Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should we drop Proportional Representation
Options
Comments
-
As said above, FPTP inevitably leads to a two-party duopoly. As has happened in the US and UK. Which then tends to lead to a tyranny of the minority.
Someone on Twitter recently did the sums on the last general election, trying to convert the votes into various other counting systems to demonstrate the outcomes. Unfortunately I can't find it now. PR-STV isn't perfect, but it was easily one of the few systems that came closest to being representative.
One of the constitutional conventions reviewed this whole area in 2013 and produced a report
Pages 32 & 33 demonstrate the outcome of different elections under different systems. In 2007, under FPTP, FF would have taken 142 out of 166 seats. Definitely no coalition needed there. Despite having a minority of actual votes, they'd have an overwhelming, undefeatable majority. What would they have done to the economy without a coalition partner to pull the plug?
If we switched to FPTP now and FF & FG merged into a single party, every Dail for the next 3 decades would be FF/FG with SF on the benches and virtually no-one else.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89043
FF have tried to get rid of PR twiceIn 2007, under FPTP, FF would have taken 142 out of 166 seats.
Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1958
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1968
and a wee bit of giving rural constituencies more votes
Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 19680 -
Except you're assuming that nobody's voting pattern would change in response to (a) the FF/FG merger, or (b) the switch to FTPT. Both of these assumptions seem unlikely.. . . . If we switched to FPTP now and FF & FG merged into a single party, every Dail for the next 3 decades would be FF/FG with SF on the benches and virtually no-one else.
As you point out yourself, FPTP forces a two-party duopoly, because most people will tend to vote for a party that could win the seat, on the grounds that it is better to have some influence over the outcome of the election than none at all.
And an FF-FG merger is going to alienate those FF, FG voters who vote for the party that they do because they are broadly centre-right, but distrust the other centre-right party. So back in the day you could vote for a centre-right party, and still deny support to, e.g. Charlie Haughey (which was a combination of preferences that a great many people felt very strongly).
This is weakened by the willingness of FF and FG to form a coalition together, but it disappears entirely if the two parties merge. The vote which FFFG could win would certainly be less than the combined FF + FG vote today, and the logic of FPTP would be that some other party would very soon establish itself as the only alternative government.
(SF thinks or hopes it would be them, obviously, and based on the last election results they'd be in pole position. But I'd want a more solid foundation than one election result before betting actual money on that outcome. The logic of FPTP would also encourage Labour, the SDs and perhaps some other minors to get together, and a left-of-centre party that didn't smell of gunpowder and kneecappings could give SF a run for its money.)0 -
Is any party suggesting this or are we just talking hypothetically here?
It seems like an incredibly retrograde suggestion, given we’ve probably one of the few examples of an unbroken PR electoral system that has been continuously in existence for over a century.
Throwing toys out of the pram and ranting because the maths of coalition building hasn’t worked in your favour isn’t much of an argument for changing the electoral system and that’s all I’m seeing.
The worst aspect has been commentators using the argument that someone was elected in the 5th count etc to try and delegitimise their mandate.
In complex constituencies, you’ll get complex results and that’s just the reality of how people voted.
It you think your constituency’s points of view could be condensed to a single seat, I would suggest that you’re probably not talking to people outside your bubble.0 -
I think as a previous poster said we have what seems “the least worst system”.
Look to America and the U.K. and we see two other systems that produce significantly worse outcomes.
I also feel people need to look to the long term effects that a political and electoral system has on a country.
Our system has brought us astonishing progress since the formation of the state. Ireland is a great country and a great country to live in. Yea we have some issues but by far the majority of the country live a high standard. If people take the opportunities out there, provided to us it’s a great place to live.
There are an awful lot of confused people who see that SF won significantly more votes than ever before and so expect them leading a government. But they simply didn’t win enough to make it into government, combined with their toxicity to other parties, including their own pals on the left who shunned forming a government with them.
We’re seeing the AKA47 reaction to the election. “I voted for SF, they didn’t get into government so the system must be dismantled and rebuilt to allow us into government”0 -
Advertisement
-
Well, from my point of view it’s putting me off giving any preferences to parties or politicians engaging in what I would view as importing Trump like “it’s a fix” arguments.
