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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What if Ireland had said yes to First past the post ?

  • 15-01-2022 2:51pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭


    FF held referendums in 1959 and 1968 to change us over to FPTP. In those days there was very little current affairs on Radio & TV so it's interesting that the proposal was rejected twice.



«1

Comments

  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No more coalition governments. it would force smaller parties to amalgamate.. ie all the left leaning ones would merge into Sinn Fein and fine fail finegael would become Fine FailGael

    Edit: it would mean the likes of the Healy Raes would not be able to hold the country to ransom



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Jizique


    Didn't stop the DUP holding the balance in the UK, Healy Rae would top poll anyway as constituencies would be smaller



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭Risteard81


    Plurality (FPTP) would be better than the STV that's there instead.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,639 ✭✭✭completedit


    What is it about First Past the Post that would cause these changes?



  • Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭Ballycommon Mast


    Wouldn't many independents still win here with FPTP tho ? AFAIK Michael Healy Rae, Michael Lorwy, Mick Wallace have all topped the polls in their constituencys. In The UK independents just don't get more than a few hundred votes in any constituency.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Jizique


    Jeez, because getting even 20% of the vote will result in no seats in parliament if two larger parties get 45% and 35% each; replicated across a country, this would see all seats go to the party with 45%.

    UK would be a very different place today if the 15% who voted UKIP were properly represented in parliament, the tories would probably not have moved so far right



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    FF and FG would have swapped single party governments forever rather than multiple smaller parties getting in and getting ministries along the way



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    No. the left leaning parties (if they coalesced) would have merged into Labour. Sinn Fein might never have emerged here in a FPTP system.

    True, Independants would not get elected so often, but some (like Healy Raes, Michael Lowry, Neil Blaney) might have emerged anyway. WE might have gotten smaller regional parties developing...



  • Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭Ballycommon Mast


    I also found it amazing that even with FPTP, someone with the celebrity status of Nigel Farage could never get elected to Westminster



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    The answer really is nothing much would have been different (for the first 90 years of the state anyway).

    As a rule FPTP voting systems typically result in the vote coalescing around two large big tent parties, at the expense of smaller parties. That's what has happened in the USA and that's what has happened in England. The thing is though even though we had PR-STV we ended up with a very similar outcome. Due to the long lasting affects of civil war politics we basically had a 2 and a half party system for the vast majority of the history of the country. Even within that only 2 parties have ever held the office of an Taoiseach. Yes there were other smaller parties along the way but typically they only ever entered coalitions in very small numbers and often they flamed out along the way.

    Nothing better displays this dominance by the two big parties than the results of the November 1982 election in Cavan-Monaghan. Of the 9 candidates, all but 1 were from FF and FG and together they obtained 99.7% of the vote.

    FF managed to gain overall majorities on a number of occasions ('38, '44, '57, '69 & '77), even with PR-STV, such was their stranglehold on the electorate. It's only really since their collapse in 2011 that we have seen the multi-party system emerge that one would expect from our voting system.

    For those posters thinking that FPTP is some sort of panacea and that if only we had it all of your least favourite politicians would not be elected - think again. The lesson we can learn from the USA/England is that FPTP often leads to uncompetitive races in the majority of constituencies. In the Ameician example this means that the real elections are actually their primaries which means that rather than getting compromise candidates who appeal to the overall population you instead end up with partisan extremists who were best able to win over their own party's base - that fact more than anything else explains the complete breakdown of bi-partisanship in Washington.

    In particular if you detest all of the childish back and forth that you see and hear between FG politicians and SF politicians - well all of that would be 10 times worse if we had FPTP.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The parties in NI and Scotland have very concentrated support. Parties like UKIP and the Greens have much higher number but spread more thinly and were unable to translate it into MPs.

    SF strongholds like Donegal, Louth and central/west Dublin won't be enough because SF are not transfer friendly. FPTP means it's only worth voting for the winner or runner up, anything else is a wasted vote.

    You could imagine a situation where most of the FF/FG/Lab electorate would hold their noses and vote for the FF/FG/Lab candidate most likely to beat SF because that's how FPTP works in a nutshell. You could even add other left wing parties too to that list.

    In other constituencies where FF or FG are the likely winners their voters wouldn't vote for each other and votes from supporters of other parties would decide the outcome. It's another unsavoury part of FPTP.

