Shouldn't the Presidential election be a "First Past The Post" contest?

Harry Angstrom

I can understand why we have a proportional representation system during a general election, but I can't really understand why we should employ it during a presidential election. Surely it should just be a straight vote, where people only tick the name of the person they want to see as our next president?
It would save a lot of time with the counting and it would also mean that the candidate who receives the largest number of first votes from the electorate becomes our president, which should really be what it's all about.

I'll only be voting for one of them. I won't be going through the ballot paper all the way down to number 5's and 6's.

Liam Byrne

Well the problem with the current candidates is that there's none that I "want" as president - it's just about choosing the least worst/least embarrassing.

So of all the reforms required, the voting is the least of the issues.

foggy_lad

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I can understand why we have a proportional representation system during a general election, but I can't really understand why we should employ it during a presidential election. Surely it should just be a straight vote, where people only tick the name of the person they want to see as our next president?
It would save a lot of time with the counting and it would also mean that the candidate who receives the largest number of first votes from the electorate becomes our president, which should really be what it's all about.

I'll only be voting for one of them. I won't be going through the ballot paper all the way down to number 5's and 6's.

with 7 candidates it could happen that only a small percentage actually vote for the winner but with our current systen which is much fairer and gives voters more say they have the option to chose 2nd 3rd 4th etc etc in case their 1st preference is not a winner. in this way the eventual winner is going to be favourite or at least acceptible to many more voters than say if a candidate won on first past the post with some popular one trick pony agenda.

Take McGuinness for example, he is popular in parts of the country as a first preference but gets very few 2nd and 3rd preference votes so if he won only a small percent of the population ion Cork and the Ulster counties would be happy

Jimoslimos

1st past the post is an awful way of electing a president and can be wide open for abuse, especially if we're also talking about opening up the nomination procedure.

Two scenarios potentially happen;

1) A candidate will surreptitiously allow the running of one or several opponents who share their main rivals standpoints and/or voter base. Result: Rival vote split leaving it easier to be first past the post - think Ralph Nader in US presidential election 2000.

2) Voters aware of the risk will polarize themselves into one of the two leading candidates, rejecting any minor candidates for fear of the least-preferred getting elected - UK general elections with Con/Lab dominating over Lib Dem or anybody else.

And if it was first past the post, wouldn't they focus more energy in the higher populated areas? Ie Dublin?

Harry Angstrom

Deleted User wrote: »

And if it was first past the post, wouldn't they focus more energy in the higher populated areas? Ie Dublin?

Well, I'm living in a well-populated suburb of Cork and I've never had anybody (party hacks or otherwise) call to my door during a presidential election campaign in the past so maybe they focus most of their attention on Dublin anyway?

Welease

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Well, I'm living in a well-populated suburb of Cork and I've never had anybody call to my door during a presidential election campaign in the past so maybe they focus most of their attention on Dublin anyway?

I consider myself lucky.. I live in Kildare and not one knock on the door during any election... If I wanted to listen to utter ***** on my doorstep.. I'd talk to the dog..

Red Right Hand

There can be no proportional representation in an election to one position. It would be better to have a run off the following week with the top two from the the first vote as is done in some European countries.

Eliot Rosewater

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I can understand why we have a proportional representation system during a general election, but I can't really understand why we should employ it during a presidential election. Surely it should just be a straight vote, where people only tick the name of the person they want to see as our next president?

So beyond your most preferred candidate you have no preference. You're indifferent to the 6 candidates you don't want in. That's fair enough, but you are in a very small minority. When my most preferred candidate is eliminated I still want to be able to choose amongst the rest. A few months ago Pat Cox was my preferred candidate. He was "eliminated" by the FG nomination process. By the logic of the first-past-the-post system I should be barred from voting on October 27th: my most preferred candidate didn't get in so I should have no choice amongst the rest.

Red Right Hand wrote: »

There can be no proportional representation in an election to one position. It would be better to have a run off the following week with the top two from the the first vote as is done in some European countries.

I'm sorry, but that wouldn't be better in any respect. Run-off voting is half PR half FPTP. If your most preferred candidate is eliminated you can still choose - but only amongst the top two candidates. It's also unnecessarily expensive, as it requires two polling days where STV requires only one.

laoch na mona

na in first past the post it doesn't reflect you might not be fully behind that candidate
p.r. is a better representation of public opinion

Liam Byrne

I've just realised while posting in another thread that the PR in this election has given me a massive dilemma!

I might ACTUALLY end up voting FF in order to do my best to keep McG out!

Harry Angstrom

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A few months ago Pat Cox was my preferred candidate. He was "eliminated" by the FG nomination process. By the logic of the first-past-the-post system I should be barred from voting on October 27th: my most preferred candidate didn't get in so I should have no choice amongst the rest.

