Why Doesn't Sinn Fein Attract Vote Transfers?

imme

Sorry, I know another SF thread.

But, it's an interesting question. It was posed by Vincent Brown during GE coverage on TV3 to Gerry Adams.
Gerry didn't really answer the question, well he is a politician I guess.

Maybe he didn't want to answer the question. Why doesn't SF attract vote transfers. Is it because of their political beliefs or something else.

McTigs

Sinn Fein are like Fianna Fail, you either love them or you hate them.

I hate them

Mongarra

I imagine it is because people who believe their election manifesto and leaflets will vote for them and the rest would not vote for them in a million years. There is no grey area.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Eh are you sure this is still the case? They surely didn't get 14 seat on first preferences

mike65

The Shinners will have been mildly transfer freindly between leftists and them but otherwise....the RTE election site might have some figures once the final flipping seats are filled.

I just had a look at David Cullinane in Waterford and his first preference vote of 5342 was increased to 6298 after 9 counts extra votes (his biggest transfer came from Seamus Ryan of Labour). Chris O'Leary in Cork South Central had a very similair % of transfers

dlofnep

Cullinane narrowly lost out because of transfers, but all of his transfers went to Halligan. Brady in Wicklow commanded over 10% of first preferences, but lost out to a Labour candidate with just over 7% of FP's.

I think transfers do hit Sinn Féin hard, but that seems to be changing. They could have potentially had 18 or 19 TD's if transfers went their way.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

OhNoYouDidn't

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which is 7 to 10 percent more than the Libertarian right's hardcore base...

looksee

Sinn Fein make nonsense policies about fiscal matters - I am sure that while I don't like SF, they are really not all that stupid. They can gain seats by making statements that they know full well they will not have to carry through.

If they continue to make gains watch the 'policies' get watered down. They have got seats on the basis of saying 'we will not pay all this money to Europe, we will keep it and give you free health and lots of jobs'. In five years time it will be too late to 'not pay it back'. They would have been in real trouble if they had got enough seats to actually make a difference.

Sand

They trade on their ultra-violent Provo credentials (quite literally), which probably helps them with the younger, vaguely nationalist male voters. But its a double edged sword. People havent forgotten about murders like Jean McConville, or Jerry McCabe or the murder of McCartney (and the intimidation of his family) or that SF activists were moonlighting as an IRA punishment squad and running a spy ring that was monitoring members of the Dail - and O'Snodaigh was campaigning for their release as prisoners of war.

Quite simply, Sinn Fein are not a typical political party. Most of their inner circle are northern Irish and were participating in a brutal series of terrorist atrocities and organised subversive criminality that might loosely be described as a campaign since the 1960s and their respect for this country, its people, its laws, its institutions and its servants are non-existent (see where Brian Hayes was called a "free state bastard" - betrays a certain partitionist mindset...).

Hence, Sinn Fein dont really attract transfers because their mixture of amorality, criminality and self-pity invokes stomach heaving nausea on the part of most Irish people who dont fall for the ultra-violent Provo credentials. Theyre marmite. Even Wolfe Tone would despise them "if I am rightly informed very great atrocities have been committed on both sides, but that does not at all diminish my regret; for a fair and open war I was prepared; if that has degenerated into a system of assassination, massacre, and plunder I do again most sincerely lament it".

maccored

if the new batch of SF tds can prove themselves as politicians, they will more than likely not have trouble getting transfers, or first preferences, in the next election, imo. Up to now, they've always had too small a voice in the dail to get anything across. They dont have a massive voice now, but its three times louder.

in saying that, if they dont prove themselves, then they'll lose a lot of support.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

They trade (........)sincerely lament it".

Yet the last 20 years have seen a growth in the vote both North and South. Obviously theres more than the one hole in your plot.

Sand

@Nodin

Yet the last 20 years have seen a growth in the vote both North and South. Obviously theres more than the one hole in your plot.

What plot?

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which is 7 to 10 percent more than the Libertarian right's hardcore base...

Which has nothing to do with this damn thread! Quit sniping at people because of their politics, someone's point stands on its own, it shouldn't matter who said it!

I'm getting extremely tired of your behaviour on here in this regard, consider this a formal warning.

nesf

dlofnep wrote: »

Cullinane narrowly lost out because of transfers, but all of his transfers went to Halligan. Brady in Wicklow commanded over 10% of first preferences, but lost out to a Labour candidate with just over 7% of FP's.

I think transfers do hit Sinn Féin hard, but that seems to be changing. They could have potentially had 18 or 19 TD's if transfers went their way.

A detailed breakdown of transfers would be fascinating. It's no surprise if hard left Independents and ULA etc transfer to SF (which they were doing) but the % they can reliably capture from Labour will be the difference between life and death for them in a lot of constituencies and it'll be interesting to see how well they did here. O'Leary in CSC for instance needed to pull 3-4% higher at least in FPs to stand a chance of taking that last seat with the way transfers go for SF at the moment and there just wasn't that kind of hard left vote in CSC. There was barely a Labour TD there until recently enough for quite a while. Which was weird given the very broad mix of "classes" you have across CSC.

chucken1

Im not trying to derail the thread. Quick question? Do the non elected have a choice how their votes are distributed? Or if not..how is it decided?

RDM_83 again

Friend from a political family (not sf) told me part of their problem is in the two county consitituancies they don't run a candidate from each county, so the miss out on having transfers from people who vote on more county lines (sorry not explaining this well)

prinz

chucken1 wrote: »

Im not trying to derail the thread. Quick question? Do the non elected have a choice how their votes are distributed? Or if not..how is it decided?

People who are eliminated, the votes get distributed according to the voters next preference. As for distributing surpluses, these are chosen randomly and distributed according to a voters next preference.

dlofnep

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Friend from a political family (not sf) told me part of their problem is in the two county consitituancies they don't run a candidate from each county, so the miss out on having transfers from people who vote on more county lines (sorry not explaining this well)

That happens also with places like Waterford, where the city & county constituencies don't transfer well. It very well may be a tactical problem, and one worth discussing.

c_man

I think they will fail to attract a wider transfer base until Adams and the 'old guard' are out of the party.

I welcome the rise of the likes of Pearse Doherty and the younger candidates in SF. I may disagree with their policies but at least it's only an issues based difference. I will never give a preference to a party with the likes of Adams, McGuinness and Ferris still in it.

sparkling sea

prinz wrote: »

People who are eliminated, the votes get distributed according to the voters next preference. As for distributing surpluses, these are chosen randomly and distributed according to a voters next preference.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many people beieive that surpluses are chosen randomly - how whould this be in any fair, democratic or equitible.

You have to ask why the PR-STV system because so few people understand how it works?

This site gives a full explaintion http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/Voting/PublicationsDocuments/FileDownLoad,1895,en.pdf

If someone is elected on the 1st count and have surplus votes, all their second preferences are counted. They are then divide up as a percentage of
the surplus and allocated to each selected candidate.

On end and remaining counts where surplus is needed to reach the quota, only the next preference of the surplus bundle go forward to be counted and allocated, and this process goes on and on and on.

sparkling sea

dlofnep wrote: »

That happens also with places like Waterford, where the city & county constituencies don't transfer well. It very well may be a tactical problem, and one worth discussing.

Wouldn't agree with this, the reason they don't attract transfers is because people don't want to vote for them, simple as.

dlofnep

sparkling sea wrote: »

Wouldn't agree with this, the reason they don't attract transfers is because people don't want to vote for them, simple as.

People are more inclined to vote for someone from their local constituency, rather than someone not from their constituency.

megafan

imme wrote: »

Sorry, I know another SF thread.

But, it's an interesting question. It was posed by Vincent Brown during GE coverage on TV3 to Gerry Adams.
Gerry didn't really answer the question, well he is a politician I guess.

Maybe he didn't want to answer the question. Why doesn't SF attract vote transfers. Is it because of their political beliefs or something else.

Eh.. Maybe... Jean Conville... Kneecapping.. Extortion & Murder for a few reasons:rolleyes: