I have a Mandate from the people

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

Says who?

Did the people who vote for Joe Higgins vote for him because they want him to vote for some variation on FG's or FF's policies (as that is almost certainly what the majority in his constituency support)?

And yet he still got elected, and if he feels he can still get elected by voting with the people who elected him that's fair enough - what I meant by my admittedly over simplified statement was that politicians should reflect the people who elect them and not some kind of centralized power. A politician in office should be merely a conduit through which the people pass the laws they want passed (in my opinion, anyway)

Should a TD vote for you to be slowly tortured to death if the latest opinion poll indicates that is what his constituents want?

That would violate the constitution, which is why we have a constitution.

Or, does the politician - in the words of Burke - owe his constituents his judgment not slavish obedience?

I disagree. You don't have to agree with me either, but I don't want politicians I elect to make up their own minds, they should be voting with the people they're supposed to "represent".

Let's take my two examples, Sherlock's SOPA and Reilly's minimum pricing - do you imagine either of these would have passed had they been subject to the will of the people instead of the will of the politicians? They are both massively unpopular pieces of legislation which in a legitimate democratic system we, the people, would have been able to prevent passing. The fact that one of them has passed and one looks almost certain to eventually pass is evidence of how ridiculous the whip system is - without a whip, I highly doubt as many politicians would vote for the upcoming alcohol laws as probably will because they risk losing most of their Dail rights if they don't.

How can anyone describe that as democratic? They are forced to entirely ignore the fact that most of the people don't want these laws passed.

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

Says who?

Did the people who vote for Joe Higgins vote for him because they want him to vote for some variation on FG's or FF's policies (as that is almost certainly what the majority in his constituency support)?

Should a TD vote for you to be slowly tortured to death if the latest opinion poll indicates that is what his constituents want?

Or, does the politician - in the words of Burke - owe his constituents his judgment not slavish obedience?

Says democracy. Would you rather policy to be decided on and voted for by the minority of the people.

micosoft

steddyeddy wrote: »

The majority could elect politicians based on stance X and the whip could decide that they vote for stance Y.

The party whip does nothing of the sort. You are making out they are some sort of bizarre power behind the throne. The whip merely enforces what the party as a whole has agreed to vote. The whip decides nothing.

micosoft

steddyeddy wrote: »

Says democracy. Would you rather policy to be decided on and voted for by the minority of the people.

Says your crude definition of democracy. Most of us take a more pragmatic approach to our representative democracy. But for a counter point to your will of the majority you should understand the potential of the tyranny of the majority. We can see exactly the results of your winner takes all system in Egypt and Syria where democracy collapses as being on the minority side is so dangerous.

hatrickpatrick

micosoft wrote: »

The party whip does nothing of the sort. You are making out they are some sort of bizarre power behind the throne. The whip merely enforces what the party as a whole has agreed to vote. The whip decides nothing.

The party as a whole might decide to vote in a way which the people as a whole disagree with. This is the problem.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree. You don't have to agree with me either, but I don't want politicians I elect to make up their own minds, they should be voting with the people they're supposed to "represent".

Let's take my two examples, Sherlock's SOPA and Reilly's minimum pricing - do you imagine either of these would have passed had they been subject to the will of the people instead of the will of the politicians? They are both massively unpopular pieces of legislation which in a legitimate democratic system we, the people, would have been able to prevent passing. The fact that one of them has passed and one looks almost certain to eventually pass is evidence of how ridiculous the whip system is - without a whip, I highly doubt as many politicians would vote for the upcoming alcohol laws as probably will because they risk losing most of their Dail rights if they don't.

How can anyone describe that as democratic? They are forced to entirely ignore the fact that most of the people don't want these laws passed.

You are getting to close to arguing in favour of mob rule.

Reading these threads and if they are any reflection on society, you could probably get a majority of people to vote to abolish the €1 excise duty increase on a bottle of wine from the last budget. A majority would probably vote to abolish VAT and income tax on anyone earning less than 100k while doubling welfare for those in need. We would probably see a tax of 85% on earnings over 100k. Public servants all forced to work for the minimum wage etc.

