Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

[Constitutional Convention][6][18 May / 8 June 2013] Review Electoral System

  • 14-04-2013 5:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭


    Greetings. My name is Keith Burke. I'm from Kildare. I was chosen to be one of the 66 citizens of Ireland to represent the wider citizen base in the Constitutional Convention. Some broad information can be found here. It looks mostly accurate

    I'm not an expert in law, the constitution or politics. I want to educate myself in the various proposals to better allow myself discuss it on the day. I also want to hear what the wider citizen base think about the proposals.

    The Convention are meeting on May 18th/19th and 8th/9th June 2013 to discuss the 6th issue put to us.

    Reform the electoral system

    I've read through the Irish Constitution [PDF]. There are many, may, many pages relating to the Electoral System, The Government, The Dáil etc. I won't list them individually but they are Articles 15 through 3, depending on where you draw the line.

    However, this discussion might be slightly different. We could discuss to change what's in the Good Book --OR-- we could scrap everything and start with a clean slate. We discussed, briefly and loosely on how to proceed. It went a little like this...

    Advisory Panel
    • Michael Gallagher - TCD
    • Michael Marsh - TCD

    Weekend 1
    1. Why is this on the agenda?
    2. What alternatives are there?
    3. If we keep what we have, how would we change it?

    At end of week 1
    Vote on which alternative system to examine in detail in weekend 2
    Draw up a preliminary list of potential changes to existing process

    Weekend 2
    Flesh out the detail.
    Maybe investigate Direct Democracy.

    It should be said, that this is a VERY lose description of what and how we might discuss.

    Request : This thread is not to discuss the Convention itself, please only discuss the pro's and con's of the thread topic.
    NOTE : Neither myself nor Sorcha are available for weekend 2, 8 June 2013. We have a wedding to attend for a very close friend. I DID ask them to change the date of the wedding but they were not obliging :( So, we will be attending May but not June. I do not know, nor probably ever know, who our substitutes will be.

    I welcome your comments. Discuss.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Well without going into the topic in detail at the moment, one obvious point is that we have European elections next year and - unlike in the case of local and general elections - there is no constitutional provisions or requirement in BnahE concerning them, hence we are free to use a different electoral system for them (it must be one of the dozen or so proportional voting systems though under EU law).

    Indeed it may well be a good idea to use a different system since, as the EP votes on a "party line" basis, what matters in it is the balance of MEPs from each (EU level) "political party/viewpoint" not whether Pat or Joe - both from the same party here - would be "better" for fixing the local potholes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    I'd be in favour of removing the PR system altogether to a simple one person one vote system, not the 10+ votes you could have under the current one.
    Idealy GE's could be done as a list system, and candidates picked after by the party, would start to help to cut down on localism on the national stage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    I'd be in favour of a list system, similar to what they have in Germany with the exception of the rules they have regarding minimum vote percentage in a bid to eliminate the parish pump from irish politics


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    This is a complex one, I would be in favour of changing our PR-STV, its holding us back and keeping national politics at way too local a level.

    We need our politicans to act for the whole nation and not just their own counties, so how do we bring this about - its tricky. The system we have now just isnt working though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭StillWaters


    This is probably the most complex item on the Convention's Agenda. I would be in favour of reform myself. I think the focus on localism that results from the PR system and multi seat constituents is not healthy, and can lead to weak TDs and weak coalitions.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    I think a fairly radical change is required. Our system has many drawbacks (too parochial, parish pump driven, poor quality of TDs, etc.) and the results have been catastrophic for the country.

    However, where do you start with the types of reforms that are required. In summary, I think we need:
    - A smaller Dail. Something in around 100 TDs seems fine to me, although I am not pushed on the exact number. The principle should be that the smaller the number, the more the TD would need to appear to a broader number of voters in order to get elected. It could be one measure to help remove parish pump politics
    - Some element of a list system. Perhaps 50% of the TDs to come from a list system. Again, this could be another measure to help remove parish pump politics. It would help to ensure that talented people, with strong views on national issues, have a good chance of being elected

    Other ideas may not fit neatly into the discussion but are highly interrelated. For example, ending the 'whip system' in the Dail, enhancing the role of the President, improving local politics (including mayors of large citites), etc.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,601 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    I would favor the introduction of a mixed system, consisting of list system alongside our current system. Give people the opportunity to have an input into politics without having to go through the parish pump.

    Should be aimed towards those who perhaps only want to serve for one or two terms.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,036 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I can see one problem with a smaller Dáil, that being that it is easier for power to be concentrated in the hands of the ruling government.

    However, I'd favour a "list system" for electing 50% of our TDs, with PR being used for the other 50%.

    I'd also favour reforming the Seanad, using a list system to elect all of them, but Seanad elections would be held at the same time as local/EU elections so failed TDs can't get a seat there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    There should be some interesting discussions with the politicians if you suggest some of these:

    Dail
    Representation:
    Change the representation levels to be equivalent to in seat per 50,000, which will reduce the seats to about 100
    or
    Insert a cap on the number of seats stating that they should be spread evenly across the country based on population, with the constituency boundaries to be reviewed every 10 years using a combination census & electoral roll figures

    Changes to the voting system - First past the post
    There are two ways I can see this operating:
    Single seat constituencies (the KISS principle)
    or
    Multi seat - max one vote per seat with no transfers. In a 3 seater a valid vote will have up to 3 boxes marked x.

    Seanad:
    Direct elections instead of local authority votes & government appointed
    Elections should be similar to the US senate with 1 seat per county

    And on a less serious note (unless somebody wants to seriously suggest it):
    E voting - is totally secure and has no need tor those paper backup systems.;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    The KISS principle - For others
    KISS is an acronym for "Keep it simple, stupid" as a design principle noted by the U.S. Navy in 1960.[1][2] The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complex; therefore simplicity should be a key goal in design and unnecessary complexity should be avoided. The phrase has been associated with aircraft engineer Kelly Johnson (1910–1990).[3] The term "KISS principle" was in popular use by 1970.[4] Variations on the phrase include "keep it stupid simple", "keep it short and simple", "keep it simple sir", "keep it super simple", "keep it simple or be stupid", "keep it simple and stupid", "keep it simple and straightforward", "Keep it simple student", "keep it simple,silly", "keep it simple and sincere" or "keep it simple and secular."


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    Agree with you on the 100 seats thing.
    antoobrien wrote: »
    Changes to the voting system - First past the post
    There are two ways I can see this operating:
    Single seat constituencies (the KISS principle)
    or
    Multi seat - max one vote per seat with no transfers. In a 3 seater a valid vote will have up to 3 boxes marked x.

    I'd be a little concernabout about first past the post. The dangers is that with 100 single seat constituencies, you may get a lot of single issue TDs (save my hospital, no to the big incinerator, don't close my garda station, etc.). Another danger is that you have a less representative democracy. One of the (few) good things about the current system is that the percentage of TDs by party is reasonably closely aligned with the party preferences you get with opinion polls. With first past the post, if you have a dominant party who are well organised and well supported nationally (e.g. FF or FG) they may have 25-30% support each but could end up with 40% of the seats each.

    The disadvantages are probably less so with your multiseat constituencies idea. They would also be less so with some form of list system.
    antoobrien wrote: »

    Seanad:
    Direct elections instead of local authority votes & government appointed
    Elections should be similar to the US senate with 1 seat per county

    And on a less serious note (unless somebody wants to seriously suggest it):
    E voting - is totally secure and has no need tor those paper backup systems.;)

    If we are to retain the Seanad, I think your suggestion of direct elections is the best way to do so. I agree with county by county representation. However, I'd also consider getting some form of representation from Northern Ireland and from the diaspora if there was a practical way of doing it. We'd be adding an international dimension to the 'upper house' which could be worthwhile

    Agree 100% with e-voting by the way. There is no such thing as a 100% secure system. However, what people often don't realise is that the current system is much, much, much less secure than a well designed e-voting system would be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    PRAF wrote: »
    Agree 100% with e-voting by the way. There is no such thing as a 100% secure system. However, what people often don't realise is that the current system is much, much, much less secure than a well designed e-voting system would be.

    I think you've misunderstood me, I'm horrified at the thought of an e-voting system. Besides the fact that they are far too easy to break, they're very hard to make transparent and there is more potential for data privacy issues (i.e. find out who's voting for <insert muppet of choice>) than with the pen & paper approach.
    PRAF wrote: »
    I'd be a little concernabout about first past the post. The dangers is that with 100 single seat constituencies, you may get a lot of single issue TDs (save my hospital, no to the big incinerator, don't close my garda station, etc.).

    I'm not particularly worried about that, those kind of candidates rarely top the polls - which would be required under first past.

    Think about it for a second - what would it effect how the parties choose candidates? There'd be no 2-4 candidate stuff like there was with FG in Galway West, so there'd be no vote splits. Given the locations of the candidates, I'd be willing to bet FPTP would return the same TDs in Galway.

