Is it undemocratic that a person with fewer votes than another can become Taoiseach

veryangryman

Taking the Leo example, IIRC comes 3rd in his constituency and is returned, then nominated for Tánaiste and later Taoiseach. Is this a potential hole in the rules?

No. What if the leader of a party comes from a particularly small constituency? Are you suggesting they shouldn't be Taoiseach

Sam Russell

The voter votes in the order of their preference for a candidate to become TD for that constituency. The vacancies are filled according to the rules, with the lowest candidate (after surpluses are dealt with) being eliminated at each stage, with the final count filling all remaining seats with some not even getting to the quota. All TDs are equal and not distinguished by their position in the election. That is how an election is conducted.

The new Dail meets to decide who will be Taoiseach. The candidates are proposed in turn until one ends up getting a majority of votes cast. Again that is the procedure. The number of votes cast as a TD are irrelevant.

How can any of that be unconstitutional?

awec

It makes no difference if you are elected on the 1st count or the 50th count.

L1011

No, because what count you get elected on is irrelevant in STV

SF tried banging the drum about later count elected candidates in an attempt to undermine them; and its going to backfire horribly if they manage their vote properly next time and end up with piles of TDs elected late,.

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058232934/is-it-undemocratic-that-a-person-with-fewer-votes-than-another-can-become-taoiseach

By this logic, the person with the highest first preference poll in the country should be Taoiseach.

I think that would mean Michael Healy-Rae.

Careful what you wish for..........

SafeSurfer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058232934/is-it-undemocratic-that-a-person-with-fewer-votes-than-another-can-become-taoiseach

No!

veryangryman

Guys i did say 3rd in their own constituency. Leo isnt in the Healy Rae's constituency so the polling card didn't give the locals a choice of the 2.

What im saying is that Leo is definitely not the favorite where there is a choice. 2 others get ahead.

People whinge in America when the popular vote winner doesn't get elected. Why so much pushback to the notion here?

Xterminator

we dont vote for a Taoiseach - we vote for TDs. Leo has/had to be confirmed as Taoiseach by the dail to which he was elected.

democracy at work, as designed.

How is the Taoiseach elected?

Overview. Under the Constitution of Ireland, the Taoiseach is nominated by a simple majority of the voting members of Dáil Éireann. They are then formally appointed to office by the President, who is required to appoint whomever the Dáil designates, without the option of declining to make the appointment.

Notmything

Because we don't directly elect the Taoiseach. Different systems so non comparable

Donald Trump

What if you grew up in a "socially deprived" area (i.e. an area that gets loads of money but the locals insist on pis$ing any potential opportunities up against a wall) but you decided to push ahead and better yourself and went out and got educated/qualified/trained and still wanted to live in your own community as an example of what can be achieved?

Obviously, having been educated, you are likely going to veer away from your PBPs and SFs etc should you wish to run for office to help effect some change. So you run for a different party or none. You likely aren't going to get the vote of the anything-but-British-ohh-ahh-up-the-ra-Celtic-and-ManU-jersey-wearers-kill-the-bankers-wheres-me-foreva-home voters. But imagine that despite those odds, you still get elected. It shouldn't mean that you are barred from a higher position just because of the density of density in your constituency

(density squared)

is_that_so

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629667#Comment_118629667

We don't do FPTP and in a representative democracy like ours we leave the choice of Taoiseach up to the people we just elected. It's exactly the same as almost any other parliamentary democracy. The US is politically dysfunctional and nominally corrupt in how it allocates seats. Parties don't worry about who gets in first because they want the 2nd or 3rd candidate to get in on transfers and often try to manage down the votes of the big vote getter to make this happen.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629667#Comment_118629667

Because we have STV. Which it seems you completely don't understand.

The order in which someone is elected has absolutely no bearing on their position or legitimacy.

Del2005

If you follow the logic to its conclusion then colations should be banned also. If a single party doesn't get enough votes to form a government then we should keep going to the polls till one does as people didn't vote for the colation.

Patser

No because then the most popular party in any constituency could only run 1 candidate for fear of excluding their Leader from Taoiseach position by trying to bring in other party members.

