Do you believe in Proportional Representation

AllForIt

I don't - I think it sucks.

I think there should be loosers in an election just like in a referendum.

I think the largest majority should win and have a strong mandate just like they have in the UK - as seen in the last UK GE.

FPTP is the best system imo. I'd liken it to Who Want's To Be A Millionaire when you ask the audience. If you didn't know the answer you would go with the biggest majority - not necessarily an outright majority.

I don't agree with mish-mash coalitions. Look at the current numbers - there is all sorts of scenarios for a gov that could transpire. The more even the split the worse PR is as a system.

IMO it's not right that independents end up in government, no mind tiny party's. That's what we're faced with now.

If we had a FPTP system, ppl would have put more consideration into their first prefs and we wouldn't' be in the horrid state we are in now. And not faced with SF in gov either.

jimmycrackcorm

AllForIt wrote: »

.

If we had a FPTP system, ppl would have put more consideration into their first prefs and we wouldn't' be in the horrid state we are in now. And not faced with SF in gov either.

You don't seem to realise that most SF TDs got elected on the first count and or with massive surpluses.

In your scenario we'd be facing the 1000 year feinreich.

joebloggs32

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't - I think it sucks.

I think there should be loosers in an election just like in a referendum.

I think the largest majority should win and have a strong mandate just like they have in the UK - as seen in the last UK GE.

FPTP is the best system imo. I'd liken it to Who Want's To Be A Millionaire when you ask the audience. If you didn't know the answer you would go with the biggest majority - not necessarily an outright majority.

I don't agree with mish-mash coalitions. Look at the current numbers - there is all sorts of scenarios for a gov that could transpire. The more even the split the worse PR is as a system.

IMO it's not right that independents end up in government, no mind tiny party's. That's what we're faced with now.

If we had a FPTP system, ppl would have put more consideration into their first prefs and we wouldn't' be in horrid state we are in now. And not faced with SF in gov either.

The Tories won a majority in parliament without anything near a majority of the popular vote. The FPTP system means you really only need to be marginally ahead of your nearest rivals to claim the spoils. It leaves vast numbers of people without representation.
Our PR system while not perfect I feel is somewhat better. However it does allow parish pump candidates to sneak into positions of power sometimes.
I would favour a PR list system. There was no Soc Dem candidate in my constituency but I would have liked to have voted for them.

quokula

FPTP is an utter travesty and it would be a massive regressive step to ever consider it here.

The majority of UK voters chose pro EU parties at the last election and FPTP gave them a mandate for a hard Brexit. That says it all about that system.

Thankfully the system we have here means that after all the headlines about SF winning the election, we do actually have a result that correctly represents the fact that 75% of voters voted against them, which rightly means they have to compromise.

AllForIt

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that most SF TDs got elected on the first count and or with massive surpluses.

In your scenario we'd be facing the 1000 year feinreich.

Wrong. If we had a FPTP system the number of first pref votes for SF would be reduced. I'm certain of that. I think many voted for SF as first pref as a kinda protest vote. How many of them voted for FF/FG as second pref? PR adds all kinds of dimensions to this argument - and that's why I don't care for it.

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

AllForIt

quokula wrote: »

FPTP is an utter travesty and it would be a massive regressive step to ever consider it here.

The majority of UK voters chose pro EU parties at the last election and FPTP gave them a mandate for a hard Brexit. That says it all about that system.

Thankfully the system we have here means that after all the headlines about SF winning the election, we do actually have a result that correctly represents the fact that 75% of voters voted against them, which rightly means they have to compromise.

It is not a travesty if you voted to leave. The UK's FPTP system wiped away all the nonsense that was going on in their parliament. The UK public decided enough was enough. Labour was advocating a second ref and they got one of the worst results in their history. The largest majority cleared all this delay up and many remainers accepted it was as well. The reasonable one's that is.