    In constituencies where one party has a large majority voters may not bother showing up. It's another unsavoury part of FPTP.


    Look at the % of votes after all the transfers to give some indication of what FPTP would look like before applying the 'enemy of my enemy' principle.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    We'd have ended up as effectively a one party state with FF eroding any opposition by healy-rae type representation/politics (ff decline in earnest began with JHR quitting as director election)



    The outworkings of this,need not be explained to.anyone



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭OneEightSeven


    If we switched to FPTP today, they would because they're entrenched in Kerry politics, but if we had FPTP since the '60s, they wouldn't because it's very rare for indies to get elected in FPTP. If we want to get rid of the Healy-Raes, we'll have to reform our electoral system to a party-list system with a national electoral threshold.



  • Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭Ballycommon Mast


    I often wondered if the young left liberal types who always used to point out that Trump lost the popular vote were aware that Mary Robinson didn't get the most first preference votes here in 1990 either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,654 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    Long may it continue. The notion of a "safe seat" as seen all over England is an affront to democracy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout



    That's not a perfect solution either as it substitutes one type of unwanted politician for another. List systems make it much easier for favoured party insiders, who might fail to get elected under their own steam, to get elected on the coat-tails of the party. Personally I would take them over the hyper local, parish pump independents that we currently have in many constituencies but I suspect a lot of people would not (particularly voters who actually want a parish pump politician in their own area).



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    I missed the part where Trump overtook Clinton on transfers.

    You're trying to compare two completely different electoral systems as a wierd 'gotcha' aimed at the libs. One of which gives a relatively fair representation of where the votes are going, the other doesn't.

    Also, the amount of years spent getting the Brits out of this country and yet you've people here advocating for an electoral system which also does not give a fair representation of who people are voting for. 'Majority' of one party isn't always a good thing, as the Tories have shown recently.



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭BringingSexyBack


    Mary Robinson would never have darkened Aras an Uachtaráin, no matter what that clown from Mayo (Pee Flynn) would have said about her (what he said was was the truth, to be fair to Pee Flynn) . Lenihan Senior would have got his rightful crown.

    If it weren't for PR, some parties would never have existed .

    People like Clare Daly would never have gotten in and while some of her politics aren't great, she did contribute to the national parliament with her stance on abortion, gardai scandal, Shannon Airport being used by the US forces, and a few other legitimate points

    Many Shinners , would never have gotten far without PR before the last election (except in border counties like Louth, Cavan and Donegal ) . Mary Lou got into the Dail by the skin of her teeth after several attempts and despite being a decent MEP . Now she is the Queen of Bertie's auld stomping ground, Dublin Central . Due to her own popularity, she could probably risk running a second mate and get her transfers easily , without splitting her vote, if SF are still popular)

    It took Pearse Doherty, a man who could be accepted by Labour or FF party supporters, needed three attempts to get into the Dáil (and a failed MEP run, but that did give him excellent exposure, a well ran campaign) He won a by election well. Since then , his contribution to politics has been positive - a much needed constitutional case dealing with need to hold elections and of course, his stellar work on the Insurance companies. Now, he's the king of Donegal and can get another SF man elected (McLoughlin to be fair to him has Inishowen to support him - but a third SF man in Donegal is wishful thinking - they tried that and managed to lose Mc Loughlin's SAFE seat)

    So, PR has ensured that Ireland got a fair representation in the Dáil as otherwise, it would have been totally dominated by FF and FG except in areas where the big beast (various Independents) who had amazing political machines



  • Registered Users Posts: 381 ✭✭Ballycommon Mast


    I believe that a lot of Irish people don't really understand our voting system, that's why you had people boasting about giving Gemma O'Doherty the lowest possible preference number of 18 or whatever without understanding that they didn't have to give her any preference.



  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭BringingSexyBack


    @Ballycoomon Mast

    Mick Wallace, as an Independent, was a rarity to top the pole , as an Independent on his first attempt in running for elections. Thing was he was nationally well known and liked and was heavily involved in Sport (Wexford Youths FC)

    Lowry was once a big beast in FG and was expected to become the leader of FG in time, but for his unfortunate issues , ahem. He already had his machine well oiled in Tipp before he went Independent

    Michael Healy Rae also had daddy's vote and he himself was beside daddy throughout Jackie's stint in Dáil Éireann. He also spent years on Kerry CC . I think he was on RTE Celebrities Go Wild BEFORE he even became a TD !!! Compliments of Daddy and a phone in Dáil Éireann, he won the show lol.

