Is it time for a change to voting rights?

r3nu4l

In almost 40 years of observing Irish politics I've come to a number of conclusions.

1. There will always be a large percentage of people who are 'party loyalists'. No matter how corrupt that party is, how badly that party mess up the economy, these people will remain loyal out of sheer ignorance or stubbornness.

2. There will always be a percentage of people who vote for a particular party just because that's who Mammy or Daddy always voted for.

3. There will always be a percentage of people who vote for some guy just because he got the new library approved/fixed the potholes/is a big noise in the local GAA club or business community.

4. There will always be a percentage of people who will ignore corruption and ignore economic warning signs simply because of giveaway budgets that temporarily line their own pockets.

5. There will always be those who just aren't bothered voting and who have no interest whatsoever in politics.

These observations are hardly groundbreaking or new but in an age where voter apathy is high amongst the general public the influence these people have over election outcomes is higher than ever.

How do we change this? How do we reduce the impact of these voters in electing Governments?

Right now, we automatically gain voting rights at 18 years of age. Should we restrict the right to vote so that it is not automatic just because you turn 18 or some other arbitrary age?

Should we introduce a certificated system where people to have to prove that they have a certain level of knowledge of civil, social and political education (CSPE) before they are allowed to vote?

I don't mean that people should have to have a complete understanding of Ireland's history or constitution but should there be a set curriculum, developed by an independent body that every citizen/potential voter be required to pass an exam on before they are allowed near a ballot box? Preferably you would need to renew your CSPE certificate every 5 years.

Problems with this of course are myriad:
It would be expensive, very expensive, especially when catering for those whose English is not great, are illiterate or blind/deaf, otherwise disabled and need support in taking the exam
Who would the 'independent' body be developing the CSPE curriculum?
How would you mark these exams?
It could open up another tier in society, especially if people just aren't bothered to vote.
It's hardly democratic Ted!

So yes, there are multiple issues with such a proposal but the Irish electorate in general are far too ignorant when it comes to elections and politics in general. Look at the situation today where FF is steadily gaining ground again. They should have gone the way of the Greens given the way they ran the country for so long but because of the party loyalists and the 'Mammy/Daddy voted for them, so I will too' brigade they survived and are coming back. All it takes is a new leader, waffling and railing against the current lot in power, from the safety of the opposition benches and you're back in business.

Thoughts?

munchkin_utd

r3nu4l , you have a radical idea but I have to half agree with it.

If you ask someone in the Dail like Luke Ming Flanagan, he'll tell you in a quite resigned tone that he was elected on the back of a lot of handshakes and smiles with less importance on actual policies than simply "being seen" and creating an impression of being fierce sound.

Politicians are not legislators looking for a better Ireland. They are serial event/ funeral attenders looking to get re-elected and till that changes, whether through a list system or some radical suggestion like you mention, politics will remain self serving despite the best intentions of the few renegades.

woodoo

We need to try something. Perhaps like Australia we should force people to use their vote.

COYW

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Politicians are not legislators looking for a better Ireland. They are serial event/ funeral attenders looking to get re-elected

You just hit the nail on the head. Truth politics isn't something that the Irish public are ready for en masse, despite the supposed appetite for change. People want their local politician to be there when they need a hand with a medical card application and the like. Any politician who doesn't take on this roll will struggle to get re-elected.

woodoo wrote: »

We need to try something. Perhaps like Australia we should force people to use their vote.

I am not sure about this. What would the consequences for not voting be? I vote but I find it very difficult to find a candidate as I am neither left wing nor republican.

Mitch Connor

COYW wrote: »

You just hit the nail on the head. Truth politics isn't something that the Irish public are ready for en masse, despite the supposed appetite for change. People want their local politician to be there when they need a hand with a medical card application and the like. Any politician who doesn't take on this roll will struggle to get re-elected.



I am not sure about this. What would the consequences for not voting be? I vote but I find it very difficult to find a candidate as someone who is neither left wing nor a republican.

Australians don't have to vote.

They have to attend the voting place, but they can still chose not to vote.

Nodin

r3nu4l wrote: »

.......

Should we introduce a certificated system where people to have to prove that they have a certain level of knowledge of civil, social and political education (CSPE) before they are allowed to vote?

I don't mean that people should have to have a complete understanding of Ireland's history or constitution but should there be a set curriculum, developed by an independent body that every citizen/potential voter be required to pass an exam on before they are allowed near a ballot box? Preferably you would need to renew your CSPE certificate every 5 years.

I can't see how that would counter parental influence, those who reward 'fixin the roads', benefit from political favouritism or weed out party loyalists.

Manach

Ye live in a place where the water leaks and roads are repaired?

Given the local councils have been reduce to a rump of historic power (albeit dominated by the parties), the trend has been to centralise power in the centre (with the recent attempt to eliminate the Seanad) with the power of experts overseeing legislation that in the main originates either from the EU or specialised committees of the civil service.

r3nu4l

Nodin wrote: »

I can't see how that would counter parental influence, those who reward 'fixin the roads', benefit from political favouritism or weed out party loyalists.

I think that if there was a serious, examinable curiculum, this would encourage people to actually begin thinking and questioning the status quo. My hope would be that it would start to have an effect within 10 years or so.

An Coilean

r3nu4l wrote: »

In almost 40 years of observing Irish politics I've come to a number of conclusions.

1. There will always be a large percentage of people who are 'party loyalists'. No matter how corrupt that party is, how badly that party mess up the economy, these people will remain loyal out of sheer ignorance or stubbornness.

2. There will always be a percentage of people who vote for a particular party just because that's who Mammy or Daddy always voted for.

3. There will always be a percentage of people who vote for some guy just because he got the new library approved/fixed the potholes/is a big noise in the local GAA club or business community.