Varadkar for example, had Emer Currie running beside him who took over 4% of the vote Varadkar otherwise would have got. In contrast in the last election SF stood single candidates inthat constituency so easier to top the poll.

Your suggestion could also rule out Taoiseach position for somebody just because a local independent protest vote or populist (see Healy Raes) tops their constituency on an entirely local issue.

ArmaniJeanss

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629667#Comment_118629667

This is nonsensical really.

It's not even accurate as Varadkar was actually 2nd, not 3rd. Second most FPVs and also second TD elected, so second whichever way you look at it. Also worth pointing out that FG ran two candidates so Varadkar's FPV would have been higher if he'd been the sole candidate.

Dublin West is also a good example of a rich/poor split constituency and he gets very little votes in Corduff/Mulhuddart areas - if it was a smaller constituency centred on Castleknock/Clonsilla/Coolmine then he'd be first. But that wouldn't make any actual difference to his popularity, though it would seemingly make him a better candidate for Taoiseach under your somewhat bizarre ideas.

irishgrover

no, because that is not how democracy works

+ we have STV

+ we don't elect the Taoiseach, the TDs do

CrabRevolution

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629667#Comment_118629667

There's pushback because you're making up your own rules as to who is qualified to be Taoiseach which are totally at odds with reality, and then are getting surprised when people call these "rules" out for the BS they are.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058232934/is-it-undemocratic-that-a-person-with-fewer-votes-than-another-can-become-taoiseach

Not at all. We have multi-seat constituencies. There are no prizes for being the first to be elected. The person who ends up topping the poll gets the same prize as the person who wins the last seat on the 15th count - a seat in the Dail. Anything beyond that is about local bragging rights and more often than not it comes down to different parties having different election strategies.

It's a lot easier to top polls when you don't have running mates. Most Sinn Fein candidates ran in constituencies on their own in 2020. That meant they didn't have to split the Sinn Fein vote with party colleagues in their constituencies. The same couldn't be said for FF and FG. They each ran at least 2 candidates in most constituencies. The net result of that is that Sinn Fein topped lots of polls but FF and FG were more efficient in maximising the number of seats that they won for the vote that they got - and that's what it's all about.

I guarantee that in the next election Sinn Fein will get a much larger number of votes but they will actually end up with fewer poll toppers around the country. That's because they'll be running way more candidates next time out.

veryangryman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629789#Comment_118629789

I'm aware of how the single transferable vote system works, I'm simply questioning it's validity. I hope the one-upmanship you attempted to show gave you some silly smug satisfaction there squire.

awec

The only reason there are even people asking questions is because Sinn Fein messed up their vote management so badly in 2020 that it's hard for people to get their head around.

elperello

OP, have a read of this.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118632230#Comment_118632230

If you're questioning its validity - no, you absolutely don't know how it works.

It is an exceptionally representative system, with the ability to boot out unlikable people (most PR systems use lists, which prevent this) and which returns fairly proportional results - particularly if most constituencies are 5 seats

But it works entirely on the idea that a seat is a seat and election order is utterly irrelevant. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the system.

iffandonlyif

Well, I’m glad to see this has been comprehensively rubbished. I’ve nothing further to add!

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118632230#Comment_118632230

Questioning the validity of what exactly?

Also not sure why the residents of Dublin West should have a larger say in who should be eligible to be Taoiseach.

ec18

no we don't have a direct democracy system where the country votes people into specific positions. we vote for people who form a government and positions are decided there.

rock22

You seem to be equating popularity with democracy.

You could argue that having a Dáil and Taoiseach at all is is undemocratic . I probably wouldn't be seen as democracy by the ancient Greeks, more a type of oligarchy, or maybe a limited form of tyranny, at least in practice. Bit imperfect as it is , it is probably as good an approximation as any modern country can get to democratic principles.

Sam Russell

If you are looking at democratic principles, the Switzerland is the closest. They have referendums frequently to decide issues which most countries trust their parliaments to decide.

Currently, our system is probably the most democratic within the EU as, typically, the parties get the percentage of seats that they got in first preference votes at the ballot. Now, one has to assume that voters actually vote in the order of their preference but some (many) vote strategically so skewing the result.

We vote for candidates to be TD, while other countries vote for a list system, or parties - which leaves parties rather than voters in control. They also use other methods to 'adjust' the straight vote result.

Mary Robinson was voted President, but failed to get more first preference votes than Brian Lenihan - so was she properly voted in?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118639062#Comment_118639062

Yes.

veryangryman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118639062#Comment_118639062

She's become a bit of a dose lately. so if I were king of the universe, i'd say yes to that question

KaneToad

Emphatically, no.

Also, our electoral system is very transparent and, I think, very fair. PRSTV is a great system and is much kinder to smaller parties than a FPTP system.

I also think it's nonsense to focus on how many counts a TD was elected on. If they were elected, they were elected. Often bigger parties manage their vote to maximise candidates returned. They are not concerned about 'topping the poll'. It's an election, not a pi$$ing contest.

You vote for multiple TDs in your constituency based on a ranked choice vote in PR STV. There’s no hierarchy to which TD is more important. A seat is a seat.

Those TDs go forward to represent their constituencies in the Dail and all the TDs vote to elect a Taoiseach. Their legitimacy comes from having been elected by a majority of all sitting TDs and they go on to form a government, which must maintain the support of majority of TDs or face collapsing in a vote of no confidence, or being unable to get approval for legislation, thus effectively having no confidence.

Ireland’s system keeps governments very answerable as there’s really no automatic built in majority. If things go wrong, the circuit breaker trips very rapidly. A scenario like Johnson is unimaginable in the system here as PR STV is very much operating to its full effect and consensus and complex support must be maintained and a Donald Trump just isn’t constitutionally possible, as nobody has concentrated executive power like that - decisions are taken collectively by cabinet and minsters and with the approval of the Dail.

If you look at the U.S. or French systems, the cabinet is a just bunch of external appointees, basically entirely at the whim of the presidency. Ministers in our system have a democratic legitimacy beyond an appointment to a ministry and can become a healthy and serious political pain in the rear if crossed, as they remain TDs. Same in the U.K. - look at Theresa May absolutely flooring Johnson in PMQs.

Ireland ranks amongst the most democratic countries on the planet in any objective study, way ahead of the US, France etc and significantly ahead of the U.K. - it’s sits in the same tier as the Nordic counties and NZ etc.

Brussels Sprout

Let's not pretend it's a perfect system either:

Ireland’s system keeps governments very answerable as there’s really no automatic built in majority. If things go wrong, the circuit breaker trips very rapidly.

This is true but in many ways it's not ideal either. The fact that very few TDs are assured of getting elected in the next general election means that they are all hyper aware of local issues. This has 2 downsides:

1. They often behave more like local councilors then national legislators. Some of the independent TDs, in particular, don't even pretend to care about national issues and don't bother attending committee meetings or even asking questions in the Dail. Instead they'll devote their issue to dealing with things like fixing streetlights and making phone calls to the passport office for their constituents.
2. A local concentration of voters can have an outsize affect for an issue that only affects them - even if it's for the greater good of the wider area. A classic example is a residents committee opposing new housing in their area. Any politician that they contact generally will be supportive out of fear of losing a potential cache of votes at the next election. Every single party is guilty of this.

If you look at the U.S. or French systems, the cabinet is a just bunch of external appointees, basically entirely at the whim of the presidency.

There's an argument that this is preferable to a system like ours where you have a collection of people who, more often than not, don't have any specialist knowledge, end up overseeing the running of a government department. A classic example was the appointment of Simon Harris, a man who dropped out of college in first year, as the minister for Higher Education.

Now, obviously the US system is open to patronage (e.g. Trump appointing Mitch McConnell's wife to be Secretary of Transportation) whereby you also end up with unqualified people running departments. However it's easier to find suitable candidates if you're not restricted to a small group of people, many of who's main talent is being electable.

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118633876#Comment_118633876

..or Kerry South for that matter.😀

awec

Ireland hasn't had a majority single party government in what, 40 years?

The current system is excellent at ensuring all voices are heard, it is very representative.

Snickers Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640229#Comment_118640229

I don't think anyone claims that Ireland's is a "perfect system" but then whose is?

With regard to the use of specialist appointments to cabinet posts of people who have not been elected such as is the case in America, we actually do have a mechanism to make use of such expertise. We can use the Seanad.

In the US, cabinet posts are proposed by the directly elected president but they then have to be ratified, in most cases, by a Senate committee with responsibility for the relevant area. It is possible to "blackball" a president's choice of minister, at this stage. This is the US' method of democratic accountability under the notion of "checks and balances" to limit a president's powers.

In Ireland, our Constitution mandates that all members of the Cabinet be members of the Oireachtas, ie of one of the houses of parliament, the Dail or the Seanad. A maximum of two Senators can serve in the cabinet at any one time. As the Taoiseach has the right to appoint a certain number of people to the Senate, it is theoretically possible although sparingly used, for a Taoiseach to appoint somebody to the Senate specifically so they can act in the Cabinet.

I believe the last time this was used was in 1981 when Garret Fitzgerald appointed James Dooge to the Seanad/Senate and them made him Foreign Minister. It didn't last long because the government fell within a year but the mechanism is there to be used. Perhaps we should make more use of it?

Incidentally, the wags of the time liked to call our foreign minister Deputy Dooge (it was pronounced just Doog) which would have been his correct mode of address had he been a TD. Of course, as a member of the Seanad, his proper title was Senator Dooge. But Deputy Doog sounded much better 😀

You young people do remember the cartoon character Deputy Dawg, don't you?

VinLieger

People asking questions like the OP I think are generally coming from a place where they are too embedded in UK or American political media and for whatever reason seem to think their electoral systems somehow are more representative or "fairer" showing a complete ignorance of PR-STV. Like another person mentioned a lot of the recent ignorance to PR-STV is thanks to SFs utter mismanagement of their ballots which if they had done correcrtly they honestly might have come away with a majority of seats by themselves. However they didnt and simply got the most seats leading to this silly idea that they "won" the election whereas the parties who "won" the election are actually those who can cobble together enough seats to form a Government.

My favorite statistic to show those who don't understand this is a comparison for how unrepresentative FPtP is that the UK has in the last 100 years only have had 1 Government elected by the majority of the people ie popular vote and ironically it was a coalition which is more often than not what happens due to PR-STV. PR-STV is without a doubt the most representative and democratic voting mechanism available, is it perfect? No but its far far better than any of the other options.

Brussels Sprout

 we actually do have a mechanism to make use of such expertise

The problem there being that, although the Seanad was conceived as an upper house populated by people drawn from certain vocational areas, these days it's mostly populated by the exact same kinds of people in the lower house - the only difference being that they couldn't get elected to the Dail (The only exceptions often being some of the Taoiseach's 11 picks)

Also, Fitzgerald's appointment of Dooge went down like a lead balloon with his own party at the time. Even if there was an expert in the Seanad these days it's highly unlikely that a Taoiseach would give a coveted ministerial role to them.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629667#Comment_118629667

We don't vote to elect the Taioseach we vote to elect TDs.

This isn't Murica.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118641321#Comment_118641321

SF didn't get the most seats in 2020, they just got the highest percentage of the vote. FF are the largest party.

9320

This is a very sad reflection on the lack of knowledge of how our Democracy works.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118640229#Comment_118640229

How much actual running of a department the TD does is debatable. Harris or whoever will have expert advisors and civil servants informing him. The TD is really just a spokesperson.

Icemancometh

Easiest way I can think about it. 3 seat constituency, 4 parties.

Party A gets 1.5 quotas.

Party B gets 0.8.

Parties C & D 0.6

If Party A runs two candidates. Scenario 1 they split the vote badly. First candidate gets 1.2 quotas second gets 0.3. They only get 1 seat. But they top the poll.

Scenario 2 they split the vote well, both candidates get 0.75 quotas. They get 2 seats but Party B top the poll.

So that's why I don't think topping the poll is that important.

Pussyhands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629053#Comment_118629053

Obviously yes, there's no difference in whether you get elected or not, but obviously someone who gets the same total of votes as someone with 10,000 first preferences for example, via 3rd and 4th preferences is not as popular as the one who got all first preferences.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118641880#Comment_118641880

It is not a popularity contest - it is an election.

What about the case of someone who tops the poll with .9 of a quota, but gets no transfers and does not get elected because they fail to reach the quota? The voters who gave the candidate their first preference wanted that candidate, but no-one else did, so failed to get elected.

Popularity works for entertainers, but is not the only requirement to get elected as a politician, but it does help.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118641880#Comment_118641880

Unless they both ran without running mates, I don't even think you can even say that they're "not as popular". All you can really say is that they didn't get as many first preference votes.

Here's a good example: In the 2020 general election in Cork South Central the SF candidate topped the poll with 14,057 first preference votes. The current Taoiseach got the second most with 11,023. There is a major caveat though. Martin had a running mate, McGrath, who himself got 9,236 votes. McGrath and Martin divided the constituency up into different geographic areas for campaigning purposes. So, for example Martin would not have campaigned in Carrigaline (home to at least 10k voters), which is McGrath's home area. Voters there would have been asked to give McGrath their #1 preference.

In contrast the SF candidate was able to campaign throughout the constituency since he had no running mate.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118642007#Comment_118642007

This is the beauty of the PR system. It ranks the candidates in order of popularity. And being "popular" is absolutely not about how many first votes you get - it's about how you are ranked by everyone.

Take a simple system where you have 3 candidates, A, B & C.

A & B are both equally loved and loathed by exactly half of the population.

Candidate C is liked by everyone - he's not as loved as either candidate, but also not loathed either.

On ranking across the population, who is the "most popular". Well, clearly it's candidate C. More people like him than either A or B.

We tend to think that just because lots of people really, really like a candidate than that somehow makes them more popular than someone else who is just "mostly liked" by even more people. That's how celebrity works, but it's not how a democracy should work.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118642001#Comment_118642001

.9 of a quota will nearly always get you elected due to elimination of all other potential candidates, though.

My local FF TD had .92 of a quota by the time he got elected, albeit there was definitely enough to bring him over quota from his running mate who was the last eliminated. A few elections prior, FG got someone over with less than .9 of a quota on the final count.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118642650#Comment_118642650

Yes, 0.9 of a quota will normally get you elected. I was trying to illustrate that the first preference vote is irrelevant if you fail to reach the quota. If you do not get any or enough of the transfers, you first preference vote is irrelevant.

We know our system well, and voters and political parties like to try and game the system to get the results that they want. Sometimes it works and sometimes it backfires. Dick Spring lost his seat in Kerry by 9 votes despite nearly having a full quota on the first count.

Cookie_Monster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118629053#Comment_118629053

well actually it does because after the first count the way surplus votes are transferred is totally random based on the order in which votes have been counted. This is because it's done proportionally based on the last batch rather than every single vote being rechecked and the whole amount being proportional. Its a major flaw with the counting process, rather than the voting process though

For this reason we 100% should have machine counting as then every single vote can be 100% transferred correctly rather than random chance dictating count order and what proportions are used and it can be done quickly instead of the total farce that manual counting is

Good PDF explaining the process

https://assets.gov.ie/111110/03f591cc-6312-4b21-8193-d4150169480e.pdf

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118644458#Comment_118644458

That is not correct.

The votes are emptied from the boxes and all mixed, which randomizes the votes. Therefore, all votes are as likely to be in those selected to be moved due to a surplus as not. So first count giving rise to a surplus is treated differently to surpluses created at a later count.

In later counts, the surplus votes are taken from the last batches counted - which would generally be already moved from an eliminated candidate. Now this is not ideal, but it is the way it has always been done and is the least problematic for counting purposes.

Now, I have always been in favour of electronic counting but against electronic voting - the counting would involve scanning all votes and then using a computer to carry out the count. In that case, fractions of a vote could be assigned as surpluses are created, and the vote would be accurate. [It is only surpluses that would be affected.]

Once elected, all TDs are elected equally irrespective on which count they were elected on.