30% of political candidates must be female....

CDfm

amacachi wrote: »

Another funny thing is that certainly Labour, and I've heard murmurings about other parties, seem to jump at a chance at a woman candidate when they can, so opportunities, as far as I can tell aren't limited, despite that being what this is meant to be opening up.

are you implying that Ivana may be elected if she was looked at as a woman rather than a radical.

Shall we see more of Joan Burton style allegations

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056206708

amacachi

CDfm wrote: »

are you implying that Ivana may be elected if she was looked at as a woman rather than a radical.

Shall we see more of Joan Burton style allegations

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056206708

That wasn't what I was suggesting, though I agree with the sentiment. I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just that the parties seem to be happy to put women candidates up when possible.

CDfm

amacachi wrote: »

That wasn't what I was suggesting, though I agree with the sentiment. I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, just that the parties seem to be happy to put women candidates up when possible.

When you look at the smaller parties take the -Greens for instance- with less available activists and support they will not have the candidate pool and could suffer financially from it. #

It seems to me like the established parties are up to something.

The_Conductor

I'm against this proposal- on a matter of principle. I do not believe that there should be quotas for any special interest groups, fullstop.

If there is a perceived lack of women running for election- perhaps a better course of action would be to look at countries where there are far higher participation rates among women- such as the Scandinavian countries for examples. What is the driving factor that encourages a much higher participation rate among women there- both in politics but also in the workforce in general- its the provision of universal state sponsored childcare facilities. It would make far more sense to convert a chunk (or even all) of the current children's benefit into the direct provision of childcare along with a guarantee of a decent meal every day- than to simply hand over EUR140 a month for people to spend as they wish.

In any event- the big issue in this country for women (and men with children) is that even where childcare facilities do exist- they are prohibitively expensive, and an active incentive to have one parent volunteer to opt out of the workforce to take care of children (increasingly this is men- given employment opportunities for women are paradoxically twice as good as for men for the first time ever (according to the ESRI).

Another argument against all of this- is EU legislation. Insurance companies can no longer positively discriminate in favour of women drivers, nor pension providors in favour of men (who live on average almost 4 years less than women). How will a distortion such as this sit in gender neutral EU discrimination law?

We need to look at the root causes behind fewer women participating in politics (and other professions) and tackle those.

As a total aside- almost 80% of GPs who qualify in any given year are women- and within 10 years, almost half of these opt out of practising (presumably in order to raise a family and because of the perceived unfriendly hours involved in the job). We now have the second lowest number of GPs per head of population in the EU- and are even trying to persuade Cuba to send GPs here........ If the core reasons women aren't going into politics are the same reasons they are deserting medical posts- we would be killing two birds with the one stone- and doing a massive service to everyone in the country- both men and women- were we to tackle to underlying reasons which act as a disincentive to enter politics (or to leave any other profession)

parker kent

amacachi wrote: »

I would agree somewhat with the lack of interest in politics, or at least the type of interest. Obviously there's not going to be a study funded by someone against quotas to support such a viewpoint. :pac:

Another funny thing is that certainly Labour, and I've heard murmurings about other parties, seem to jump at a chance at a woman candidate when they can, so opportunities, as far as I can tell aren't limited, despite that being what this is meant to be opening up.

Why exactly would Irish women be particularly uninterested in politics? What makes Irish women so different to other countries with a far, far higher participation rate. I simply don't agree there is a lack of interest. Like we said last night, women get involved with politics in universities. They don't just suddenly lose that interest.

We have cultural and societal issues which lead to women not getting involved. A post doctorate could be done on the reasons so I'm not going to be able to cover them all here. This proposal is not going to be the silver bullet that ends all that, but maybe it will begin to get greater participation levels. I have no issue with short term schemes aimed at getting certain groups involved in important areas. It is no different in my view to access courses helping disadvantaged kids get into university.

CDfm

parker kent wrote: »

Like we said last night, women get involved with politics in universities. They don't just suddenly lose that interest.

And the Womens Movement is not a very effective and powerful political lobby group

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

And the Womens Movement is not a very effective and powerful political lobby group

Bit of a difference in being a lobby group and being the group that is being lobbied (i.e the government). I'm talking about women staying involved in running for office.

CDfm

parker kent wrote: »

Bit of a difference in being a lobby group and being the group that is being lobbied (i.e the government). I'm talking about women staying involved in running for office.