4. There will always be a percentage of people who will ignore corruption and ignore economic warning signs simply because of giveaway budgets that temporarily line their own pockets.

5. There will always be those who just aren't bothered voting and who have no interest whatsoever in politics.

These observations are hardly groundbreaking or new but in an age where voter apathy is high amongst the general public the influence these people have over election outcomes is higher than ever.

How do we change this? How do we reduce the impact of these voters in electing Governments?

Right now, we automatically gain voting rights at 18 years of age. Should we restrict the right to vote so that it is not automatic just because you turn 18 or some other arbitrary age?

Should we introduce a certificated system where people to have to prove that they have a certain level of knowledge of civil, social and political education (CSPE) before they are allowed to vote?

I don't mean that people should have to have a complete understanding of Ireland's history or constitution but should there be a set curriculum, developed by an independent body that every citizen/potential voter be required to pass an exam on before they are allowed near a ballot box? Preferably you would need to renew your CSPE certificate every 5 years.

Problems with this of course are myriad:
It would be expensive, very expensive, especially when catering for those whose English is not great, are illiterate or blind/deaf, otherwise disabled and need support in taking the exam
Who would the 'independent' body be developing the CSPE curriculum?
How would you mark these exams?
It could open up another tier in society, especially if people just aren't bothered to vote.
It's hardly democratic Ted!

So yes, there are multiple issues with such a proposal but the Irish electorate in general are far too ignorant when it comes to elections and politics in general. Look at the situation today where FF is steadily gaining ground again. They should have gone the way of the Greens given the way they ran the country for so long but because of the party loyalists and the 'Mammy/Daddy voted for them, so I will too' brigade they survived and are coming back. All it takes is a new leader, waffling and railing against the current lot in power, from the safety of the opposition benches and you're back in business.

Thoughts?

I would say no to this. Firstly examinations for voting have been used as a tool to discriminate against minority groups in other countries.

But primarily it is because this country belongs to the Irish People, all of them, not just the ones you think are worthy.

People vote based on what they can gain from that vote.

For some people what is important to them is to put the people/party in power that reflects their values and outlook. That is really how it should work.

For others it is more practical issues or policies. Again, this is how it should work. If someone is having problems with potholes on their road for example and the system is structured in such a way that the local TD has the clout to get the potholes fixed, then it is perfectly rational to vote on that basis, indeed I would expect nothing less of any rational voter.
It is a flaw in the system, the flaw is not the voters, they are voting for their own self interest as they should be, it is how the system itself is structured that is flawed, in this case the lack of strong local government.

Its quite easy to blame others for voting badly, and by extension of course put your self above them, but the reality is that the flaws in the system are far more systemic than all that.
What we have is a system that quite neatly diffuses accountably by promoating parocial politics.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Stronger local government would probably be the best place to start with reform I would think. The thought of Enda going into a bank with a constituent and helping her apply for a loan or sending out CVs to help them get jobs is at best cringe worthy. Hey Enda, the reception on the tele is playing up a bit the last week or so, any chance you could call around later and have a look at it for me, any time between 5:30 and 7 will be grand. :pac:

I hope that people are actually moving away from voting who Mommy and Daddy voted for. You're always going to get party loyalists who treat their party like a football team but I'm guessing as the country continues to become more urbanised and the generations closest to the Civil War continue to grow old and die then there will be less of there's a 'FF family' or 'FG family' type of carry on.

My main suggestions are to have stronger local government, a more functional and usable Seanad as well as a Dail with a more national outlook.
Maybe we could reduce the number of TD's by around 20.

I think 80% (or 60/70%) of our politicians should be elected using bigger constituencies then we currently have. It just doesn't sit right with me that Cork City itself sits inside 3 separate electoral districts, it seems pointless and serves no ones best interest ultimately. The people in Cork City and suburbs and surrounding area would be better served by voting in their TDs as an actual economic, social and population block. It seems stupid to have houses (in an urban area) that are represented by 3 separate electoral districts. I don't see why this couldn't work the same for Galway or Limerick as well. Continuing on using my Cork example, the whole of west Cork would be better represented as an economic area if it was paired with Dingle and that area of Kerry to vote in their TDs. As a population, these two areas have far more in common in almost every measure you can use apart from the fact they support different GAA teams.

I think the remaining Dail seats 20% (or 30/40%) should be elected using fully national elections (or possibly using the European Election boundaries). Whether that would be using a list system or would candidates need to run as independents or would they run as an expert in x,y or z field I would be very open to what would be the best suggestion.

Sierra Oscar

Every citizen should have the right to express themselves via the ballot box. If some people wish to ignore certain things, or not vote the way others want them to then so be it - it is their right to make up their own minds and vote accordingly.

I do not like the idea of having to 'jump through the hoops' to get a vote - especially considering there will always have to be someone determining whether someone gets a vote or not with your proposal.

I would be open to changing the electoral system, but allowing people having a vote is the very cornerstone of a democracy and we cannot allow any moves that would restrict suffrage. Universal suffrage for all, or rebellion.

An Coilean

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Stronger local government would probably be the best place to start with reform I would think. The thought of Enda going into a bank with a constituent and helping her apply for a loan or sending out CVs to help them get jobs is at best cringe worthy. Hey Enda, the reception on the tele is playing up a bit the last week or so, any chance you could call around later and have a look at it for me, any time between 5:30 and 7 will be grand. :pac:

I hope that people are actually moving away from voting who Mommy and Daddy voted for. You're always going to get party loyalists who treat their party like a football team but I'm guessing as the country continues to become more urbanised and the generations closest to the Civil War continue to grow old and die then there will be less of there's a 'FF family' or 'FG family' type of carry on.

My main suggestions are to have stronger local government, a more functional and usable Seanad as well as a Dail with a more national outlook.
Maybe we could reduce the number of TD's by around 20.

I think 80% (or 60/70%) of our politicians should be elected using bigger constituencies then we currently have. It just doesn't sit right with me that Cork City itself sits inside 3 separate electoral districts, it seems pointless and serves no ones best interest ultimately. The people in Cork City and suburbs and surrounding area would be better served by voting in their TDs as an actual economic, social and population block. It seems stupid to have houses (in an urban area) that are represented by 3 separate electoral districts. I don't see why this couldn't work the same for Galway or Limerick as well. Continuing on using my Cork example, the whole of west Cork would be better represented as an economic area if it was paired with Dingle and that area of Kerry to vote in their TDs. As a population, these two areas have far more in common in almost every measure you can use apart from the fact they support different GAA teams.

I think the remaining Dail seats 20% (or 30/40%) should be elected using fully national elections (or possibly using the European Election boundaries). Whether that would be using a list system or would candidates need to run as independents or would they run as an expert in x,y or z field I would be very open to what would be the best suggestion.

Stronger local government is a must, the reason that people feel the need to go to their local TD, and often to the minister or even the Taoiseach to get a footpath built or indeed potholes fixed is that they control the purse strings.
If its not in the budget, the local authority can't do it, they need the central administration to release the funds. The competence to look after these issues and the power to raise taxation to pay for them needs to be devolved to local government, then people will be able to go to their councilers rather then their local TD to get the potholes fixed.

One way of really disuading parish pump type politics would be to reduce the number of constituencies and thus have larger 6-7 seaters rather than smaller 3-4 seaters as are common now. A larger population and larger geographical area in each constituency would vastly reduce the electoral value of going to funerals, GAA matches and generally 'sorting things' for people.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

It is a flaw in the system, the flaw is not the voters, they are voting for their own self interest as they should be...

Shouldn't people be casting their vote with the national interest in mind?

pablomakaveli

djpbarry wrote: »

Shouldn't people be casting their vote with the national interest in mind?

People should but people don't. And who'd blame them?

If you felt having a certain party in government would benefit you then it's only natural.

Also who's to say what's best in the national interest? One person's view of what's best could be completely different from someone else's.

An Coilean

djpbarry wrote: »

Shouldn't people be casting their vote with the national interest in mind?

They should be voting for what they believe to be in their own best interest. The people are the nation, the interest of the majority of the people is the national interest.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

They should be voting for what they believe to be in their own best interest. The people are the nation, the interest of the majority of the people is the national interest.

What if I know that what's in my own best interest isn't in the national interest? I'm not always (or even particularly often) in the majority.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

They should be voting for what they believe to be in their own best interest. The people are the nation, the interest of the majority of the people is the national interest.

Surely the national interest is what’s best for everyone? What the electorate wants for themselves and what’s best for everyone are likely to be two very different things.

expectationlost

some time it comes down to instinct

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

What if I know that what's in my own best interest isn't in the national interest? I'm not always (or even particularly often) in the majority.

If what is in your interest is contrary to what is in the interest of the majority of people, then rest asured that the majority will outvote you. When such a situation presents its self you could choose to vote against your own interest in a show of national spirit, but it is ok for you to vote with your own interest in mind as even though it is contrary to the national interest, it is still the interest of you, and presumably some others and as such should be voiced so that it may be taken into account, at least to an extent.

A system that needs people to guess at what is in the national interest and vote for that even when it is against their own interest to do so is not likely to be very successful.

oscarBravo

An Coilean wrote: »

If what is in your interest is contrary to what is in the interest of the majority of people, then rest asured that the majority will outvote you. When such a situation presents its self you could choose to vote against your own interest in a show of national spirit, but it is ok for you to vote with your own interest in mind as even though it is contrary to the national interest, it is still the interest of you, and presumably some others and as such should be voiced so that it may be taken into account, at least to an extent.

A system that needs people to guess at what is in the national interest and vote for that even when it is against their own interest to do so is not likely to be very successful.

You're predicating your whole approach on the idea that whatever is in the best (selfish) interests of a majority of people is in the best interests of the country. This can be fairly easily disproven with a reductio ad absurdum example:

Imagine a national election with only two candidates. One is promising to halve taxes and cut the working week to 20 hours; one is promising to raise taxes and leave the working week alone. It's in my own selfish interest to vote for the former, because if he wins I'll be paying less tax and working fewer hours. Assuming everybody votes for what's in their own selfish interest, where does that leave the country?

Now, you can argue that the example is broken only because of its extreme simplification, but if your voting strategy is dependent on complexity to (fingers crossed, hopefully) negate such effects, it's probably not a very good strategy.

Let me put it another way: if every voter voted based on their own selfish interests, or every voter voted in the national interest, which is more likely to produce an outcome that's in the national interest?

An Coilean

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're predicating your whole approach on the idea that whatever is in the best (selfish) interests of a majority of people is in the best interests of the country.

That is exactly it. As long as everyone has the vote, then the selfish interest of the majority is the national interest

Arguments like you put forward below work only if it is a minority interest prevailing over the majority.
Take taxes, it is in the interest of the wealthy minority to pay less taxes, and then only when they are the ones paying less and not the whole country.

It is generally not in the interest of the majority to pay less taxes (Or to be specific unsustainably low levels of taxes) because either they themsleves depend on the services provided by those taxes or recognise that the withdrawel of those services will impact others severly causing poverty, instability, a rise in crime and (For the bisuiness community) impact their customer base, all of which is not in their personal best interest.


To use an analogy, if people taught they could rob a bank, and be gaurenteed with getting away with it, most people would. That does not mean that most people go around robing banks because they know that in reality they probably wont get away with it and so they don't.
Thats why in the last election people voted for austority overwhelmingly. They voted to raise taxes and cut services, because despite it not being a desirable option, the majority of the electorate is actually sophisticated enough to make rational decisions about what is in their best interest.

Imagine a national election with only two candidates. One is promising to halve taxes and cut the working week to 20 hours; one is promising to raise taxes and leave the working week alone. It's in my own selfish interest to vote for the former, because if he wins I'll be paying less tax and working fewer hours. Assuming everybody votes for what's in their own selfish interest, where does that leave the country?

Broke with a devestated economy, which would not be in your best interest or in the best interest of the majority. The argument above only works if you believe the electorate are too stupid to see that.

It would be in your selfish interest to get people to vote for that to be allowed for you, but not the rest of the country, but you will have a hard time convincing the rest of the contry to vote for that because allowing you to pay less taxes is not in their interest.

Let me put it another way: if every voter voted based on their own selfish interests, or every voter voted in the national interest, which is more likely to produce an outcome that's in the national interest?

I would say that they should produce a similar result, to convince me otherwise you will need to show a realistic situation where what is in the interest of the majority of the people is actually contrary to the interest of the majority of people.

woodoo

COYW wrote: »

I am not sure about this. What would the consequences for not voting be? I vote but I find it very difficult to find a candidate as I am neither left wing nor republican.

Even a spoiled vote can send a powerful message.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

To use an analogy, if people taught they could rob a bank, and be gaurenteed with getting away with it, most people would.

Forget banks – what about, say, phones? It’s relatively easy to pinch someone’s phone and get away with it. Are you suggesting that most people would nick a phone, given half a chance?

An Coilean wrote: »

Thats why in the last election people voted for austority overwhelmingly. They voted to raise taxes and cut services, because despite it not being a desirable option, the majority of the electorate is actually sophisticated enough to make rational decisions about what is in their best interest.

You’re totally, totally contradicting yourself here. First you tell us that everyone’s a selfish prick, to the point that they’ll rob a bank if they can get away with it. But now you’re telling us that everyone is terribly sophisticated and altruistic?

Anyway, polls would suggest you’re incorrect – most people do not support the proposed €3.1 billion adjustment in the next budget:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/third-of-voters-say-3-1bn-budget-target-should-be-retained-1.1546865

Also, if there is such support for the current government’s actions, explain to us why Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have been polling so strongly of late?

An Coilean

djpbarry wrote: »

Forget banks – what about, say, phones? It’s relatively easy to pinch someone’s phone and get away with it. Are you suggesting that most people would nick a phone, given half a chance?
You’re totally, totally contradicting yourself here. First you tell us that everyone’s a selfish prick, to the point that they’ll rob a bank if they can get away with it. But now you’re telling us that everyone is terribly sophisticated and altruistic?

No, I'm saying that if people could rob a large amount of money with immunity they most likely would, and if they could get away with not having to have austerity with no consequences, they would, but in reality they know they would suffer as a result of those decisions, and therefore voted in favour of austerity and don't rob banks by and large.

Its not because of altruism, its because they are competent enough to judge for themselves what is in their interest.

Anyway, polls would suggest you’re incorrect – most people do not support the proposed €3.1 billion adjustment in the next budget:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/third-of-voters-say-3-1bn-budget-target-should-be-retained-1.1546865

That does not mean that the majority of people support abandoning austerity, just look at the party support levels, pro austerity parties are still streets ahead of any alternative.

Also, if there is such support for the current government’s actions, explain to us why Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have been polling so strongly of late?

I believe that FF are a party that have a broadly similer policy regarding austerity to the current government, sure they say they would do certain things differently but they are still promising increased taxes and cuts to public services.

Hence my comment in a previous post about an overwhelming majority voting in favour of austerity at the last election, FF, FG, Labour and a few other smaller groupings were all promising increased taxes and cuts to public services, yet they still got the vast vast majority of votes between them. Groups promising to do away with austerity got very little support by comparrision.

This is not because people were voting against their own interest and instead voted in what they thought might be the national interest, but rather it was people realising that though unpalatible, austerity was and is actually in their own best interest.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

No, I'm saying that if people could rob a large amount of money with immunity they most likely would, and if they could get away with not having to have austerity with no consequences, they would, but in reality they know they would suffer as a result of those decisions, and therefore voted in favour of austerity and don't rob banks by and large.

Its not because of altruism, its because they are competent enough to judge for themselves what is in their interest.

If the electorate is as competent as you claim, then Ireland’s finances would never have gotten into such a state to begin with and we wouldn’t need austerity. One only has to glance over the justifications voters gave for voting the way they did on Lisbon (for example) to quickly reach the conclusion that the average voter is not very well informed.

An Coilean wrote: »

That does not mean that the majority of people support abandoning austerity, just look at the party support levels, pro austerity parties are still streets ahead of any alternative.

Eh, Sinn Féin are hardly pro-austerity.

An Coilean wrote: »

I believe that FF are a party that have a broadly similer policy regarding austerity to the current government, sure they say they would do certain things differently but they are still promising increased taxes and cuts to public services.

So why have they made such gains in the polls at the government’s expense?

An Coilean

djpbarry wrote: »

If the electorate is as competent as you claim, then Ireland’s finances would never have gotten into such a state to begin with and we wouldn’t need austerity.

Why? What would a more competent electorate have done given the information that was available at the time?

Personally I don't see much justification for blaming the electorate for the practices within banking circles.

One only has to glance over the justifications voters gave for voting the way they did on Lisbon (for example) to quickly reach the conclusion that the average voter is not very well informed.

Nor indeed was the Taoiseach at the time. It was a vote on a European treaty, the only people that were well informed about what it was about were the people who wrote the thing, and even then they probably did not fully apreciate the long term implications of it in its entireity.

Eh, Sinn Féin are hardly pro-austerity.

I did'nt say they were, then again, they are not exactly comming out with proposals to abandon it entirely either, they seem more concerned with increased taxes falling more on the wealthy than on not having any increased taxes at all.

Even then they got very little support in comparrision to pro austerity parties.

As for parties like the ULA who were clearly dead set against austerity, they got only a miniscule amount of support, giving the lie to the notion that voters are unable to see the consequences of their actions and will vote for any old tripe that sounds good without considering the possible outcome.

So why have they made such gains in the polls at the government’s expense?

I'm sure there are many reasons, that they have does'nt really affect the argument I am putting forward either way though.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

What would a more competent electorate have done given the information that was available at the time?

Personally I don't see much justification for blaming the electorate for the practices within banking circles.

I’m not talking about the banking sector. I’m talking about the government’s mishandling of the public finances, which left Ireland dangerously exposed to the (inevitable) property crash. An electorate that elects successive governments on the promise of ever-increasing property values, low taxes and generous welfare cannot possibly be considered “competent”.

An Coilean wrote: »

Nor indeed was the Taoiseach at the time.

I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.

An Coilean wrote: »

It was a vote on a European treaty, the only people that were well informed about what it was about were the people who wrote the thing, and even then they probably did not fully apreciate the long term implications of it in its entireity.

Shifting the goalposts. Now you’re saying that the electorate is not sufficiently informed? Which is it? Either they’re capable of making an educated decision or they’re not.

An Coilean wrote: »

Even then they got very little support in comparrision to pro austerity parties.

Eh, SF gained 10 seats in the last election?

An Coilean wrote: »

As for parties like the ULA who were clearly dead set against austerity, they got only a miniscule amount of support...

They won 5 seats. That’s 5 more than they had previously.

An Coilean wrote: »

I'm sure there are many reasons, that they have does'nt really affect the argument I am putting forward either way though.

Of course it does. The government parties are losing support to the opposition parties, suggesting people are unhappy with the government parties. Coupled with the poll I referred to above, indicating opposition to the scale of the next budget adjustment, I see little evidence to support your assertion that most of the electorate accept austerity is necessary.

An Coilean

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not talking about the banking sector. I’m talking about the government’s mishandling of the public finances, which left Ireland dangerously exposed to the (inevitable) property crash. An electorate that elects successive governments on the promise of ever-increasing property values, low taxes and generous welfare cannot possibly be considered “competent”.

A shining example of 20:20 hindsight, but the question was what would a more competent electorate have done with the information available at the time?

Shifting the goalposts. Now you’re saying that the electorate is not sufficiently informed? Which is it? Either they’re capable of making an educated decision or they’re not.

They are generally compentent to judge what is in their best interest, but where ones interest lies when making a decision about an international treaty is quite different. For the vast majority of people the reality was that the vote going either way did not affect them even slightly, hence the lack of interest and engagement, and indeed the disengenious yes for jobs, no for neautrality bull**** in an attempt to make it in someway relevant to peaple.

Eh, SF gained 10 seats in the last election?
They won 5 seats. That’s 5 more than they had previously.

Right, so thats 15 out of 166. Where exactly is the argument here against the fact that the overwhelming majority of people voted for parties in favour of higher taxes and cuts to public services, or that comparitivly those against austerity recieved very little support?

Of course it does. The government parties are losing support to the opposition parties, suggesting people are unhappy with the government parties. Coupled with the poll I referred to above, indicating opposition to the scale of the next budget adjustment, I see little evidence to support your assertion that most of the electorate accept austerity is necessary.

Yes the Government is loosing ground, but most of that ground is being lost to an opposition party that supports austerity, a pro austerity government is loosing ground to a pro austerity opposition party does not show a rejection of austerity.

FF, FG and Labour, as well as a few other smaller groupings like the greens and some independants support austerity. Between them the pro austerity side have the support of a substantial majority of the electorate and they have had this support consistantly.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

A shining example of 20:20 hindsight, but the question was what would a more competent electorate have done with the information available at the time?

Hindsight? So it was reasonable to assume that house prices would continue to climb inexorably upwards? The belief that we could all get rich selling houses to each other is indicative of an informed, competent electorate?

To answer your question, a competent electorate would have questioned how an economy heavily based on buying/selling property could possibly grow in a sustainable manner.

An Coilean wrote: »

They are generally compentent to judge what is in their best interest, but where ones interest lies when making a decision about an international treaty is quite different. For the vast majority of people the reality was that the vote going either way did not affect them even slightly, hence the lack of interest and engagement...

I certainly don’t recall a lack of interest and engagement: it was one of the most frequently discussed topics on this forum.

An Coilean wrote: »

Right, so thats 15 out of 166. Where exactly is the argument here against the fact that the overwhelming majority of people voted for parties in favour of higher taxes and cuts to public services...

I never made any such argument. In my opinion, result of the last election largely reflected a protest vote against the last government, which the Greens bore the brunt of.

However, you have stated that the majority of the electorate support the government’s austere budgets, but all the evidence (falling government support, polls indicating opposition to the scale of the next budget adjustment, the rise of the extreme left) suggest otherwise.

An Coilean wrote: »

Yes the Government is loosing ground, but most of that ground is being lost to an opposition party that supports austerity...

What are you talking about? Labour’s support has collapsed in favour of SF.

FF, FG and Labour, as well as a few other smaller groupings like the greens and some independants support austerity...[/QUOTE] To varying degrees. Labour’s version of austerity would look very different to FF’s, for example.

An Coilean

djpbarry wrote: »

Hindsight? So it was reasonable to assume that house prices would continue to climb inexorably upwards? The belief that we could all get rich selling houses to each other is indicative of an informed, competent electorate?

To answer your question, a competent electorate would have questioned how an economy heavily based on buying/selling property could possibly grow in a sustainable manner.

Funny, did a quick search of your posting history, no evidence of you having this insight back in 2006. So ya, hindsight sums it up quite nicely.

However, you have stated that the majority of the electorate support the government’s austere budgets, but all the evidence (falling government support, polls indicating opposition to the scale of the next budget adjustment, the rise of the extreme left) suggest otherwise.
What are you talking about? Labour’s support has collapsed in favour of SF.

No, I said the majority of the electorate support austerity, not necessarily the governments particular brand of austerity.

The point is that the view oscar bravo put forward is that the electorate is unsophisticated and that if they were to vote based on their own self interest, then they would vote to lower taxes etc My point is that the electorate is sophisticated to see the reality of the fiscial situation and realise that voting for what would be desirable ie lowering taxes is not in the self interest of the majority because it is not sustainable, and as such are willing to put up with austerity, as shown in the last election be the overwhelming majority of votes going to parties that support austerity.

That parties like SF are gaining in support shows that some people are starting to believe that austerity is no longer in their best interest, but the majority still support austerity.
My wider argument is that by the time the majority become convinced that austerity is no longer in their best interest, then it will no longer be in the national interest and you will see the mainstreme policial parties change their policies to reflect this.

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

Funny, did a quick search of your posting history, no evidence of you having this insight back in 2006.

Well, considering I made a grand total of one post in 2006 (and it wasn't even on this forum), I wouldn't expect that you find much evidence of this insight, no.

An Coilean wrote: »

The point is that the view oscar bravo put forward is that the electorate is unsophisticated and that if they were to vote based on their own self interest, then they would vote to lower taxes etc

Well, yeah, they would. In fact, they did. FF consistently eroded the tax base and increased welfare to unsustainable levels. What happened? They were re-elected.

An Coilean wrote: »

My point is that the electorate is sophisticated to see the reality of the fiscial situation and realise that voting for what would be desirable ie lowering taxes is not in the self interest of the majority because it is not sustainable, and as such are willing to put up with austerity, as shown in the last election be the overwhelming majority of votes going to parties that support austerity.

Correlation does not imply causation. The electorate voted against FF and the Greens - that does not necessarily mean they voted for austerity, especially when we consider that no matter who was elected, they would have had to balance the books.

Besides, I really don't understand how the electorate can be "sophisticated" enough to appreciate the need for austerity now, but were not sufficiently "sophisticated" back in 2007 to anticipate the inevitable bursting of the property bubble?

An Coilean wrote: »

...the majority still support austerity.

You've produced absolutely no evidence to support this.

An Coilean

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, considering I made a grand total of one post in 2006 (and it wasn't even on this forum), I wouldn't expect that you find much evidence of this insight, no.
Well, yeah, they would. In fact, they did. FF consistently eroded the tax base and increased welfare to unsustainable levels. What happened? They were re-elected.

Sorry, I mean in the first few hundered posts you made on board, 2006 - early 2007 if it makes you feel better, no sign of this insight at the time from you, hence why this is hindsight on your part.

Correlation does not imply causation. The electorate voted against FF and the Greens - that does not necessarily mean they voted for austerity, especially when we consider that no matter who was elected, they would have had to balance the books.

They gave an unprecented majority to a government that had austerity as its central policy in their election manefesto.
That you are trying to argue that the majority of the electorate did not support austerity when the outcome of that election was so clear cut is noting short of disengenious.

There was an alternative, several political groupings were standing on a platform of repudiating the bank debt, the electorate rejected that and voted for austerity instead, its historical fact.

Besides, I really don't understand how the electorate can be "sophisticated" enough to appreciate the need for austerity now, but were not sufficiently "sophisticated" back in 2007 to anticipate the inevitable bursting of the property bubble?

I don't see any posts of yours showing this insight at the time. What you are showing is 20:20 hindsight, there was little expert opinion predicting a colapse of the manner which later occured. The electorate could only make its decisions based on the information available at the time, its not liked they ignored a substantial body of expert opinion in a desperate hope of keeping the good times rolling.

You've produced absolutely no evidence to support this.

Are you really denying that thar majority of the electorate support political parties that have austerity as the central plank of their economic policy?
Every opinion poll since the crash has shown they do, as did the election in 2011.
Maybe your right and the local elections next year will show a majority in favour of anti austerity parites like the ULA, but I doubt it.

RandomName2

r3nu4l wrote: »

Right now, we automatically gain voting rights at 18 years of age. Should we restrict the right to vote so that it is not automatic just because you turn 18 or some other arbitrary age?

Should we introduce a certificated system where people to have to prove that they have a certain level of knowledge of civil, social and political education (CSPE) before they are allowed to vote?
[...]
Thoughts?

Education is legally mandatory until... 16? The vast, vast majority of citizens today sit and pass the leaving cert, in some form or other. History, one of the most important subjects in relation to an understanding of politics is mandatory until around 15/16 years of age (at least for the moment). CSPE (which is a rubbish subject) is aso mandatory in the Junior Cert atm.

So...

djpbarry

An Coilean wrote: »

Sorry, I mean in the first few hundered posts you made on board, 2006 - early 2007 if it makes you feel better, no sign of this insight at the time from you, hence why this is hindsight on your part.

You've just gone and read my first few hundred posts on boards.ie? Really?

In how many of them do I discuss the property bubble?

An Coilean wrote: »

They gave an unprecented majority to a government that had austerity as its central policy in their election manefesto.

The SNP hold most of the seats in the Scottish Parliament, that doesn't mean the referendum on Scottish Independence is guaranteed to be passed.

An Coilean wrote: »

I don't see any posts of yours showing this insight at the time.

I don't see any posts of mine at that time rejecting creationism either. I must have been a creationist back then.

An Coilean wrote: »

...there was little expert opinion predicting a colapse of the manner which later occured. The electorate could only make its decisions based on the information available at the time, its not liked they ignored a substantial body of expert opinion in a desperate hope of keeping the good times rolling.

People like Morgan Kelly had been screaming that there was something very, very wrong with the Irish economy for quite some time, but nobody wanted to know. He wrote this in February 2007:

Looking at house price cycles across the OECD since 1970, we find a strong relationship between the size of the initial rise in price and its subsequent fall. Were this relationship to hold for Ireland, it would predict falls of real house prices of 40 to 60 per cent over a period of 8 to 9 years. House price falls tend not to have serious macroeconomic consequences, but the unusually large size of the Irish house building industry suggest that any significant house price fall that does occur could impose a difficult adjustment on the economy.

In response, Bertie suggest people like Kelly should commit suicide.

Bertie was re-elected.

An Coilean wrote: »

Are you really denying that thar majority of the electorate support political parties that have austerity as the central plank of their economic policy?

Nope.

Are you really arguing that every voter who votes for a particular party agrees with every little detail of that party's manifesto?

T runner

djpbarry wrote: »

Shouldn't people be casting their vote with the national interest in mind?

The Dail is not de facto a national parliament. TDs individual local power far outweigh their national power. That is our system. The list of 400+ candidates for people to choose from at general election time reflect this. The scope for people to "choose" national politicians from these candidates is not there.

There is no incentive for Dail leaders to change this system as it will adversely affect their TD support base, who are after all less good at national politics.

This is a catch 22 not only for Irish politics but for Irish society, whose advancement could be accelerated by political eform.

hatrickpatrick

CSPE in school was a brainwashing and biased load of bullsh!t. I lost all faith in it when we got onto the EU chapter, absolutely no room in the official course book for dissenting voices against diluting national sovereignty.

djpbarry

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

CSPE in school was a brainwashing and biased load of bullsh!t. I lost all faith in it when we got onto the EU chapter, absolutely no room in the official course book for dissenting voices against diluting national sovereignty.

Probably because it's outside the scope of the course? The course is designed to teach kids what the political system is, not what it could be.

In the same way, you can't attend a course on how to use a PC and complain that not enough time is devoted to why Macs might be better.

r3nu4l

RandomName2 wrote: »

Education is legally mandatory until... 16? The vast, vast majority of citizens today sit and pass the leaving cert, in some form or other. History, one of the most important subjects in relation to an understanding of politics is mandatory until around 15/16 years of age (at least for the moment). CSPE (which is a rubbish subject) is aso mandatory in the Junior Cert atm.

So...

So...what? What is your point? I mentioned a new CSPE curriculum designed by an independent body that all schoolchildren AND ADULTS should have to pass and perhaps even renew. What has that got to do with the rubbish CSPE from school?

Incidentally, back in my day there was no CSPE class, it was called 'Civics' and in my school it entailed a 40 minute period where the teacher marked tests and homework from other classes and where us kids caught up on the homework we hadn't yet done for that day

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

CSPE in school was a brainwashing and biased load of bullsh!t. I lost all faith in it when we got onto the EU chapter, absolutely no room in the official course book for dissenting voices against diluting national sovereignty.

See above.

Interesting reading from this thread so far

Cody Pomeray

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably because it's outside the scope of the course? The course is designed to teach kids what the political system is, not what it could be.

In the same way, you can't attend a course on how to use a PC and complain that not enough time is devoted to why Macs might be better.

Actually that is a pretty fundamental omission.

Not the macs. Civic dialogue in school.

The point of civics is to encourage citizen activity, and therefore, the discussion of how the People want to shape society around them. At some point along the way, the department of education seem to have taken the view that it stops at naming the institutions that govern the citizen, and describing how they govern the citizen. That, to me, seems like a clanging failure, or a misunderstanding of what civics means.

djpbarry

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The point of civics is to encourage citizen activity, and therefore, the discussion of how the People want to shape society around them. At some point along the way, the department of education seem to have taken the view that it stops at naming the institutions that govern the citizen, and describing how they govern the citizen.

We're at a point where most people in the country would struggle to list off (m)any of the institutions of the EU, let alone what any of them actually do, so I don't find that terribly surprising. Can't expect kids to have a crack at calculus if they're struggling with basic algebra.

Cody Pomeray

djpbarry wrote: »

We're at a point where most people in the country would struggle to list off (m)any of the institutions of the EU, let alone what any of them actually do, so I don't find that terribly surprising.

Again, that goes back to how it's taught.

I accept it is attractive to a minority of people to assume that everyone who doesn't understand the procedures and jurisdiction of the CJEU must be a thicko, but actually it's more likely a product of disincentives to learn.

My experience of civics education was that it was distant, clinical and irrelevant. I was interested in history where I was allowed to express an opinion and argue with the teacher, but not in civics, where the focus is very much on "This Is How They Will Govern you". The last I saw of my young relatives' coursework, absolutely nothing has changed (except history, which became even more dynamic).

In short, it would be irrational to the point of being foolish to assume that the means of transmitting education, and the relevance of the information imparted, have nothing to do with students' engagement in the topic.

gandalf

Getting back to the OPs thread no I don't think people should have to pass an exam to vote. Who decides the content and it will be biased against people who are either not good at exams or have a poor level of education. Surely the idea of democracy is that everyones opinion is treated equally no matter what their background, ability or education.

I actually like the Australian idea that you have to vote. If you don't vote you're fined €100. With the recent votes the exchequer would have gotten a boost of over €100 million.

I believe the key to getting decent government is to ensure the people/party elected are allowed to do the job in hand. At the moment that doesn't happen, our local politicians are hobbled because the national representatives get involved in local issues too much and they are then distracted from doing their actual job taking care of the national interest.

We need to reform local politics, we don't need 35 councils, 5 to 7 will do with full time paid councillors with real power. Our National Parliament needs to be trimmed down to 100 or so TD's who are elected by a nominated list system. This eliminates the whole parish pump personality politics that has blighted this countries politics in my lifetime. My preference was to abolish the Seanad but as the people have voted to keep it we need to have it directly elected by the people of Ireland and not a select number of privileged voters or be put in by the political patronage of the sitting government. The Seanad elections need to happen 2 years after the Dail to ensure balance.

djpbarry

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Again, that goes back to how it's taught.

I would argue that it's because they don't care.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I accept it is attractive to a minority of people to assume that everyone who doesn't understand the procedures and jurisdiction of the CJEU must be a thicko...

I don't recall anyone on this thread expressing such an opinion.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I was interested in history where I was allowed to express an opinion and argue with the teacher...

Well, your experience of junior cycle was obviously very different to mine, because, like most of my teachers, my history teacher spent a fair chunk of their time trying to get the class to shut up and listen.

grainnewhale

I always get a sense of self righteous indignation from F.G supporters towards F.F supporters. when in reality they are one and the same.

grainnewhale

r3nu4l wrote: »

In almost 40 years of observing Irish politics I've come to a number of conclusions.

1. There will always be a large percentage of people who are 'party loyalists'. No matter how corrupt that party is, how badly that party mess up the economy, these people will remain loyal out of sheer ignorance or stubbornness.

2. There will always be a percentage of people who vote for a particular party just because that's who Mammy or Daddy always voted for.

3. There will always be a percentage of people who vote for some guy just because he got the new library approved/fixed the potholes/is a big noise in the local GAA club or business community.

4. There will always be a percentage of people who will ignore corruption and ignore economic warning signs simply because of giveaway budgets that temporarily line their own pockets.

5. There will always be those who just aren't bothered voting and who have no interest whatsoever in politics.

These observations are hardly groundbreaking or new but in an age where voter apathy is high amongst the general public the influence these people have over election outcomes is higher than ever.

How do we change this? How do we reduce the impact of these voters in electing Governments?

Right now, we automatically gain voting rights at 18 years of age. Should we restrict the right to vote so that it is not automatic just because you turn 18 or some other arbitrary age?

Should we introduce a certificated system where people to have to prove that they have a certain level of knowledge of civil, social and political education (CSPE) before they are allowed to vote?

I don't mean that people should have to have a complete understanding of Ireland's history or constitution but should there be a set curriculum, developed by an independent body that every citizen/potential voter be required to pass an exam on before they are allowed near a ballot box? Preferably you would need to renew your CSPE certificate every 5 years.

Problems with this of course are myriad:
It would be expensive, very expensive, especially when catering for those whose English is not great, are illiterate or blind/deaf, otherwise disabled and need support in taking the exam
Who would the 'independent' body be developing the CSPE curriculum?
How would you mark these exams?
It could open up another tier in society, especially if people just aren't bothered to vote.
It's hardly democratic Ted!

So yes, there are multiple issues with such a proposal but the Irish electorate in general are far too ignorant when it comes to elections and politics in general. Look at the situation today where FF is steadily gaining ground again. They should have gone the way of the Greens given the way they ran the country for so long but because of the party loyalists and the 'Mammy/Daddy voted for them, so I will too' brigade they survived and are coming back. All it takes is a new leader, waffling and railing against the current lot in power, from the safety of the opposition benches and you're back in business.

Thoughts?

Why does this always end with the naked truth. Its simply another F.F bashing. Would you be in favour of a permanent F.G administration. Enda has a touch of the oul anti democracy dictatorship about him

Craiggers

Recently I have been reading into politics and have become curious why we actually have these political parties and don't they pretty much go against democracy? Would anybody agree?

My point being a politician runs for his local area to represent that area but yet if he is part of let's say ff FG labour Sinn Fein etc etc he goes by their policies and votes in line with the party........

To have a true democracy we should abolish these groups and TDs should be totally independent..... Yes it might cause a little more contraversy and people will always will have their little pacts but votes in the Dail would be more open.....

Pretty much every company has these parties but why it's time for change what the oireachteas channel and actually listen to some of the TDs speak they haven't a notion what they are talking about half the time.... People writing speeches for them they are so uneducated it's matters that arise it's just plain ignorance.......

Am I the only one that feels this way and would like to see these numpty parties abolished because let's face it they are as useless as each other the ones that speak the most sense are actually the independents.........

Again my opinions are based from what I have read and watched in recent weeks...... Half the TDs are a sham and don't give a monkey about there constituency.........

I have the right to vote but I refuse to I cannot condone these (a term I read) serial event/attenders as this is all they ultimately are.....

Ireland has so much potential to prosper but always held by our government whom prefer to be reactive rather proactive.........

alastair

Craiggers wrote: »

To have a true democracy we should abolish these groups and TDs should be totally independent..... Yes it might cause a little more contraversy and people will always will have their little pacts but votes in the Dail would be more open.....

What's stopping you voting for an independent candidate, or running as one? My first preference has (successfully) gone to an independent for the last twelve years. Nothing wrong with party candidates IMO - but you don't have to vote for them if you want a TD with a free vote.

djpbarry

Craiggers wrote: »

...the ones that speak the most sense are actually the independents...

I’ve yet to hear much sense from Richard Boyd Barrett, Mick Wallace, Michael Healy-Rae or Clare Daly.

And don’t even get me started on Lowry.