People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish

Border-Rat

http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

I've grown to despise the glorified auction known as Democracy. Seldom does a 'Democracy' survive as such. It almost always deteriorates into kleptocracy/plutocracy, from then into authoritarian kleptocracy as is in the case with the undemocratic USA/UK police states.

Democracy, nice idea - rarely works in practice/execution. The biggest liars with the greatest funds can simply purchase their mandate, they then sustain it by implementing the centre-right versus centre-left fraud. Each term the masses are given two avenues to vote to one end - the status quo. Through media manipulation they believe, most of them passionately, that they're exercising power and that there's really some type of difference between the two.

There is no difference.

Democracy pre-supposes that the masses are enlightened enough to be able to spot the difference between a liar and a fraud. This is a mistake, for they cannot. By the time the average person is finished a day at work, they couldn't give a damn and are at their most vulnerable. They are programmed at the correct times for fatigue, 6pm (Finish work) and 10pm (Almost time to turn in) news hours with ceaseless propaganda about two state-ran centrist parties. All other options are not even hinted at, if they even exist. Combine this with the power of conformity - which should never be underestimated, and the criminals have it sewn up. Leave it long enough, and the masses will believe anything. To recognise the power of this, see the WMD fiasco being played twice within one decade and accepted by all in the West.

Hitler: "Sooner will a camel pass through the eye of a needle, than you will find an honest parliamentarian". Or, Hitler again: "Democracy; where the votes of two imbeciles count for more than that of one wise man"

When one applies to enter the civil service and serve the government, they make you sit an aptitude test. If you are fitting material, you have a chance to perform a duty by passing the test. Yet at higher echelons of Government, people - - criminals, can be put in place of power by people unqualified to appoint them. Why is there no such thing as a voting license? It is dangerous to let an idiot wield a vote, as we have seen in the USA. At best the entire Country suffers with bona fide kleptocracy, a massive gap between rich and poor. At worst - its downright dangerous, with Countries being invaded and nuclear sabre rattling.

On a personal level, I despise Democracy. I loathe the obsequious supporter of the centrist fraud, especially when so-called 'right-wingers' passionately engage the centre left, all the while being fooled.

In the USSR the peasants had the benefit of realising they were being screwed, they were even plied with alcohol to vote. In the West, the majority do not even realise they're being screwed, their alcohol is exceptionalism, they believe themselves to be free and morally superior. Anyone who points out the error of their ways is deemed conspiracy theorist.

I don't necessarily agree with all your post. However I have thought for many years that people should earn their right to vote. Via a very simple factual questionnaire that can be done online or in person in a Garda station.

ie:
How many counties are in the REPUBLIC of Ireland
A: 26
B: 16
C: 8
48

Obvious questions, but if people can get off their ar$e to do this and have a basic grasp on Irish politics, they should be allowed vote.

Chuck Stone

Deleted User wrote: »

people should earn their right to vote. Via a very simple factual questionnaire that can be done online or in person in a Garda station.

Putting it at the top of the voting ballot would be more efficient. Maybe if the Government distributed a list of 100 simple questions of which 5 would be asked on polling day and four would have to be correct.

If you got more than one question wrong your vote wouldn't count.

Brussels Sprout

Why stop there? I think we all know where this will end up:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Saved_Lisa's_Brain

Jaafa

Far easier than trying to educate the unwilling masses about politics, would be to put into place systems to hold politicians and governments accountable when they fail to do their job, just like in any business.

I've always had the idea that before elections, a politician should come up with a list of at least 10 objectives he/she wishes the accomplish in his/her term. This list would be made public at least 2 weeks before any election. At the end of a politicians term, we go back to the list.

8/10 objectives accomplished? Good job.
7/6/ or less than 5? Sorry not up to scratch yet, your not allowed to run for office again for 1/2/3 years, until you work on your act.
3 or less? Sorry you messed up so bad, your not allowed to run for office for 20+ years.
None? You'll never work in this town again.

Cases were a politician clearly goes directly against one of his/her stated objectives or against a clear public wish, (eg: Irish SOPA, Failure to close Guantanamo), should lead to fines and possible criminal charges.