That's not really the case as Pat Cox didn't even make it past the FG nomination process so he's not even on the ballot paper but if you feel morally obliged to not vote in the presidential election because of this, then that's your prerogative

I (obviously) agree with Red Right Hand when he says that there shouldn't be proportional representation in an election to one position but I wouldn't agree with a run off between the top two candidates the following week. Whoever comes out on top on the day should be elected president. It seems unfair to me that somebody who comes first in the popular vote should subsequently lose out to somebody who finishes behind them but I can see the argument for the other side as well.

KnifeWRENCH

I think the current system works just fine. If "First Past the Post" was used in 1990 we would have had Brian Lenihan Snr. as president instead of Mary Robinson.

Crazy World

We will be pickin the best of a bad bunch, it's a shame really

pablomakaveli

As as been said "First past the post" system could land us a president that most people mightnt want. In an election like this one with 7 candidates that would be likely to happen if we were using FPTP.

I like knowing that if my first preference doesnt do well my vote doesnt completely go to waste if it can possibly help my second or third preference get elected.

ArmaniJeanss

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

It seems unfair to me that somebody who comes first in the popular vote should subsequently lose out to somebody who finishes behind them but I can see the argument for the other side as well.

4 centre-ist candidates with similar policies get ~19% of the vote each.
Right wing lunatic candidate gets 24%.

Clearly 76% of the people want a centre-ist candidate, and under STV one of them will get to 50% (+ a vote) via transfers on count 4.

Under your system the lunatic wins with 24%.

Extreme example obviously.

laoch na mona

I don't think there is a right wing lunatic in the election

caseyann

One thing is for sure people who come out with crap like i will vote such and such in to keep the other one out shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
And shows they havent got an ounce of respect for this country or others peoples votes and no real interest in it.
So do Ireland a favour if yous think like that dont vote ever.


I would say yes to what you ask op,should be the one who gets the highest votes and no transfers and should be the same with the general election also.

Liam Byrne

caseyann wrote: »

One thing is for sure people who come out with crap like i will vote such and such in to keep the other one out shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
And shows they havent got an ounce of respect for this country or others peoples votes and no real interest in it.
So do Ireland a favour if yous think like that dont vote ever.


I would say yes to what you ask op,should be the one who gets the highest votes and no transfers and should be the same with the general election also.

Ah! So the fact that McGuinness polls highest as the most objectionable candidate means that you don't want those people's democratic vote recognised ?

The best of the options = the least worst, and therefore everyone should vote according to at least that.

caseyann

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah! So the fact that McGuinness polls highest as the most objectionable candidate means that you don't want those people's democratic vote recognised ?

The best of the options = the least worst, and therefore everyone should vote according to at least that.

What the hell are you on about again?

Liam Byrne

caseyann wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ah! So the fact that McGuinness polls highest as the most objectionable candidate means that you don't want those people's democratic vote recognised ?

The best of the options = the least worst, and therefore everyone should vote according to at least that.

What the hell are you on about again?

The fact that you are objecting to people's
right to vote strategically to keep some undesirables out on the same day that a survey showed that your beloved former terrorist candidate is the one most people would least like to see elected.

caseyann

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The fact that you are objecting to people's
right to vote strategically to keep some undesirables out on the same day that a survey showed that your beloved former terrorist candidate is the one most people would least like to see elected.

Right to vote thats just blatant begrudging.Trying to stop the majority of whom they may wish to represent them and blocking democracy.
But whatever do what you want doesnt matter a damn to me just shows how your mind works.

Liam Byrne

caseyann wrote: »

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The fact that you are objecting to people's
right to vote strategically to keep some undesirables out on the same day that a survey showed that your beloved former terrorist candidate is the one most people would least like to see elected.

Right to vote thats just blatant begrudging.Trying to stop the majority of whom they may wish to represent them and blocking democracy.
But whatever do what you want doesnt matter a damn to me just shows how your mind works.

What ? You vote the best option available to you, and in the absence of a truly good option (and when it comes to politics in this country, that's nearly always) the least worst option IS the best.

That's not begrudgery, it's factual.

ArmaniJeanss

caseyann wrote: »

One thing is for sure people who come out with crap like i will vote such and such in to keep the other one out shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
And shows they havent got an ounce of respect for this country or others peoples votes and no real interest in it.
So do Ireland a favour if yous think like that dont vote ever.

So the people shouldn't be allowed to vote in such a way that allows them to come to the most acceptable candidate for the majority?
Bizarre logic.

caseyann

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So the people shouldn't be allowed to vote in such a way that allows them to come to the most acceptable candidate for the majority?
Bizarre logic.

No they dont care who is in there,therefore they are making a mockery of the presidential elections.
Where is your logic there is none.

Newaglish

caseyann wrote: »

Where is your logic there is none.

My irony meter just exploded.

caseyann

Newaglish wrote: »

My irony meter just exploded.

You wouldnt know irony if it bit you on the ass.;):D

ArmaniJeanss

caseyann wrote: »

No they dont care who is in there,therefore they are making a mockery of the presidential elections.

Wat? They do care who is in there, they wish it to be either A or B or C or D. B might be their first choice but they care that it will be one of their four favourite contenders.
I'm not sure you actually understand the reasoning behind the process, if you really think it make a 'mockery' of the elections.

I'll attempt to clarify it for you again.

One contestant runs on a platform of 'lets all become communists, seize all property, execute the rich, build a big army and attack England'.
He has a roughly 12% support base. Meanwhile 10 other contestants run on various platforms but they all have in common that the communist thing would be a really really bad idea. However none of them is a standout contender and all poll between 6% and 11% each.

Under your system, the 12% guy wins despite being fundamentally opposed by 88% of the voters.
Under the current STV system one of the other 10 contenders emerge as the overall winner via transfers and even though they are not everyones first choice s/he is acceptable to the majority of the people, i.e., democracy.

Hand on heart which do you think is the more logical way to run an election?

mikemac

Just think, Brian Lenihan would have been President

Careful what you wish for OP

OMD

mikemac wrote: »

Just think, Brian Lenihan would have been President

Careful what you wish for OP

But people would not have voted the same way given a different system. With PR you can vote for the candidate you want even if you know they have no chance if winning then use your second vote the elect an acceptable candidate. With first past the post you are less likely to vote for the no-hoper as it is seen as wasting your vote.

COYW

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Well, I'm living in a well-populated suburb of Cork and I've never had anybody (party hacks or otherwise) call to my door during a presidential election campaign in the past so maybe they focus most of their attention on Dublin anyway?

I live in Dublin and have not seen anyone at all in relation to the election.

ArmaniJeanss

OMD wrote: »

But people would not have voted the same way given a different system. With PR you can vote for the candidate you want even if you know they have no chance if winning then use your second vote the elect an acceptable candidate. With first past the post you are less likely to vote for the no-hoper as it is seen as wasting your vote.

Also worth pointing out that if the OP and Caseyann had their desired 'most votes on first count wins' system then candidates like Gay Mitchell, David Norris,Mary Davis and possibly Sean Gallagher (depending on the polls) would come under pressure in the final week to make a tactical withdraw and urge their supporters to row in behind Michael D Higgins to prevent MMG winning.

So under your desired system there wouldn't be as many candidates when the election arrived.

OMD

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Also worth pointing out that if the OP and Caseyann had their desired 'most votes on first count wins' system then candidates like Gay Mitchell, David Norris,Mary Davis and possibly Sean Gallagher (depending on the polls) would come under pressure in the final week to make a tactical withdraw and urge their supporters to row in behind Michael D Higgins to prevent MMG winning.

So under your desired system there wouldn't be as many candidates when the election arrived.

Not my desired system. But you cannot compare elections under one system and say what would have happened if a different system was used.

foggy_lad

It seems strange that sinn fein supporters would be supporting and calling for a system of voting which they fought against for so long in Northern Ireland.

Harry Angstrom

foggy_lad wrote: »

It seems strange that sinn fein supporters would be supporting and calling for a system of voting which they fought against for so long in Northern Ireland.

I'm not a Sinn Fein supporter. I've never voted for them and I never will.

blahfckingblah

No first past the post has so so many flaws, the only positives i can think for it is that it would reduce the cost of counting votes and the time needed to do so. And since someone mentioned it Gerrymandering is something that should be made harder and harder to do this system does not combat it too well.

Tigger

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've just realised while posting in another thread that the PR in this election has given me a massive dilemma!

I might ACTUALLY end up voting FF in order to do my best to keep McG out!

i might acually give up on my anachist non voting principles for the same reason

Harry Angstrom

blahfckingblah wrote: »

No first past the post has so so many flaws, the only positives i can think for it is that it would reduce the cost of counting votes and the time needed to do so. And since someone mentioned it Gerrymandering is something that should be made harder and harder to do this system does not combat it too well.

How would gerrymandering affect a presidential election?

blahfckingblah

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

How would gerrymandering affect a presidential election?

You're right, I wasn't really thinking, its still not a good system

Richard

Gerrymandering affected FPTP in NI because there were smaller constituencies created which did not help nationalists.

In a presidential election there would still be one constituency, so this problem wouldn't arise.

Sinn Fein would benefit from FPTP, because they aren't "transfer-friendly". They are the marmite of Irish politics.

dunphy3

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

I can understand why we have a proportional representation system during a general election, but I can't really understand why we should employ it during a presidential election. Surely it should just be a straight vote, where people only tick the name of the person they want to see as our next president?
It would save a lot of time with the counting and it would also mean that the candidate who receives the largest number of first votes from the electorate becomes our president, which should really be what it's all about.

I'll only be voting for one of them. I won't be going through the ballot paper all the way down to number 5's and 6's.

what and miss all the tranfers fun????????