I am not advocating for Brexit or otherwise - all I'm saying is that the FPTP system cleared it up. If the result was evenly divided between the 3 main party's- I think that would have been a total disaster for the country after 3 years of wrangling. It would never have ended.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

It is not a travesty if you voted to leave. The UK's FPTP system wiped away all the nonsense that was going on in their parliament. The UK public decided enough was enough. Labour was advocating a second ref and they got one of the worst results in their history. The largest majority cleared all this delay up and many remainers accepted it was as well. The reasonable one's that is.

I am not advocating for Brexit or otherwise - all I'm saying is that the FPTP system cleared it up. If the result was evenly divided between the 3 main party's- I think that would have been a total disaster for the country after 3 years of wrangling. It would never have ended.

The FPTP system cleared it up by overriding the wishes of the majority. A clear majority of voters voted for parties whose platform included a second referendum, but the Tories who secured only a minority of the vote were installed in office, and there will be no second referendum.

You obviously prioritise a clear result over democratic control and democratic representation and, if those are your priorities, the FPTP is definitely the system you want (if you feel you must have elections at all, obviously). But there's a reason why very few democracies use this system, and the reason is that they take democracy seriously.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

The FPTP system cleared it up by overriding the wishes of the majority. A clear majority of voters voted for parties whose platform included a second referendum, but the Tories who secured only a minority of the vote were installed in office, and there will be no second referendum.

You obviously prioritise a clear result over democratic control and democratic representation and, if those are your priorities, the FPTP is definitely the system you want (if you feel you must have elections at all, obviously). But there's a reason why very few democracies use this system, and the reason is that they take democracy seriously.

Yes, I think there should be winners and loosers. Looser don't get anything other than being in opposition. It's not like I'm saying there should be no opposition at all. Opposition is representation although to a much weaker extent.

The idea that Government can serve all opinions is fundamentally flawed because they can't be realized at the same time when TD's hold diametrical opposite views. Someone has to loose, there has to be some way to decide who's views hold. There's no way to be that Democratic. If you wanted to be that Democratic you'd just put every individual who was elected in government and let them thrash it out. That of course would be totally unworkable. Someone has to have the power even if it's less than 50% imo.

Calhoun

I think the PR system adds protection from polarization type politics we see in the UK and America.

So yes i believe in it, as it means unless there is an overwhelming support from the public that there is a compromise at play.

StupidLikeAFox

Granted there would be more constituencies in a FPTP system but if you look at the poll toppers it is: 26 SF, 5 IND, 2 FF, 2 FG, 2 GP, 1 SD, 1 SOL-PBP.

Is election data published anywhere on a polling station level?

Peregrinus

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Granted there would be more constituencies in a FPTP system but if you look at the poll toppers it is: 26 SF, 5 IND, 2 FF, 2 FG, 2 GP, 1 SD, 1 SOL-PBP.

Is election data published anywhere on a polling station level?

No official data is compiled or published at a polling station level. The parties do have some data from tallies of individual boxes, but it's not robust. And it's not published.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, I think there should be winners and loosers. Looser don't get anything other than being in opposition. It's not like I'm saying there should be no opposition at all. Opposition is representation although to a much weaker extent.

But the Tories lost. There was a bigger majority against the Tories in 2019 than there was against EU membership in 2016. It's absurd to argue that Remain should be held to have lost the 2016 referendum but the Tories to have won the 2019 election.

AllForIt wrote: »

The idea that Government can serve all opinions is fundamentally flawed because they can't be realized at the same time when TD's hold diametrical opposite views. Someone has to loose, there has to be some way to decide who's views hold. There's no way to be that Democratic. If you wanted to be that Democratic you'd just put every individual who was elected in government and let them thrash it out. That of course would be totally unworkable. Someone has to have the power even if it's less than 50% imo.

Government doesn't have to serve all shades of opinion; just to have a broad enough appeal to command majority support. That means those who have the skills to find common ground with others and to build a consensus that can find acceptance by a majority are rewarded with government; those who can't go into opposition.