I posted earlier that John Bruton alleges that the real power is exercised by the civil servants "who use the Dail and Seanad to validate their rule"

An ex-taoiseach said that.

It is a bit different because they can be effective enough to get their policies adopted without going for election.

I reckon a lot of people know our theory of goverment but do not understand our system of government and how it works.

Annasopra

smccarrick wrote: »

I'm against this proposal- on a matter of principle. I do not believe that there should be quotas for any special interest groups, fullstop.

If there is a perceived lack of women running for election- perhaps a better course of action would be to look at countries where there are far higher participation rates among women- such as the Scandinavian countries for examples. What is the driving factor that encourages a much higher participation rate among women there- both in politics but also in the workforce in general- its the provision of universal state sponsored childcare facilities. It would make far more sense to convert a chunk (or even all) of the current children's benefit into the direct provision of childcare along with a guarantee of a decent meal every day- than to simply hand over EUR140 a month for people to spend as they wish.

In any event- the big issue in this country for women (and men with children) is that even where childcare facilities do exist- they are prohibitively expensive, and an active incentive to have one parent volunteer to opt out of the workforce to take care of children (increasingly this is men- given employment opportunities for women are paradoxically twice as good as for men for the first time ever (according to the ESRI).

Another argument against all of this- is EU legislation. Insurance companies can no longer positively discriminate in favour of women drivers, nor pension providors in favour of men (who live on average almost 4 years less than women). How will a distortion such as this sit in gender neutral EU discrimination law?

We need to look at the root causes behind fewer women participating in politics (and other professions) and tackle those.

Firstly the Scandinavian countries all have quotas - voluntarily decided by the parties but they have them nonetheless. Do you have any evidence that childcare is the main driving factor behind women entering politics in Scandinavian countries?

I would agree that childcare is a major issue in this country especially when 99% of those who care in the home are women but isn't it a tad ironic that it's men who have ignored the issues?

With regard to whether quotas would be against EU laws I doubt it given that most EU countries have some form of quota

The root causes?

Well some of the root causes that Ivana Bacik has suggested are; Cash, Culture, Childcare, Connections and Candidate Selection Procedures.

Cash; women earn less and so would find it difficult to fund a campaign
Culture; the parties are dominated in membership by men - it's not general a welcoming atmosphere for women
Childcare; the political lifestyle would b e particularly difficult for any young mother but there does need to be a reforming as well so that it isn't always assumed that childcare is for women
Connections; Men build up networks through various different ways e.g. in sport clubs
Candidate Selection Procedures; again these tend to be designed in ways that they are dominated by men and designed to suit men

parker kent

CDfm wrote: »

I posted earlier that John Bruton alleges that the real power is exercised by the civil servants "who use the Dail and Seanad to validate their rule"

An ex-taoiseach said that.

It is a bit different because they can be effective enough to get their policies adopted without going for election.

I reckon a lot of people know our theory of goverment but do not understand our system of government and how it works.

I know perfectly well how it works. But the civil service is not the topic of debate here.

These issues here are pretty much what I have been talking about in this thread:

Cash, Culture, Childcare, Connections and Candidate Selection Procedures.

CDfm

parker kent wrote: »

I know perfectly well how it works. But the civil service is not the topic of debate here.

I agree but if you are talking about making government more democratic and responsive to the people you should talk about the lot.

@johnnymcg

and the powerful womens movement -what can you do ban or cease funding it to force women to engage in elected politics ?

Annasopra

CDfm wrote: »

I agree but if you are talking about making government more democratic and responsive to the people you should talk about the lot.

@johnnymcg

and the powerful womens movement -what can you do ban or cease funding it to force women to engage in elected politics ?

What? I don't really know what you're asking me?

CDfm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

What? I don't really know what you're asking me?

As a Wicklow man you should be well versed in electoral shenanigans.

You raised the points of Baciks report.

If men are so effectively represented family law should not be the way it is and other issues like mens health may get a look in .

Care to comment .

The_Conductor

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Firstly the Scandinavian countries all have quotas - voluntarily decided by the parties but they have them nonetheless. Do you have any evidence that childcare is the main driving factor behind women entering politics in Scandinavian countries?

No they don't.
Sweden abolished political quotas some time ago- and as of the 1st of April has abolished university quotas which favoured women (they are currently being sued in Europe over this).

I do not have any evidence that childcare is the main driving force behind women entering politics in Scandinavian countries- however the countries where men and women can share maternity/paternity leave, and have access to childcare have far higher participation rates than those that don't (Sweden versus Norway/Finland as my example).