The Irish PR STV system is something we should be very proud of. It’s open, fair, has extremely low barriers to entry and gives us a hugely nuanced and sophisticated way of expressing political points of view.
Many of those ranting wouldn’t have had a hope in hell of being more than fringe protest groups had we had a history of FPTP.
The whole logic of it was to avoid hegemony by a technical majority and thus increase stability. It doesn’t give power to parties to control lists or have guaranteed power. It’s much more balanced toward keeping power in the hands of the electorate.
The simple reality is no party had anything like a majority and there hasn’t been enough cohesion on the left to form a coalition around SF. They have had every opportunity to form one but didn’t achieve it because the numbers didn’t add up to do that.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »FF have tried to get rid of PR twice
Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1958
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1968
and a wee bit of giving rural constituencies more votes
Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1968
I was not aware that this took place and was led by FF as i thought PR favour mainstream parties.
Personally i am not bothered what system but i think politics is a bit stale.
It seems a lot of people on here assume the viewpoint of the original poster just because they ask the view of the forum.
The only thing i be concerned about is there are in my view quite a few backbench TDs in the Dail and they are basically seem to be doing nothing in Dail, they are competing with local councilors for local relevance.
The interesting the brothers have made themselves and they seem to be able to get noticed.
SF seem to have made themselves completely irrelevant since they got a mandate but then went into hiding when Government being formed, i cannot see alot of people who voted this time being conned again.
I would like a system that encourages people to vote for the best person for the job regardless of their party or none, i would try for a system that stops people saying we do nor have a Minister because we need politicians who want to run our country not just their local areas first.
I was chatting my brother yesterday who is more informed on these matters than i am, he was telling where the Ministers were and how many in Cork etc and that there were new ones.
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.
"the more things change the more they stay the same"
"the only thing that is constant is things will constantly change"
That seems to be our choice...0 -
I'd keep PR, but i'd change the voting. I'd have people from Cork voting for Donegal TDs and vice versa all over the country. We might them have TD's who realise they are in DE to represent the country, not their local area. We'd have less parish pump politics. Give them 2 weeks or so to canvass on national policies when there is an election. Let TD's do their jobs nationally, and County Councillors do theirs locally.0
-
You've got that completely wrong. PR (esp. the STV version that we have) favours the voters - as in, it gives the voters powers that in other systems are wielded by parties.maestroamado wrote: »I was not aware that this took place and was led by FF as i thought PR favour mainstream parties.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
maestroamado wrote: »I was not aware that this took place and was led by FF as i thought PR favour mainstream parties.
Personally i am not bothered what system but i think politics is a bit stale.
You say "stale" like it's a bad or aberrant thing: that's just what happens when you have stable, relatively extremist free governance. I don't want excitement or "freshness" in my government, but a steady, stable - and yeah, kinda boring, hand at the tiller. "Mainstream" is also a curious epithet. The mainstream is US - the people - why wouldn't a government elected democratically be mainstream?
And no, PR doesn't favour "mainstream" parties, given there's more representation by smaller parties or indepedents in Ireland than (say) the UK - where the national vote does not reflect the seats taken by parties. Here's wild speculation to consider: with PR, the Brexit party would have had more seats in parliament, potentially including defecting backbencher Tory Eurosceptics. The same Eurosceptics whose rancour forced Cameron's hand to declare a referendum on the EU. The Brexit voice might not have disappeared, but the pressure to deliver a Brexit referendum might have.
I wouldn't deny there are flaws in the system; not least the rules around TDs' speaking rights or the relative power of local councils (or lack thereof). But by and large we have a fair, balanced system that avoids the various pitfalls and outright manipulations seen by our predominant neighbours such as the UK, US and France.
TBH, it sounds like you're advocating change just for the sake of it and some distraction, which is a recipe for disaster in any country where a broadly disengaged or ignorant electorate go for broke on a chance.0 -
Advertisement
-
weldoninhio wrote: »I'd keep PR, but i'd change the voting. I'd have people from Cork voting for Donegal TDs and vice versa all over the country. We might them have TD's who realise they are in DE to represent the country, not their local area. We'd have less parish pump politics. Give them 2 weeks or so to canvass on national policies when there is an election. Let TD's do their jobs nationally, and County Councillors do theirs locally.