    Where they do well, they'll continue to do well. If anything I'd say FTPT would be rejected because of the possibility that it will militate against the smaller parties/candidates.

    The other suggestion - pick 5, would probably have changed the personnel in if not the party representation - FHE would have beaten Kyne.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    PRAF wrote: »
    ...the current system is much, much, much less secure than a well designed e-voting system would be.
    I don't think you could possibly be more wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't think you could possibly be more wrong.

    There is no such thing as 100 percent security. Doesn't exist. Evoting has some drawbacks, but they could easily be overcome. We currently rely on paper and pencil. Of course it is totally impossible to erase an X on a piece of paper isn't it. Totally impossible to lose a ballot box. Impossible to burn paper ballots. Inconceivable that two people could collude to do any of this.

    The current system is more vulnerable from a security perspective


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    PRAF wrote: »
    Of course it is totally impossible to erase an X on a piece of paper isn't it.
    Without anyone noticing?
    Totally impossible to lose a ballot box.
    Without anyone noticing?
    Impossible to burn paper ballots.
    Without anyone noticing?
    Inconceivable that two people could collude to do any of this.
    Without anyone else noticing?
    The current system is more vulnerable from a security perspective
    Only if you dismiss the drawbacks of electronic voting with handwaving like "easily overcome", which they are not.

    Try this for size: it is impossible - impossible - to guarantee that the version of software you're using to cast your vote is the version that has been tested to your satisfaction.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Without anyone noticing? Without anyone noticing? Without anyone noticing? Without anyone else noticing? Only if you dismiss the drawbacks of electronic voting with handwaving like "easily overcome", which they are not.

    Try this for size: it is impossible - impossible - to guarantee that the version of software you're using to cast your vote is the version that has been tested to your satisfaction.

    Some food for thought for you:
    - The current system is not 100% secure! Every form of paper ballot system that has ever been devised can and has been manipulated. I have mentioned a few possibilities but there are many more (ballot-box stuffing, substitution of ballots, vote tampering, etc) which would be very difficult to detect. In complex systems where people, processes, and technology interact it is very often the people element that fails first
    - Integrity of results Computers are quite simply more accurate than humans. Even the simplest forms of voting systems can be difficult for humans to process correctly. In the Irish system, where they system is reasonably complex (with transferable voting), everyone knows that the results are not 100% accurate and so there can be numerous recounts with varying results each time
    - Benefits of technology Perhaps one of the biggest failing of the current voting system is that you have to be present in your constituency on the day of the vote. For many people (those on holidays, overseas on business, sick in hospital, etc) they are simply unable to vote. Many more would like to but real life gets in the way and they decide to prioritise other activities. An IT based voting system would make it much easier for people to vote and IMO would therefore enhance our democracy

    Let me be clear on this. I am not suggesting that eVoting is 100% secure. Far from it. I have acknowledge that no system can ever be 100% secure. We could do a lot to increase eVoting security (e.g. voter verified paper trails, open source code which is fully transparent for those who care to inspect it, etc.). However, you will never get to 100% security.

    I do wonder though if the benefits of eVoting outweigh the cons. For me, they do although I accept I am perhaps in the minority on that. The shame of it is that opponents of eVoting will rarely if ever accept that the current system has any flaws.

    Apologies OP - we've gone way off topic here!!


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    PRAF wrote: »
    - The current system is not 100% secure! Every form of paper ballot system that has ever been devised can and has been manipulated. I have mentioned a few possibilities but there are many more (ballot-box stuffing, substitution of ballots, vote tampering, etc) which would be very difficult to detect. In complex systems where people, processes, and technology interact it is very often the people element that fails first
    The current system has safeguards in place to address the risks you've described. You've talked about erasing pencil marks, but haven't explained how you do so with people watching. You've talked about ballot stuffing, but haven't explained how to do so and explain the discrepancy with the electoral register. You've talked about ballot boxes going missing, but haven't explained how it's possible to do so without someone noticing that, well, there are some ballot boxes missing.

    Electronic voting would introduce an entirely new set of attack vectors to a system that's actually a lot more secure than you're giving it credit for, and those attack vectors are completely opaque to the vast majority of people who would be asked to trust the system.
    - Integrity of results Computers are quite simply more accurate than humans. Even the simplest forms of voting systems can be difficult for humans to process correctly. In the Irish system, where they system is reasonably complex (with transferable voting), everyone knows that the results are not 100% accurate and so there can be numerous recounts with varying results each time
    That's a problem for an electronic counting system to resolve, not a voting system. I'm open to the idea of a computerised approach to counting our existing paper ballot, once the paper ballots remain the authorative record of the electorate's wishes.
    - Benefits of technology Perhaps one of the biggest failing of the current voting system is that you have to be present in your constituency on the day of the vote. For many people (those on holidays, overseas on business, sick in hospital, etc) they are simply unable to vote. Many more would like to but real life gets in the way and they decide to prioritise other activities. An IT based voting system would make it much easier for people to vote and IMO would therefore enhance our democracy
    Making it possible for people to vote without having to be physically present at a polling station is the single biggest threat I can imagine to the integrity of our voting system. As impossible as it is to secure an electronic voting system in a polling booth (and the expert consensus is that it is, indeed, impossible), it's just crazy to imagine that a distributed system (using, presumably, public communications networks and individuals' computers or smartphones) could possibly be secured in any meaningful way.
    Let me be clear on this. I am not suggesting that eVoting is 100% secure. Far from it. I have acknowledge that no system can ever be 100% secure. We could do a lot to increase eVoting security (e.g. voter verified paper trails, open source code which is fully transparent for those who care to inspect it, etc.). However, you will never get to 100% security.
    My argument isn't that the current system is perfectly secure; it's that there are a very limited number of attack vectors, and all of them could be addressed with relatively little effort if it were deemed worthwhile. Electronic voting, on the other hand, can't possibly ever be completely secure - I reiterate the point that it is simply impossibly to know for a fact that the software you're using to cast your vote is the same software that you trust, even supposing you have the technical nous to usefully evaluate such software.
    I do wonder though if the benefits of eVoting outweigh the cons. For me, they do although I accept I am perhaps in the minority on that. The shame of it is that opponents of eVoting will rarely if ever accept that the current system has any flaws.
    The flaws in the current system are well understood, and generally well managed. The flaws in a putative electronic voting system can't even be completely understood, never mind fully managed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    PRAF wrote: »
    Some food for thought for you:
    - The current system is not 100% secure! Every form of paper ballot system that has ever been devised can and has been manipulated. I have mentioned a few possibilities but there are many more (ballot-box stuffing, substitution of ballots, vote tampering, etc) which would be very difficult to detect. In complex systems where people, processes, and technology interact it is very often the people element that fails first
    - Integrity of results Computers are quite simply more accurate than humans. Even the simplest forms of voting systems can be difficult for humans to process correctly. In the Irish system, where they system is reasonably complex (with transferable voting), everyone knows that the results are not 100% accurate and so there can be numerous recounts with varying results each time


    There isn't an evoting machine on the planet that can't be tampered with using fairly basic techniques to do the above.
    PRAF wrote: »
    - Benefits of technology Perhaps one of the biggest failing of the current voting system is that you have to be present in your constituency on the day of the vote. For many people (those on holidays, overseas on business, sick in hospital, etc) they are simply unable to vote.

    This is a good thing as far as I can see. If the vote is important to people they will make an effort to be "at home" (the sick excepted) and available to vote. There will always be people who don't turn up for any event - elections are no different
    PRAF wrote: »
    Let me be clear on this. I am not suggesting that eVoting is 100% secure. Far from it. I have acknowledge that no system can ever be 100% secure. We could do a lot to increase eVoting security (e.g. voter verified paper trails, open source code which is fully transparent for those who care to inspect it, etc.).

    How easy would to be to rig an election where the only thing you have to do is a string substitution to change the results? How hard would it be to change 100,000 votes? It took about 45 minutes to return a result in the election that Mary O'Rourke lost her seat in the first trial of evoting. That's more than enough time to re-write 100,000 records and substitute false audit trails.

    And verification would only be any use if the voting modules hadn't been affected and overwritten before they get to the count center.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    PRAF wrote: »
    Apologies OP - we've gone way off topic here!!

    No apology needed. The inviolability* of our voting system is core to our electoral system so therefore falls into the remit of reforming such a system.


    * I'm getting to hear and use that word in every CCVEN meeting :) Before CCVEN, I never knew what it meant, or that it even existed.
    1. Secure from violation or profanation: an inviolable reliquary deep beneath the altar.
    2. Impregnable to assault or trespass; invincible: fortifications that made the frontier inviolable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    antoobrien wrote: »
    How easy would to be to rig an election where the only thing you have to do is a string substitution to change the results? How hard would it be to change 100,000 votes?

    One would assume that you have unrestricted raw access to the source data.

