Election

Kiwi in IE

sheep? wrote: »

Cheers for the update. I still have no clear idea myself to be honest, and it ain't for lack of searching.

I'm thinking about voting Leonard Kelly 1, because if he gets in great, and if he doesn't my transfer will go to Howlin.

Daddy's boy really annoys me for some reason, so many people I've spoken to in extended family/work are voting for him because of Daddy. What is he, the democratic version of the Prince of Wales? He was in class with my OH and by all accounts he's a perfectly pleasant person, but one of OH's family members who's a diehard FF supporter because their parents supported FF, seriously suggested to me that I should be voting for him because he went to school with OH! OH himself wouldn't even consider voting for him. As if that's a reason to vote for someone. I hate that whole small town attitude toward such things! It's a perfect example of why politics here is the way it is!

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Daddy's boy really annoys me for some reason, so many people I've spoken to in extended family/work are voting for him because of Daddy. What is he, the democratic version of the Prince of Wales? He was in class with my OH and by all accounts he's a perfectly pleasant person, but one of OH's family members who's a diehard FF supporter because their parents supported FF, seriously suggested to me that I should be voting for him because he went to school with OH! OH himself wouldn't even consider voting for him. As if that's a reason to vote for someone. I hate that whole small town attitude toward such things! It's a perfect example of why politics here is the way it is!

Welcome to Ireland. Dig into it a little bit and you'll discover it goes back to who p*ssed on whose wall during the civil war. And regardless of what Daddy's boy does (including getting caught with his hand in the kitty/envelope, not suggesting that it's the case with this particular candidate) there were still be people who vote for him because his family did the 'right' thing once upon a time. Our inability to let go of our history is sometimes laughable, but our inability to hold politicians to account for their own actions is always infuriating.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Welcome to Ireland. Dig into it a little bit and you'll discover it goes back to who p*ssed on whose wall during the civil war. And regardless of what Daddy's boy does (including getting caught with his hand in the kitty/envelope, not suggesting that it's the case with this particular candidate) there were still be people who vote for him because his family did the 'right' thing once upon a time. Our inability to let go of our history is sometimes laughable, but our inability to hold politicians to account for their own actions is always infuriating.

Oh yes, once upon a time this mans father did something for someone and so now, 25 years later, his son will get the vote on account of that, not the slightest consideration to his policies or ability need be given. Now I might be giving this particular person a hard time unfairly, I wouldn't vote for him because I don't like the party he stands for and he's too conservative for me, but it's that attitude, rather than him personally that I find abhorrent.

A good example is someone in our extended family is very religious, they go to 'pro life' meetings etc and for them 'pro life' would be as much of a red line as repealing the 8th is for me. This person has always voted FF, because daddy voted FF. Has told me the 3 candidates for FF are getting 1,2 and 3. When I was looking into the candidates in the area, was very surprised to find my opinions matched quite well with a new, young FF Candidate. I don't like FF but I would have voted for this woman, if it wasn't for the fact she represents them. She wants to extend circumstances where abortion is legal and deal with religious patronage in schools. Two issues that this person is very against. Now I am 100% certain that this voter has no idea about this and knows nothing about the candidate. I am also certain she would not vote for this candidate if she was aware and would probably complain to FF for dropping the standards. But no, they will blindly vote for her because FF and daddy. Usually I am quite nice about such things in real life, and despite my polar opposite views, I have pointed out this sort of thing before, I wouldn't usually like to see someone unknowingly go against their personal beliefs, even if they are the opposite of mine. But not this time! She can vote for the pro choice FF candidate and next time I see her after the election, I will point out she is pro choice!

Absolam

In a party political system I can't see any point in considering a party candidates position on any major issue at all; when it comes down to it they are obliged to vote with the party or lose the whip, impacting their political career. You can only rely on them to vote their conscience (or in accordance with the wishes of those who elect them) on matters which the party doesn't care about, which simply isn't going to be anything of national consequence. At least an independent is reasonably likely to do what they say they will, since they're not beholden to anyone other than their supporters.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

In a party political system I can't see any point in considering a party candidates position on any major issue at all; when it comes down to it they are obliged to vote with the party or lose the whip, impacting their political career. You can only rely on them to vote their conscience (or in accordance with the wishes of those who elect them) on matters which the party doesn't care about, which simply isn't going to be anything of national consequence. At least an independent is reasonably likely to do what they say they will, since they're not beholden to anyone other than their supporters.

Yeah I know that, but I know for a fact that no matter what difference it made to party/nationally or whether of not this politician can vote with her own conscience in such issues, the voter in question would be unlikely to vote someone touting pro choice views, as I would someone who is pro life. The FF because Daddy liked FF, blinds everything and maybe there will be a lesson to be learned from it re voting a bit more responsibly.

Absolam

I agree; some people see no further than the party though. I suspect if your candidate stated categorically that she would vote against the party on abortion if elected she'd still get their vote, because they know FF (or FG, makes no odds) would make sure she toe'd the party line when it came to it. At the end of her day her opinions don't matter; she's a party bum on a seat.

Kiwi in IE

If you are a supporter of that party because you have studied their manifesto and support their policies then fair enough I guess, but only voting for a candidate/party because they are the party your parent (who passed away 40 years ago) voted for is to me, just bizarre and quite irresponsible, the attitude or a variation of it, is so, so common in these parts. "We are a ...... Family"!

realdanbreen

Absolam wrote: »

Welcome to Ireland. Dig into it a little bit and you'll discover it goes back to who p*ssed on whose wall during the civil war. And regardless of what Daddy's boy does (including getting caught with his hand in the kitty/envelope, not suggesting that it's the case with this particular candidate) there were still be people who vote for him because his family did the 'right' thing once upon a time. Our inability to let go of our history is sometimes laughable, but our inability to hold politicians to account for their own actions is always infuriating.

What p1sses me off is people who have a complex about being Irish or about living in Ireland. Fact is we are blessed to be living in a democracy where the electorate decide who represents us in parliament. Name one other country where there is a better system? China? Yemen?Syria? Russia? I don't think so.

seamus

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If you are a supporter of that party because you have studied their manifesto and support their policies then fair enough I guess, but only voting for a candidate/party because they are the party your parent (who passed away 40 years ago) voted for is to me, just bizarre and quite irresponsible, the attitude or a variation of it, is so, so common in these parts. "We are a ...... Family"!

2011 blew that out of the water for a lot of people. The absolute mess that FF made of everything gave everyone pause for thought and FF lost a lot of life-long voters and their children.

It was probably the first time a lot of people reconsidered whether simply sticking by the family mantra was actually a good idea.

Last year's referendum too would have given a lot of young people impetus to realise that they should make up their own mind when casting their votes.

We're still really only one generation removed from civil war politics. My father was born (just) before the birth of the Republic and his own father was a teenager during the civil war. So for his generation a lot of that old civil war crap between FF & FG was still very "real" and relevant - their own parents and grandparents were able to talk to them (indoctrinate them, even) with first hand accounts of the period.

PopePalpatine

realdanbreen wrote: »

What p1sses me off is people who have a complex about being Irish or about living in Ireland. Fact is we are blessed to be living in a democracy where the electorate decide who represents us in parliament. Name one other country where there is a better system? China? Yemen?Syria? Russia? I don't think so.

86 countries, along with the Dutch overseas territory of Sant Maartin and Northern Ireland, use some form of proportional representation. Personally, I'd prefer a national party list system to elect up to half of the Dail as well as the whole Seanad.

robdonn

realdanbreen wrote: »

What p1sses me off is people who have a complex about being Irish or about living in Ireland. Fact is we are blessed to be living in a democracy where the electorate decide who represents us in parliament. Name one other country where there is a better system? China? Yemen?Syria? Russia? I don't think so.

Your post made me think of this scene from The Newsroom. We have a damn good political system, but only when compared to other systems. We still have massive issues though and one of them is the "civil war politics"* that causes the major parties to hack away at each other to the point where nobody feels they can rely on them any more.

Just because we have a good system doesn't mean we can't strive to have an even better one.

* I feel dirty for using "civil war politics" in a sentence....

Huntergonzo

realdanbreen wrote: »

What p1sses me off is people who have a complex about being Irish or about living in Ireland.

I always find that phrase interesting, it's so incredibly broad and vague yet people who use it seem to think it's a profound statement, what the hell does it mean dan?

realdanbreen wrote: »

Fact is we are blessed to be living in a democracy where the electorate decide who represents us in parliament. Name one other country where there is a better system? China? Yemen?Syria? Russia? I don't think so.

Why did you pick those countries, why not another democracy? I can't say I know specifically which country has a better election system than us (I'm not well read on world election structures) but there's bound to be a few contenders, although I would say Syria probably isn't one of them.

You're obviously trying to make the point that we're lucky we can choose our representatives because people in other countries can't. Well to retort to that as articulately as I can, ahem, how does their suck, make our suck not suck?

robdonn

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I can't say I know specifically which country has a better election system than us (I'm not well read on world election structures) but there's bound to be a few contenders, although I would say Syria probably isn't one of them.

You're obviously trying to make the point that we're lucky we can choose our representatives because people in other countries can't. Well to retort to that as articulately as I can, ahem, how does their suck, make our suck not suck?

Although it doesn't use any particular nations for examples, I love CGP Grey's series on Politics in the Animal Kingdom.

Absolam

realdanbreen wrote: »

What p1sses me off is people who have a complex about being Irish or about living in Ireland. Fact is we are blessed to be living in a democracy where the electorate decide who represents us in parliament. Name one other country where there is a better system? China? Yemen?Syria? Russia? I don't think so.

No, I love living in a democracy, and I've yet to see a more workable version that the type we use (though I'd like to). What irritates me is it the particular quirk of the Irish that stops us from saying to politicians "You didn't do what you said you would last time, I don't care if you say it's not your fault, you had your chance and you're not getting a vote this time".

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

No, I love living in a democracy, and I've yet to see a more workable version that the type we use (though I'd like to). What irritates me is it the particular quirk of the Irish that stops us from saying to politicians "You didn't do what you said you would last time, I don't care if you say it's not your fault, you had your chance and you're not getting a vote this time".

What if a politician says, and can show, that they tried to do what they said they would?

Absolam

On the one hand, I'm not unamenable to persuasion. On the other, if I voted for them so that they'd do something I wanted done, having demonstrated an inability to do it, why vote for them again?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

On the one hand, I'm not unamenable to persuasion. On the other, if I voted for them so that they'd do something I wanted done, having demonstrated an inability to do it, why vote for them again?

The makeup of a government changes (at least recently) with every election, what may not have been possible during one term could be possible in the next.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

On the one hand, I'm not unamenable to persuasion. On the other, if I voted for them so that they'd do something I wanted done, having demonstrated an inability to do it, why vote for them again?

I understand why voters would feel this way, but I don't entirely see it the same way. I have two red line issues (I'm sure you can guess what from our previous discussions), and whoever I vote for would have to agree with my position on those two issues. Of those who reflect my position, I then chose who I think most suitable for office, based on their entire manifesto. Due to the complexity in this country of both issues, I don't expect that any person/party that I vote for will have the ability to deliver in line with their stated positions, particularly if they are a junior coalition partner, but I want voices in government who will represent that position, regardless of whether or not they gain the ability to effectively act on it. If every candidate were totally opposed to where I stand with my two main issues, or if all who reflected my position were a total disaster for the country in other areas, I would abstain from voting (and probably move immediately).

realdanbreen

Absolam wrote: »

No, I love living in a democracy, and I've yet to see a more workable version that the type we use (though I'd like to). What irritates me is it the particular quirk of the Irish that stops us from saying to politicians "You didn't do what you said you would last time, I don't care if you say it's not your fault, you had your chance and you're not getting a vote this time".

Well I'm Irish, Tipperary in fact, and I have never suffered from any 'quirk' that would prevent me from talking straight and saying what's on my mind.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

No, I love living in a democracy, and I've yet to see a more workable version that the type we use..

Interestingly, the Athenians who invented democracy would consider our system to be a form of oligarchy, because its more or less the same small set of people controlling the Dail year after year.
The system we have for choosing a jury (ie random, but with a competency check) is similar to the original democratic system called sortition which was used for selecting officers to oversee the running of the state. Big decisions were made by direct democracy, ie by referendum.

KingBrian2

recedite wrote: »

Interestingly, the Athenians who invented democracy would consider our system to be a form of oligarchy, because its more or less the same small set of people controlling the Dail year after year.
The system we have for choosing a jury (ie random, but with a competency check) is similar to the original democratic system called sortition which was used for selecting officers to oversee the running of the state. Big decisions were made by direct democracy, ie by referendum.

Any democracy requires an informed citizenry without which any system is open to abuse.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

The makeup of a government changes (at least recently) with every election, what may not have been possible during one term could be possible in the next.

Sure; I'm more inclined to to bet on an unknown with potential than a proven loser though.

recedite wrote: »

Interestingly, the Athenians who invented democracy would consider our system to be a form of oligarchy, because its more or less the same small set of people controlling the Dail year after year.
The system we have for choosing a jury (ie random, but with a competency check) is similar to the original democratic system called sortition which was used for selecting officers to oversee the running of the state. Big decisions were made by direct democracy, ie by referendum.

I don't think it's the system that's oligarchic though; it's the way we've ended up using the system. If at every election we voted out those who hadn't behave as we wished and voted in new TDs, we'd have a reasonable refresh rate. I wonder, given our always on electronic presence that's advancing so rapidly, if we got to the stage where every decision could be taken by referendum pretty much instantaneously, would we end up with better or worse governance.

Jimmy Bottlehead

robindch wrote: »

Make your vote and pray,
that he goes all the way.
There's no time for tae,

with Michael Healy-Rae.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63XaJdZF9cU

I actually find it startling that lowest common denominator tripe like this results in votes.

realdanbreen

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

I actually find it startling that lowest common denominator tripe like this results in votes.

Maybe if he had a private school D4 accent or talked hor$esh1t like some of the 'financial advisors' and developer types it might be more acceptable?

PopePalpatine

realdanbreen wrote: »

Maybe if he had a private school D4 accent or talked hor$esh1t like some of the 'financial advisors' and developer types it might be more acceptable?

What do you think is so great about parish pump politicians that you must derail any discussion critical about them? If I wanted to vote for someone voting on the basis that they were going to serve my area, I'd wait for the local elections.

Cabaal

Interesting events in Waterford today, Data protection complaint made against a guy called John D. Walsh

http://www.wlrfm.com/news-single.php?cat=1&id=61553

A Waterford woman has raised data protection concerns after she was contacted by text from the campaign of pro-life candidate John D. Walsh. The text asked the recipient to give the Christian Democrat first preference, however Amy McCollum says she has no idea how her phone number was gotten. She said she raised the issue with the candidate on his Facebook page, but didn't get a satisfactory answer. Speaking to WLRfm News, John Walsh said that his team had contacted people who had been signed up to the pro-life campaign, but apologised if the recipients were inconvenienced. He also said his campaign won't be sending any more texts.

The women decided to query why she received the text on his facebook page, here's his delightful response:



He since deleted the post, but has since been reposted https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153467348422683&set=o.450301778494407&type=3

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I understand why voters would feel this way, but I don't entirely see it the same way. I have two red line issues (I'm sure you can guess what from our previous discussions), and whoever I vote for would have to agree with my position on those two issues. Of those who reflect my position, I then chose who I think most suitable for office, based on their entire manifesto. Due to the complexity in this country of both issues, I don't expect that any person/party that I vote for will have the ability to deliver in line with their stated positions, particularly if they are a junior coalition partner, but I want voices in government who will represent that position, regardless of whether or not they gain the ability to effectively act on it. If every candidate were totally opposed to where I stand with my two main issues, or if all who reflected my position were a total disaster for the country in other areas, I would abstain from voting (and probably move immediately).

I take a different view (strangely enough ). I won't vote for candidates from the main political parties because I know that no matter what they say, the party will do whatever is best for the party regardless of whether it is good for the country, or the people of the country; up to and including sabotaging or reversing good initiatives by other parties. I'll vote for independents who may disagree with me on certain fundamental issues (like abortion or school patronage) if I believe they will honestly represent and advocate on behalf of their constituency, and vote on national & international issues in a way they genuinely believe will be to the benefit of the people, even though I might disagree with how they vote. I want the TDs that represent me to have a genuine desire to be of public service and not be motivated by self interest. Which is probably too much to ask but there you go!

realdanbreen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What do you think is so great about parish pump politicians that you must derail any discussion critical about them?.

Why do you regard an opinion contrary to your opinion as 'derailing' the discussion?

realdanbreen

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What do you think is so great about parish pump politicians that you must derail any discussion critical about them? If I wanted to vote for someone voting on the basis that they were going to serve my area, I'd wait for the local elections.

Why do you regard an opinion contrary to your own as 'derailing' the discussion?

Bristolscale7

realdanbreen wrote: »

Why do you regard an opinion contrary to your own as 'derailing' the discussion?

Your tirade against D4 nabobs (although I'm sympathetic) qualifies as derailing.