Actually i will give a good think on that as my thinking was kinda similar.
I was thinking have either smaller with 1 elected FPTP about 100 TDs.
The other i was thinking was larger something like 20 electrol areas in the country, that way each region could have more of a voice at cabinet.
For me we need less backroom TDs and more professional expert advisors and not appointed by Government.
Professional HR independent personnel recruiting these people.0 -
You say "stale" like it's a bad or aberrant thing: that's just what happens when you have stable, relatively extremist free governance. I don't want excitement or "freshness" in my government, but a steady, stable - and yeah, kinda boring, hand at the tiller. "Mainstream" is also a curious epithet. The mainstream is US - the people - why wouldn't a government elected democratically be mainstream?
And no, PR doesn't favour "mainstream" parties, given there's more representation by smaller parties or indepedents in Ireland than (say) the UK - where the national vote does not reflect the seats taken by parties. Here's wild speculation to consider: with PR, the Brexit party would have had more seats in parliament, potentially including defecting backbencher Tory Eurosceptics. The same Eurosceptics whose rancour forced Cameron's hand to declare a referendum on the EU. The Brexit voice might not have disappeared, but the pressure to deliver a Brexit referendum might have.
I wouldn't deny there are flaws in the system; not least the rules around TDs' speaking rights or the relative power of local councils (or lack thereof). But by and large we have a fair, balanced system that avoids the various pitfalls and outright manipulations seen by our predominant neighbours such as the UK, US and France.
TBH, it sounds like you're advocating change just for the sake of it and some distraction, which is a recipe for disaster in any country where a broadly disengaged or ignorant electorate go for broke on a chance.
From what i read on boards.ie i am not the only person who things need to change.
As i said earlier i do not personally care whether it changes or not but it needs to in my opinion.
I have no interest in how politics done in other Countries but since you make the comparasion, the UK has i MP for each 100,000 voters, we have more than 3 times with similar geography spread, Fance has something the same...0 -
There are arguments for changing some aspects of the system though but not the electoral process.
For example, you could try to mitigate the parish pump stuff by developing local and regional government into something meaningful. We’ve a lot of TDs who are effectively operating as local councillors, often undermining the actual local councillors by taking credit for things and involving themselves in issues that are local government realm.
Improving the Dail to make it operate more inclusively of all voices would also help. An expanded and enhanced committee system might be a good place to start. We’ve had a lot of progress on that and it seems to be a good way getting the whole legislature involved.0 -
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.maestroamado wrote: »Actually i will give a good think on that as my thinking was kinda similar.
I was thinking have either smaller with 1 elected FPTP about 100 TDs.
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?maestroamado wrote: »The other i was thinking was larger something like 20 electrol areas in the country, that way each region could have more of a voice at cabinet.
For me we need less backroom TDs and more professional expert advisors and not appointed by Government.
Professional HR independent personnel recruiting these people.0 -
maestroamado wrote: »From what i read on boards.ie i am not the only person who things need to change.
As i said earlier i do not personally care whether it changes or not but it needs to in my opinion.
I have no interest in how politics done in other Countries but since you make the comparasion, the UK has i MP for each 100,000 voters, we have more than 3 times with similar geography spread, Fance has something the same...
That argument comes down to a scale needed for a functioning house. If you applied that ratio, Ireland would have 47-48 TDs and would risk a lack of diversify of opinion and even a hegemonic mess where there would be limited opposition.
The French model is also not very effective. The country ranks very poorly on democracy indexes compared to Ireland and the U.K. model is producing cycles of extreme instability.
If France for example has PR-STV and more opinions actually making it into government and the legislature, it probably wouldn’t be expressing discontent with regular scenes of violent protest.
Those protests aren’t an indication of a healthy democracy, rather they indicate people aren’t being heard and are resorting to going to the streets to force change and it’s a pattern you see for the whole history of the French 5th republic.