Every politician who makes a major decision during his/her term that has or will effect the country on a national scale, should be subject to investigation by an independent court, to see (in retrospect) if they were acting in public interest, to the best of their ability at the time (eg: Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts in Europe etc). Again criminal charges should follow if needed.

Obviously the above needs a lot of work and is a little idealistic in places. The biggest obstacle is of course the fact that such laws would need to be approved by....you guessed it.... politicians.

Still it's clear that our current system in the west is not ideal and has a lot flaws. Just because it's better than a dictatorship doesn't mean it's good enough.

Brussels Sprout

Border-Rat wrote: »

I've grown to despise the glorified auction known as Democracy. Seldom does a 'Democracy' survive as such.

What do you suggest we replace it with?

Jaafa wrote: »

3 or less? Sorry you messed up so bad, your not allowed to run for office for 20+ years.
None? You'll never work in this town again.

Cases were a politician clearly goes directly against one of his/her stated objectives or against a clear public wish, (eg: Irish SOPA, Failure to close Guantanamo), should lead to fines and possible criminal charges.

How many politicians actually have a real say in implementing policy? Should the back bencher who trumpets the party line when electioneering be punished because the ministers failed to implement the policies due to the terms of a coalition agreement?

Whatever about Ireland or the UK, this system would be absolutely unworkable in America where a split in the power between the two houses (as is the case now) would lead to gridlock. Why reach a consensus when we can impede the law and boot the other guy out?

Kinski

Ah yes, the "Dunning-Kruger effect". Somehow psychological research which contains this sort of highly questionable methodology...

n Study 1 we presented participants with a series of jokes and asked them to rate the humor of each one. We then compared their ratings with those provided by a panel of experts, namely, professional comedians who make their living by recognizing what is funny and reporting it to their audiences.

...doesn't strike me as providing the most solid basis for dismantling the entire tradition of Western liberal democracy.

Jaafa

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

What do you suggest we replace it with?



How many politicians actually have a real say in implementing policy? Should the back bencher who trumpets the party line when electioneering be punished because the ministers failed to implement the policies due to the terms of a coalition agreement?

Whatever about Ireland or the UK, this system would be absolutely unworkable in America where a split in the power between the two houses (as is the case now) would lead to gridlock. Why reach a consensus when we can impede the law and boot the other guy out?

Your objectives would reflect the position you intend to campaign for. They don't necessarily have to do with policy making.

wingsof daun

The whole western democracy as we know it appears to be more damaging to the masses and more to the advantage of a tiny amount of powerful people. It does make me feel foolish going in to vote for A to be elected, and when A gets elected, the entire voting population are left powerless.

Brussels Sprout

Jaafa wrote: »

Your objectives would reflect the position you intend to campaign for. They don't necessarily have to do with policy making.

I'm not sure if I understand you clearly but would that mean that someone who knows that they won't be a minster, for example, should campaign along the lines of "Vote for me and I'll follow the leaders".

or are you saying that people should be voting on each issue independently depending on what they said on when they were campaigning (if that were the case then taxes would never be raised and public sector wages and social welfare would never be cut)

charlemont

With the continual dumbing down of the educational system, News programs etc it really creates openings for the wrong people to get into power..

Strangely enough in school I never recall being thought much about anything to do with voting etc..

later12

My take on our version of democracy is that we don't have enough of it.

I have been eligible to vote for 7 years, six months, and one day.

In 7½ years, from Lisbon 1 to the Presidential Election, I have been eligible to make 9 individual democratic decisions. So despite all that has happened in those years, there has only been an opportunity to say something once every 304 days.

We have a representative democracy with very little direct democracy at all, therefore it is not accountable enough.

I am not talking about the accountability of politicians, but that other great accountability that democracy brings: the accountability of us, ourselves.

i believe that one reason why people can afford to be so complacent about politics is because they so rarely interact with policymaking. If we gave the public greater input into their own affairs, as happens in Switzerland, we might enlarge the sense of the public's responsibility and the public's accountability.

happyman81

So the OP just vanished?

sunshinediver

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with all your post. However I have thought for many years that people should earn their right to vote. Via a very simple factual questionnaire that can be done online or in person in a Garda station.

ie:
How many counties are in the REPUBLIC of Ireland
A: 26
B: 16
C: 8
48

Obvious questions, but if people can get off their ar$e to do this and have a basic grasp on Irish politics, they should be allowed vote.