    The fundamental need for any electronic voting system is to it's security setup. It should be proven that it's secure. Gov cannot just say "It's secure". Security by Obfuscation is not security.
    • The source code should be open to public peer review.
    • Data should be secured and all access logged. There should be NO raw data access allowed by any person or service.
    • Votes should be PK signed and encrypted at point of vote, so it can't be tampered with.
    • To allow for paper trail, use an OCR method similar to the Lotto slips. Voter marks their card, inserts it into puter, then puts their voting slip in the ballot box. paper trail can be used for recounts or verification.
    • I'm sure I've missed something but the crux of it is that the security methods must be made public. The Gov techs should engage with the public and fix any issues found.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    RangeR wrote: »
    One would assume that you have unrestricted raw access to the source data.

    The fundamental need for any electronic voting system is to it's security setup. It should be proven that it's secure. Gov cannot just say "It's secure". Security by Obfuscation is not security.
    • The source code should be open to public peer review.
    • Data should be secured and all access logged. There should be NO raw data access allowed by any person or service.
    • Votes should be PK signed and encrypted at point of vote, so it can't be tampered with.
    • To allow for paper trail, use an OCR method similar to the Lotto slips. Voter marks their card, inserts it into puter, then puts their voting slip in the ballot box. paper trail can be used for recounts or verification.
    • I'm sure I've missed something but the crux of it is that the security methods must be made public. The Gov techs should engage with the public and fix any issues found.

    Sorry RangeR but that's more than a bit naive, especially as most of the security reviews I have read above have been "black box" tests (i.e. no access to source or designs). Combine that with the fact that PK systems are regularly broken due to weak keys and configuration issues, I'm not at all convinced that eVoting is realistic.

    The only option I see as being practical is the "lotto slips" suggestion, which is ecounting rather than evoting as you can bet that the audit trail will be invoked all over the place (recounts for all!). For that we can just buy some US systems as they use punch card style systems.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Sorry RangeR but that's more than a bit naive, especially as most of the security reviews I have read above have been "black box" tests (i.e. no access to source or designs). Combine that with the fact that PK systems are regularly broken due to weak keys and configuration issues, I'm not at all convinced that eVoting is realistic.

    The only option I see as being practical is the "lotto slips" suggestion, which is ecounting rather than evoting as you can bet that the audit trail will be invoked all over the place (recounts for all!). For that we can just buy some US systems as they use punch card style systems.

    I don't think it naive. It's idealistic, granted. Gov must be able to prove the security and integrity of any eVoting system.

    Do I see this happening... not so much.

    I have nothing against black box testing, however, I see no reason in NOT making the source code available. Peer review of the code can easily can identify potential security concerns.

    Having the system open for public review [and I don't mean totalitarian public review but maybe the heads of colleges / Security experts etc or some other manageable method] would identify weak PK/config instantly.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RangeR wrote: »
    The fundamental need for any electronic voting system is to it's security setup. It should be proven that it's secure. Gov cannot just say "It's secure". Security by Obfuscation is not security.
    At the risk of being repetitive, it can't be proven to be secure, because it's impossible to be certain that the software running on the voting machine is the same software that has been tested.
    • The source code should be open to public peer review.
    See above.
    • Data should be secured and all access logged. There should be NO raw data access allowed by any person or service.
    If I'm hacking the voting machine, I'm sure as hell going to hack the access log.
    • Votes should be PK signed and encrypted at point of vote, so it can't be tampered with.
    No problem - just sign and encrypt the vote after it's been tampered with.
    • To allow for paper trail, use an OCR method similar to the Lotto slips. Voter marks their card, inserts it into puter, then puts their voting slip in the ballot box. paper trail can be used for recounts or verification.
    What happens when the paper count disagrees with the electronic count? What happens in the voting booth if the scanner claims to have read something different from what's marked on the ballot?

    Electronic voting is a hard, hard problem to solve. You can't trust a machine to record your vote, which brings you back to scanning paper votes, which only works if the paper votes are the authoritative electoral record, in which case it's not electronic voting, but electronic counting, and it still presents a range of difficult problems to solve.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    RangeR wrote: »
    I don't think it naive. It's idealistic, granted. Gov must be able to prove the security and integrity of any eVoting system.

    Do I see this happening... not so much.

    I have nothing against black box testing, however, I see no reason in NOT making the source code available. Peer review of the code can easily can identify potential security concerns.

    Having the system open for public review [and I don't mean totalitarian public review but maybe the heads of colleges / Security experts etc or some other manageable method] would identify weak PK/config instantly.

    naive - very. The experts would have to have a good understanding of the systems to understand the configurations they are looking at, which is by no means guaranteed as many experts do not tend have a broad expertise but rather very selective areas. Hiring these people to review the systems every time we have an election would a lot of money.

    As for heads of colleges, they could have been away from the industry for years. It's amazing what a few months away from coding does to ones skills, so I shudder to think what the result of unleashing bureaucrats onto these systems would be, especially if they have no experience of the systems in question.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    antoobrien wrote: »
    naive - very. The experts would have to have a good understanding of the systems to understand the configurations they are looking at, which is by no means guaranteed as many experts do not tend have a broad expertise but rather very selective areas. Hiring these people to review the systems every time we have an election would a lot of money.
    Why do you want "jack of all trades"? I don't see your problem. It's very difficult to be an expert any everything. Get five experts in area 1, 5 more in area 2 and so on.

    I wouldn't let the money aspect muddy the waters. Regardless of what we hear in the news these days, there is actually plenty of money to go around.

    They wouldn't be reviewing at every election. It would be a constant thing.
    Let's think outside the box for a second. Let's just say that Gov.ie made the source code public. Thousand upon thousands of AN Other's could try and break it. then report their findings. Now these AN Other's may or may not be experts. Who cares? they report back and other AN Others attempt to verify.

    Anyway, we're getting into specifics. I don't want to go there as we will never agree. Think Macro, not Micro.

    antoobrien wrote: »
    As for heads of colleges, they could have been away from the industry for years. It's amazing what a few months away from coding does to ones skills, so I shudder to think what the result of unleashing bureaucrats onto these systems would be, especially if they have no experience of the systems in question.

    I agree that colleges are heavy on theory and not so much on practical.

    I believe you are missing the point. How is all of this naive? I understand that you don't believe in eVoting. Is there ANY aspect of eVoting that you would agree with? Don't want to go around in circles here. What I have outlined works VERY well in the Open Source community and has done for years.

    Anyway, my suggestions are just that. They are meant to be indicative, not specific. Leave the exact requirements to the experts. Let's just say "security oversight is required" rather than tying the conversation down to specifics that nobody will agree to.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    RangeR wrote: »
    I believe you are missing the point. How is all of this naive? I understand that you don't believe in eVoting. Is there ANY aspect of eVoting that you would agree with?

    In short I work in enterprise software, so I have a very good understanding of what is required to get systems out the door.

    The fact that there are so many more potential points of failure & attack vectors for evoting makes me very leery of the prospect of anything more than an automated vote counting system.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RangeR wrote: »
    Let's think outside the box for a second. Let's just say that Gov.ie made the source code public. Thousand upon thousands of AN Other's could try and break it. then report their findings.
    None of which is remotely useful if the software running on the voting machines on election day isn't the software that has been thoroughly tested.
    Anyway, we're getting into specifics. I don't want to go there as we will never agree. Think Macro, not Micro.

    [...]

    Let's just say "security oversight is required" rather than tying the conversation down to specifics that nobody will agree to.
    That's a dangerous approach to take. It's based on the premise that the security of an electronic voting system is just a detail that can definitely be solved. I'm rejecting that premise out of hand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,384 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    I can see one problem with a smaller Dáil, that being that it is easier for power to be concentrated in the hands of the ruling government.

    However, I'd favour a "list system" for electing 50% of our TDs, with PR being used for the other 50%.

    I'd also favour reforming the Seanad, using a list system to elect all of them, but Seanad elections would be held at the same time as local/EU elections so failed TDs can't get a seat there.

    I would agree with this entirely. A Seanad elected at a different time than the Dail (And with an increase in its powers) could aid democracy and give the Irish people more chance to express their views. People may argue that it could stall the political process and block laws from being passed quickly but I think that many of our recent problems come from power being too centralized in the cabinet and laws being passed quickly without any debate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,345 ✭✭✭The Dagda


    Please, please, please bring in term limits for the Dail. Career politicians are a curse.

    It may encourage actual qualified people to serve the country; if it was possible to get to a position of responsibility in a reasonable amount of time, without having to spend years compromising oneself, as seems to be the case now.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    One aspect of the current electoral system that is unfair is the ability for certain public sector workers to return to their guaranteed jobs if their political career doesn't work out. Signs on we are incredibly over-represented by teachers in the Dail. I'm not sure how this can be corrected, but it is a massive advantage to people with those careers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭finbar10


    RangeR (Keith), firstly, I think it's great you're doing this and we've got one of the ordinary convention members interacting here online. I'm just a Joe Soap who has developed an interest in political reform, constitutions, and political systems in the past 3/4 years or so (the whole IMF/bailout circumstances hammered home to me the inadequacies in our own political system as well as our general political culture). I think we like to think of ourselves being more like the more well-run Northern European/Scandinavian countries (even the UK). Maybe in some ways we are, but in many ways, culturally and in terms of our systems, I think we're more akin to the PIGS countries.

    I'm going to give some thoughts on our electoral system in this post. I think there are few definitive answers regarding electoral systems. Almost all of their features are potentially double-edged and have the potential to cut both ways (positive or negative) depending on circumstances. This is a complex and potentially confusing topic, which is probably why it's in the convention's terms of reference in the first place! :(

    The Constitutional Convention

    I know you asked that the convention itself not be discussed in this thread, but since this is going to be a very long post and it's my first on the convention here! ;), I hope a few sentences will be OK. And I'm not sure if there are length restrictions here (may be pushing the limits! :) ). I'd be happy to break this post up or maybe link to it from elsewhere if it's too long. I think most of it is relevant to the thread though.

    Incumbents don't like changing the systems that they comfortably occupy. Electorates in many countries around the world I suspect would, if actually given a choice, readily vote for various system reforms. However, in general, ordinary folks don't get sufficiently motivated for incumbent politicians to get anywhere near electorally nervous to do anything much about this. And the politicians know this (so they may throw them a populist token bone every now and then to mollify them, but nothing too radical). Iceland recently was a case in point. Their brave and fairly revolutionary constitutional experiment (despite being passed by the people in advisory referendums) has fizzled out to nothing. Realistically, only the rise of some reform-minded party with a well-thought out reform agenda might spur some meaningful reform here. But I feel our electoral system, as I'll argue later, makes such a possibility even less likely here than in many other countries.

    The social policy/fundamentals rights items (many of them quite trendy in world terms at the moment) on the agenda of the constitutional convention are all well-and-good. The protection of fundamental rights is after all one important role of constitutions. And many of these items are important in their own right. But IMO this country is crying out for a comprehensive review and reform of our political structures/checks-and-balances. The convention's agenda is more notable for what it leaves out rather than what it leaves in. The inclusion of the electoral system was a carefully made judgment I suspect. It's there so that the agenda regarding systems reform doesn't seem entirely trivial. The electoral system as a subject is rather a minefield however (confusing and hard to come to any clear straightforward conclusions). And opinion polls usually indicate the Irish electorate's liking of PR-STV. I suspect it's there in the agenda because the political calculation was made that nothing that would too upset the apple cart was likely to come out of any convention recommendation. I'm not sure that I'd wholly agree. The electoral system review is one of two items on the agenda that presents some limited system reform possibilities.

    The item "votes for citizens abroad" might actually have been a meaningful item if it was applicable to Dáil elections. Emigration has been a longtime convenient safety valve for dissent in this country. Once a person gets on the boat or plane he safely (from the viewpoint of our political classes) no longer has a vote. Allowing a person to vote in Dáil elections even for a limited period after emigrating (perhaps 5 years) might not have been a bad thing. However, the convention terms of reference limits consideration just to Presidential elections.

    So the last "any other amendments" item, given its open-ended nature, is the only other item of interest in terms of systems reform. I hope to make some posts here with some suggestions in the months ahead in the thread for that item.

    "Amoral Localism"

    The late Peter Mair (Irish political scientist) postulated three reasons for what he labelled the "amoral localism" in our politics. "Amoral familialism" has been a term used in connection with Italian politics (weak civic society where voters end up looking out for the interests of their own families, family above everything else). So I think Mair was modifying and adapting that term to this country and its clientilistic brand of politics. His three reasons (given in a MacGill summer school talk, and summarized in an IT article, both of which used to be online, but no longer I'm afraid) were excessive executive dominance, the effective absence of local government here, and the electoral system. The first point refers to the excessive centralization of power in the cabinet/executive (and the rather dysfunctional nature of our Dáil/Oireachtas). The second refers to the fact that we've one of the weakest and least meaningful systems of local government in Europe. Mair didn't give any solutions/alternatives for our electoral system. But I include this point here because many political scientists currently tend to have the opinion that electoral systems have little bearing on how well a country is run. I suppose I mention Mair as an example of a political scientist who did seem to harbour at least some doubts about our electoral setup. And, anyway, I don't think the convention is being allowed to get anywhere too near the topics of executive dominance/Oireachtas reform or local government. So onto electoral systems!

    A rare and unusual electoral system

    To begin with, it has to be said that there's much to be said in favour of PR-STV. It is certainly an elegant system that allows voters to express their preferences in a very fine-grained and expressive way. For elections not involving political factions it's about the only logical choice, e.g. voting people onto the committee of one's local GAA club! :)

    That said, internationally, it's a rare and unusual way of electing national parliaments. Tiny Malta with its 69-seat parliament (and only two parliamentary political parties) is the only other meaningful example. It's also interesting that Malta's politics is very clientilistic in nature. Each Maltese MP represents around 6000 people (that's more like 25k to 30k for each Irish TD). Northern Ireland is another rare example (but that's an assembly not a proper parliament). The Australian Senate is the only other example that might have some relevance (an interesting body in its right, one of the most powerful second chambers in the world). It uses PR-STV but not really anything like as we understand it. Voters can also tick a single party box in "above the line voting" (which means a party PR-STV list is used). Voters are strongly incentivized to tick a party box instead of enumerating individual votes in order of their choice. There could be up to 80 candidates on the ballot. Unless a voter lists more than 90% or more of his choices his vote is invalid. So unless he puts down his first 1 to 69 choices in that case his vote is thrown away. Unsurprisingly the vast majority of voters simply tick the party box. Hence, in effect the Australian Senate is elected by a closed list system (not really PR-STV at all, or at best a severely distorted form).

    I'm not saying rare/unusual equals bad. But it does mean there's very little data on PR-STV systems. There are a decent number of countries with single-seater first-past-the-post (FPTP) or AV (alternative vote) electoral systems (many former UK colonies) and there are numerous countries with some form of PR system (open/closed list systems or mixed-member PR (MMPR)). Political scientists are therefore able to draw reasonable comparisons between these systems with a certain amount of data to back up their hypotheses. It's true there don't seem to be huge differences in the quality of governance between countries with single-seat (AV or FPTP) systems and highly proportionate PR systems.

    There is a certain suspicion that PR-STV itself may be part of the problem (perhaps contributing to "amoral localism"). It's hard to be certain though. It's an unusual system. If a dozen other parliaments used this system, then an informed judgment call could be made. Malta (with its tiny parliament of less than 70, just two main parties, an MP workload of about 1/4 of our own and quite a clientilistic politics) is about the single only other really relevant data point. That's far from enough to rule anything in or out.

    Party Control

    Any move away from PR-STV, which at the same time maintains or increases proportionality, almost inevitably would involve a voting system that is more party-oriented in some way. Am not sure I entirely buy the argument, advanced by some Irish political scientists, that PR-STV is little different to some forms of open list system. A difference is that list systems force a voter to commit and to pin their colours to a single party mast. That's true even for the Finnish list system where only the number of GE votes for individual candidates determines final party list electoral order (but not quite true for Swiss panachage, but then again so many other things about the Swiss system are unusual making a direct comparison difficult). PR-STV allows one to avoid a clear-cut commitment to any one party. In all electoral systems there's a pull to the centre. But, in a list system, not all the parties can fit there, which probably encourages parties to specifically target subsections of the electorate in terms of particular policies. That happens too under PR-STV to a degree, but being inoffensive (populist even) pays off in garnering down-the-line transfers, which can be crucial in getting a candidate over the line. "Harder" and less generally appealing parties do less well under PR-STV. There's an argument that the limited proportionality of our current PR-STV setup, combined with the payoffs of being generally inoffensive in this system, has partly contributed to some of the clientilist policy-lite politics we suffer from. It's a contentious point, however, and there simply isn't the data to definitely say either way.

    There's also the question of whether some degree of party say in who gets elected might not be an entirely bad thing. Many relatively well-run European democracies have elements of party control in determining the list order for who gets elected for their party. There's more than one type of party control though. I much prefer the German electoral law setup where all party members in a region get to determine the party list order for that MMP regional election via secret ballot (takes control away from the party leadership). Party control in this scenario becomes more acceptable. Direct control by party headquarters would probably be anathema to the Irish public. Grass-roots party control might stand a better chance. There are various ways to introduce party involvement (semi-open lists, MMP etc.). The Sinn Féin proposal in their election manifesto (point e on p.34) to elect 2/3 of TDs by six-seater PR-STV and the remaining 1/3 by party list would be a quite natural way in our current setup to move partially away from PR-STV and introduce a limited proportion of party-based candidates. This might be more sellable to the electorate if German-style control of list order by ordinary party members via secret ballot was a constitutional requirement

    Some of these changes would involve some constitutional recognition of political parties. The current constitution makes no reference whatsoever to parties (given how we use PR-STV there's no real need). I wouldn't see this as being a big problem (it'd be merely recognizing the actual reality and wouldn't likely make a big practical difference). The German basic law (article 21) achieves this in just two paragraphs (recognizing the role of parties and requiring them to conform to basic democratic norms, though the ability it grants to their constitutional court to ban political parties outright, understandable given their past, would probably be overkill here).