Finally they would also vote to repeal the LPT and force the government to pay the mortgages of anyone who was upset by the tax.


P.S. ever wonder why they can never change the gun laws in the US? Well, the politicians wouldn't get re-elected if they did and look at the damage that has caused.

Hootanany

Yep the Wine one Killed this Regime for me.

micosoft

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The party as a whole might decide to vote in a way which the people as a whole disagree with. This is the problem.

I can't see the problem.

Firstly how do you know the "people as a whole" disagree with the vote. Have you invented something other than an election to gauge the "people's will" or should we be ruled by Vox Populi?

Secondly the party typically put forward the vote. What's the point of parties if they cannot bring forward coherent polices they can carry through parliament.

Lastly the people do have a choice. You can vote for un-whipped TD's. they are called independents.....

The enforced whipless system you propose is worse then the current system and is simply a cry for even more of the populist policies that have so damaged the state.

steddyeddy

micosoft wrote: »

The party whip does nothing of the sort. You are making out they are some sort of bizarre power behind the throne. The whip merely enforces what the party as a whole has agreed to vote. The whip decides nothing.

1. It's certainly not what the party as a whole has agreed to vote. If that were the case no one would lose the whip.
2. The party members should vote for the policies they get elected on.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet he still got elected, and if he feels he can still get elected by voting with the people who elected him that's fair enough

Well, that is a significant shift in position from your previous post since, as with all TDs, Joe Higgins was elected by a minority of voters in his muti-seat constituency.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A politician in office should be merely a conduit through which the people pass the laws they want passed (in my opinion, anyway)

Well, there is no reason to believe that your opinion is shared by a majority of the electroate since there is no legal requirement for our politicians to beheave in that manner nor any major demand that either our laws or constitution be changed to reflect that view. Indeed, I know of no country anywhere in the world that operates such a restrictive system.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That would violate the constitution, which is why we have a constitution.

Under your "slavish servant" of the people scenario, the politician would immediately have to vote for a constitutional referendum to allow the people to vote for you being slowly tortured, wouldn't he?

He couldn't exercise his judgement and decide not to vote for it on the grounds that is is a bad idea, since, after all, democracy must trump your "vested interest" in your human rights and he must go with what the majority of the electorate want, right?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Let's take my two examples, Sherlock's SOPA and Reilly's minimum pricing - do you imagine either of these would have passed had they been subject to the will of the people instead of the will of the politicians?

Probably, yes, as I doubt they are of burning concern to a majority of the electorate.

In the case of Sherlock's ministerial order - there was no SOPA here - the will of the people is already clear. The people voted for membership of the European Communities and that requires us to transpose EU directives (properly and in full) into domestic law. This is something we MUST do.

Sherlock's ministerial order corrected an oversight in a law passed by majorities in both houses of the Oireachtas to transpose the relevant EU directive (and which Ireland and a majority of our MEPs had supported at EU level if memory serves me correctly). Hence, Sherlock WAS following the "will of the people" when he enacted his Ministerial Order.

Sherlock's case is in fact a very good example of why we have a representative democracy since, had we gone with our "majority" opinion, we'd now be trying to defend an indefensible case before the ECJ (which has the legal right to levy (uncapped) fines should it so choose).

And, in my opinion, most people don't want to see their tax money going to pay perfectly avoidable fines incurred as a result of short-sighted stupidity.

View

steddyeddy wrote: »

Says democracy.

Democracy doesn't say anything. It is a method used in making political decisions.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Would you rather policy to be decided on and voted for by the minority of the people.

That is the case because a majority of the electorate decided to leave it to the Oireachtas to do exactly that.

You aren't trying to say that the demos made an undemocratic decision, are you?

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

Democracy doesn't say anything. It is a method used in making political decisions.



That is the case because a majority of the electorate decided to leave it to the Oireachtas to do exactly that.

You aren't trying to say that the demos made an undemocratic decision, are you?