Thats fine assuming voter turn out is always in the high percentile, In reality it's probably closer to less than 50%. Those that couldn't be bothered answering questions at a Garda Station are more than likely those that don't bother to vote anyway.

charlemont

later12 wrote: »

My take on our version of democracy is that we don't have enough of it.

I have been eligible to vote for 7 years, six months, and one day.

In 7½ years, from Lisbon 1 to the Presidential Election, I have been eligible to make 9 individual democratic decisions. So despite all that has happened in those years, there has only been an opportunity to say something once every 304 days.

We have a representative democracy with very little direct democracy at all, therefore it is not accountable enough.

I am not talking about the accountability of politicians, but that other great accountability that democracy brings: the accountability of us, ourselves.

i believe that one reason why people can afford to be so complacent about politics is because they so rarely interact with policymaking. If we gave the public greater input into their own affairs, as happens in Switzerland, we might enlarge the sense of the public's responsibility and the public's accountability.

Yes but the Swiss are Swiss, We unfortunately are Irish...

Kinski

charlemont wrote: »

Yes but the Swiss are Swiss, We unfortunately are Irish...

Or, "Unfortunately, the Swiss are the Swiss," as I've often heard people I know over there say.

People always knock the political sensibilities of the Irish by pointing to the success of parish-pump politicians, who specialise in filling in potholes and sorting out medical cards. I share some of that disenchantment with electoral politics here, but we should also note that those local complaints are often manifestations of national problems, like poor infrastructure and inefficient bureaucratic structures in the public service.

If someone feels largely powerless at the ballot box, but does think that they have some chance of having the road outside their house repaired, can we really blame them for voting for a candidate who at least promises them that?

later12

charlemont wrote: »

Yes but the Swiss are Swiss, We unfortunately are Irish...

Voter reform doesn't happen overnight, it might only become apparent over generations. After all, it's only in recent generations that broadly civil war voting patterns started petering out.

I'd rather we were known as the generation that plotted for direct democracy than that which sought to rid this country of universal suffrage.

Overheal

happyman81 wrote: »

So the OP just vanished?

For a whole 4 hours? Come on now.

Jaafa

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I'm not sure if I understand you clearly but would that mean that someone who knows that they won't be a minster, for example, should campaign along the lines of "Vote for me and I'll follow the leaders".

or are you saying that people should be voting on each issue independently depending on what they said on when they were campaigning (if that were the case then taxes would never be raised and public sector wages and social welfare would never be cut)

I'm saying that say someone was going for a specific ministry, he/she would put down realistic objectives to do with that ministry. Local TD's would put down objectives based on their specific counties etc etc. It's not much different than what we have now, other than it would be legally binding to a certain extent, in that each politician would be assessed at the end of his/her term, with the previous punishments being applied if necessary.

Gregor Samsa

Deleted User wrote: »

ie:
How many counties are in the REPUBLIC of Ireland
A: 26
B: 16
C: 8
48

I'd be the smartarse that writes in E: 29 as my answer, and would expect to earn my right to vote as a result.

K-9

later12 wrote: »

My take on our version of democracy is that we don't have enough of it.

I have been eligible to vote for 7 years, six months, and one day.

In 7½ years, from Lisbon 1 to the Presidential Election, I have been eligible to make 9 individual democratic decisions. So despite all that has happened in those years, there has only been an opportunity to say something once every 304 days.

7 and a half years? Lisbon was in 2008 IIRC, Lisbon 2 late 09.
So 9 decisions in the last 3 and a half years?

As for the 4 years before that, well, people were too worried about the Economy! We've had plenty of referenda in our history, often generate low turnouts, people aren't interested in Referenda on Bail laws, Citizenship etc. They'll moan about lack of consultation, when consulted, generally find better things to be doing.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

7 and a half years? Lisbon was in 2008 IIRC, Lisbon 2 late 09.
So 9 decisions in the last 3 and a half years?

Yes, I was just remarking on my own situation since having turned 18, i.e. the relative infrequency with which adults are asked to make decisions in their voting lives.

Does anyone know how many referenda have been conducted in the 'life of the state'?

There might have been an excuse back when these were logistically laborious, but with modern telecommunications, I really don't see the excuse (I know, I know, e-voting is the work of the devil, etc)

Dannyboy83

Jaafa wrote: »

Far easier than trying to educate the unwilling masses about politics, would be to put into place systems to hold politicians and governments accountable when they fail to do their job, just like in any business.

I've always had the idea that before elections, a politician should come up with a list of at least 10 objectives he/she wishes the accomplish in his/her term. This list would be made public at least 2 weeks before any election. At the end of a politicians term, we go back to the list.

8/10 objectives accomplished? Good job.
7/6/ or less than 5? Sorry not up to scratch yet, your not allowed to run for office again for 1/2/3 years, until you work on your act.
3 or less? Sorry you messed up so bad, your not allowed to run for office for 20+ years.
None? You'll never work in this town again.

Cases were a politician clearly goes directly against one of his/her stated objectives or against a clear public wish, (eg: Irish SOPA, Failure to close Guantanamo), should lead to fines and possible criminal charges.

Every politician who makes a major decision during his/her term that has or will effect the country on a national scale, should be subject to investigation by an independent court, to see (in retrospect) if they were acting in public interest, to the best of their ability at the time (eg: Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, bailouts in Europe etc). Again criminal charges should follow if needed.

Obviously the above needs a lot of work and is a little idealistic in places. The biggest obstacle is of course the fact that such laws would need to be approved by....you guessed it.... politicians.

Still it's clear that our current system in the west is not ideal and has a lot flaws. Just because it's better than a dictatorship doesn't mean it's good enough.

Dont need anything so complicated...all we need is a recall system.
all we do now is elect a dictator - who doesnt know how to govern so the civil service run the country instead.

thats not democracy... you cannot have and never will have accountability and therefore democracy without a recall system.

if fine gael promise to reform the public service to get elected, then once theyre in,they claim there would be nuclear winter if they tried - you get enough signatures to initiate a recall.
they are now accountable, we are now democratic.

K-9

later12 wrote: »

Yes, I was just remarking on my own situation since having turned 18, i.e. the relative infrequency with which adults are asked to make decisions in their voting lives.

Does anyone know how many referenda have been conducted in the 'life of the state'?

There might have been an excuse back when these were logistically laborious, but with modern telecommunications, I really don't see the excuse (I know, I know, e-voting is the work of the devil, etc)

Amendments to the Constitution of Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

33 by the looks of it, all barring 1 from 1968 on.

K-9

Turn outs varied from 28% on Adoption, 29% on Bail, 35% on the Death Penalty, we haven't had over 60% since Divorce in 95.

RandomName2

Border-Rat wrote: »

I've grown to despise the glorified auction known as Democracy. Seldom does a 'Democracy' survive as such. It almost always deteriorates into kleptocracy/plutocracy, from then into authoritarian kleptocracy as is in the case with the undemocratic USA/UK police states.

I said people should read Plato's Republic. I didn't say they should take it seriously. :pac:

Jaafa

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Dont need anything so complicated...all we need is a recall system.
all we do now is elect a dictator - who doesnt know how to govern so the civil service run the country instead.

thats not democracy... you cannot have and never will have accountability and therefore democracy without a recall system.

if fine gael promise to reform the public service to get elected, then once theyre in,they claim there would be nuclear winter if they tried - you get enough signatures to initiate a recall.
they are now accountable, we are now democratic.

My suggestion really wasn't that complicated, in fact I'm more worried it doesn't cover enough eventualities.

Your suggestion is essentially the same as mine, except it focuses on one major promise made by a party as whole, rather than several promises made by individuals.

Your idea however would make a good prototype, in that you could introduce recall for a period of say 2-5 elections, then slowly build on it, until it becomes a comprehensive method of holding elected officials accountable for their actions.

RichieC

I think democracies failures have a lot more to do with bad information via failed news media who know what side their bread's buttered.

I love this. I mean, it's pretty obvious that certain people posting in this thread are the very people being talked about in the article!

Yes, I was just remarking on my own situation since having turned 18, i.e. the relative infrequency with which adults are asked to make decisions in their voting lives.

Does anyone know how many referenda have been conducted in the 'life of the state'?

There might have been an excuse back when these were logistically laborious, but with modern telecommunications, I really don't see the excuse

You mean to say you can't simply google for 2 seconds and find out how many referenda there were yourself? From a man who wants more democracy, it's not looking good.