    On whether to move away from PR-STV, the Finnish list system probably makes a good comparison. This is a list system with very little party control. A voter's choice is far more limited however. A voter can merely pick a single party and then a single individual within that party list. Seats are allocated proportionately to parties according to their overall vote (in potentially very big constituencies, up to 25 or so seat constituencies have been used) to the party candidates who get the most personal votes. A voter is forced into choosing a single party and, even within that party list, a single candidate. There's a complete absence of the fine-grained expressiveness of PR-STV but none of the ambiguity either. I suppose an intermediate system, lying somewhere between our own PR-STV and the Finnish list system, would be to force voters to first opt for a single party and only then use PR-STV as usual for the candidates within that party list. This would certainly allow far bigger constituencies (can't see why 15-20 seat constituencies wouldn't easily then be possible). One would merely need to rank in order the perhaps 20 or so candidates on the single party list one opted for. The Finnish system merely goes a step further in that even the internal candidate choice within a party is made starkly all-or-nothing (a voter merely ticks a box beside one single candidate). Would the Irish electorate buy a move in this direction (maybe via other methods: open-list variants or some open-list variant of MMP)? Probably not!

    But, if they did actually buy into a more party-oriented system, then I suppose the next question that naturally arises would be whether parties themselves should have some element of say into which of their candidates gets elected. I suppose the somewhat peculiar and rather forced Australian Senate "above the line" variant of PR-STV would be one way of shoehorning some party control onto PR-STV. In the party list version of PR-STV above, that might include the extra option of ticking a single box to opt for the party's official PR-STV ordering for the candidates, which could be listed right there on the ballot paper, rather than having to individually rank the party candidates oneself. Or one of plethora of other electoral systems could be chosen to similar effect (semi-open lists, some suitable version of MMP etc.). Have strong doubts, though, as to whether the Irish public would ever buy this, even with an accompanying constitutional insistence that party grass-roots determine the candidate ordering. There are pluses and minuses to all such arrangements. Greater party control might blunt rivalry within a constituency between candidates of the same party. In an ideal world such TDs might then spend more time at national level legislating and not at parish-pump work. There's indeed some evidence that TDs who don't have a rival of the same party in their constituency do spend less time at constituency work. But, of course, an alternative possibility is that this time might instead be merely spent (in a non PR-STV setup) sucking up to party members. And TD accountability to voters becomes more indirect being partially shielded behind the party ticket. A counter to that is that Irish party organizations often resemble a loose web of local fiefdoms with volunteers motivated more by personal than overall party loyalty (think of Bertie Ahern's "Dromcondra Mafia"). Is that really such a good state of affairs?

    In many electoral systems party leaderships can shield themselves to some degree from the voters' anger. In FPTP/AV single-seat systems, leaderships can get themselves placed in heartland "safe" constituencies. In PR, leaderships can buy themselves some safety by ensuring they are placed well up to the party list. Such system-based protections are not available here. Maybe that's a good thing in terms of accountability. However, it's probably inevitable that party leaderships will always try to protect themselves one way or another. This might be via explicit electoral mechanisms. Otherwise it'll still happen via other means: maybe via increased party resources to their campaigns, or for ministers, maybe significant departmental resources will mysteriously find their way to the relevant minister's constituency.

    Party control is not a straightforward topic!

    Our electoral system: perfectly calibrated for producing political inertia and maintaining the status quo?

    One thought I've had recently on our voting system is that perhaps it's almost perfectly set up to promote inertia.
    Single constituency voting systems (AV or FPTP) are relatively common, but so too are very proportionate list systems. We've a system sitting smack bang in the middle of these, perhaps neither flesh nor fowl.

    In terms of party formation, PR list systems tend to lead to a much more dynamic party ecosystem. It's easier for new parties to come into being and develop and get established. One needs just enough support to get past a relatively low threshold (perhaps 3% or 5%). Generally in list systems a voter can only opt for a single party. It's a mutually exclusive choice. Hence a party only needs to maintain a certain core vote to survive. But, at least, there's usually a fairly varied range of parties to choose from and party formation isn't so difficult.

    Single seater systems are quite different. There's usually just two catch-all parties/blocks of parties (Duverger's law). Unlike PR systems it's not particularly representative. However, one could argue that accountability is a strength of this electoral system. Small swings in support can lead to big swings in terms of seats. Voters can severely punish their representatives in a general election. In the UK big electoral swings are not uncommon, with up to half of the seats in a defeated party being lost.

    Our PR-STV electoral system sits somewhere between these two poles. Average constituency size remains less than 4 (even when the constituencies are revised it will still remain less than 4). The word "proportional" in PR-STV is a bit of a misnomer in our case. Even in the early days of our state when there were actually some big 9 seater constituencies the average size still at most reached 5 (there were still lots of 3 and 4 seaters). I think it would be fairer to label our electoral system as being semi-proportional.

    One could argue that it combines a degree of representativeness with a certain measure of accountability. I've started to wonder about even this though. Electoral swings are far smaller here than in the UK. Our use of the Seanad as a temporary staging post for failed TDs blunts possible accountability even further I would suggest. The House of Lords is not used in this way in the UK. There's actually no reason failed TDs couldn't be legislatively banned from the Seanad. I'd suggest that this use of the Seanad blunts the accountability aspect of our voting system to next to nothing. TDs generally have the opportunity to sit things out in the Seanad (with somewhat reduced pay) until better electoral times.

    As for the proportionality/party formation aspect of our electoral system, that hasn't functioned very well either. Many small parties have come and gone, and maybe left a mark, but none have survived for the long haul. We also get occasional upsurges in independents. Sinn Féin is something new though. That's a party venturing across the border from an already strong base (and resources) in the relatively new Northern Ireland assembly. Our limited proportionality is simply not enough for sustained new party formation. Unless party has perhaps a 10-15% core vote it's unlikely to survive. If it can attract transfers it will get seats. However, a spell in government usually causes those lower transfers to dry up. It might retain a 5-10% core vote. Without reasonable transfers, though, it will simply implode.

    There's also a real danger that recent restrictions on donations (ostensibly for political ethics reasons) will have the side-effect of compounding this problem further making it even more difficult for new parties to get off the ground.

    I wonder if we've ended up with an electoral system which is the worst of both worlds, managing to nullify both the blunt accountability of single-seat systems and the more fluid party dynamics/proportionality of list systems? Do we actually have a system almost perfectly calibrated to promote inertia, a moribund party system and maintain the status quo?

    PR-STV: a promoter of inoffensive/policy-lite politics?

    A hypothesis about PR-STV has been that it has a strong centralizing influence on politics (almost impossible to empirically prove either way due to the lack of examples, only ourselves and tiny Malta use PR-STV in a main parliamentary chamber). List systems have a certain "hard" aspect to them. Almost always a voter can only chose a single party (the choice between is mutually exclusive). There are always one or two exceptions (Luxembourg and Switzerland use panachage, which also allows a voter to make up his own list from various parties). PR-STV is far far "softer" and allows a far more fine-grained and expressive enumeration of a voter's preferences. A list system forces a voter into making a "hard" choice of a single party. PR-STV allows a voter to hedge their bets to a far greater degree. Candidates may need lower transfers to get elected. This perhaps may encourage parties and candidates to be inoffensive, not to scare off lower transfers. Hence, its purported centralizing effect. With PR lists, a party is likely to target a very particular segment of the electorate (there's less attractions to being "inoffensive", it'll either get a person's vote or not, there's no middle ground).

    There's no perfect voting system, all have pros and cons. A good question is whether the advantages and disadvantages of our current system are a good fit for our political environment. The centralizing effect of PR-STV could be a positive (perhaps in some riven or divided societies) encouraging moderation. One would have to wonder though, in a conservative and fairly homogenous society like Ireland with political parties with small ideological differences, whether this centralizing effect is actually the very opposite of what we need.

    Greater Proportionality within PR-STV?

    Having larger constituency sizes would solve some of the problems of our electoral system. Am not convinced it would make much difference to clientilism. However, it would greatly improve proportionality and the ease of party formation. I'd prefer to see an average constituency size of at least 7. I also rather like the constituency system proposed by Prof. John Coakley of UCD in a 2007 paper. This would follow continental models and largely do away with the need for an electoral boundary commission (though might require some constitutional change first to permit it). In his system, there'd be a lower bound of 3 and an upper bound of 9 on constituencies. County boundaries have to be respected as much as possible. A county with a population so low it would merit less than 3 TDs is merged with an adjacent country. A county with a population so high it would need more than 9 TDs would be subdivided into smaller constituencies (would only need to happen in Dublin and Cork). Otherwise the county boundaries would be respected. Coakley shows that such a setup would have led to remarkably stable constituency boundaries, most of them stable over many decades. His setup would lead to an average constituency size of a little less than 7 (with very little need for a boundary commission). Pushing the lower bound up to 5 wouldn't make that much difference to the constituency makeup. The reduction in constituency over/under-representation turns out to be fairly minor compared to our current system.

    The Irish system as currently practiced is certainly unusual in several respects. There are few semi-proportionate systems. The Irish system lacks the mutually exclusive bluntness/"hardness" evident in both FPTP/AV and PR list systems. I suspect our use of the Seanad as a failed TD temporary staging post blunts some of the limited ballot-box FPTP-style accountability it might otherwise have. Its limited proportionality allows small parties (sometimes independents) to come and go, but with no lasting staying power. The electoral tides wash in and wash out but the main status quo parties remain. Quite substantial party funding of incumbents at around 13 million euros a year at the moment (based on past electoral success) combined with more recent donation limits may compound this even further.

    In terms of proportionality, our version of PR-STV is hobbled. Its proportionality is fairly limited. There are good historical reasons for that. Large constituencies give a chance for smaller parties to be created or continue to exist. Average constituency size here never exceeded more than about 5, but at least in the past there were some big constituencies, e.g. the Galway 9-seater. It was De Valera who gradually eliminated the big constituencies (a perfectly logical move from the perspective of his own big party), with the 9-seaters vanishing around the time of the introduction of the 1937 constitution. Nonetheless, three 7-seaters remained (Tipperary, Dublin South and Limerick). It was the threat of new party, Clann na Poblachta, that got him to finally get rid of these and engage in a serious bit of Gerrymandering, with the introduction of a whole host of new 3-seaters. This did the trick, Clann na Poblachta got far less seats than their vote might previously have merited (in the long term probably helped see off their threat).

    It seems to me limited proportionality PR-STV helps maintain the status quo (the way we use the Seanad and maybe even donation limits and general political funding for incumbents based on past electoral performance may exacerbate this). That probably would not hold for full-blooded decently proportional PR-STV (but that's not what we have or are even likely to get any time soon).

    For a young TD starting out in one of the established parties and contemplating a long-term political career (over maybe 30 years) the current setup is pretty attractive.

    In the UK there are often big electoral swings and roundabouts. Most MPs will likely spend some time in the wilderness outside the Commons. Here, the electoral swings are normally not so big. And there's the Seanad as a fallback. If one keeps in the good books of party leadership there's a decent chance one will be able to sit things out in the Seanad.

    If as a young TD you've the good sense (being sarcastic/cynical here) to choose a mainstream established party, then good move, chances are that party will doing just fine in another 30 or 40 years. Perhaps some upstart young party will make some inroads during that period, but it's likely they'll run out of steam and implode sooner or later anyway. Outside the big three, no party started in the Irish Republic has ever lasted the distance in the almost 100 years of our state (ok, Sinn Féin is something of a new thing, a strong party from a neighbouring jurisdiction, maybe that will last the distance, or maybe not). What are the chances that we'll have just the very same three parties (Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil, plus maybe Sinn Féin in some form or other) in 30 years time? Pretty good I'd say.

    Proportionality and Stable Government Formation


    Another argument made in favour of the limited proportionality PR-STV we use is relative stability in government formation. Some countries with PR list systems have had quite unstable series of governments, e.g. Israel and Italy (particularly in the past). However, many countries (e.g. Germany and most of the Nordic countries) have enjoyed stable government in spite of high proportionality. This is because they also have additional mechanisms which stabilize government formation (which Israel and some other countries lack): constructive votes of no confidence mechanisms, restrictions on government dissolution, fixed/semi-fixed terms, and/or voting support thresholds. Government formation arguments are a bit of a red herring IMO. Many countries with very proportionate systems still have strong government.

    One common stabilizing measure, in the context of a list system, is the presence of a threshold; this typically blunts proportionality by not allocating any representation to a party that fails to meet some set share of the vote (perhaps 3%). With PR-STV, the combination of a German-style constructive vote of no confidence mechanism (i.e. a vote of no confidence is only allowed if the name of an alternative Taoiseach is attached who becomes the new Taoiseach if the motion succeeds) and semi-fixed (perhaps 5 year) terms (modeled after the Swedish Riksdag setup rather than the more inflexible and artificial German approach) would help ensure stable governments even with the injection of extra proportionality.

    From page 86 onwards of the 1996 constitution review group report gives a suitable wording for a constructive vote of no confidence in the context of our own constitution. In Sweden, "ordinary" parliamentary elections are always held exactly every four years. However, the Prime Minister also has the option of dissolving parliament and calling midterm "extraordinary" elections. But a parliament formed in this way can then only last up until the next scheduled date for ordinary elections. This incentivizes parliaments to last their full term but is flexible enough to also recognize that sometimes early parliamentary dissolution is a necessary evil.

    As to whether 4 year or 5 year terms would be better I'm not sure. Longer 5 year terms might possibly promote slightly more long-term thinking, though shorter 4 year terms might promote greater accountability (it's a bit of a tradeoff).

    An Electoral Commission

    There's a good argument for having a proper constitutionally-based Electoral Commission. Such a body would perhaps be of even greater importance if constituency sizes were larger, because then the purely legislative requirement to follow county boundaries as much as possible, as in the current electoral act, might not be quite as relevant or perhaps could be set aside (following county boundaries at least cuts down on the scope for Gerrymandering). An Electoral Commission would greatly limit the likelihood of a future government being tempted, or even able, to go down the Tullymandering route again. The monitoring of ethics in politics and other issues like lobbying could also be placed under its remit.

    Options for the Convention

    I'd feel the creation of constitutionally-based electoral commission would be a reasonable uncontroversial move (though Coakley's scheme would obviate some of the need for this). There are some technical changes to PR-STV that could be considered. I hope the convention won't spend its time bogged-down on such technicalities.

    One possibility would be to recommend a move towards less proportionality. Despite what I said earlier about the blunt accountability of FPTP/AV, I wouldn't be in favour of this. There's actually a chance it might improve things. But there's also quite a big risk it might make things worse. Other factors come into play in countries with this system. Canada and Australia have strong federal systems which devolve significant amounts of power. Australia has a strong proportionally elected Senate to counterbalance a main chamber elected via single-seaters. The US has a presidential system (a 2-party system to provide an effective counterbalance to a strong president makes a lot of sense). New Zealand, which was rather similar to us in many ways, abandoned FPTP in favour of mixed-member PR. The UK, with its long parliamentary tradition, actually has a decently functioning parliament (even its second chamber despite its archaic setup makes a decent contribution, none of which can be said to be true here). Anyway, the Irish public in several past referendums have already rejected this option. This path would be a quick road to nowhere I would think.

    The other option is for a system with more proportionality. There's much to be said to PR list or mixed-member PR systems. Party control is a complicating factor. The Irish public would be (perhaps justifiably or not) suspicious of the potential increased party control of these systems. They'd make a hard sell. Opinions polls have shown the Irish public's like for PR-STV.

    Using the KISS ('Keep It Simple Stupid') principle mentioned earlier in this thread, I think the only realistic recommendation the convention could make, which the Irish public actually might opt for, would be to increase the proportionality of our current PR-STV system. There's nothing of course to stop this being done legislatively at present. Electoral law could set a lower bound on constituency size as high as it wants (unless it doesn't go against the article 12.2.6: "No law shall be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three."). Decent proportionality would IMO require average constituency sizes of at least 7 or 8 (not the average of 4 we have at the moment). Beyond a certain point PR-STV does indeed get unwieldy. But we coped perfectly well with constituencies of 9 in the past. OK, maybe we shouldn't go past constituency sizes of 10-12 or so. However, an average constituency of just 4 equates to seriously hobbled proportionality.

    I'd suggest you argue for a very simple change to article 12.2.6. At the moment this reads:
    No law shall be enacted whereby the number of members to be returned for any constituency shall be less than three.
    IMO this lower bound should be changed to at least six or seven. Some political members of the convention (Sinn Féin, independents, possibly even Labour) might even support such a suggestion.

    This might counter some (if not all) of the downsides of PR-STV, and lead to a more dynamic party system, give some more space to new parties (even if I doubt that bigger constituency sizes will have much impact on clientilism).

    If there was a big bump in proportionality, though, then some thought might also have to be given to stability of government formation. That's not a big deal. As I've mentioned already, many Scandinavian/Northern European countries (Germany too) with PR systems make dissolving parliament awkward (or have other stabilizing measures). They manage to combine highly proportionate electoral systems with strong government (Germany with semi-fixed terms and a constructive vote of no confidence mechanism, Sweden with semi-fixed terms, Norway with fixed terms etc., other countries involving Presidents in dissolution).
    A straightforward amendment for a constructive vote of no confidence mechanism would be changing:
    28.10.The Taoiseach shall resign from office upon his ceasing to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann unless on his advice the President dissolves Dáil Éireann and on the reassembly of Dáil Éireann after the dissolution the Taoiseach secures the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann.
    to:
    28.10.The Taoiseach shall resign from office upon his ceasing to retain the support of a majority in Dáil Éireann demonstrated by the loss of a motion of no confidence which at the same time nominates an alternative Taoiseach.
    (and deleting article 13.2.2)

    Page 86 of the constitutional review group report talks about what would need to be amended to have a fixed term Dáil. Fixed terms are too inflexible IMO. A semi-fixed setup based upon the Swedish Riksdag would be very appropriate in this case (e.g. see articles 3.3-3.5 of the Swedish constitution).

    Apologies for the length of this post (a throw everything-but-the-kitchen-sink type article! :) ). Hopefully you'll find something of interest in it. And, of course, if previous governments have never been previously able to bring themselves to increase the proportionality of the electoral system via ordinary legislation, then why would they contemplate doing it now via referendum? Nonetheless, I feel this is precisely the recommendation this convention should make.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Cheers finbar10. I'm still trying to digest all of that :)

    We will be meeting this weekend. This hasn't happened before but for those that will be arriving on Friday evening, there will be an hour long "master class" as an introduction to the current system. Maybe a mock election and how the votes are counted etc.

    This is just a primer for the weekend and not everyone will attend. Not everyone arrives on Friday nights. It's really only those that are traveling from vast distances.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41 Thomas_B


    Great thread, and thanks Keith for seeking feedback. Fair play to you and your colleagues on the Constitutional Convention for taking your duties so seriously on behalf of the rest of us.

    Making my own very modest contribution, I think most people are agreed that we have a problem with the quality of TDs in this country, neatly encapsulated by this comment:
    PRAF wrote: »
    I think a fairly radical change is required. Our system has many drawbacks (too parochial, parish pump driven, poor quality of TDs, etc.) and the results have been catastrophic for the country.

    I think it's worth reflecting on whether our current PR-STV implementation is the root-cause of this problem, or, more pertinently, whether a reform of the electoral system can help us achieve the radical change that PRAF illustrates is needed.

    I've been canvassing for a few elections now. The funny thing about getting involved in canvassing and other activities at election time is that you get to know activists from other parties quite well, and as you sit down and have a pint with each other, you realise that you've more in common with an activist in a rival political party than you do with most people who aren't involved in politics - despite how violently you might agree on policy issues.

    Canvassing can be great craic. Most people who answer the door are well up for a bit of banter. But many canvassers from different parties will tell you that most of the time it's pretty depressing. Most voters will answer the door with some variation of 'so what will your crowd do for me then'. And when you first start out canvassing, you might wax lyrical about a particular policy area that interests you, or a particular motion that was passed at the Party's last Ard Fheis/Conference/Convention that illustrates the real difference between 'your crowd' and the other parties. But it doesn't take long to realise that you've misunderstood the question - 'what will you do for me' isn't an invitation to set out your vision for a better Irish society, it's an invitation to explain how you can work the parish pump better than 'the other fella'.

    So it's really tempting to think that there is an alternative that will 'raise the debate' in Irish politics. Most of the canvassers that I have had a pint with would only love a political system that would focus on the big economic, social and environmental questions that will be facing us in the next 10-30 years, rather than medical cards, potholes and the rumour that skobies might move in next door.

    But there's a bit of me that's hesitant to advocate wholesale change in our electoral system because my experience, on the doors, is that most people don't want a politician who is interested in wider issues to be their TD, they want people who will 'fix' the system for them. And it's worth reflecting a bit on why Irish people want their politics to be this way, before trying to design a system that will essentially frustrate these ambitions.

    Personally I think our version of PR-STV is a great system, it has a high degree of proportionality, makes sure *everyone's* preference is counted if they use all their preferences, and maintains a tangible link between a voter and their representative. I'd agree with others who say the constituencies are too small, but beyond that, I think it's not a bad system. It has turned in to a bad system because of what most voters want, not because it's a bad system in itself. And those of us (FWIW I'd be in favour of a 50% list system as the best way of combating the endemic localism in our politics) who desperately wish for change should be a little wary about advocating a change that is designed to frustrate the will of most voters.

    So, in short, if there's any space in the deliberations at the Constitutional Convention to debate whether our electoral system is the cause of the parish pump, or whether wider social factors are at play, this might help inform whether a different electoral system might help save us from ourselves.

    Oh and a final thought - I have observed that our best parliamentarians from across the political spectrum are often the last to be elected in their constituencies (to take a broad snapshot in Dublin across all political parties, Mary Lou MacDonald, Alan Shatter, Brian Lenihan and Richard Boyd Barrett were all last to be elected in their constituencies in 2011) - so we need to be careful that tinkering with the electoral system doesn't make it *more* difficult for people with ability to get elected!

    And thanks finbar10 for your comprehensive contribution to this thread - you've certainly given me food for thought and further reading!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭finbar10


    RangeR wrote: »
    Cheers finbar10. I'm still trying to digest all of that :)

    We will be meeting this weekend. This hasn't happened before but for those that will be arriving on Friday evening, there will be an hour long "master class" as an introduction to the current system. Maybe a mock election and how the votes are counted etc.

    This is just a primer for the weekend and not everyone will attend. Not everyone arrives on Friday nights. It's really only those that are traveling from vast distances.

    Good luck with the weekend! (and apologies for that almighty lump of text above, a bit much entirely perhaps for a discussion board like this! ;) )

    I have a suspicion you'll be diverted to slightly arcane things like alternative(maybe even better) ways of transferring votes in PR-STV and an electoral commission. Worthy but hardly earth-shattering. But maybe those are realistic topics given the limited nature of the convention (especially having looked at its terms of reference). The electoral system wouldn't be at the top of my list of things to reform about our system. Nonetheless, it still is easily the most important concrete systems reform item on its agenda. I'd also agree with Thomas that culture is at least as much a problem as the system (but I do think systems are important also, and impact on culture too in their own way).

    To try be concise ;), one of my principal arguments was the neither-one-thing-nor-another nature of our electoral system. With such things one hopes to get the best of both worlds. Often, though, it seems one simply ends up with the worst of both. I've wondered if that true for our electoral system.

    If forced to choose I would obviously opt for proportionality over the blunt accountability of AV/FPTP. One thing I neglected to say is there are other ways of increasing proportionality while still largely keeping PR-STV using a top-up system. Mixed-member PR tops up single-seaters with an equal number (1/2) of list seats to restore proportionality. There's no reason, though, why one couldn't have, say 5-seater PR-STV constituencies and restore proportionality with a 1/6 of seats in a top-up list. That's moving a bit away from the KISS principle I suppose (and complicates things with issues such as the degree of party control over such lists). But Daniel Sullivan has in the past proposed quite an elegant scheme (based on a form of MMPR practiced in the one of the German Lander) which uses a top-up list to restore full proportionality to PR-STV (and which isn't party controlled). His system proposes that it would be party candidates who do the best in individual constituencies who would get the party seats.

    So suppose the Green party (for the sake of an example) make something of a comeback in the future and get 5% of first preferences nationally but only manage to win 1 actual seat in constituencies. In a 120 seat Dáil they'd be proportionately entitled to 6 seats. One setup might be to have 20 conventional five-seaters (100 seats) with a top-up of 20 seats. Under this system the Green party would be allocated 5 seats from the top-up portion. Under Daniel Sullivan's scheme it would be the five individual candidates who did best in the constituency competitions who would get the seats (no party control). He does have a submission to the convention which does discuss this. It's a top up method which doesn't depart too much from PR-STV. He also mentions non-geographical constituencies.

    In general, that's a pretty interesting notion, e.g. see here for a description. There's definitely something to the idea (kind of already exists with regard to the Seanad). But how compatible it is with large-scale parliamentary elections I'm not so sure (though one person proposed such a scheme a while back on thejournal.ie, 12 ten-seater constituencies for the Dáil, with people allocated to constituencies according to the month they were born in, or one could do in randomly). Something intriguing about this general idea (not sure about its workability though, could work nicely for a smaller chamber like the Seanad though).

    Anyway, good luck on the weekend and hope you have some interesting discussions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Constitutional convention rejects motion on Seanad http://www.irishtimes.com/news/constitutional-convention-rejects-motion-on-seanad-1.1398972

    hey careful guys we don't want to be political!

    lets not deal with something that will have long term impact at the constitutional convention


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Constitutional convention rejects motion on Seanad http://www.irishtimes.com/news/constitutional-convention-rejects-motion-on-seanad-1.1398972

    hey careful guys we don't want to be political!

    lets not deal with something that will have long term impact at the constitutional convention

    I'm not sure if there is sarcasm in your post or not. Let me give my view of what happened.


    Minutes into Tom's opening address, Senator Norris barged in with his lobbying. He put the Chairman in an almost impossible position. On one side, Norris broke the rules. The country has been told that direct lobbying to the 66 is an absolute no no. On the other, he instigated a vote. Tom cannot prevent us voting, especially on such a hugely important topic.

    I made it known to the chair, twice verbally and once in writing, that I was VERY unhappy with what was about to happen. We were about to tell every lobby group in the country that if you lobby directly, you might just be heard. A very scary precedent to the 66.

    Soon after Mr Norris sat down, he tried to steer his table in the direction of Seanad reform only. The facilitator at that table tried to get it back on topic and he, allegedly, made a very derogatory remark to her. My opinion of him used to be very high. Now it's to nothing. He was backed up by another 33 at his table and her remarks, allegedly, wasn't much better. The end message that they were giving everyone was that the end justifies the means. This is not the sort of politician I want representing us.

    The group that submitted this piece did so as late as last week. Why did they not submit this months ago and allow the Convention to follow it's normal course? I so desperately want the Seaned to remain as it serves a very important purpose. I believe that Gov.ie are steamrolling this abolition under false pretenses. However, they gave me no choice but not to vote at all as I didn't agree with how they did it. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that we voted legitimised direct lobbying, something I couldn't agree with.

    @SeanadReform took a gamble. They lost. It could never have ended differently. We were never going to be dictated to, by anyone. It's unfortunate because Gov.ie are harping to the public under the guise of saving money. It's a much wider problem than that.

    Anyway, it happened. A few of us complained. Hopefully it won't happen again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    seanad reform is not owned by whoever @seanadreform is

    were there not many conventions members who wanted to discuss seanad reform before @seanadreform sent in their submission last week?

    what i have a problem with the idea, that seanad reform is somehow more "political" then the other things you've discussed?

    the constitutional convention would have been a good place to see if people wanted a reform programme for the seanad implemented as the gov arn't going to give that option in the referendum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,801 ✭✭✭PRAF


    RangeR wrote: »
    I'm not sure if there is sarcasm in your post or not. Let me give my view of what happened.


    Minutes into Tom's opening address, Senator Norris barged in with his lobbying. He put the Chairman in an almost impossible position. On one side, Norris broke the rules. The country has been told that direct lobbying to the 66 is an absolute no no. On the other, he instigated a vote. Tom cannot prevent us voting, especially on such a hugely important topic.

    I made it known to the chair, twice verbally and once in writing, that I was VERY unhappy with what was about to happen. We were about to tell every lobby group in the country that if you lobby directly, you might just be heard. A very scary precedent to the 66.

    Soon after Mr Norris sat down, he tried to steer his table in the direction of Seanad reform only. The facilitator at that table tried to get it back on topic and he, allegedly, made a very derogatory remark to her. My opinion of him used to be very high. Now it's to nothing. He was backed up by another 33 at his table and her remarks, allegedly, wasn't much better. The end message that they were giving everyone was that the end justifies the means. This is not the sort of politician I want representing us.

    The group that submitted this piece did so as late as last week. Why did they not submit this months ago and allow the Convention to follow it's normal course? I so desperately want the Seaned to remain as it serves a very important purpose. I believe that Gov.ie are steamrolling this abolition under false pretenses. However, they gave me no choice but not to vote at all as I didn't agree with how they did it. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that we voted legitimised direct lobbying, something I couldn't agree with.

    @SeanadReform took a gamble. They lost. It could never have ended differently. We were never going to be dictated to, by anyone. It's unfortunate because Gov.ie are harping to the public under the guise of saving money. It's a much wider problem than that.

    Anyway, it happened. A few of us complained. Hopefully it won't happen again.

    How did today go re possible changes to the electoral system?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    PRAF wrote: »
    How did today go re possible changes to the electoral system?

    This is how I voted. See attachments. Can only put 5 attachments in a post so I'll post the results in the next post.

    For transparency, I requested more information about Direct Democracy so I gave it my number 1 vote.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    These are the results of the weekend. Attached.

    In summary, most of us felt that the current system of PR-STV wasn't broken but also wasn't as efficient as it could be. PR-STV works best in bigger constituencies and when there are more seats per constituency.

    So, we voted to look at PR-STV in more dept next month and also one other. The MMP [Mixed Member] system. We outright rejected non proportional [first past the post] system.

    So, next month we will also be looking at
    1. The size of constituencies
    2. Number of TD's
    3. Direct Democracy
    4. Non parliamentary Ministers [non elected experts in their field]

    The four we didn't vote to look at next month, MIGHT be re-visited in "Any other Business" at the end of the year, if we have the time.

    The third vote was to see if we wanted to look at electoral administration. This included things like an electoral commission, increasing voter turnout, registrar of electors, electronic voting, electronic counting etc.

    Again, I will not be available to attend the June session do to personal commitments. I don't know who my alternate is.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    were there not many conventions members who wanted to discuss seanad reform before @seanadreform sent in their submission last week?

    What I have a problem with is that the submission WAS ONLY submitted last week. If it was submitted a month or two ago, it would have given Tom time to bring it to our attention THE PROPER way. This was a highly calculated gamble on behalf of the Seanad. They lost that gamble. If they had have played by the rules [something don't allegedly don't care about], I'm convinced that we would have voted in favour rather than against.

    For my part, I resisted the vote verbally twice. When it went ahead, I refused to vote. In my eyes, If I'd have voted, it would be legitimising direct lobbying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    RangeR wrote: »
    What I have a problem with is that the submission WAS ONLY submitted last week. If it was submitted a month or two ago, it would have given Tom time to bring it to our attention THE PROPER way. This was a highly calculated gamble on behalf of the Seanad. They lost that gamble. If they had have played by the rules [something don't allegedly don't care about], I'm convinced that we would have voted in favour rather than against.

    For my part, I resisted the vote verbally twice. When it went ahead, I refused to vote. In my eyes, If I'd have voted, it would be legitimising direct lobbying.


    "oh of course we'd like to discuss it but you have to ask the proper way and you didn't, so now we can't" :rolleyes:

    classic bureaucracy, Tom is teaching you well Kevin.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    "oh of course we'd like to discuss it but you have to ask the proper way and you didn't, so now we can't" :rolleyes:

    classic bureaucracy, Tom is teaching you well Kevin.

    I'm not going to discuss this with you any more. You are reading what you want to read, not what I type.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    RangeR wrote: »
    I'm not going to discuss this with you any more. You are reading what you want to read, not what I type.

    you wrote that you wanted to discuss it, (Seanad in the convention) so either you mean that, or your happy for Enda Kenny to exclude it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    You are selective quoting. I also said
    I believe that Gov.ie are steamrolling this abolition under false pretenses. However, they gave me no choice but not to vote at all as I didn't agree with how they did it. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that we voted legitimised direct lobbying, something I couldn't agree with.

    Those guys are very happy to break the rules. I am not. Regardless of how I feel on the subject [which is VERY strongly by the way], the lobby rule is there to protect the 66. The Seanad could have made a submission to us months ago. They chose not to. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

    Let's move on. This is going nowhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    RangeR wrote: »
    You are selective quoting. I also said



    Those guys are very happy to break the rules. I am not. Regardless of how I feel on the subject [which is VERY strongly by the way], the lobby rule is there to protect the 66. The Seanad could have made a submission to us months ago. They chose not to. Why do I have to keep repeating myself?

    Let's move on. This is going nowhere.

    so you are saying that this issue of discussing the seanad would not have come up unless there was this submission?

    you are blaming not discussing the seanad in the convention on the timing of 1 submission not on enda kenny excluding it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    what was discussin like for reducing the number of tds?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    Can't remember the specifics. It's all in the report. But it went along the lines of. Largely leave things the way they are but with little tweaks. Maybe larger constituencies, to give more representation to elected officials. Can't remember if we said more or less TD's.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,139 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    RangeR wrote: »
    Can't remember the specifics. It's all in the report. But it went along the lines of. Largely leave things the way they are but with little tweaks. Maybe larger constituencies, to give more representation to elected officials. Can't remember if we said more or less TD's.

    https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=f17ca0d8-240f-e311-a203-005056a32ee4

    i don't whose submission this is but its says 149 tds without referendum, the numbers based on population are between 149 - 153 tds.

    https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=63ec43d1-6fc7-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4

    but you were asked whether you prefer 100- 130, 130 - 158 or 159+

    which doesn't give you the option to say you want 150 without referendum,or you're happy with 158, its saying you want it increased?

    https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=fdf70670-030f-e311-a203-005056a32ee4
    Finally there were two votes aimed at reflecting members’ opinions on the question of the size of Dáil Éireann, which indicated strong support (49%) for greater than 159 members. As
    things stand, the number of members will be reduced to 158 at the next General Election.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I'd completely disapprove of a list system instead of PR-STV, but then I disapprove of political parties in general so I doubt my views are all that commonly held ;)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement