, not FPTP) TD per constituency? (I would prefer a national list, so no geographical constituency at all, like Holland).

You would still get a preference and your vote would not be "wasted" if your 1st preference was eliminated on the first count, but we'd only have one TD per constituency, with more constituents in it, hopefully reducing drastically the clientism that exists in Irish politics.

We had an issue with PP last year. Didn't get something we wanted. Got a text from a candidate in this GE about "seeing what he/she could do about it" after. This sort of codology needs to be knocked on the head and a first step would be to eliminate the "inner constituency competition" between TDs that wastes so much of their time (paid for by us!).

1) Obviously the higher the number of seats the more proportional the result. AV is barely proportional - a two seater is better. Think of some party getting 20% of the vote across all constituencies in an AV system, compared to STV with 5 seats.

2) I believe Australia ( one of the world's oldest and longest democracies in terms of universal suffrage) has one constituency with STV for the Senate.

3) The "codology" has nothing to do with the STV. Planning permission is already a local issue. not a national issue.

4) All English speaking democracies - to my knowledge - send representatives to the parliament. A list system is picked by the party - with pure list systems you just go and vote for one party - no hope of independents, or having a representative. The Westminster system is sending a representative to the parliament. Not having parties pick their own reps.

That is not going to happen.

I would reduce the number of TDs to 100 with 20 5 seaters, meanwhile strengthening local democracy. That'll do it.

Rabble Rabble

The Australian Senate STV system is interesting, actually. Candidates are grouped by party ( or technical group for some independents). And if you vote for the party the party's candidates are given your preferences in a pre-determined order ( visible on the election card).

Thats called above the line, because the parties are grouped in columns where you vote the party which is above a line - under the line the column has the name of the candidates in the pre-determined order.

If you dont vote above the line you vote by candidate ( below the line) but you have to choose all candidates in order, or you spoil your vote. (That seems ludicrous to me)

. Most people vote above the line. Independents sometime group by technical group ( where you can vote for the group - but the order has to be determined beforehand by the group). Others are in an ungrouped column - always the last column. There is no choice above the line for that so to vote for independents you have to vote all the way below the line.

Victor

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

I would reduce the number of TDs to 100 with 20 5 seaters, meanwhile strengthening local democracy. That'll do it.

That would possibly lead to some rather unwieldy constituencies - with a population of about 210,000 each. Connacht-Ulster would be 3 constituencies.