Should we drop Proportional Representation

maestroamado

pixelburp wrote: »

You "don't care", you've "no interest" in other countries' own approach to electoral systems? YOU started the thread to "drop PR". Your words. You obviously cared enough to begin the discussion so it's a bit disingenuous to suddenly feign apathy because the question is asked: why change and what to? It reads more like your own personal boredom is advocating change, purely for the sake of change and not some fundamental technical or philoshophical objection.

All political systems find a plateau of normalcy; the question is simply: does Ireland present the fairest balance against the other systems out there? You say you're not the only one but it's on you to present the argument as to what other system beyond PR would work better. Or why PR is more ripe for abuse of the system than other mechanics of democracy.

To do that ... that involves ... comparing with other countries' and how they adapted their voting systems. You can't champion (say) FPTP but then pretend discussing the UK isn't needed or irrelevant.

The very cheek of you to say another poster "DON'T CARE"
I think you should read the OP again, i asked "should we drop PR? "
You in your wisdom decided i wanted to drop PR, completely not true as i do not know which best.
It was others on here who decided to introduce other countries so i went with what they were saying comparing.
If people yourself included want to compare everything on the table.

sid waddell

VinLieger wrote: »

Heres FpTP which tbh is only cons in my view as far as representative democracy is concerned

Right-wing politics of the Republican/Tory type (and Fianna Fail used to be like this as well) has always hated representative democracy.

First past the post is one such tool they use to deny it.

Denying universal suffrage, gerrymandering, poll taxes (where you literally had to pay to vote), anti-democratic constitutional engineering, mass propaganda and the current voter suppression we see in the US were/are other tools used by the right to deny representative democracy.

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

The very cheek of you to say another poster "DON'T CARE"
I think you should read the OP again, i asked "should we drop PR? "
You in your wisdom decided i wanted to drop PR, completely not true as i do not know which best.
It was others on here who decided to introduce other countries so i went with what they were saying comparing.
If people yourself included want to compare everything on the table.

You may not have intended it but your OP reads very much as if you are suggesting at dropping it.


Also i think its a fair criticism of you considering you don't seem to understand the basics of our PR/STV system and erroneously claimed it favors larger parties.

VinLieger

sid waddell wrote: »

Right-wing politics of the Republican/Tory type (and Fianna Fail used to be like this as well) has always hated representative democracy.

First past the post is one such tool they use to deny it.

Denying universal suffrage, gerrymandering, poll taxes (where you literally had to pay to vote), anti-democratic constitutional engineering, mass propaganda and the current voter suppression see in the US were/are other tools used by the right to deny representative democracy.

I dont think its solely limited to right wingers. Just look at the reaction from some left wingers, specifically hard line sinn feiners. Since the election many of their online followers have been calling for changes to our STV system, mainly due to a complete lack of comprehension of how our system works which in a large part is thanks to SF making a big mistake in not fielding enough candidates.

CrabRevolution

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont think its solely limited to right wingers. Just look at the reaction from some left wingers, specifically hard line sinn feiners. Since the election many of their online followers have been calling for changes to our STV system, mainly due to a complete lack of comprehension of how our system works which in a large part is thanks to SF making a big mistake in not fielding enough candidates.

I wouldn't say it's a lack of comprehension, just scrambling for excuses.

They were holding victory rallies, talking of crowning Mary-Lou and the end of FF and FG. Once reality set in and it became clear their complete and total victory was nothing of the sort, they had 2 choices:

1. Eat some humble pie and admit you got carried away saying you were kings in waiting before potentially working towards a coalition/settle in opposition and work for the next election.

2. Claim the system is rigged and that you should be in charge.

sid waddell

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont think its solely limited to right wingers. Just look at the reaction from some left wingers, specifically hard line sinn feiners. Since the election many of their online followers have been calling for changes to our STV system, mainly due to a complete lack of comprehension of how our system works which in a large part is thanks to SF making a big mistake in not fielding enough candidates.

You could argue that yes, and I totally agree that there is a deliberate misunderstanding of our political system being pushed as a propaganda narrative by Sinn Fein in order to discredit what is a legitimate government, whatever you think of it. It's a government that has been formed in the same way every coalition government in the history of the state has been formed.

I would disagree that Sinn Fein are actually left-wing though, I think they're just populists who adopt the cloak of being "left" for pure convenience. The term "tax and spend" is commonly thrown around as a trope about the left, but Sinn Fein in my view are really a "spend but not tax" party.

Sinn Fein as a party has made a conscious decision that anger and tribalism is the fulcrum of their appeal. Certainly a lot of their followers exhibit Trump supporter-like tendencies. While I believe that moral anger very much has its place in politics, nationalistic tribal anger, which is generally uniformly negative, non-constructive and destructive, is a different thing altogether.

Twitter as a forum for such anger is a car crash given its soundbyte nature.

Inquitus

No, its much better than FPTP!

Hotblack Desiato

maestroamado wrote: »

I would like a system that encourages people to vote for the best person for the job regardless of their party or none

It's a government we're electing not a county council, of course party affiliation is vital.
You're not voting for a guy to "fix the road", the purpose of a general election is to decide who governs the country.

Now of course not everyone votes that way, which is why we have so many and largely useless independents in the Dail. I regard a vote for an independent as a wasted vote and/or a sign of extreme voter naivete. I'd rather people voted for a party (even one I strongly dislike) based on their policies, rather than some gombeen only out for himself and who can't join/remain in a party because of inability to stand behind a coherent policy position on national issues.

When you vote for an independent you get some vague parochial promises which (a) are usually council matters and (b) they're extremely unlikely to be able to do a damn thing about, unless by some chance the government depends badly enough on their vote.

So it seems things will stay as they are which is fine but i think there must be a better way, unfortunately there are few on here who seem to agree.

That's because you've failed to coherently state what is wrong with the current system, which alternative system would fix it, and how.

maestroamado

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's a government we're electing not a county council, of course party affiliation is vital.
You're not voting for a guy to "fix the road", the purpose of a general election is to decide who governs the country.

Now of course not everyone votes that way, which is why we have so many and largely useless independents in the Dail. I regard a vote for an independent as a wasted vote and/or a sign of extreme voter naivete. I'd rather people voted for a party (even one I strongly dislike) based on their policies, rather than some gombeen only out for himself and who can't join/remain in a party because of inability to stand behind a coherent policy position on national issues.

When you vote for an independent you get some vague parochial promises which (a) are usually council matters and (b) they're extremely unlikely to be able to do a damn thing about, unless by some chance the government depends badly enough on their vote.




That's because you've failed to coherently state what is wrong with the current system, which alternative system would fix it, and how.

I pretty well agree with what you are saying.
Now we have three main parties.
I did not see any real policies from any of them that were different.


What were the policies of FF before election?
What were the policies of FG before election?
What were the policies of SF before election?
What be difference in these policies?


It not matter if i fail as this just chatter.
What matters is clear direction from from people we elect...

maestroamado

VinLieger wrote: »

You may not have intended it but your OP reads very much as if you are suggesting at dropping it.


Also i think its a fair criticism of you considering you don't seem to understand the basics of our PR/STV system and erroneously claimed it favors larger parties.

So you cannot read??

GarIT

The only thing I would change about our voting system is that votes shouldn't transfer from elected candidates. Once you get someone to represent you, your vote is spent.

PommieBast

GarIT wrote: »

The only thing I would change about our voting system is that votes shouldn't transfer from elected candidates. Once you get someone to represent you, your vote is spent.

I'm starting to think that transfers should be done away with completely and people only allowed to vote for a single party. Without transfers the squabbling rabble of AAA/PBP/RISE would sink without trace, as would a significant portion of toys-out-of-the-pram independent TDs.

Podge_irl

maestroamado wrote: »

I pretty well agree with what you are saying.
Now we have three main parties.
I did not see any real policies from any of them that were different.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic of voting systems?

I would also be curious as to how you define "real policies" as by my definition of it you are pretty incorrect, but nonetheless, I don't see how it is relevant to your point.

GarIT

PommieBast wrote: »

I'm starting to think that transfers should be done away with completely and people only allowed to vote for a single party. Without transfers the squabbling rabble of AAA/PBP/RISE would sink without trace, as would a significant portion of toys-out-of-the-pram independent TDs.

I like that almost everone ultimately gets to pick someone to represent them even if it's not their first pick.

maestroamado

Podge_irl wrote: »

I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic of voting systems?

I would also be curious as to how you define "real policies" as by my definition of it you are pretty incorrect, but nonetheless, I don't see how it is relevant to your point.

You mentioned policies and i just asked what policies so you entered this to conversation.
The original chat was on voting practices.

The policies are outlined by the parties/reps looking to be elected, why would i define policies for Government.

Just tell me what is incorrect?
What point are you talking about?

maestroamado

GarIT wrote: »

I like that almost everone ultimately gets to pick someone to represent them even if it's not their first pick.

I like your style Mr rrr...

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem with FPTP is that a huge proportion of TDs are effectively chosen not by the voters but by a party committee. Depending on how the party is set up, this could be a local party committee, in which case parish pump considerations will loom as large as they ever did, or it could be the party head office, in which case there is no reason to think that candidates committed to serving the entire nation will be chosen; the party chooses candidates to advance the interests of the party, not the country, and the likely result will be the development of factions within the party, in which senior party figures compete to get candidates selected who are loyal to or dependent on them personally, who will support them as the contend for influence within or leadership of the party.

It seems to me that if you want to remove parish pump considerations from national politics, you don't want to tweak the electoral system at all. You want to devolve real power and real control to local government, so that if a citizen wants e.g. to get the roads fixed, they can achieve that much more effectively and much more quickly by approaching their county councillors than they can by approaching their TDs. People will stop electing TDs on the basis that they get the roads fixed if, in fact, it becomes apparent TDs don't have a huge role to play in getting the roads fixed.


We've got a whole professional independent permanent civil service to advise the government and support and inform the policy formation process. Are you just lookign to reinvent the wheel there?

do you want to censor opinion of people??

ancapailldorcha

maestroamado wrote: »

So you cannot read??

maestroamado wrote: »

I like your style Mr rrr...

maestroamado wrote: »

do you want to censor opinion of people??

These comments are adding nothing to the thread. Please refrain from posting like this in future.

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

do you want to censor opinion of people??

Not at all. Completely the opposite, in fact. My main objection to FPTP is that it reduces choice for voters and therefore narrows the range of views they can express through their votes.

YellowBucket

I just think it’s very disappointing to see this kind of conspiracy theory being injected to undermine what is one of the better systems in use in any democracy.

Ireland ranks extremely highly in terms of democratic processes. We score a perfect 10 on the mechanics of our democracy on the Democracy Index. We rank 6th in the world, only held back very slightly by a category on functioning of government, which is where I think we should be focused - Dáil reform to allow the house to be more able to work in a highly proportional democracy & enhancement of the systems of local government would be very useful steps forward.

Ireland’s basically as democratic as it gets on planet earth, and with not very much effort and a few minor tweaks to government structures, could quite literally be the most democratic country in the world. It’s already in the top few, and there’s not much between them.

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

The only significant change I would look for on the electoral system is the establishment of a permanent, independent electoral commission to ensure that it’s maintained, monitored and enhanced to make sure those processes always work transparently, smoothly and are user friendly.

If SF and others want to do something useful, start advocating for real reform of the Oireachtas. This isn’t a winner takes all system and it needs to more fully reflect that in a far more active Dáil.

Throwing toys out of the pram because the numbers didn’t add up for you is being Trump. Don’t be Trump. It’s depressing to watch. As parties you are better than that. It should be beneath you.

Brussels Sprout

FPTP is such an undemocratic system.

A stark example of this was in the 2015 UK general election with three different parties that competed across Britain:

• Lib Dems received 7.9% of the vote and got 1.2% of the seats (8)
• UKIP received 12.6% of the vote and got 0.2% of the seats (1)
• The Conservatives received 36.8% of the vote and got 50.8% of the seats (330)

The problem for the Lib Dems and especially UKIP, was that they came second in many, many constituencies. However FPTP rewards only the winners in each constituency. In many cases those winners were not even getting majorities of the votes. So you could have a scenario where 60% of the voters in a constituency did not vote for someone who was elected.


One of the beautiful things about our PR-STV system is that even if the person who you gave your #1 preference to is eliminated, your vote can then transfer on to other candidates who are still in the race. This allows people to vote for who they really want to vote for AND also to vote tactically to try and keep out some other candidate. In FPTP you can only do one or the other - and one of those options is often a waste of your vote. This is why the Green Party in the UK, for example, is one of the lowest supported Green parties in western Europe.

Our ancestors had the good sense to reject FPTP twice at the ballot box already and I thank them for it.

L1011

Belfast South in 2015 had 75.5% vote for parties other than the winner, and then 69.6% in 2017. In 2019 with less candidates running the winner got an outright majority.

Hotblack Desiato

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

One of the beautiful things about our PR-STV system is that even if the person who you gave your #1 preference to is eliminated, your vote can then transfer on to other candidates who are still in the race. This allows people to vote for who they really want to vote for AND also to vote tactically to try and keep out some other candidate.

What's often overlooked is another benefit of PR-STV - your vote isn't "wasted" if it's a surplus vote for an already elected candidate - your lower preferences are taken into account. If surplus votes are discarded then some votes count for more than others. e.g. let's say quota is 10,000, Ms A gets 20,000 votes so if surpluses are not redistributed then every Ms A supporter effectively got half a vote.

Quin_Dub

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's often overlooked is another benefit of PR-STV - your vote isn't "wasted" if it's a surplus vote for an already elected candidate - your lower preferences are taken into account. If surplus votes are discarded then some votes count for more than others. e.g. let's say quota is 10,000, Ms A gets 20,000 votes so if surpluses are not redistributed then every Ms A supporter effectively got half a vote.

Exactly - You are voting for ALL the seats in your constituency , not just one.

Ideally your vote should contribute in some way to the filling of each and every seat.

Sam Russell

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - You are voting for ALL the seats in your constituency , not just one.

Ideally your vote should contribute in some way to the filling of each and every seat.

Well, one quota (approx) does not elect anyone, so in that case your vote dies without counting towards any candidate.

The STV system we have is very simple as far as the voter is concerned - put the candidates in the order of your choice - whatever that choice is based on.

Counting is a different matter, and the political parties try to game the system to give it another dimension by vote management, and parachuting candidates into a constituency.

However, there is a wobble - the number of seats is not the same for each constituency - it should be.

Also, the Ceann Comhairle should be voted in as the last act of the Dail dissolution. He then remains as the sole TD until the Dail re-forms. He ceases to be a member of a party, and must resign as a TD should he resign as the Ceann Comhairle. Generally, (s)he will be a long standing TD, with significant experience of the Dail.

Currently, the Ceann Comhairle is automatically returned, which means that if (s)he represents a three seater, then only two candidates are elected there. It would mean that there are only 159 seats contested in 3, 4, 5, seater constituencies.

ArmaniJeanss

One theoretical flaw in our system is the situation where a candidate is no-ones first choice but is everyone's second choice - they should logically get a seat. However they will instead be eliminated after the first count (unless someone exceeds the quota in which case they may get enough transfers to survive).
Whilst this is extreme, there have probably been instances where bland candidates have consistently been #4,#5 choice of a big percentage of the electorate but haven't polled enough #1s to survive that far.

A different Formula One type counting system would get around this, e.g, 20 points for your first choice, 15 for your 2nd, 12 for your 3rd etc. Sum it all up and the candidates with the most points get the seats.

This would be incredibly difficult and slow to count manually though, could probably only work with an e-vote system.

PommieBast

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

One theoretical flaw in our system is the situation where a candidate is no-ones first choice but is everyone's second choice - they should logically get a seat. However they will instead be eliminated after the first count (unless someone exceeds the quota in which case they may get enough transfers to survive).
Whilst this is extreme, there have probably been instances where bland candidates have consistently been #4,#5 choice of a big percentage of the electorate but haven't polled enough #1s to survive that far.

There is Condorcet voting which is targeted precisely at this scenario.However I personally think that someone who is unable to attract a decent clutch of first (and higher) preferences should not get elected.

ArmaniJeanss

PommieBast wrote: »

There is Condorcet voting which is targeted precisely at this scenario.However I personally think that someone who is unable to attract a decent clutch of first (and higher) preferences should not get elected.

Cheers I had a read up on Condorcet - very interesting and not something I'd been aware of.

I get you what you say about someone who fails to attract a decent clutch of 1s &2s &3s not particularly deserving election, it's a valid viewpoint.

I'm thinking of something like my own Dublin West (and it probably applies to other constituencies). There's very much a rich/poor split in the constituency, so Sinn Fein and the AAA/PBP types campaign almost exclusively on the Mulhuddart/Corduff/Hartstown side and get 2 seats there. Meanwhile FF/FG have perfunctory campaigns in these areas and throw the bulk of their resources into the posher area of Castleknock/Clonsilla and wrap up two seats there.
A candidate who attempts to straddle this divide will likely make little headway into #1 votes but will plausibly be 3rd or 4th choice of the bulk of the constituency. But this won't be enough to be elected.

It was this geographical split which was a big part of the reason the Greens didn't get a seat here in 2016 (although they did the last time).

Sam Russell

PommieBast wrote: »

There is Condorcet voting which is targeted precisely at this scenario.However I personally think that someone who is unable to attract a decent clutch of first (and higher) preferences should not get elected.

There is a case for eliminating any candidate (after first round surpluses are distributed) that fails to get 5% of a quota. That would speed counting, and eliminate the several loony no hopers that get a handful of votes each.

YellowBucket

I know we had the e-voting fiasco back in the day, but there were some positives to a properly developed e-voting or at least assisted counting system.

The system that was rolled out was just lacking in transparency and reliant on far too many invisible 'black box' processes that you couldn't really audit properly.

If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

The problem is the system is relatively obscure, so it's always going to be a rather bespoke system.

Probably won't happen though due to the technical challenges and the bad experience of the previous e-voting mess.

Any kind of online system risks security problems, but also not being maintained as we only vote every few years, and you could easily foresee problems where there'd be question marks over IT budgets for voting infrastructure, which could easily end up with obsolete software and huge security risks developing over time.