Well no because number one we're not Greek and number two the electorate didn't endorse a situation where they elect a td based on his policies and then he gets kicked out of the party for following through on them

It's hard to take you seriously when you suggest the party whip is there to prevent the electorate voting to torture a td to death. By implication you seem to be implying that anyone of voting age is stupid.

Dave!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well no because number one we're not Greek and number two the electorate didn't endorse a situation where they elect a td based on his policies and then he gets kicked out of the party for following through on them

Who are all these candidates who espouse policies different to their party's in the run up to an election?

steddyeddy

Dave! wrote: »

Who are all these candidates who espouse policies different to their party's in the run up to an election?

I'm not saying they run on different policies to their party I said that they run on policies which don't run contrary to the parties policies , get elected based on those policies and then when the party change their mind on those policies the candidate loses the whip. Labour would be a good example of that.

micosoft

steddyeddy wrote: »

[*]It's certainly not what the party as a whole has agreed to vote. If that were the case no one would lose the whip.

Then the "party member" needs to ask why they are in the party. What is the point of a party if there are no agreed lines? You are asking for the end of the party system which is manifestly not what people want (given they vote in party affiliated candidates as a huge majority every election).

steddyeddy wrote: »

[*]The party members should vote for the policies they get elected on.
[/LIST]

Which is the party manifesto. Unless you are looking at the "I'll build ye a new school and convert the boreen to six lane motorway" bumph local TD's have on the back of their card. That's what we call handouts, not policy.

steddyeddy

Enda Kenny said the party would not legislate for abortion (not a position I would hold ) the party did and many members of that party lost the whip for going with party policy.

micosoft

steddyeddy wrote: »

Enda Kenny said the party would not legislate for abortion (not a position I would hold ) the party did and many members of that party lost the whip for going with party policy.

They didn't legislate for abortion.

View

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well no because number one we're not Greek

The meaning of a word doesn't change because we are not Greek.

steddyeddy wrote: »

and number two the electorate didn't endorse a situation where they elect a td based on his policies and then he gets kicked out of the party for following through on them

The electorate endorsed the current constitutional set-up and they did have party whips at the time that decision was made.

If the electorate have a problem with it there have multiple elections over the years to raise the issue and/or vote for people favouring a weaker or non-existent whip system.

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's hard to take you seriously when you suggest the party whip is there to prevent the electorate voting to torture a td to death. By implication you seem to be implying that anyone of voting age is stupid.

I suggested nothing of the kind. I pointed out an example where the political system should NOT pander blindly to the supposed "democratic wishes of the majority".

As Edmund Burke commented the politician owes his voters the exercise of his judgment not his "slavish servitude".

View

As a point of interest, the European Parliament DOES operate a weaker whip system than the Oireachtas (not a hard thing to do).

How many votes do people here expect to be cast for or against any of our current MEPs who seek re-election based on how often they voted for or against the party line in the EP?

micosoft

View wrote: »

As a point of interest, the European Parliament DOES operate a weaker whip system than the Oireachtas (not a hard thing to do).

How many votes do people here expect to be cast for or against any of our current MEPs who seek re-election based on how often they voted for or against the party line in the EP?

I suspect the answer is less then the ten people in this country who follow European Parliament politics. The EP Parties are not sold at all in Ireland - you'll rarely see candidates reference them or their policies...

Good loser

When an Independent is asked who should voters support in the next election (apart from themselves) what can he/she say?

View

micosoft wrote: »

I suspect the answer is less then the ten people in this country who follow European Parliament politics. The EP Parties are not sold at all in Ireland - you'll rarely see candidates reference them or their policies...

Well, that maybe the case but it does call the supposed advantage to the public of a weaker whip system into question.

As it is, I suspect most people have little interest in the individual votes of the Oireachtas. I can think of a few backbenchers who opposed their own government's policies loudly over the airways and then quietly voted FOR the same policies when the vote came up. None of their electorate ever seemed to take issue with such behaviour!

hatrickpatrick

micosoft wrote: »

The party whip does nothing of the sort. You are making out they are some sort of bizarre power behind the throne. The whip merely enforces what the party as a whole has agreed to vote. The whip decides nothing.

The issue is that the party as a whole could decide to vote in a way which contradicts what they said they would do in order to sell their manifesto at election time. Without a whip, this would be almost impossible as TDs would have to bow to political pressure from the people who voted them in.

Furthermore, who actually dictates party policy? From where I'm standing it seems that the cabinet makes all the decisions and then they are pretty much guaranteed to get the policies through after that. So it's not even the party, it's the tiny subset of it which sits at the cabinet table. How can this possibly be regarded as functioning democracy?

Godge wrote: »

You are getting to close to arguing in favour of mob rule.

I'm hardly close to it, I'm outright in favour of it in many cases (many, not all).

Reading these threads and if they are any reflection on society, you could probably get a majority of people to vote to abolish the €1 excise duty increase on a bottle of wine from the last budget. A majority would probably vote to abolish VAT and income tax on anyone earning less than 100k while doubling welfare for those in need. We would probably see a tax of 85% on earnings over 100k. Public servants all forced to work for the minimum wage etc.

You're dealing in absolute extremes here but even so, if the vast majority of the people don't want overpaid public servants or stealth taxes, what exactly is your point? The €1 excise on a bottle of wine is hardly going to make or break the bank, is it?

Finally they would also vote to repeal the LPT and force the government to pay the mortgages of anyone who was upset by the tax.

Fantastic, it's a bullsh!t tax in the first place.

P.S. ever wonder why they can never change the gun laws in the US? Well, the politicians wouldn't get re-elected if they did and look at the damage that has caused.

And as someone who is very much in favour of gun control, I still wouldn't advocate steamrollering the will of the population to get it through. However, from what I've heard from friends in the states, the NRA is very far from the majority, they're just a lobby group with enough cash to buy politicians. If all political contributions were banned outright I wonder how the chips would actually fall, if the will of ordinary citizens was paramount - from what I've heard, the status quo might not have as much support as one would expect.

The bottom line here is that we're being asked to choose between the lesser of several evils, and in my view the current totally unaccountable, all powerful TDs setup is horrific. How many people out there are actually happy about the legal regime this country is living under? Most people seems to be outraged by the increasing nanny state we're living in and I would be almost certain that with proper democracy, none of the restrictions on personal freedom which have been rammed through in recent years would have got through at all. There are plenty of things people clearly don't want, possibly one of the most obvious examples being the rules about alcohol licenses on Good Friday - any time I've seen or heard any discussion about this, those in favour are outnumbered by 10 to 1, so why in God's name are we still forced to observe it?

Something is very wrong with a "democratic" system when laws like this which lack anything remotely resembling popular support are allowed to persist.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Something is very wrong with a "democratic" system when laws like this which lack anything remotely resembling popular support are allowed to persist.

A question how do politicians determine how people want them to vote?

Is it case of whoever shouts the loudest? Is it via opinion polls? Have a local referendum? Should they include only the people who voted for them/everyone/people who may vote for them etc.

On a separate point you are aware that during the bubble 02-07 politicians Fianna Fail and the opposition were by and large doing what people wanted. Fianna Fails reelection as the largest party is testament to this. At the time people didn't think through the consequences.

Godge

PeadarCo wrote: »

A question how do politicians determine how people want them to vote?

Is it case of whoever shouts the loudest? Is it via opinion polls? Have a local referendum? Should they include only the people who voted for them/everyone/people who may vote for them etc.

On a separate point you are aware that during the bubble 02-07 politicians Fianna Fail and the opposition were by and large doing what people wanted. Fianna Fails reelection as the largest party is testament to this. At the time people didn't think through the consequences.

Very good points.

The advocates of direct democracy always forget about the apathetic silent majority. Many of the groups who advocate direct democracy would be the first to complain when the anti-abortion people use the machinery to have referenda every two weeks on different aspects of the debate. Not to mention the weekly poll on reunification that would inevitably ensue.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

A question how do politicians determine how people want them to vote?

Is it case of whoever shouts the loudest? Is it via opinion polls? Have a local referendum? Should they include only the people who voted for them/everyone/people who may vote for them etc.

On a separate point you are aware that during the bubble 02-07 politicians Fianna Fail and the opposition were by and large doing what people wanted. Fianna Fails reelection as the largest party is testament to this. At the time people didn't think through the consequences.

A local referendum would be good enough for me. And had FF been forced to ask the people before bailing out Anglo Irish bank I can almost guarantee it couldn't have happened.

Godge wrote: »

Very good points.

The advocates of direct democracy always forget about the apathetic silent majority. Many of the groups who advocate direct democracy would be the first to complain when the anti-abortion people use the machinery to have referenda every two weeks on different aspects of the debate. Not to mention the weekly poll on reunification that would inevitably ensue.

I wouldn't mind that. Why would a weekly poll on reunification matter, it's not as if the majority is going to randomly swing wildly from one side to the other every week, is it? If people want polls on abortion, so be it. Why should this be a problem?
There's no reason whatsoever that a referendum has to have more than 48 hours lead in, and there's no reason we couldn't operate an online system like the whte house does for petitions, which still manages to ensure that every vote is a genuine vote from an individual who hasn't voted already. The technology is there and it's remarkably easy to implement.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A local referendum would be good enough for me. And had FF been forced to ask the people before bailing out Anglo Irish bank I can almost guarantee it couldn't have happened.

The thing about a local referendum is that they take time to organise and run slowing decision making. Grand for some people that's a perfectly acceptable trade off.

It also means getting rid of multi seat constituencies which for me wouldn't be a bad thing.

On the bank guarantee I think the system you've laid out will guarantee similar decisions being made again and again in the future. The decisions that led us having to bailout the banks and current austerity were taken between 2002-2007 with the full support of voters and judging from memory of what the opposition problems with Fianna Fails decisions our situation could have been worse. No one was out protesting about big increases in public expenditure that was only afforded because of the bad lending practices of the banks.

Given the policies of the current opposition parties theres no evidence that this has changed. Most still peddle the notion that there some magic bullet that will make things better overnight.

Godge

PeadarCo wrote: »

. Most still peddle the notion that there some magic bullet that will make things better overnight.

And that if we had a referendum tomorrow, it would all be fixed and the magic bullet would deliver peace and prosperity for everyone.

micosoft

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A local referendum would be good enough for me. And had FF been forced to ask the people before bailing out Anglo Irish bank I can almost guarantee it couldn't have happened.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wouldn't mind that. Why would a weekly poll on reunification matter, it's not as if the majority is going to randomly swing wildly from one side to the other every week, is it? If people want polls on abortion, so be it. Why should this be a problem?

You might but hardly anybody wants to vote a daily/weekly basis. We choose a representative democracy for this reason. So that our representatives would vote on a daily/weekly basis and as full time "politicians" would have the time to study the legislation in detail. People have lives to get on with.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's no reason whatsoever that a referendum has to have more than 48 hours lead in, and there's no reason we couldn't operate an online system like the whte house does for petitions, which still manages to ensure that every vote is a genuine vote from an individual who hasn't voted already.

The technology is there and it's remarkably easy to implement.

Umm basic tenant that people have time to examine the proposal and debate it? Your proposal is the antithesis of a informed democratic society.

Re technology No - it's remarkably uneasy to implement. Big difference between a petition and a vote and look how difficult e-voting disaster was.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's no reason whatsoever that a referendum has to have more than 48 hours lead in, and there's no reason we couldn't operate an online system like the whte house does for petitions, which still manages to ensure that every vote is a genuine vote from an individual who hasn't voted already. The technology is there and it's remarkably easy to implement.

48 hours for everyone to become fully informed? Are you for real?

The Occupy Dame Street people tried this system where they had votes for everything. It fell apart pretty quickly and their daily meetings to vote on things got bogged down with irrelevancies.