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I would agree that childcare is a major issue in this country especially when 99% of those who care in the home are women but isn't it a tad ironic that it's men who have ignored the issues?

Childcare by men is a fast growing phenomena- particularly in light of the fact that while new unemployment is around 9.8% for women- its just over 20% for men. Its a simple fact- the nature of unemployment in this country is now favouring women as the sole bread earners, in increasing numbers. Its estimated that there are over 120,000 (and increasing as both an absolute and also a percentage on a daily basis) men who are electing to be the stay at home parent- these figures get conveniently ignored by the feminist lobby.

The lack of affordable childcare- is an impediment to both men and women taking lower paid jobs out of the home (totally aside from our skewed social welfare system which rewards women having as many children as possible- while simultaneously doesn't chase men for maintenance as happens in other countries).

Johnnymcg wrote: »

With regard to whether quotas would be against EU laws I doubt it given that most EU countries have some form of quota

Recent rulings have allowed that discrimination to favour equal numbers of both gender is allowable, while discriminatory actions which favour equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender- are not (this is partially as a result of test cases taken by university applicants in Sweden where there was a set quota for men on medicine and veterinary science courses, because of a recognition that women were far more likely not to practice after qualifying).

Johnnymcg wrote: »

The root causes?

Well some of the root causes that Ivana Bacik has suggested are; Cash, Culture, Childcare, Connections and Candidate Selection Procedures.

Cash; women earn less and so would find it difficult to fund a campaign
Culture; the parties are dominated in membership by men - it's not general a welcoming atmosphere for women
Childcare; the political lifestyle would b e particularly difficult for any young mother but there does need to be a reforming as well so that it isn't always assumed that childcare is for women
Connections; Men build up networks through various different ways e.g. in sport clubs
Candidate Selection Procedures; again these tend to be designed in ways that they are dominated by men and designed to suit men

Ivana Bacik's cash/culture/childcare/connections and candidate selection procedures- are one part of the equation. The nature of the job- is an entirely different aspect of the equation. Women who do enter politics- akin to the manner in which they leave the medical profession, cease to practice veterinary science etc- are far more likely not put themselves forward for selection than are identically qualified men.

Politics in this country is a major reason our economy is in the dire straits we're currently in- we can't afford to practice parish pump politics, it has bankrupted us- as surely as the gombeens who haven't a clue what they're up to. A list system- where applicants were ranked solely on merit, but with equal numbers of both genders- where people are voting for a party- or an independent panel, and not a specific person- seems to me to be the way to go........ You don't need any qualifications whatsoever to be a politician- and indeed, many of them have no useful qualifications whatsoever- this is far more serious than anything else in my eyes.

parker kent

smccarrick wrote: »

No they don't.
Sweden abolished political quotas some time ago- and as of the 1st of April has abolished university quotas which favoured women (they are currently being sued in Europe over this).

In order to abolish quotas, you must have them to begin with. They abolished them as they were successful and no longer necessary. Much like we will do if/when they are successful.

The_Conductor

parker kent wrote: »

In order to abolish quotas, you must have them to begin with. They abolished them as they were successful and no longer necessary. Much like we will do if/when they are successful.

They abolished them- because cases were taken to the EU by disgruntled prospective candidates who were quite cheerfully told that the only reason they weren't on the ticket- was because a lesser qualified but member of the opposite sex, was needed to bring them up to their predefined quota (40%). In Sweden's case- the same legislation governed admittance to university places (min of 40% of both sexes) as did the number of candidates on electoral lists. It was feminist groups who appealed the legislation to Europe- on the basis they were being unfairly excluded from certain university courses (all the test cases (4) were veterinary medicine) in order to allow a man with lower qualifications take a place towards their 40% quota.........

The abolition of the electoral quota, as it was based on the same legislation, was an unintended consequence of this action- however the ruling from Europe in the interim- was in fact that they could have quotas based on numbers- but not on pay/qualifications etc.......

parker kent

smccarrick wrote: »

They abolished them- because cases were taken to the EU by disgruntled prospective candidates who were quite cheerfully told that the only reason they weren't on the ticket- was because a lesser qualified but member of the opposite sex, was needed to bring them up to their predefined quota (40%).

Any quota will lead to cases such as those. That people of either sex challenged such laws does not necessarily prove that they were not working. Expect people with a vested interest to challenge them. It is not different to people complaining in Irish universities about places being given to access students or fee paying international students. You can't judge a system based on disgruntled people. Sometimes to correct a fault in society, there will be people who are just unlucky and lose out. That does not mean that the wider purpose of such a scheme is incorrect.

deirdre_dub

jobyrne30 wrote: »

As far as I can see there has been lip service and no real effort to find out why women are not involved in politics to the extent males are.

Indeed - the political parties have had pretty much no motivation to find out the reasons behind the lesser involvement of women. Hopefully this law will provide them with that motivation

I was thinking more from the public perspective ... the public want the best person for the job not the best female.

Indeed - the systematic lack of involvement of women has, I believe, meant that the public has lost out in terms of having good people in the job.

deirdre_dub

Galvasean wrote: »

Do you honestly think political parties would shoot themselves in the foot by intentionaly selecting bad candidates just to spite women?

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No offense, but that is some serious tinfoil hat stylings right there.

I was responding to this -

jobyrne30 wrote: »

If this is brought in women in politics will be viewed by many as being involved in politics not because they where the right or best person for the job but because some fudged up legal requirement has placed them there without any regard for merit.

As jobyrne says, there are possibly some political parties who would have women candidates "without any regard for merit". And, whereas I agree that it would be stupid, ridiculous, immoral, counterproductive, and even unlikely, I also cannot but say that jobyrne may have a point. And the only reason I can think of why a politicial party would put in place female candidates "without any regard for merit" would be to discredit them.

Galvasean wrote:

As implied by another poster already, that is some serious conspiracy theory BS right there.

Galvasean - I'm confused. On the one hand, you thanked jobyrne for his post, but on the other, when I agree with what jobyrne says, you say that it is "serious conspiracy theory BS". What gives?

Annasopra

smccarrick wrote: »

No they don't.
Sweden abolished political quotas some time ago- and as of the 1st of April has abolished university quotas which favoured women (they are currently being sued in Europe over this).

Table 4. Types of electoral gender quotas applied to national elections in the EU

Legislative quotas: Belgium, Spain, Portugal, France, Slovenia

Voluntary Party quotas: Sweden, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Greece, Romania, Hungary, Malta

No quotas: Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Slovakia, Cyprus, Ireland
Note: Countries with party quotas are those where at least one of the three largest political parties has adopted a gender quota system within the party statutes.

Well according to this 2009 report they have party quotas
http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=2052&langId=en

smccarrick wrote: »

I do not have any evidence that childcare is the main driving force behind women entering politics in Scandinavian countries- however the countries where men and women can share maternity/paternity leave, and have access to childcare have far higher participation rates than those that don't (Sweden versus Norway/Finland as my example).

Childcare by men is a fast growing phenomena- particularly in light of the fact that while new unemployment is around 9.8% for women- its just over 20% for men. Its a simple fact- the nature of unemployment in this country is now favouring women as the sole bread earners, in increasing numbers. Its estimated that there are over 120,000 (and increasing as both an absolute and also a percentage on a daily basis) men who are electing to be the stay at home parent- these figures get conveniently ignored by the feminist lobby.

The lack of affordable childcare- is an impediment to both men and women taking lower paid jobs out of the home (totally aside from our skewed social welfare system which rewards women having as many children as possible- while simultaneously doesn't chase men for maintenance as happens in other countries).

I agree with you that childcare is a major issue for women but I don't think that women in Scandinavian countries mainly entered politics because of accessible and affordable childcare. In fact I would wonder is this a chicken and egg situation - did women enter politics because of improved childcare or did childcare improve because more women entered politics?

smccarrick wrote: »

Recent rulings have allowed that discrimination to favour equal numbers of both gender is allowable, while discriminatory actions which favour equal rights and opportunities regardless of gender- are not (this is partially as a result of test cases taken by university applicants in Sweden where there was a set quota for men on medicine and veterinary science courses, because of a recognition that women were far more likely not to practice after qualifying).

I just think that given that 19 of the EU 27 countries have some form of Quota that the EU is not likely to rule it out in Ireland.

smccarrick wrote: »

Ivana Bacik's cash/culture/childcare/connections and candidate selection procedures- are one part of the equation. The nature of the job- is an entirely different aspect of the equation. Women who do enter politics- akin to the manner in which they leave the medical profession, cease to practice veterinary science etc- are far more likely not put themselves forward for selection than are identically qualified men.

Politics in this country is a major reason our economy is in the dire straits we're currently in- we can't afford to practice parish pump politics, it has bankrupted us- as surely as the gombeens who haven't a clue what they're up to. A list system- where applicants were ranked solely on merit, but with equal numbers of both genders- where people are voting for a party- or an independent panel, and not a specific person- seems to me to be the way to go........ You don't need any qualifications whatsoever to be a politician- and indeed, many of them have no useful qualifications whatsoever- this is far more serious than anything else in my eyes.

I agree that the 5 Cs is part of a broad range of problems women who get involved in politics but this elitism where we seem to be suggesting that all of our politicians should be experts or professionals really annoys me. It is just that elitist. If we always had that attitude the world could have missed out on some amazing politicians such as Nye Bevan in the UK - the architect of the NHS

The_Conductor

Its not elitist to suggest that we need politicians who are capable of governing the country and act in the best interests of the country. Our current system means you Johnny TD acting in the best interests of Seanie from Connemara- not in the best interests of the country as a whole. This parochial politics- where representatives are beholden to their immediate constituents, to the detriment of the country as a whole- sure is an arseways to govern a country (any country).

Regarding the number of countries with quotas for women- by my reckoning its actually 14 of the 27- not 19- its been overturned in a few countries recently (most recently only this April in Sweden- I'm more familiar with the generalities of the Swedish system, than I would be the French/German etc). I think that doc you're quoting is from a few years ago (I can't get it to download unfortunately).

We need far fewer politicans than we have, they have to represent Ireland as a whole- not Deirdre from Bog-na-Boille, and we need to get shot of parochial politics asap. Outside of this- I really don't give a blind damn whether our politicians are male or female- simply that they are capable and willing to do the job, fullstop.

Regarding childcare etc- we *need* an overhaul of our social welfare system- so it delivers needed services to those who need them, nothing more and nothing less. This could be childcare and a good solid meal once a day to kids in school- if so, so be it. Make it universal- and abolish children's benefit- as we will be supplying goods and services directly to the children. We can't afford to spend 22 billion a year on social welfare- we quite simply don't have the money.

Our country is a mess- I don't think that reserving 30% of seats for men and women is going to make one iota of difference- unless we actually fill those chairs with bums who are capable to making the hard tough decisions that need to be made.

MadsL

Our current system means you Johnny TD acting in the best interests of Seanie from Connemara- not in the best interests of the country as a whole.

So a culchie quota then


/runs and hides...:pac:

Mr McBoatface

deirdre_dub wrote: »

As jobyrne says, there are possibly some political parties who would have women candidates "without any regard for merit".

You are mis-interpreting what i said, I never said that. To be honest I'm at at complete loss as to how you interpreted what I said to mean that.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

And, whereas I agree that it would be stupid, ridiculous, immoral, counterproductive, and even unlikely, I also cannot but say that jobyrne may have a point. And the only reason I can think of why a politicial party would put in place female candidates "without any regard for merit" would be to discredit them.

I'm still at a loss here..... I was commenting on the way the public would view female politicians if this recommendation comes in ......being involved without merit - not the best person for the job.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Galvasean - I'm confused. On the one hand, you thanked jobyrne for his post, but on the other, when I agree with what jobyrne says, you say that it is "serious conspiracy theory BS". What gives?

I think Galvasean interpted my comments as indeed many others did in the correct context as I intended, You appear to have interpreted them somewhat differently ... hence the comments.



Its not a gender specific problem our political system faces, this discussion is only a distraction from the real problems we face. What I believe is that if the political system is reviewed and reformed so that the best minds and people are attracted to it and not the same old mix of teachers and lawyers then the system will improve for the better. Discrimination no matter how well intended will not improve politics, only bringing the best minds with relevant experience in the real world will improve politics and how it's viewed by the public. We don't need anymore "Yes" men or women, we need the best men and women. If the best people are attracted to politics the ratio of women involved will eventually increase to more socially representative levels, but having the best people should be our number one concern. I don't claim to have the solution as to how this is achieved but like any problem you need to start by finding root cause and fixing it with effective measures, then constantly review and monitor to ensure we are maintaining the correct standards.

Logical Fallacy

deirdre_dub wrote: »

I'm confused. On the one hand, you thanked jobyrne for his post, but on the other, when I agree with what jobyrne says, you say that it is "serious conspiracy theory BS". What gives?

It's easily solved by the fact that you completely misinterpreted what the poster was saying.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Well I certainly won't be voting for any non-independent female candidates if this legislation goes through.

CDfm

Now I have an egalitarian outlook and if there was a female candidate running and she made sense she would get my vote. There did not happen to be one in my constituency last time.

I do feel like a schmuck though when parties come our with gender and orientation policies either explicit or non explicit in a less than open manner.

I want to know what these policies are and am a bit tired of hearing an "Irish Solution" type response so I want to know.

And btw - I do agree on the childcare issue - the economics of state subsidised childcare are well known - like in Belgium the rules on welfare for single moms changed so that they could afford the cost. That is my understanding.

Are we about to enter a newer and harsher reality.

deirdre_dub

jobyrne30 wrote: »

You are mis-interpreting what i said, I never said that. To be honest I'm at at complete loss as to how you interpreted what I said to mean that.

Oh - OK.

I was commenting on the way the public would view female politicians if this recommendation comes in ......being involved without merit - not the best person for the job.

The political parties have 4 years to make sure that 30% of their candidates come from 50% of the population, and you are saying that, after that process, those 30% of the candidates will be seen as being without merit?!

I can only see two possible explanations. One is that women are intrinsically less capable of making good candidates. The other is that the political parties won't make the effort of making sure that those candidates are of the required quality.

Its not a gender specific problem our political system faces, this discussion is only a distraction from the real problems we face. What I believe is that if the political system is reviewed and reformed so that the best minds and people are attracted to it and not the same old mix of teachers and lawyers then the system will improve for the better. Discrimination no matter how well intended will not improve politics, only bringing the best minds with relevant experience in the real world will improve politics and how it's viewed by the public.

Indeed. And what we have now is a de facto discriminatory system - one in which certain classes of people ("the same old mix of teachers and lawyers", as you put it) have the upper hand when it comes to being selected.

It seems clear to me that those "teachers and lawyers" aren't going to change a system which favours them until they are forced to do so.

We don't need anymore "Yes" men or women, we need the best men and women. If the best people are attracted to politics the ratio of women involved will eventually increase to more socially representative levels

Not necessarily so. The problem is that when too much of a momentum builds up in a particular way, it can be pretty impossible to change it.

I don't claim to have the solution as to how this is achieved but like any problem you need to start by finding root cause

Well, as I said earlier, people have been saying that for decades. I don't think anyone is going to even attempt to find the root cause until they are forced to do so - why should they?! Why would they try and "fix" a system that works for them?

then constantly review and monitor to ensure we are maintaining the correct standards.

And, if the correct standards aren't being maintained (which they clearly aren't), what then?

Here's the thing. Politics is the business of representing the people. At the last election, I believe the numbers were that 50% of the people were represented by I think it was 14% of the candidates. I don't know how many of those candidates then got elected. Now, what chance do you have of even thinking about equality with those numbers?

We all agree that something is very broken indeed with the business of politics. When a core, important business is broken, and when self-regulation doesn't work (in this context, by "self-regulation", I mean leaving it up to the teachers and lawyers to find out why non-teachers and non-lawyers aren't involved), I believe it is right and proper (and often necessary) for the government to come in with a carrot-and-stick.

CDfm

I forget who said that politics is about wining elections -government is something else.

The part we are talking about is winning elections and we know very little about the value systems the candidates espouse.

I mean - Irish government depends on the Party Whip system.

If the same people are at the top the gender composition of the parties is largelly irrelevant with the exception of the election of the party leader.

Logical Fallacy

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Here's the thing. Politics is the business of representing the people. At the last election, I believe the numbers were that 50% of the people were represented by I think it was 14% of the candidates. I don't know how many of those candidates then got elected. Now, what chance do you have of even thinking about equality with those numbers?

You seem to be under the impression that a male politician cannot probably represent female constituents....or that women constituents would automatically vote for a female candidate as they would be better represented.

If this were the case, do you not think that preference voting would mean 50% of the electorate would easily be able to get all 14% of the candidates into office.

Basically i am pointing out that in many cases female voters are voting for male candidates.

CDfm

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that a male politician cannot probably represent female constituents....or that women constituents would automatically vote for a female candidate as they would be better represented.

Reading thru this and similar threads it is apparent that men dont feel represented by "male" politicians.

Has it happened in other countries that this type of quota system has generated debate by men on the quality of legislation affecting us.