The reason the UK was paralysed after the 2016 referendum was not because no single party held a majority in parliament; in fact the Tories held a majority in 2016-17, and all but a majority in 2017-19. It's because members of parliament, faced with the challenge of Brexit, lacked the skills needed to find common ground and build a position that could command majority support. And the reason for that, or at least one reason, is that the British political system does not foster, encourage or reward those skills. And the reason for that is that FPTP makes it mostly unnecsssary; parties that secure a minority of the popular vote are routinely rewarded with thumping majorities to implement policies that most of the electorate have rejected.

Even when it works, this is not a good thing, because it lacks democratic legitimacy. And when it fails it fails badly, as you yourself have noted.

Whereas in more mature democracies that employ representative systems, finding common ground, building consensus and seeking majority support are meat and drink to most politicians. Practically any country in Europe could have coped better with the situation the UK has been in for the past four years than the UK has.

Ireland hasn't elected a single-party majority government since 1977 (and that one was a disaster). And over the years since then, our economic growth and social progress has comfortably outstripped that of the UK. Democracy works.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Wrong. If we had a FPTP system the number of first pref votes for SF would be reduced. I'm certain of that.

I'm not. Usually FPTP systems bolster the vote for the larger parties, and squeeze the vote for smaller, by making a vote for a minor party look like a "wasted vote".

AllForIt wrote: »

I think many voted for SF as first pref as a kinda protest vote. How many of them voted for FF/FG as second pref?

Not many. I can't find it now, but I did see an analysis one of the election-heads had done showing that SF second preferences overwhelmingly went to the left.

AllForIt wrote: »

PR adds all kinds of dimensions to this argument - and that's why I don't care for it.

That's why I do care for it. It allows the voter to express a much more sophisticated judgment, and to exercise much more power, than the reductive binary choice FPTP typically gives him.

AllForIt wrote: »

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

I can't really see the merit in an argument which says that a party getting 25% or less of the vote should be given untrammelled power for five years so that they can perpetrate a total disaster.

Necro

AllForIt wrote:

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

The Tories were an embarrassment to their country, an unmitigated disaster since the previous election

They were returned with a thumping majority of seats (but not votes)

What you are saying does not hold up at all.

bg07

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Granted there would be more constituencies in a FPTP system but if you look at the poll toppers it is: 26 SF, 5 IND, 2 FF, 2 FG, 2 GP, 1 SD, 1 SOL-PBP.

Is election data published anywhere on a polling station level?

Not really, for a proper picture you should look at the combined vote of the candidates in each constituency as in a FPTP system you are not going to have the same party running two candidates. Sinn Fein lack of candidates made them appear stronger than they actually are in a lot of constituencies.

TheValeyard

I believe our way of voting is the least bad option and actually gives the Dail a broad spectrum of political views that represents the whole country.

osarusan

OP nothing that you are saying makes any sense.

Really it sounds like you are trying to come up with a system that will lead to the result you want to see.

Any changes in how we vote would see massive changes in how people campaign and vote also. You cannot just imagine a series of 'what ifs' of projected results in a different system based on voting patterns in this system.

Well, you can, but it's useless.

Fanny Wank

osarusan wrote: »

Really it sounds like you are trying to come up with a system that will lead to the result you want to see.

There's a lot of the going on since Saturday. Some people have been questioning whether the voting age should be increased FFS as they're not happy with an outcome

timetogo1

I wasnt previously a fan of our system. Like the op I used to think it'd be better if one party got the reigns.

Now after paying more attention to other countries where this happens I think our statement is better.

It does result in nobody being happy though. There's a lot of "you didn't deliver 100% of what you promised" from people who don't understand what a coalition is.

Fionn1952

While PR-STV certainly isn't perfect, I think it's pretty decent, and a hell of a lot better than FPTP.

The very nature of the two systems creates an entirely different political atmosphere in a country. The all-or-nothing type nature of FPTP leads to inherent adversarial and triumphalist attitudes, whereas PR leads to a more cooperative approach to politics.

STV-PR also allows you to have much more freedom with your vote due to the diminished effectiveness of tactical voting. When living in the North, during Westminster elections, I rarely had a chance to vote for who I wanted to represent me, but rather had to vote for who I thought was most likely to stop the candidate I absolutely didn't want to represent me.

pjohnson

osarusan wrote: »

OP nothing that you are saying makes any sense.

Really it sounds like you are trying to come up with a system that will lead to the result you want to see.

Any changes in how we vote would see massive changes in how people campaign also, you cannot just imagine a series of 'what ifs'.

Well, you can, but it's useless.

I'm suprised it doesnt propose increasing the voting age to over 40, earns 30k a year and owns their own house.

Just to really try and get FG back.

dwmcdos

PR is far from perfect but it's way better than FPTP, which would doom us to FFG for eternity.

Plumbthedepths

Happy with the system we have, usually those arguing against our democratic system are unhappy with the results delivered.

Boggles

AllForIt wrote: »

If we had a FPTP system, ppl would have put more consideration into their first prefs and we wouldn't' be in the horrid state we are in now. And not faced with SF in gov either.

Yes it's the systems fault that SF got 37 TD's. All though no FG or FF TD got elected on their first count.

:pac:

Necro

Boggles wrote:

Yes it's the systems fault that SF got 37 TD's. All though no FG or FF TD got elected on their first count.

True, but SF only ran 2 candidates in a couple of areas

FF and FG ran multiple candidates in most areas

In FPTP they run one candidate and consolidate that vote

Basically they aren't comparable

joseywhales

It is the best system that I am aware of. It allows a voter to fully express their preference which seems to me to be more democratic.

Regarding the raising the age part, in fact, if I was going to use age as a vote weighting the younger votes should be weighted higher than the elderly, since the younger voters will be more impacted by the vote over a longer period of time. If anything younger people should have more say.

Another interesting idea would be weighting by income/capital gains tax paid in the previous 5 years but with the caveat that you cannot discriminate against the disabled and that everyone still gets some vote.

Plumbthedepths

joseywhales wrote: »

Another interesting idea would be weighting by income/capital gains tax paid in the previous 5 years but with the caveat that you cannot discriminate against the disabled and that everyone still gets some vote.

Orwell's Animal Farm, all are equal except some are more equal than others.

Peregrinus

Necro wrote: »

True, but SF only ran 2 candidates in a couple of areas

FF and FG ran multiple candidates in most areas

In FPTP they run one candidate and consolidate that vote

Basically they aren't comparable

This is correct.

If we aggregate the (first preference) votes for different candidates from the same party in each of the forty constituencies, then the the poll-topping parties, by number of constituencies, are:

Sinn Fein - 16
Fianna Fail - 11
Fine Gael - 8
Independent - 5

It doesn't follow, of course, that if we had elected 40 TDs in these constituencies by FPTP that this is how it would have panned out. Presumably if we had FPTP in these constituencies, many of the people who in reality voted Labour, Green, etc would have voted instead for a party perceived as likely to have some chance of topping the poll in that constituency (and so winning the seat and keeping out whoever the voter particularly disliked).

Basically, we can't assume that how people did in fact vote in an STV election is how they would have voted in an FPTP election. The OP thinks that in an FPTP election people woudl have been less likely to vote SF, but for what it's worth I think the opposite. It's the minor parties who would have lost out; the three majors would likely all have gained votes.

ShyMets

FPTP the doesn't always lead to a one party government. In the UK over the years there have been Minority and Coalition Government. The previous Tory Government was a Minority Government propped up by the DUP

Peregrinus

ShyMets wrote: »

FPTP the doesn't always lead to a one party government. In the UK over the years there have been Minority and Coalition Government. The previous Tory Government was a Minority Government propped up by the DUP

True. But FPTP is much, much more likely to produce a one-party government than STV (or indeed than any system of proportional representation). And as a result of this, FPTP tends to produce a political system in which the skills, aptititudes and talents to make multt-party and coalition governments work well are lacking, and (b) in an FTPT system, if an election doesn't produce a one-party government, they are much more inclined to think that the system is broken, or at least not working well; they take it for granted that producing a one-party government is the whole point of an election.

Eric Cartman

Many argue no taxation without representation, I believe it should be no representation without contribution. I dgenuinely dont think those not paying prsi should he allowed vote, after all its mostly down to where our money is spent.

Peregrinus

I think reducing the role of the state to "mostly down to where our money is spent" is absurdly reductive.

I think, even if you accept it, it provides no support for the argument that voting should be linked to taxation. Taxation isn't about where money is spent; it's about where it's raised. If government truly is mostly down to where our money is spent, then surely the vote should extend to everyoneone affected by, or with an interest in, that spending.

But the one that really puzzles me is this: if you are linking voting to taxation, why privilege PRSI in this way? PRSI raises a relatively small proportion of the state's revenue. If you insist on linking voting to taxation for no apparent reason, why should those who bear other, much more signficant, taxes (like VAT, say) not be equally entitled to vote?

joseywhales

One can always over contribute tax to have more of say in the running of the country.

AllForIt

osarusan wrote: »

OP nothing that you are saying makes any sense.

Really it sounds like you are trying to come up with a system that will lead to the result you want to see.

Any changes in how we vote would see massive changes in how people campaign and vote also. You cannot just imagine a series of 'what ifs' of projected results in a different system based on voting patterns in this system.

Well, you can, but it's useless.

I'm genuinely telling you 'getting my own way' (in what party is in power) has nothing to do with my opinion. I believe it outright. I shouldn't have mentioned SF in the OP because I'm actually not bothered with them being in gov.

I think what is important is that the government despite having a larger % of votes that did not vote for them should still have as much power as one that didn't.

I just don't agree with this 'didn't vote for' thing. I don't think the UK system is undemocratic and you hardly ever hear anyone complain about it except the losers. It's nonsense to say the UK isn't a democratic state. When UK Labour were in power they didn't do anything to change the voting system there at the time.

The essence of my thoughts is again I don't agree with this 'didn't vote for' idea.

So say a single party gets the largest 40% and 60% didn't vote for them. Lets say that 60% was divided equally between 2 party's , 30% each and they wen't into coalition. But 70% of voters didn't vote for them either. That's 10% more than who didn't vote for the 40% party.


We are now in position of having another election or one with in a year or 2 of a coalition. That is the mess a PR system creates - or is much more likely to create than a FPTP system. And even worse we'll get ineffectual gov in the meantime. Like the last gov. I don't think that's a good situation to be in.

UDAWINNER

I don't agree with FPTP as you only have to look up the North to see that many seats in Catholic majority Areas until recently have been gained by a Unionist due to them putting 1 Candidate up and SDLP/SF splitting the nationist vote. Hopefullly the argreements in certain areas like last time will end this practice.
Our system at least gives representation to the smaller parties which are not given a chance under FPTP

CelticRambler

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't think the UK system is undemocratic and you hardly ever hear anyone complain about it except the losers.

It isn't so much undemocratic as unrepresentative.

AllForIt wrote: »

So say a single party gets the largest 40% and 60% didn't vote for them. Lets say that 60% was divided equally between 2 party's , 30% each and they wen't into coalition. But 70% of voters didn't vote for them either. That's 10% more than who didn't vote for the 40% party.

Therein lies the problem: give one man one vote, and only one, and you create situation where you can never escape from those "60% didn't vote for them" and "70% didn't vote for them" scenarios, ever. It's "first choice or no choice" and as you'll rarely find any group of people to agree 100% on the same first choice, the vast majority of collective decisions in any context are based on second choices.

That switches the voting dynamic considerably for both candidates and voters. In FPTP, anyone who wants to stand for election knows that he or she will have little chance of being elected if not running on a party ticket, so they are encouraged to align their campaign message with that of the party regardless of their true beliefs or political ambitions. This creates parties within parties, and - as we saw in the UK, despite FPTP - can be enough to paralyse the government for years.

As for the voter, FPTP pretty much guarantees that the majority of electorate ends up with a government they did not want and didn't vote for, which allows them to attribute every misery in their life to the government of the day. That creates a climate of hostility which can be manipulated by anyone with a vested interest - again, as we've seen in the UK, the US and (to a lesser extent) in France.

Annasopra

AllForIt wrote: »

Wrong. If we had a FPTP system the number of first pref votes for SF would be reduced. I'm certain of that. I think many voted for SF as first pref as a kinda protest vote. How many of them voted for FF/FG as second pref? PR adds all kinds of dimensions to this argument - and that's why I don't care for it.

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

No way. You are very naive. With FPTP we would have a SF government with a massive majority.

Annasopra

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Granted there would be more constituencies in a FPTP system but if you look at the poll toppers it is: 26 SF, 5 IND, 2 FF, 2 FG, 2 GP, 1 SD, 1 SOL-PBP.

Is election data published anywhere on a polling station level?

Published privately by parties

is_that_so

AllForIt wrote: »

Wrong. If we had a FPTP system the number of first pref votes for SF would be reduced. I'm certain of that. I think many voted for SF as first pref as a kinda protest vote. How many of them voted for FF/FG as second pref? PR adds all kinds of dimensions to this argument - and that's why I don't care for it.

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

It would require a constitutional referendum. FF tried twice, at the end of the 50s & the 60s, to get Articles 12.3 and 16.5 changed to FPTP and it was shot down.

marko99

Yes.

woohoo!!!

By quite a number of measurements, it would be very foolish to copy the UK. Their are other European examples that could be looked at.

November Golf

woohoo!!! wrote: »

By quite a number of measurements, it would be very foolish to copy the UK. Their are other European examples that could be looked at.

I think I would favour a list system based on % of first preference vote.

And a constitution amendment to allow the dail select a taoiseach by the largest combined vote rather than simple majority. In that case, a minority government could be formed by the person who get the most votes in the dail even if not in a majority.

Peregrinus

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I think I would favour a list system based on % of first preference vote.

In which case, what would the second preference vote be fore? Genuine question - not a snark.

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

And a constitution amendment to allow the dail select a taoiseach by the largest combined vote rather than simple majority. In that case, a minority government could be formed by the person who get the most votes in the dail even if not in a majority.

Mmm. Not gonna work, I think. First requirement for any functioning government is that they should be able to get legislation, budget, etc through the Oireachtas, and survive votes of confidence. If you have a Taoiseach who has already been rejected by a majority of TDs, then presumptively his government can't do any of these things. No point in forcing an ineffective government into office.

Marcusm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The FPTP system cleared it up by overriding the wishes of the majority. A clear majority of voters voted for parties whose platform included a second referendum, but the Tories who secured only a minority of the vote were installed in office, and there will be no second referendum.

You obviously prioritise a clear result over democratic control and democratic representation and, if those are your priorities, the FPTP is definitely the system you want (if you feel you must have elections at all, obviously). But there's a reason why very few democracies use this system, and the reason is that they take democracy seriously.

I’d agree with Peregrinus here and cite the Scottish Referendum in 2014 and subsequent U.K. election as examples. Only 45% votes in favour of inde pence, the campaign for which was led by the SNP. In the 2015 Westminster election, the SNP got 50% of the vote on a much reduced turnout (indyref was >85%) so you might suggest its voting share was magnified. The SNP got 95% of the seats (56/59) on that 50% vote. Would you really want the type of system? The 55% from indyref was essentially unrepresented in Parliament (much like NI non-unionists for the same period).

Eric Cartman

joseywhales wrote: »

One can always over contribute tax to have more of say in the running of the country.

everyone earning over 35k is already overcontributing tax and has very little say in the country...

November Golf

Peregrinus wrote: »

In which case, what would the second preference vote be fore? Genuine question - not a snark.


Mmm. Not gonna work, I think. First requirement for any functioning government is that they should be able to get legislation, budget, etc through the Oireachtas, and survive votes of confidence. If you have a Taoiseach who has already been rejected by a majority of TDs, then presumptively his government can't do any of these things. No point in forcing an ineffective government into office.

In a list system, you vote for the party not an individual candidate and the seats are allocated based on the vote (20% vote = 20% of seats). The parties rank their candidates internally and awards on order of merit.

Its the responsible of the Dail to pass legislation not the government and the budget could be done through Dail Committees as was proposed under "new politics" to allow great scritiny and agreement on budget measures.

My suggestion would mean opposition party's couldn't table a no confident motion unless they offered an alternative candidate with a great level of support. In most cases, parties would likely seek a multi party coalition to ensure maximum "confident" anyways but it would not necessarily need to be 50%+1 seat as is the current method of selecting a government. I think of it like a constitutionally governed "confident and supply" system.

The reality is we are likely to see more minority government in years to come.... we can't spend months, every few year, with caretaker cabinets and ministers that have lost their seats in the election while we wait for an agreement on who will abstain on the confident vote and for who and what price will be paid.

joseywhales

Eric Cartman wrote: »

everyone earning over 35k is already overcontributing tax and has very little say in the country...

Sure they are, however what has this got to do with a system in which voters get a higher proportion of representation if they pay more tax, if anything under such a system the people you mention would have a more democratic power.

piplip87

If we used FPTP in this recent election we would have had 160 smaller Constituencies to elect the 160 candidates so to say SF would have an over majority or any majority would be fairly premature. Where would they or any small party get the platform to gain seats if they have been locked out of the system since the foundation of the state.

IMO it would see a massive increase in Parish Pump politics. As the local lad would get the large number of votes from their towns.

Look at Cork South Central for example. If it remained the same under FPTP. FF would have strolled to that seat as the combined first preference of Martin and McGrath was 7,000 votes higher than the SF poll topper.

I haven't digged enough into the data for other Constituencies but I am sure there's other examples of this.

I am also sure that if you look at the numbers of the last election you will find that the SF vote is confined to certain areas of large towns, within Constituencies, again I would have to look at each ballot box to get the figures on this.

While they system we use is not perfect it does however guarantee that smaller parties through transfers will get elected in later counts thus giving a broader representation of society.

One thing though the public need to be educated on PRSTV the amount of complete nonsense about popular votes I have seen this week is astounding

CelticRambler

piplip87 wrote: »

If we used FPTP ...

IMO it would see a massive increase in Parish Pump politics. As the local lad would get the large number of votes from their towns.

I think this would be the biggest difference between FPTP operating in Ireland compared to GB. Anyone parachuted in to a constituency would have to fight off all the local lads (and lasses) and party politics would take more of a back seat than they do in GB. No such thing as a safe seat in Ireland. The upshot would be no significant improvement on the supposed problem described by the OP of no party having absolute power.

Feisar

Calhoun wrote: »

I think the PR system adds protection from polarization type politics we see in the UK and America.

So yes i believe in it, as it means unless there is an overwhelming support from the public that there is a compromise at play.

Is compromise always a good thing? In war times for example a cabinet can often have far reaching powers.

Health for example ain't going to get fixed with compromise.

Idbatterim

Feisar wrote: »

Is compromise always a good thing? In war times for example a cabinet can often have far reaching powers.

Health for example ain't going to get fixed with compromise.

endlessly trying to reach concensus, public consultations and we wonder why nothing changes here? :rolleyes: