European Parliament Elections 2019

An Ciarraioch

Greens now 4,200 ahead of Clune after SF - Wallace transfers should push O'Sullivan over quota:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AB7tCyXBo5nYL8859eOZW8WsMitBncyYTZnydKoDP9w/htmlview

Jupiter Mulligan

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Greens now 4,200 ahead of Clune after SF - Wallace transfers should push O'Sullivan over quota:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AB7tCyXBo5nYL8859eOZW8WsMitBncyYTZnydKoDP9w/htmlview

So a paid five months holiday is on the cards for Clune before she re-mounts the EU gravy train - nice one!

Jupiter Mulligan

L1011 wrote: »

Eamon Ryan *did* get the same criticism for his pointless recount in '14.

From memory, he was well over 1,000 votes behind the last seat winner.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Counting has been taking longer over the last few elections, as returning officers take more care over the counting process.

The Supreme Court decision on valid ballots has also brought clarity as to what is a spoiled vote, meaning that between the longer time, greater care and spoiled vote clarity, there is less room for mistakes now than in the past.

The biggest mistake that might happen is that a bundle of votes could end up in the wrong pile. This can be easily and quickly checked. and was done so even before SF called for a recount.

The chances of several hundred individual votes going missing, and doing so to favour or penalise one candidate are practically impossible, and would require a large conspiracy among tallymen from several parties, numerous counters and supervisors as well as the returning officer.

The local recount that saw one candidate win by one vote, then the votes being level before the other candidate won by one vote, is more indicative of the level of mistakes currently in the process, a tiny handful of votes one way or the other is the real limit on mistakes.

Poor call to initially seek a recount here.

Had it been any other party they would have done the same.
The difference need not have been a bundle of votes in the wrong pile.
The difference between the two candidates with 756,000 votes cast was 1 in 2,000+ which going by your example of a local recount was a mathematical possibility.

charlie14

osarusan wrote: »

I wonder if a rule might be brought in for such large numbers of votes, whereby a random sample are selected for recount (say 10% of the overall total to be recounted) and if a certain percentage of votes doesn't get identified as miscounted, then there won't be a full recount.

With the size of the constituencies for EU elections the biggest problem was the number of candidates resulting in the length of the ballot papers for counting staff.

Change the rules on nominations or increase the deposit required to contest imho is the best way to sort that.

Quin_Dub

charlie14 wrote: »

With the size of the constituencies for EU elections the biggest problem was the number of candidates resulting in the length of the ballot papers for counting staff.

Change the rules on nominations or increase the deposit required to contest imho is the best way to sort that.

They absolutely need to do this.

The idea that you can get on the EU ballot with €1500 and only 60 signatures is madness.

I'd leave the money requirement as is , but the number of signatures needs to increase dramatically.

Should be at least 1000 if not a lot more than that..

Jupiter Mulligan

Anyone know whether the eligibility criteria to get on the European Parliament ballot paper are uniquely Irish, or do the same rules apply across the entire EU?

Alan_P

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

So a paid five months holiday is on the cards for Clune before she re-mounts the EU gravy train - nice one!

Nope. The Brexit seats are meaningless until Brexit happens :- the holders don't get a penny, they don't collect salary or allowances, they don't get to attend the EP.

An Ciarraioch

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Anyone know whether the eligibility criteria to get on the European Parliament ballot paper are uniquely Irish, or do the same rules apply across the entire EU?

Most countries simply use the list system, so harder for independents to stand, or be elected.

An Ciarraioch

O'Sullivan takes the last "direct seat", ends up just 154 votes shy of the quota:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_t8iW50kfRMzVHCZpkSy0NI7go-vMxrS46mz6rKJRsY/htmlview#gid=1709040152

osarusan

charlie14 wrote: »

With the size of the constituencies for EU elections the biggest problem was the number of candidates resulting in the length of the ballot papers for counting staff.

Change the rules on nominations or increase the deposit required to contest imho is the best way to sort that.

I don't disagree but my point was a bit different.

With a difference of only 320 votes from 720,000, a recount seems a fair request. But a full recount is obviously massively time-consuming with so many votes.

I'm wondering whether it could be done on a chunk-by-chunk basis - say 10% of votes are selected randomly for recount, and the gap (of 320, in this case) must be reduced by a certain number (say 32, in this case) for the recount to proceed to the next 10%, and so on.

Jupiter Mulligan

Alan_P wrote: »

Nope. The Brexit seats are meaningless until Brexit happens :- the holders don't get a penny, they don't collect salary or allowances, they don't get to attend the EP.

In which case she'll surely be eligible for her EU Pension?

(Or jobseekers benefit!)

charlie14

osarusan wrote: »

I don't disagree but my point was a bit different.

With a difference of only 320 votes from 720,000, a recount seems a fair request. But a full recount is obviously massively time-consuming with so many votes.

I'm wondering whether it could be done on a chunk-by-chunk basis - say 10% of votes are selected randomly for recount, and the gap (of 320, in this case) must be reduced by a certain number (say 32, in this case) for the recount to proceed to the next 10%, and so on.

It`s an idea, but I could see a lot of objection based on it not being a total recount and it being a bit of hit and miss.
To speed up, not just a total recount, but the actual count reducing the number of candidates and thus the actual size of the ballot paper would be my preferred way.

Jupiter Mulligan

Looks like it's foot in mouth time in Bobby Sands House!


Senior Sinn Féin press advisor accidentally sends email to all Leinster House staff enquiring about redundancy entitlement

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/senior-sinn-fin-press-advisor-accidentally-sends-email-to-all-leinster-house-staff-enquiring-about-redundancy-entitlement-38182775.html

expectationlost

L1011 wrote: »

Eamon Ryan *did* get the same criticism for his pointless recount in '14.

she was referring to MLMcD's leadership not the choice to do a recount

Ryan asked for a recheck of bundles (like was done last week) not a recount https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/470912142607400960 see video https://www.thejournal.ie/sinn-fein-green-party-european-elections-1484920-May2014/

but he thinking back he got similar criticism overnight for "asking for recount" he didn't ask for

Jupiter Mulligan

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Most countries simply use the list system, so harder for independents to stand, or be elected.

Why is it harder for independents to stand?

An Ciarraioch

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Why is it harder for independents to stand?

Well, they can stand, but more effective for them as part of an Independent Alliance style arrangement, as with the Free Voters group in Bavaria:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Voters

L1011

expectationlost wrote: »

she was referring to MLMcD's leadership not the choice to do a recount

In that case - similar (worse, but not much) election results led to the knives for Gilmore and he was gone.

expectationlost

L1011 wrote: »

In that case - similar (worse, but not much) election results led to the knives for Gilmore and he was gone.

the difference there being he had been leader for 6 and half years not 1 and a half

Amirani

expectationlost wrote: »

the difference there being he had been leader for 6 and half years not 1 and a half

Same would happen to Varadkar if Fine Gael got hammered in an election.

Politicians get criticised pretty much constantly, it's not just female politicians. Mary Lou has made many poor choices, her being a woman has nothing got to do with them.

L1011

expectationlost wrote: »

the difference there being he had been leader for 6 and half years not 1 and a half

Its not a particularly relevant difference. Indeed 6.5 years including a massive electoral victory (by party standards) would be seen by most as more successful than 1.5 years and two electoral humiliations.

FrancieBrady

I think Mary Lou McDonald would have to perform the same in a GE before there would be a push.

expectationlost

L1011 wrote: »

Its not a particularly relevant difference. Indeed 6.5 years including a massive electoral victory (by party standards) would be seen by most as more successful than 1.5 years and two electoral humiliations.

the point being he had his time (he could have continued), MLMcD has not yet

L1011

expectationlost wrote: »

the point being he had his time (he could have continued), MLMcD has not yet

1.5 years could easily be her time, though. In her time at the helm they've collapsed with zero success. They even only got the third seat in the NI Euros!

expectationlost

L1011 wrote: »

1.5 years could easily be her time, though. In her time at the helm they've collapsed with zero success. They even only got the third seat in the NI Euros!

6 and half years is different to 1 and half years, people are usually allowed some time...

Jupiter Mulligan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think Mary Lou McDonald would have to perform the same in a GE before there would be a push.

Good!

The longer they leave her in charge, the better!

FrancieBrady

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Good!

The longer they leave her in charge, the better!

I am sure they will take your opinion into consideration. After all, they have a history of letting those outside and against the party influence who they choose to lead them.

Topgear on Dave

I don't think even the party members got a vote on whether Mary Lou should be in charge so I agree anyone outside will have no influence what so ever.

FrancieBrady

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I don't think even the party members got a vote on whether Mary Lou should be in charge so I agree anyone outside will have no influence what so ever.

I don't fully understand the process, but I don't see anything here where the party members are excluded from having their say.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/process-of-electing-sinn-f%C3%A9in-president-could-take-months-1.3297321

As the article says, all parties have their own systems, e.g. In Fine Gael the leadership is decided by an electoral college which gives parliamentary party members (50 TDs, 19 senators and four MEPs) 65pc of the vote, ordinary members of the party 25pc, and local authority representatives 10pc.

Bass Reeves

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't fully understand the process, but I don't see anything here where the party members are excluded from having their say.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/process-of-electing-sinn-f%C3%A9in-president-could-take-months-1.3297321

As the article says, all parties have their own systems, e.g. In Fine Gael the leadership is decided by an electoral college which gives parliamentary party members (50 TDs, 19 senators and four MEPs) 65pc of the vote, ordinary members of the party 25pc, and local authority representatives 10pc.

At least everyone know the exact system. In SF there is no system it a coronation. I thing when people say members they allude that as no system is in place or at least it is not published.
For all we know the Army Council could have 60% and the parliamentary party 40 precent