A new political party?

gibster

I've been giving thought to founding a new, radical Irish political party.

It would have four main guiding principles:
* A complete restructuring of the political system, with emphasis placed on participatory democracy. This would involve a rewrite of the constitution.
* Economic mutualisation. This would involve significant tax breaks for companies that practice profit-sharing, and the nationalisation and reorganisation of banks as co-operatives.
* A fair tax system, broadly following the Nordic Model.
* Techno-progressivism. Society is going to change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes, due to technological convergence. The Irish people need political leaders who are informed and willing to make investments in emerging technologies (WiTricity, AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren, solar power, electric cars, fibre-optic broadband, etc.)

Any thoughts? Would you support this party? Why/why not?

Thanks.

FreudianSlippers

It would depend where it stood on the social and economic scale in fairness.

For example, I'd be likely to support a socially left and economically right party that matched the above description and very unlikely to support one that was socially right and economically left.

jhegarty

How are you going to balance the books.

Higher taxes, cuts in services or cuts for the public service ?

matthew8

gibster wrote: »

I've been giving thought to founding a new, radical Irish political party.

It would have four main guiding principles:
* A complete restructuring of the political system, with emphasis placed on participatory democracy. This would involve a rewrite of the constitution.
* Economic mutualisation. This would involve significant tax breaks for companies that practice profit-sharing, and the nationalisation and reorganisation of banks as co-operatives.
* A fair tax system, broadly following the Nordic Model.
* Techno-progressivism. Society is going to change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes, due to technological convergence. The Irish people need political leaders who are informed and willing to make investments in emerging technologies (WiTricity, AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren, solar power, electric cars, fibre-optic broadband, etc.)

Any thoughts? Would you support this party? Why/why not?

Thanks.

I'm not too sure on participatory democracy, I don't want a nordic tax model (which I think punishes achievement), and I don't think that the government should give a leg-up to green industries or be nationalising banks or giving tax breaks to certain companies and not others. For those reasons I would not support this party, good luck anyway. Try not to call yourselves radicals too.

southsiderosie

gibster wrote: »

I've been giving thought to founding a new, radical Irish political party.

It would have four main guiding principles:
* A complete restructuring of the political system, with emphasis placed on participatory democracy. This would involve a rewrite of the constitution.
* Economic mutualisation. This would involve significant tax breaks for companies that practice profit-sharing, and the nationalisation and reorganisation of banks as co-operatives.
* A fair tax system, broadly following the Nordic Model.
* Techno-progressivism. Society is going to change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes, due to technological convergence. The Irish people need political leaders who are informed and willing to make investments in emerging technologies (WiTricity, AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren, solar power, electric cars, fibre-optic broadband, etc.)

Any thoughts? Would you support this party? Why/why not?

Thanks.

No, because I don't really think that any of these address the problems that Ireland (or a lot of other countries right now) actually face.

Participation is not really an issue - according to the European Social Survey, Irish people have more contact with their elected officials than anyone else in Europe. It's the nature of the participation that is the problem: the Irish system currently encourages clientelist behavior where members of the Dail focus on local matters at the expense of national issues. I would favor shifting more power back to local government, including revenue collection, and switching to a national list system for the Dail (like the Dutch).

Economically, I don't think profit-sharing is the answer to anything, really. The regulators just need to do their actual jobs.

I think asking for a Nordic-style tax system (i.e. high taxes for a high level of services) is a non-starter unless people actually trust the government to not misuse those taxes. Given how people feel about the government, I doubt that will ever happen in the near future. Clearly the Irish government needs to close many of the tax and residency loopholes that high-earners benefit from, but the Nordic system works for those countries because they have very high levels of social trust and high expectations for government officials. They do not tolerate - much less reward - gombeens.

I agree that there needs to be more technologically literate people in government, but as I said in the 'iPads in schools' thread, the government would be better off focusing on raising competency in math and science and not on fancy flashy hardware.

So, no, I couldn't imagine supporting this party - I don't really agree with the objectives, and I don't think what is proposed here will have any real effect on changing Irish political culture, which I think is the real underlying problem.

thebman

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, because I don't really think that any of these address the problems that Ireland (or a lot of other countries right now) actually face.

Participation is not really an issue - according to the European Social Survey, Irish people have more contact with their elected officials than anyone else in Europe. It's the nature of the participation that is the problem: the Irish system currently encourages clientelist behavior where members of the Dail focus on local matters at the expense of national issues. I would favor shifting more power back to local government, including revenue collection, and switching to a national list system for the Dail (like the Dutch).

Economically, I don't think profit-sharing is the answer to anything, really. The regulators just need to do their actual jobs.

I think asking for a Nordic-style tax system (i.e. high taxes for a high level of services) is a non-starter unless people actually trust the government to not misuse those taxes. Given how people feel about the government, I doubt that will ever happen in the near future. Clearly the Irish government needs to close many of the tax and residency loopholes that high-earners benefit from, but the Nordic system works for those countries because they have very high levels of social trust and high expectations for government officials. They do not tolerate - much less reward - gombeens.

I agree that there needs to be more technologically literate people in government, but as I said in the 'iPads in schools' thread, the government would be better off focusing on raising competency in math and science and not on fancy flashy hardware.

So, no, I couldn't imagine supporting this party - I don't really agree with the objectives, and I don't think what is proposed here will have any real effect on changing Irish political culture, which I think is the real underlying problem.

I want to vote for this guy

Could call the party, the real world order :P

nesf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It would depend where it stood on the social and economic scale in fairness.

For example, I'd be likely to support a socially left and economically right party that matched the above description and very unlikely to support one that was socially right and economically left.

Is it possible to be economically right and favour the Nordic tax/spend model?

My guess is he's talking about a centre left party fairly neutral on social issues given that he doesn't mention any.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SamHarris

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It would depend where it stood on the social and economic scale in fairness.

For example, I'd be likely to support a socially left and economically right party that matched the above description and very unlikely to support one that was socially right and economically left.

Ditto. Seems pretty economically left to me though.

Valmont

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

for example, I'd be likely to support a socially left and economically right party that matched the above description...

I think the two are mutually exclusive-- in that a government can't be fiscally conservative AND spend on massive welfare programs. Without running up colossal debts, of course.

nesf

Valmont wrote: »

I think the two are mutually exclusive-- in that a government can't be fiscally conservative AND spend on massive welfare programs. Without running up colossal debts, of course.

You're not familiar with FF now are you... It'll all work out lads!

Manach

I'd at least support the participatory democracy part. Last time this was tried correctly, 4thC Athens, at least the generals marched in the front ranks.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why do you think the Nordic tax System unfair?? I'm just generally interested to know.

Also I don't think I would support this party either but all the best all the same. I would love for an economically right and socially left to come into existence.

jimmycrackcorm

Nowhere in the ops manifesto is fixing potholes mentioned : fail!

Pride Fighter

gibster wrote: »

I've been giving thought to founding a new, radical Irish political party.

It would have four main guiding principles:
* A complete restructuring of the political system, with emphasis placed on participatory democracy. This would involve a rewrite of the constitution.
* Economic mutualisation. This would involve significant tax breaks for companies that practice profit-sharing, and the nationalisation and reorganisation of banks as co-operatives.
* A fair tax system, broadly following the Nordic Model.
* Techno-progressivism. Society is going to change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes, due to technological convergence. The Irish people need political leaders who are informed and willing to make investments in emerging technologies (WiTricity, AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren, solar power, electric cars, fibre-optic broadband, etc.)

Any thoughts? Would you support this party? Why/why not?

Thanks.

Sounds like you're describing the Labour Party, although with the current economic climate and power relative to FG cannot implement such policies.

I'd like to see Ireland be like an orthodox European Parliamentary democracy. With a Centre Right like FG between 25-35%. Centre Left like Labour between 25-35%. Then some parties like a socially liberal, economically liberal party like the German Free Democratic Party between 8-15%, a Green Party between 8-15% and a far left between 2-6%. Those would be the 5 main prevailing ideologies in Europe. It would also give truly representative coalitions whatever the people would want, in Germany its centre right, with the Free Democrats at the moment. They are doing a bad job and it will probably be centre left, Green there quite soon.

In Ireland if this were to be adopted, there would be no place for Fianna Fail, no prevailing ideology going through them, Sinn Fein, ultra nationalists and populists.

Parties and politics should be what it says on the tin. The people should not be hoodwinked like they were with FF and to a lesser degree FG in the past, although in fairness FG are have changed IMO. Follow an ideology and vote for that. I will argue with the centre right and libertarians all day here, but if they put their ideas forward, get electoral support and elected I'll be upset, but I'll accept that as a democrat, it was the peoples decision and that is what is matters the most.

Chuck Stone

Only if you promise to fix the roads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsnLyHKWtrg

southsiderosie

thebman wrote: »

I want to vote for this guy lady

Could call the party, the real world order :P

FYP

LeixlipRed

Doesn't address the underlying problem, capitalism So you won't be getting my vote.

View

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't really agree with the objectives, and I don't think what is proposed here will have any real effect on changing Irish political culture, which I think is the real underlying problem.

A good post SSR but politics here focuses on who gets to occupy the Ministerial chairs not on stuff like objectives to achieve when you do get to occupy them. Focus on those and you might lose the votes of the crucial "Have a cup of tea" party supporters.

blackdog2

What I have noticed in Ireland from asking foreigners, and living there, is that in general Dublin seems to lag behind other capital cities by at least 5 years, or up to 10, in the take-up of everything, unless it is an exploitative measure of course.

El Soarab

gibster wrote: »

* Techno-progressivism. Society is going to change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes, due to technological convergence. The Irish people need political leaders who are informed and willing to make investments in emerging technologies (WiTricity, AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren, solar power, electric cars, fibre-optic broadband, etc.)

When government goes near Technology it seems to only make it worse, through using it for invasive "big brother" means (automated law enforcement, mass surveillance, censorship). Even if they don't end up using it for anything evil the government's interference with technology is often less than desirable

*WiTricity: What do you propose with this, that the government help with the development of this? or the implementation? Don't forget that this is a commercial foreign entity and any standard produced is likely to be proprietary.

*AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren: Have these tablets been proven to speed up the learning process and reduce costs? Even if costs are reduced (which is unlikely because these are expensive products) I am highly skeptical of e-learning products. A simple e-reader might replace text books but if they can't last 10-20 years in a school environment it might just be better to write some good sturdy textbooks that don't need to be updated as frequently as Folens would like to have you believe

*Solar power: Most government investment in this so far has revolved around providing jobs to various qualified installers and commissioners while at the same time recouping any costs back from the buyers through increased taxation.

*Electric cars: We don't have any car manufacturers in Ireland, this is a complete shame but I would imagine that anyone trying to start up a business here has large hurdles to overcome with regulation, insurance, etc. As for the government buying the cars themselves, only when its cost effective should it be done. Electric cars are not cost effective yet, they are merely a ticking timebomb until the very expensive battery pack fails

*Fibre-optic broadband: Again I wish the government would just make it easier for start ups to roll this out themselves. As in not trying to prevent companies from putting fibre cables beside railway tracks, or forcing ISP's to collect data on subscribers and block The Pirate Bay.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

anymore

I am now veering towards right wing minmum government - a U Turn for me - which stops this absurd dilution of the meaning of ' Human Rights' and one which will abolish the majority of tax payer funded quangos whose purpose is the advancement of vested interests.
Start with the Equality Quango and continue from there.

gibster

A few more points...

Capitalism is broken, socialism doesn't work - mutualism allows for entrepeneurship and free enterprise, but also allows for fair distribution of profits.

As for social issues, why not devolve them to county council level? Better still, why not abolish social legislation altogether? A town in Holland, I can't remember its name, did away with all speed limits, road signs and markings. Accidents dropped to almost zero overnight, and have remained so. Social libertarianism works, imo.

As for technology.. leave R&D, production and marketing to private companies, I agree, but governments have an essential role to play in putting infrastructure in place. When cars are powered by WiTricity, it will fall to the government to lay magnetic cables along the motorways and N-roads. The government will have to subsidise the installation of solar panels on every roof, and the construction of a feed-in grid.
Most people are unaware of the massive social change that lies just around the corner due to technology. Even a quad-core processor is just a massively scaled-up transistor - but optical, quantum and brownian processors are all on the way and these will give humanity almost literally infinite power to store and manipulate information. These new computers may even change society to the extent that money, nation-states and government become anachronistic. The governments of today need to be aware of these imminent changes and inform and prepare the general public.

Participatory democracy: Almost everyone I speak to agrees that the current representative system is stagnant and corrupt and offers no proper ideological choice. Massive constitutional change is needed to reinvigorate the system. The Swiss are good at this.

As for Nordic-style taxes, they are the main reason these countries enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Why shouldn't we Irish enjoy similar standards in public services?

View

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then why do both Sweden and Finland have significant track records in high-tech innovation and entrepreneurship? They don't enjoy the "benefits" of our enlightened tax system, yet both of them manage to out-perform us in this crucial regard - how do they do it?

Given that our "pro-entreprise" society just managed to produce a giant property pyramid scheme, who are we to criticise their systems?

Pride Fighter

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The 'higher taxes' in turns puts money back in your pocket. In low tax economies like the in US and the UK it is 25k and 9k per annum respectively for one of your children to study in University. In Nordic countries its free or for a small fee below 1k. 'Higher tax' economies do not require health and dental insurance between 1 and 10k per person like the US.

'Higher tax' economies are in fact anything but as it puts money into government services and saves people money by providing services for the society as a whole. They are more equal, people can achieve in education and there is high educational attainment. Better educated societies in turn are wealthier as people can be better workers or better entrepreneurs.

The Anglo-American market ideology which has failed utterly here in Ireland is the prevailing one here. Just look at the amount of press IBEC are given as well as various neo-liberal commentators on tv and radio. We need to follow a Nordic model or else the same mistakes that have happened before will happen again.

anymore

gibster wrote: »

A few more points...

Capitalism is broken, socialism doesn't work - mutualism allows for entrepeneurship and free enterprise, but also allows for fair distribution of profits.

As for social issues, why not devolve them to county council level? Better still, why not abolish social legislation altogether? A town in Holland, I can't remember its name, did away with all speed limits, road signs and markings. Accidents dropped to almost zero overnight, and have remained so. Social libertarianism works, imo.

As for technology.. leave R&D, production and marketing to private companies, I agree, but governments have an essential role to play in putting infrastructure in place. When cars are powered by WiTricity, it will fall to the government to lay magnetic cables along the motorways and N-roads. The government will have to subsidise the installation of solar panels on every roof, and the construction of a feed-in grid.
Most people are unaware of the massive social change that lies just around the corner due to technology. Even a quad-core processor is just a massively scaled-up transistor - but optical, quantum and brownian processors are all on the way and these will give humanity almost literally infinite power to store and manipulate information. These new computers may even change society to the extent that money, nation-states and government become anachronistic. The governments of today need to be aware of these imminent changes and inform and prepare the general public.

Participatory democracy: Almost everyone I speak to agrees that the current representative system is stagnant and corrupt and offers no proper ideological choice. Massive constitutional change is needed to reinvigorate the system. The Swiss are good at this.

As for Nordic-style taxes, they are the main reason these countries enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. Why shouldn't we Irish enjoy similar standards in public services?

Far from being broken, capitalism is working extraordinarily well and has made enormous inroads into countries which formewrly were bitterly opposed to it. Go into to your shop tomorrow and jsut see the huge ranhe of foods from accross the globe delivered to even the most modest local shop. Our economy depends vitally on the expoer of our irish based multi nationals as do our farms who export across the globe. What has failed is the peculiar hyrid of Socialism and Capitalism that prevails in countries like Ireland, greece and Italy. Capitalism ahs a perfectly satifactory way of dealing with bankrupt banks etc. Maybe we should try real capitalism some time ?

sarumite

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The 'higher taxes' in turns puts money back in your pocket. In low tax economies like the in US and the UK it is 25k and 9k per annum respectively for one of your children to study in University. In Nordic countries its free or for a small fee below 1k. 'Higher tax' economies do not require health and dental insurance between 1 and 10k per person like the US.

'Higher tax' economies are in fact anything but as it puts money into government services and saves people money by providing services for the society as a whole. They are more equal, people can achieve in education and there is high educational attainment. Better educated societies in turn are wealthier as people can be better workers or better entrepreneurs.

The Anglo-American market ideology which has failed utterly here in Ireland is the prevailing one here. Just look at the amount of press IBEC are given as well as various neo-liberal commentators on tv and radio. We need to follow a Nordic model or else the same mistakes that have happened before will happen again.

As someone who now lives in Sweden, I would disagree with much of this argument. Take heatlh care for example....the health care in Sweden is good, though there is still roughly a 6-8 week wait for a CT scan. If a person could afford fully private, they would probably get it in 1-2 weeks (maybe even less, who knows). Unfortunately they are taxed excessively (its over 60% at the top rate) and cannot afford the private heatlh that they could in another lower taxed country, as such they have to accept lower standard of health care.

UsernameInUse

How about setting up a party that actually makes sense?

If you were in favour of absolute economic freedom, then there are countless people in this country that would actually give you their undying loyalty. The last thing we need is another shower of statists. End the 80 year Keynesian experiment altogether and try something new.

Tu Ne Cede Malis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

southsiderosie

Again, can anyone who proposes a Nordic-style tax system please explain to the rest of us why the Irish government should be trusted with such a huge revenue intake given DECADES of fiscal mismanagement?

Most Irish governments have never shown any serious interest in infrastructure investment, quality control, or restraint, and many Irish voters have been perfectly happy to re-elect people who piss away the nation's financial resources.

The Nordic system isn't just based on tax rates - it is underpinned by levels of social trust and fiscal responsibility that simply do not exist in Ireland. Dropping Nordic-style institutions on Ireland's toxic political culture would be an exercise in (very expensive) magical thinking.

irishh_bob

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The 'higher taxes' in turns puts money back in your pocket. In low tax economies like the in US and the UK it is 25k and 9k per annum respectively for one of your children to study in University. In Nordic countries its free or for a small fee below 1k. 'Higher tax' economies do not require health and dental insurance between 1 and 10k per person like the US.

'Higher tax' economies are in fact anything but as it puts money into government services and saves people money by providing services for the society as a whole. They are more equal, people can achieve in education and there is high educational attainment. Better educated societies in turn are wealthier as people can be better workers or better entrepreneurs.

The Anglo-American market ideology which has failed utterly here in Ireland is the prevailing one here. Just look at the amount of press IBEC are given as well as various neo-liberal commentators on tv and radio. We need to follow a Nordic model or else the same mistakes that have happened before will happen again.

id wager the top brass at IBEC are more representitive of irish public opinion than vincent browne or ciaran allen yet the far left browne has his own nightly current affairs show and ciaran allen ( self declared communists ) a man who has never been elected to any public office , is regulary on the airwaves calling on the state to confiscate private property and slap an 80% tax rate on those earning over 70 k per year , far left fringe thinkers get a hugely disproportionate level of airtime in this country , bar constantin gurdiev , i cant think of a single unappologetic balls to the wall , capitalist pig , who has a regular slot on the irish media

FreudianSlippers

Valmont wrote: »

I think the two are mutually exclusive-- in that a government can't be fiscally conservative AND spend on massive welfare programs. Without running up colossal debts, of course.

I think you're confusing social left with economic left. I am not a supporter of welfare.

Sand

irishh_bob wrote: »

id wager the top brass at IBEC are more representitive of irish public opinion than vincent browne or ciaran allen yet the far left browne has his own nightly current affairs show and ciaran allen ( self declared communists ) a man who has never been elected to any public office , is regulary on the airwaves calling on the state to confiscate private property and slap an 80% tax rate on those earning over 70 k per year , far left fringe thinkers get a hugely disproportionate level of airtime in this country , bar constantin gurdiev , i cant think of a single unappologetic balls to the wall , capitalist pig , who has a regular slot on the irish media

It is amusing to me that Irelands media is so far to the left that we import our right leaning commentators from the former Soviet Union.

nesf

Sand wrote: »

It is amusing to me that Irelands media is so far to the left that we import our right leaning commentators from the former Soviet Union.

Ah now, we've plenty of homegrown religious right people on TV. More's the pity.

RandomName2

gibster wrote: »

I've been giving thought to founding a new, radical Irish political party.

It would have four main guiding principles:
* A complete restructuring of the political system, with emphasis placed on participatory democracy. This would involve a rewrite of the constitution.
* Economic mutualisation. This would involve significant tax breaks for companies that practice profit-sharing, and the nationalisation and reorganisation of banks as co-operatives.
* A fair tax system, broadly following the Nordic Model.
* Techno-progressivism. Society is going to change almost beyond recognition within our lifetimes, due to technological convergence. The Irish people need political leaders who are informed and willing to make investments in emerging technologies (WiTricity, AMOLED tablets for schoolchildren, solar power, electric cars, fibre-optic broadband, etc.)

Any thoughts? Would you support this party? Why/why not?

Thanks.

Hmmm. Not too bad. Nordic system of taxation would be a bit of a sticking point with me, personally.

To a large extent however I feel that a new party is too little too late in terms of sacrificing judicial power and sovereignty to the EU (or rather, allowing the EU to extend its competencies) and sacrificing fiscal independence to the IMF. A political party could advocate pulling out of the EU and throwing out the IMF but that would, it is needless to say, do far more harm than good either at present or in the foreseeable future.

UsernameInUse

RandomName2 wrote: »

Hmmm. Not too bad. Nordic system of taxation would be a bit of a sticking point with me, personally.

To a large extent however I feel that a new party is too little too late in terms of sacrificing judicial power and sovereignty to the EU (or rather, allowing the EU to extend its competencies) and sacrificing fiscal independence to the IMF. A political party could advocate pulling out of the EU and throwing out the IMF but that would, it is needless to say, do far more harm than good either at present or in the foreseeable future.

I don't believe so.

This country is crying out for a Eurosceptic party. The problem here is that all our parties are quite willing to hold hands with Barroso to lead us all the way up the garden path. None of our politicians have the testicular fortitude to stand up to the European machine. Even more frustratingly, no one in this country would have a chance in hell of being elected based on principle or ideology, but rather who's father fixed the pothole two decades ago. Jesus wept..

There is sincerely no hope for us.

View

UsernameInUse wrote: »

This country is crying out for a Eurosceptic party. The problem here is that ...

Actually, the problem here is that our Eurosceptics haven't got the ability and/or courage to organise themselves and stand for election. That though isn't the fault of anyone but themselves.

FreudianSlippers

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Even more frustratingly, no one in this country would have a chance in hell of being elected based on principle or ideology, but rather who's father fixed the pothole two decades ago. Jesus wept..

There is sincerely no hope for us.

I tend to agree with this sentiment actually. Unfortunately, this is a problem with the electorate in general and the foundation of what is wrong with Irish politics.

How do we fix that?

southsiderosie

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I tend to agree with this sentiment actually. Unfortunately, this is a problem with the electorate in general and the foundation of what is wrong with Irish politics.

How do we fix that?

Scrap the STV system which essentially institutionalizes clientelism and switch to a Dutch-style national list system for the Dail. A national list system would force voters to concentrate on what the parties actually say they are going to do in government, and not on individual characters who they want to see in said government.

matthew8

southsiderosie wrote: »

Scrap the STV system which essentially institutionalizes clientelism and switch to a Dutch-style national list system for the Dail. A national list system would force voters to concentrate on what the parties actually say they are going to do in government, and not on individual characters who they want to see in said government.

That sounds a bit like fixing the result because you don't like it tbh.

FreudianSlippers

I was thinking that the Dáil should be elected that way definitely.

I think we should also consider the German model of bicameralism.

The Dáil would be elected nationally and the Seanad would be elected on a constituency basis employing the Penrose method of voting allocation.

matthew8

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I was thinking that the Dáil should be elected that way definitely.

I think we should also consider the German model of bicameralism.

The Dáil would be elected nationally and the Seanad would be elected on a constituency basis employing the Penrose method of voting allocation.

Would this not be against individualism and rather boring? After all, it will just result in cronyism inside parties. FG giving their most loyal hacks a higher spot on the list while people like Peter Mathews (Who I would've voted for) are shoved down the list to spot 91 or something. I notice it is typically (and I'm not accusing you of being a green and am purely talking about the outside world) promoted by parties who it would benefit in seat numbers and no one else. Under a list system the greens would get seats which they don't deserve. We already have a whip system that destroys individuals, we don't need list system to destroy them altogether. I would make the Dail and Seanad 50 members each, with the difference between the 2 being the Seanad is elected 2 years into a Dail term, each house being elected in 7 7-seat constituencies, with the CC automatically re-elected in addition to the 7 elected in his/her constituency.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

That sounds a bit like fixing the result because you don't like it tbh.

What? Fixing for who?

If people want to break clientelistic gombeen politics, then there needs to be institutions in place that do so. The Dail already uses a strict party whip when voting, so actual legislative behavior probably wouldn't change at all; it's only the interactions with voters that would be significantly affected. That in turn would force voters to pay more attention to what parties actually do in the Dail, and less on how they potter around in local villages - that should be for LOCAL government to take care of.

In addition, a national list would create more political space for new parties that can clearly differentiate themselves based on policy. I do not see how this would be a bad thing.

matthew8

southsiderosie wrote: »

What? Fixing for who?

If people want to break clientelistic gombeen politics, then there needs to be institutions in place that do so. The Dail already uses a strict party whip when voting, so actual legislative behavior probably wouldn't change at all; it's only the interactions with voters that would be significantly affected. That in turn would force voters to pay more attention to what parties actually do in the Dail, and less on how they potter around in local villages - that should be for LOCAL government to take care of.

In addition, a national list would create more political space for new parties that can clearly differentiate themselves based on policy. I do not see how this would be a bad thing.

It is changing the result the people want. If the people choose gombeens so be it, it's democracy.

southsiderosie

matthew8 wrote: »

It is changing the result the people want. If the people choose gombeens so be it, it's democracy.

I think you are missing the point of the thread.

matthew8

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think you are missing the point of the thread.

I addressed the main points of the party's beliefs and wished them good luck and then someone mentioned the list system. I know that this is a bit off topic but I didn't bring it up.

View

matthew8 wrote: »

It is changing the result the people want.

No matter what voting system is used it will result in a different result than if another one is used.

When PR-STV was first used in the then Free State, there were 7 or 8 seater constituencies - today we only have 3, 4 or 5. That results in a different result than if we were to use 7 or 8 seaters today. Likewise if just used the system in single seat constituencies - which is technically AV - you get another different result which would effect the overall composition of the Oireachtas.

To suggest that a change to the voting system would somehow result in "changing the result the people want" assumes that we know what the people want. How exactly are we supposed to know that?

nesf

View wrote: »

To suggest that a change to the voting system would somehow result in "changing the result the people want" assumes that we know what the people want. How exactly are we supposed to know that?

I think he's making the mistake of thinking of what people want in the current system as what the people want ideally. i.e. status quo bias.

matthew8

nesf wrote: »

I think he's making the mistake of thinking of what people want in the current system as what the people want ideally. i.e. status quo bias.

Then why are the only list advocates those whom it would benefit? People vote for people or if they choose, political parties. I would say the split is 40:60 in favour of political parties. The current system includes people who vote for political parties as well as those who vote for people. A list system alienates that 40% and forces them to do something they don't want which is vote for an orgnisation, not a person.

nesf

matthew8 wrote: »

Then why are the only list advocates those whom it would benefit? People vote for people or if they choose, political parties. I would say the split is 40:60 in favour of political parties. The current system includes people who vote for political parties as well as those who vote for people. A list system alienates that 40% and forces them to do something they don't want which is vote for an orgnisation, not a person.

In reality they still get to vote for a person because any party list will still try and give regional coverage and will give voters an list for their area pretty much. So voters won't just be voting for parties they'll also be voting for people in an indirect way.

No party, except the smallest, will not think very carefully about regional coverage when making out their list and its ordering.


You're also not dealing with the question of whether it's a good thing for the country if people are allowed to vote directly for people in a multi-seat STV system and the problems this causes with candidates needing to fight for their share of their party's vote never mind just for the party's vote which leads to extremes of clientalism and other such unwanted side effects in a national legislature.