There is a reason we don't have to vote very often - so the government can do their job. Think of all the public opinion changes in the last 12 months. Were we to have a public vote for every major issue, we would be a basket case (well, even more of one).

When the government fights tooth and nail to keep an item off the referendum agenda, they aren't doing it because they're evil controllers who want nothing but the worst for the Irish people - despite what many people around here might have you believe. They are attempting to keep the legislation off the referendum agenda because morons will turn around and believe that forced abortions will become mandatory if they vote yes. :rolleyes:

Pacifist Pigeon

The idea of true democratic representation in a large society by a handful (say 166) of people is fallacious. Also, modern democracy has no respect for individual rights.

Overheal

K-9 wrote: »

Turn outs varied from 28% on Adoption, 29% on Bail, 35% on the Death Penalty, we haven't had over 60% since Divorce in 95.

Thats shockingly low. I think here it at least manages to stay above Majority at about 50-65%.

It baffles me that 70% of Irish have no interesting in having a say about what happens to them. Especially in such a socialized country.

later12

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

le for 2 seconds and find out how many referenda there were yourself? From a man who wants more democracy, it's not looking good.

No; I didn't see anything on electionsireland and I guess I tend to ignore wiki articles on search results.

When the government fights tooth and nail to keep an item off the referendum agenda, they aren't doing it because they're evil controllers who want nothing but the worst for the Irish people - despite what many people around here might have you believe. They are attempting to keep the legislation off the referendum agenda because morons will turn around and believe that forced abortions will become mandatory if they vote yes. :rolleyes:

Nobody said anything about 'evil controllers' whatever that means. You're listing that argument just so you can counter it. As far as Im concerned the tendency not to consult the public is based more on tradition emanating from a time when ongoing public consultation was logistically unfeasible.

RichardAnd

You know, for the arguments raised in this thread to hold ground, one must espouse the belief that those elected by the democratic process actually have any power at all.

Dirk Gently

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Dont need anything so complicated...all we need is a recall system.
all we do now is elect a dictator - who doesnt know how to govern so the civil service run the country instead.

I believe in more direct democracy and also a recall system however it's a double edged sword and we need to be careful. A recall system is basically admiting the failure of accountability and standards in politics, it doesn't neccessarily fix it. Direct democracy is the least worst system moreso than a great system. It would only work with enforced ethics and standards legislation and also with a population willing to engage and make rational decisions. No small ask. Our current autocratic, unaccountable and undemocratic set up lends itself too much to cronyism. Saying that though, politics is already designed in a way which makes politicians cover up, fail to act and out source decision making because they know in 4 or 5 years they'll be out of a job if they appear to upset anyone. Thats why "optics" and spin and "advisors" all corrupt our democracy and why civil servants run the county not politicians. We can't have a situation where politicians are re-called on a whim, as a result of political opportunism or mud slinging. Do you really want to be Chelsea fc with new managers every few months, new managers even less willing to make bold decisions than we currently have.

Systems need to be put in place. more system, less scope for emotional reactionary punishments. Rules for example barring TD's from being involved in local parish pump politics, actual legislation which means they lose their seat if they fail in their duty as national parliamentarians by engaging in local favours and clientelism. Voters have a responsibility here, moreso even than politicians who often have no choice but to engage in local nonsense or face not being re-elected. Our current election system doesn't exactly help the situation. There should also be a ban on local issues propaganda come national election time. Every leaflet I get in the letter box lists the candidates local credentials, despite them running for a dail seat. Obviously they feel a need to do this otherwise people wont elect them. Is it really their fault or ours that they campaign locally for national parliment. It would be difficult to list national achievments too if the candidate was outside of the cabinet as they simply have no power to make any progress.

Abolishment of the whip system. Adding more sitting time in the dail isnt reform, thats just allowing even more time for show debates as anyone outside the cabinet is currently irrelevant. TD's are currently just rent a vote for the cabinet, they could sit at home and text their votes into leinster house for all the good political debate and decision making is in this country. The Dail in its current form is the ultimate in "optics" politics, entirely for show and the illusion of democracy.

Local government needs to be reformed and empowered for direct democracy to work. People have to engage and take part. Our current elitist political system discourages engagement, a more democratic system would empower people and encourage them to take part.