I’d argue France, a country with huge political diversity, might thrive with more PR.
The U.K. had had really serious social unrest over the decades and doesn’t even achieve government representation for Scotland and Northern Ireland were you essentially have parallel political systems operating within Westminster, but ignored.
They’re not great models and would be, by all measures, a significant downgrade in democratic processes compared to what we have.0 -
.Peregrinus wrote: »You've got that completely wrong. PR (esp. the STV version that we have) favours the voters - as in, it gives the voters powers that in other systems are wielded by parties.
You will have to explain that one for me as my thinking may be wrong.
Do you mind giving an example...0 -
YellowBucket wrote: »That argument comes down to a scale needed for a functioning house. If you applied that ratio, Ireland would have 47-48 TDs and would risk a lack of diversify of opinion and even a hegemonic mess where there would be limited opposition.
I agree and we have around 160 i think, we started with about 100 when all our TDs were lucky if they had a bike.
So it much easier to getting around and we keep adding numbers.
Now most have cars and some have driving license.
There has not being real political opposition in this country for at least the last 10 years and it not coming any time soon0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33867
maestroamado wrote: »From what i read on boards.ie i am not the only person who things need to change.
As i said earlier i do not personally care whether it changes or not but it needs to in my opinion.
I have no interest in how politics done in other Countries but since you make the comparasion, the UK has i MP for each 100,000 voters, we have more than 3 times with similar geography spread, Fance has something the same...
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.0 -
maestroamado wrote: »I agree and we have around 160 i think, we started with about 100 when all our TDs were lucky if they had a bike.
So it much easier to getting around and we keep adding numbers.
Now most have cars and some have driving license.
There has not being real political opposition in this country for at least the last 10 years and it not coming any time soon
We also expanded our population from 2.8m in 1956 to 4.8 million today.0 -
maestroamado wrote: »I agree and we have around 160 i think, we started with about 100 when all our TDs were lucky if they had a bike.
So it much easier to getting around and we keep adding numbers.
Now most have cars and some have driving license.
There has not being real political opposition in this country for at least the last 10 years and it not coming any time soon
I have no earthly idea what on earth you are on about with the bikes and cars, but the number of TDs is restricted by the constitution and can not be lowered much from where it is without a referendum.0 -
Advertisement
-
With FPTP, many constituencies are "safe seats"; whoever Party A nominates will assuredly be elected; there is no realistic possibility of any other outcome. The result is that Party A nominates whoever it likes, and the way to become MP for that constituency is to appeal to a party selection committee of maybe 10 or 20 people; whether the voters like you or not is largely irrelevant.maestroamado wrote: ».
You will have to explain that one for me as my thinking may be wrong.
Do you mind giving an example...
But, even in seats where the outcome is not predetermined, the fact remains that voters who want to vote for party A will have to do so regardless of who the candidate is. It's not possible to express distaste for a candidate, or a preference for one candidate over another, and still support Party A. If there are divisions within the party over policy, values or personalities (and all big parties have such divisions) voters can't register a preference for, or influence success of, one side of the question through their votes.
Basically, under STV, each party presents a slate of candidates, and the voters decide both (a) how many seats that party will get, and (b) which candidates will fill them. So, for example, if they care to, FF voters could prefer FF candidates who are open to coaltion with SF, or they could prefer those who oppose it. Or they could favour women candidates, or minority candidates, or the opposite. Under FPTP the voters get to decide much less; they decide whether party A will or will not get the one seat available, and they have no say at all in who will fill it on behalf of Party A.
This tends to favour parties over voters, since the parties wholly control the candidate selection process, and can largely exercise that control with little regard to how the voters feel about the prospective candidates. And it favours dominant parties in particular, since when there is only one seat going it will almost certainly go to one of two dominant parties.0 -
We are also looking at our system in the prism of the moment, i.e. now, where things are changing more so than ever before, with the reduction in support for FF and FG, which combined has been slowly and steadying in a downward trajectory over the last 10 to 15 years.
It's not ideal but it beats FPTP because that system does not give you true representation. Go and speak to a UK conservative voter in a seat that has always been Labour and vice versa. My only gripe is that we do tend to still have independents mopping up the final batch of seats across constituencies. A lot of these are either single issue dominated or it's just about local issues. At least we haven't got these sitting in government at the moment, although the contrasting argument is that being outside party politics they are able to provide a non partisan position.
The real problem for us is that the split of responsibilities and mindset between national and local politics. The last week with the FF moaning roadshow was a good example. It is only just over a decade ago that the dual mandate was abolished. We still have someway to go on this. Too many still just vote for TDs on local issues. We have a very poor local authority system compared to most other western democracies I have experienced and I see little evidence of much change on that.0 -
maestroamado wrote: »Since the two main parties are now one party should we drop the PR system.
The old style of politics is over so it may be a good time to reform the whole thing. The PR system is for parties where loyal party members kinda fallow party guidelines. Is it needed in modern politics where people are informed?
Without PR , headbangers like a Joan Collins would have been humiliated in the last election . Ff Catherine Armagh had double the amount of first preference votes at the first count , yet, Collins got ahead via transfers . Then again, Westmeath would have returned a SF TD in Longford - Westmeath in 2016 under first past the post as they lost to FG via transfers
It’s often the same for many small parties and in the past , Sinn Fein eg Mary Lou scrapping into the Dail for the first time 10 years ago on the last count
The first past the post would result in FG and FF dominating even more , most election years
You haven’t a clue what you are talking about . Epic fail. But yeah, let’s have first past the post . Brian Lenihan Senior would have been comfortably been President in 1990 with that system
PR gives small parties and independents a fair chance of getting elected , which they probably wouldn’t achieve with First past the post
In fact Dev tried to get rid of PR , which greatly helped his party in 1926, but the public said no in the referendum . Not sure people would want to change the system today either0 -
The size of the population isn't that relevant, actually.YellowBucket wrote: »We also expanded our population from 2.8m in 1956 to 4.8 million today.
In a parliamentary democracy, the lower house needs to be of a size that the governing party or parties (typically having just over half the seats) will be a large enough group that there is a reasonable chance that it will include enough people with the talents, aptitudes and experience necessary to head a government department, occupy a junior ministry or chair a parliamentary committee, plus more such people that there will be some competition for these positions and some up-and-coming people who can be appointed to positions as vacancies arise.
The skills, aptitudes, etc that help people to get elected in the first place are not the same skills at all, so there can be no assumption that every TD is a potential minister or committee chairman. The total "pool" of government TDs therefore need to be much larger than the number of executive positions to be filled.
Ireland is towards the lower end of the range of "normal" for parliamentary democracies, which is roughly 150 - 450 members in the lower house. While its true that smaller countries do tend to be towards the lower end of the range, that relationship is actually quite weak.
If there were only 100 TDs, then the governing side would probably have 50-55 TDs, out of which you'd have to find 15 cabinet ministers, a similar number of junior ministers, a chief whip, and chairpersons for 10 to 15 parliamentary committees. Basically, you'd be left with a lot of people filling positions for which they are not really equipped by talent or experience, and a handful of backbenchers distinguished by being solid bone from ear to ear.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 14254
weldoninhio wrote: »I'd keep PR, but i'd change the voting. I'd have people from Cork voting for Donegal TDs and vice versa all over the country. We might them have TD's who realise they are in DE to represent the country, not their local area. We'd have less parish pump politics. Give them 2 weeks or so to canvass on national policies when there is an election. Let TD's do their jobs nationally, and County Councillors do theirs locally.
That achieves nothing , that just means that a TD living in Donegal will play the parish pump for Cork and not Donegal , it doesn't stop them doing it - It won't change the fundamental behaviour in the slightest.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The size of the population isn't that relevant, actually.
I assume the poster meant it in the context of the constitution which stipulates 1 TD per xx000 of population. So the increase in the population of 50% meant that the number of TDs goes up by the same level.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »The size of the population isn't that relevant, actually.
In a parliamentary democracy, the lower house needs to be of a size that the governing party or parties (typically having just over half the seats) will be a large enough group that there is a reasonable chance that it will include enough people with the talents, aptitudes and experience necessary to head a government department, occupy a junior ministry or chair a parliamentary committee, plus more such people that there will be some competition for these positions and some up-and-coming people who can be appointed to positions as vacancies arise.
The skills, aptitudes, etc that help people to get elected in the first place are not the same skills at all, so there can be no assumption that every TD is a potential minister or committee chairman. The total "pool" of government TDs therefore need to be much larger than the number of executive positions to be filled.
Ireland is towards the lower end of the range of "normal" for parliamentary democracies, which is roughly 150 - 450 members in the lower house. While its true that smaller countries do tend to be towards the lower end of the range, that relationship is actually quite weak.
If there were only 100 TDs, then the governing side would probably have 50-55 TDs, out of which you'd have to find 15 cabinet ministers, a similar number of junior ministers, a chief whip, and chairpersons for 10 to 15 parliamentary committees. Basically, you'd be left with a lot of people filling positions for which they are not really equipped by talent or experience, and a handful of backbenchers distinguished by being solid bone from ear to ear.
My point was really that there’s a ratio in Irish law that’s been following the population.
I find it concerning that certain commentators seem to see an efficiency in removing aspects of democracy or scaling it down. You see that kind of commentary rather a lot and also in Irish public policy decisions:
1. Abolished town councils rather than reforming and modernising. Irish towns are bizarrely without any kind of proper local administration and we tend to them scratch our heads wondering why they’re not as well organised as continental equivalents.
2. Slammed Limerick and Waterford cities into their respective rural counties of the same names, with little thought about how those mergers would function, given the huge differences between rural and urban needs. Cork managed to prevent it happening, as did Galway.
3. Trying to abolish rather than reform the Seanad.
4. Regular discussions about cutting the number of TDs ...0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 89043
MPs are not chosen by 'the people' - they are chosen by their local constituency parties: thirty-five men in grubby raincoats or thirty-five women in silly hatsPeregrinus wrote: »With FPTP, many constituencies are "safe seats"; whoever Party A nominates will assuredly be elected; there is no realistic possibility of any other outcome. The result is that Party A nominates whoever it likes, and the way to become MP for that constituency is to appeal to a party selection committee of maybe 10 or 20 people; whether the voters like you or not is largely irrelevant.
But, even in seats where the outcome is not predetermined, the fact remains that voters who want to vote for party A will have to do so regardless of who the candidate is. It's not possible to express distaste for a candidate, or a preference for one candidate over another, and still support Party A.
- Yes Minister
In the UK 59% of seats are generally safe. So your vote there won't change anything unless there is a landslide.
In the remaining 41% of seats any votes for a candidate who doesn't win or finish second are wasted. If you support anyone else you are effectively limited to choosing between voting against Party A or against Party B depending on who you think is least worst.
Here STV means that TD's have to fight amongst themselves for the vote of the faithful, without looking like they are trying to hobble their running mates.
Local vote management and Tallymen (and women) are things that make our elections more entertaining than our neighbours, if you know what to look out for. It also means central office can't just parachute anyone into a constituency like they can in the UK.0 -
After an election in Ireland your local TDs must continuously try to remain relevant in the constituency as they’ve multiple colleagues doing the same job, be they from their own party (worst rivals) or others. British MPs once elected can more or less disappear as they’ve no competitors outside of election time.
Having a loyal government backbencher as your local MP with no ambition can mean your constituency just gets left to rot in some cases.
In others you can find MPs pursuing bizarre politics as they’ve been elected on the party ticket and have little connection with constituents beyond the logo over the door.
The upside of it is that our TDs are very available and focused on electorates but the downside is the parish pump politics and focus on local minutiae.0 -
Advertisement
-
maestroamado wrote: ».
You will have to explain that one for me as my thinking may be wrong.
Do you mind giving an example...
CGPgrey has some great explainers on the pros and cons of voting systems
Heres FpTP which tbh is only cons in my view as far as representative democracy is concerned
And heres STV which is objectively far more representative and gives smaller parties a much better chance
0
Advertisement