On re-calls, what would be the criteria for a recall. I think a lot of it could be dealt with with properly enforced ethics and standards, offending TD's losing their seats without the need for re-calls. This doesn't happen in Irish politics which is why we feel the need for re-calls but how do you police it so it's in the best interests of the country and doesnt end up with any politician who suggests a cut or an unpopular decision losing their seat. It's a recipe for populism over national interest. I do think the re-call option should be there, I'm just not sure how much can be dealt with by democratic legislation and what offences might trigger a popular vote. Gross incompetence should be dealt within the system, the problem is it's currently not. In any case, re-calls should be about technical breaches and not simply someone being unpopular. If we had accountability in politics we wouldn't need a re-call option. Perhaps if a TD abandons one of his core principles which got him elected, i.e voting for or against a national issue after campaigning on the back of the opposite argument?

Just to say a re-call option and direct democracy will solve everything isn't enough, it's all about the systems of accountability adopted that will make it work or not. Collective responsibility is certainly more desirable than inept elite inflicted punishment though, if nothing else it would remove the convinient blame someone else culture we have in this country.

It's a chicken / egg situation. We have an uninterested population who are prone to electing hard necked chancers. We want to empower that same population more in decision making. It takes time to go from that kind of culture to a civic minded responsible culture but it will never happen at all if we continue the way we are. Our current system promotes vested interest over universal common good.

later12

RichardAnd wrote: »

You know, for the arguments raised in this thread to hold ground, one must espouse the belief that those elected by the democratic process actually have any power at all.

It's not an even distribution of power and influence, but they certainly do have significant power overall.

Dannyboy83

Good post, don't mean to disregard the many points you've made, but slightly stuck for time.

While I agree with you about the other points, I don't see them as feasible.
I don't think you can really legislate against parish pump politics.
If you can, I'm in favour of it tho!

If the only successful system requires "a population willing to engage and make rational decisions", then we are doomed.
My wise decision is another man's stupid decision.

The principle behind democracy tho - is that wheter right or wrong, the majority win.
Anything else is not democracy.

Dirk Gently wrote: »

We can't have a situation where politicians are re-called on a whim, as a result of political opportunism or mud slinging. Do you really want to be Chelsea fc with new managers every few months, new managers even less willing to make bold decisions than we currently have.

I genuinely don't think this would happen.
To be honest, I think the flaw in a recall system is that it wouldn't offer enough accountability.
Irish people are too apathetic.

It would have to be a particularly emotive issue just to get enough signatures for a recall I would say.

It seems to me that most Irish people cannot agree on even fairly basic things - there is no consensus about the bank bailout/burning the bondholders... but there are a few issues they do agree on.

On a daily basis, I hear people complain about the complete failure to reform the public service while taxes increase.
I hear about this issue - every day from people from all sections of society, including those within the public service.
This is the type of issue which would spark a recall and it's probably the only way this country will ever be reformed.

You wouldn't be stuck in a situation where 200 members of Green party decide the future of the country, as happened in the previous government.

About political mud slinging - I can't see it happening.
Even went people knew Bertie was corrupt, they still went and returned Fianna Fail.

Direct democracy is the least worst system moreso than a great system.

Agree, but there is no great system.
What is the most pragmatic system, with the least number of dependencies?

The Irish electorate are not going to stop being ignorant or apathetic.
No electorate ever really have.... I think...

perhaps this is the most important point and one that people are missing.

Nagel concluded that democracies rarely or never elect the best leaders. Their advantage over dictatorships or other forms of government is merely that they "effectively prevent lower-than-average candidates from becoming leaders."


maybe the prevention of a saddam or a hitler is all that is needed for people to flourish.

Dirk Gently

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

It would have to be a particularly emotive issue just to get enough signatures for a recall I would say.
.

this is the problem though and why I think it should be a technical issue, even having a recall vote automatically triggered if certain rules are breached without needing x amount of public signatures.


Lets say someone campaigns and successfully gets elected on the back of championing equality legislation, taking an example of gay marriage. He then votes against a bill which would allow it. If that was one of his core issues then I think a recall would be justified so as he can explain his reasoning for his objection and face the public vote to vindicate his position or remove him for breach of a core principle and is thus misrepresenting the people who elected him. There could be reasons why he voted against it, bill might not have gone far enough or bill may be wrongly worded perhaps and he wants a new improved bill approved instead. Let his support base decide.

contrast that with someone who is simply unpopular, or makes some questionable remark (such as people leaving the country is a lifestyle choice) which gets legs and runs and causes an emotional reaction for a couple of weeks. The opposition mount a signature campaign off the back of a topical issue (lets face it FF/FG/SF would all be causing mischief against each other) and the politician in question goes back into an election race against 10 other local candidates while not having breached any rule or doing a U turn on a core principle.

I just think reasons for a recall should be carefully considered so as to rule out political opportunism and exploitation of flaky public opinion which could change dramatically from one week to the next.

Border-Rat

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with all your post. However I have thought for many years that people should earn their right to vote. Via a very simple factual questionnaire that can be done online or in person in a Garda station.

ie:
How many counties are in the REPUBLIC of Ireland
A: 26
B: 16
C: 8
48

Obvious questions, but if people can get off their ar$e to do this and have a basic grasp on Irish politics, they should be allowed vote.

Once voting aptitude is sorted there is still the problem of vote fraud as seen in the USA or Russia. It doesn't matter if its bang on the money if the same person is allegedly visiting the booth several times or the next person's vote is going walkies. Though ideally if the former wasn't a problem the latter wouldn't be either, if they can spot the decent, patriotic and/or honest politician then they can deal with fraud. Most people make ends meet first then are languid when it comes to responsibility of the Government, which is ultimately theirs. They don't want to know.

"Most people can't think, most of the remainder, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion-- in the long run, these are the only people who count"

- Robert A. Heinlein

Add in the tsunami of distractions atop the day-to-day and really, a disaster is waiting to happen. Ideally the standard of living could go through the roof. Just a few terms of that would put people on their toes for generations, they don't really know what they're missing. In the civil service appropriate men fulfill appropriate tasks. No-one would dare have firemen who aren't up to the job, or an ambulance service or military found wanting. Not so in the Government.

goose2005

K-9 wrote: »

Turn outs varied from 28% on Adoption, 29% on Bail, 35% on the Death Penalty, we haven't had over 60% since Divorce in 95.

Given how shambolic the register is and how awkward it is to vote in Ireland, this isn't surprising. My family (6 adults) have 9 votes, because 3 people are listed twice on the register. We told them this a few years ago but they didn't do anything about it.

My dad, mam, and I voted at the last referenda/pres. election
Brother and sister were away at college - the vote was on a Thursday (why?) and there is no facility for them to cast a vote away from the local station.
Other brother working abroad - no absentee ballots
Three duplicate votes not used.

100% turnout if Ireland's voting system functioned properly
33% (3/9) turnout actually recorded.

The same is probably true for hundreds of thousands of unused votes - they are duplicates/abroad/dead/have moved house/working away from home and don't want to waste €30 and six hours just to cast a vote.

K-9

goose2005 wrote: »

Given how shambolic the register is and how awkward it is to vote in Ireland, this isn't surprising. My family (6 adults) have 9 votes, because 3 people are listed twice on the register. We told them this a few years ago but they didn't do anything about it.

My dad, mam, and I voted at the last referenda/pres. election
Brother and sister were away at college - the vote was on a Thursday (why?) and there is no facility for them to cast a vote away from the local station.
Other brother working abroad - no absentee ballots
Three duplicate votes not used.

100% turnout if Ireland's voting system functioned properly
33% (3/9) turnout actually recorded.

The same is probably true for hundreds of thousands of unused votes - they are duplicates/abroad/dead/have moved house/working away from home and don't want to waste €30 and six hours just to cast a vote.

The same register issues relate to general elections which got a turn out of over 70% in the last General Election and has risen in the last 10 years.

Reekwind

Border-Rat wrote: »

Hitler: "Sooner will a camel pass through the eye of a needle, than you will find an honest parliamentarian". Or, Hitler again: "Democracy; where the votes of two imbeciles count for more than that of one wise man"

Quelle surprise, a Holocaust denier quotes Hitler and disapproves of democracy. Tell me Border-Rat, does your ideal society involve brown uniforms?

One observation that I've noticed over time is those who claim to despise democracy always assume that they'll have a voice in the new order. I bet you consider yourself part of the "extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion*"? Nobody really wants to live in a society in which they have absolutely no influence and minimal rights. Disenfranchisement seems a lot more tolerable when inflicted on other people (particularly when you consider them "too stupid" to make informed choices)

*Hate to be the one to break it Border-Rat but you're not

paddyandy

There are too many with polling cards .There should be a test to show a measure of fitness to elect a td .

Vadakin

paddyandy wrote: »

There are too many with polling cards .There should be a test to show a measure of fitness to elect a td .

And a measure of fitness to be a TD.

Sometimes I think we should do what the ancient Greeks used to do, with every single citizen being obligated to serve of a period of time in the government. The Greeks pretty much had a lottery and if your name came up, you'd have to serve.

We could have a variation on that idea. No political parties, no long-serving TD's, just ordinary people. Have a lottery with every Irish citizen over the age of 18 being entered. If your name is drawn, you enter the Dail for a period of 1 year. When that year is up, your name is removed from the lottery list and another lottery is held to pick the next government. Stability is maintained by a Senate, made up of academics who serve for a period of 5 years and the role of Taoiseach is merged with the President and is elected by the people, also for a period of 5 years with a maximum of 1 term being allowed.

It could be a mess. It could be the greatest thing in the history of the world.

bijapos

Deleted User wrote: »

ie:
How many counties are in the REPUBLIC of Ireland
A: 26
B: 16
C: 8
48

Obvious questions, but if people can get off their ar$e to do this and have a basic grasp on Irish politics, they should be allowed vote.

If you put in 32 counties I'd be interested in seeing how many would tick that box.

Jaafa wrote: »

I've always had the idea that before elections, a politician should come up with a list of at least 10 objectives he/she wishes the accomplish in his/her term. This list would be made public at least 2 weeks before any election. At the end of a politicians term, we go back to the list.

They already do this when they present you with their manifesto. But once they go into a coalition they have to compromise their manifesto with that of their coalition partners.

A lot of the time as well its just used to buy a vote, most parties think short term rarely do they think long term. Its their objective to get elected, then from Day 1 after being elected their main objective is to make decisions to ensure they are re-elected. Rarely are tough decisions that are better for the electorate long term rewarded with a vote at the next election, the opposite is usually the case.

paddyandy

How to spot a cute hoor and questions on gombeens .

Reekwind

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with all your post. However I have thought for many years that people should earn their right to vote. Via a very simple factual questionnaire that can be done online or in person in a Garda station.

ie:
How many counties are in the REPUBLIC of Ireland
A: 26
B: 16
C: 8
48

Obvious questions, but if people can get off their ar$e to do this and have a basic grasp on Irish politics, they should be allowed vote.

I can't believe I missed this earlier

Outside of FIFA and Wikipedia bodgearounds, the 'Republic of Ireland' does not exist as a sovereign entity. According to the Constitution, the country that you live in (assuming you're in one of the 26 counties) is called 'Ireland'. Just Ireland. Not the Republic of Ireland (which is a description, not a name), not the Irish Republic and not any other variation thereof

So under your criteria (and getting the name of your country right is pretty basic) you wouldn't be allowed to vote

later12

Reekwind wrote: »

the Republic of Ireland (which is a description, not a name)...

...And therefore, is perfectly legitimately used in the context of his question.

There are 26 counties in the sovereign territory named Ireland, which may be described as 'The Republic of Ireland'. There is nothing incorrect about framing the question in the way that Pappa Dolla has chosen.

Reekwind

You will never see an official communique from the Irish government in which it refers to itself as the 'Republic of Ireland'. That is not the name of the country. If you want to quote from the Constitution: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland". Not a mention of republics there

later12

But you're missing the point.

The name of the country is not The Republic of Ireland, but the use of the term "The Republic of Ireland, in accordance with our laws, to describe the country, is perfectly legitimate. If you wanted to pick an example to demonstrate this legal quirk, you picked a poor example, because the post in question is perfectly correct.

Ehm, the whole debacle of the Irish and English versions of our name was simply a jab at the Brits at the time. Hardly relevant now, 'Éire' is waning in use, big time. Something the average punter on the street probably would not know.


Why are we putting trick questions on these ballots?!