    Not sure that there are too many Independents who can top the polls on first attempt. Many scrap by and some do well enough on the 3rd-6th count and get in

    PR system is needed for most Independents (even the more established like Finian McGrath ) and smaller parties

    Then you got that infamous old Dublin South East and Dublin South areas. Home of some of the most prominent and notorious party leaders , Taoisigh and Tainiste and other high profile names..............No matter how prestigious a seat one might have........NO ONE IS SAFE , because of god damn PR . Without PR we would never have had Rumble in Ranelaigh

    It is funny that many Dub's whinge about parish pump politics. You look at Constituencies like Dublin South East and Dublin South over the decades. It would not only be home to the Taoiseach but also a Minister or Minister for State or at least a major party leader /deputy leader - they got all the spotlight



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    the understanding of politics in general is poor in this country. I mean, some people even think that Mary Robinson not getting the most first preference votes in the 1990 presidential election is some sort of gotcha that owns the libs.



  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    It’s hilarious, despite the fact it’s the complete opposite and is a reflection of what a representative democracy looks like.

    PRSTV has its flaws, but it’s the best system by a country mile.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The PRSTV is good at giving minority views a voice,and in future,


    it should be examined to make constituencies 6 to 7 seaters,so as people from immigrant/minority backgrounds can get into the dail and have their say,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    I agree that PR-STV is a far superior system than in countries like the US or UK, but 6 or 7 seat constituencies? You'd end up with some serious cabbages in Dail Eireann with that amount of TDs returned for a single constituency. I can just about reach third preference in my constituency before getting to loo-la territory



  • Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif


    FF was the biggest party at every election from 1932 until 2011. Unless FPTP resulted in amalgamation or voters voting FG instead of PD or Labour, FF would have been in permanent power and there would have been very little left wing influence in parliament.

    It’s interesting that one of the closest referendum results was the marginal rejection of FPTP in 1959.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,866 ✭✭✭standardg60


    My only issue with the PR system here is that there is a pre-requisite number of seats to be filled.

    I think it would be more democratic if instead only those who reached the quota in each constituency were elected.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    They failed because everyone who wasnt a FF voter knew what they were up to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Jeysus could you imagine the amount of Healy-Raes we would end up with if Kerry was a 7 seater



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,654 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    There's already about 20 of them on Kerry County Council, they will take over and then attempt to annex Limerick



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    As long as they dont enforce their language on us like the Brits did.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    The UK doesn't have a list system, but it does have a quote of "safe seats" where the MP is effectively chosen by party officials, and the parties uses their power to put manifestly unqualified and unsuitable people into Parliament. I'm generally not keen on systems that allow parties to choose more than a very few individuals to put into parliament, so that they have an incentive to use the system to put in people who will add some value.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    No arguments from me there. I'm certainly not advocating for FPTP. It's an abominable system in my opinion. I was contrasting List systems with multi-seat PR-STV (i.e. the Irish system)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    That would be FPTP, but with perverse punishments for having split votes. Its a terrible idea.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,866 ✭✭✭standardg60


    I think you're taking me up wrong there. What I'm referring to are people who are deemed elected simply by being the last person standing after every one below them has been eliminated and their votes transferred, even though they may not reach the quota.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    rather than spending twenty years talking about building a metro, a government would have the political capital to actually get on and do it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,023 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Has nothing got to do with the type of electoral system. Absolutely stupid comment



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    You're still creating an unequal system that punishes votes being split and benefits major parties (albeit sometimes its the big parties that get that last scrape in)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Doesn't matter. The remaning candidate is still more popular than any of the other unelected candidates, and there is no reason why the constituency should be punished by being under-represented in the Oireachtas.

    The equaivalent rule under the FPTP system would be to refuse to elect a candidate who could not secure more than 50% of the vote. If the UK had such a rule, 329 out of 650 seats would be unfilled.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,866 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Conversely, it may be a genuine reflection on constituents view of who is fit to be put forward to represent them, Paul Murphy being a case in point.

    For me there would be 3 benefits, existing parties would put far more effort into their constituencies, individuals more reflective of their constituents issues would be more encouraged to run, and constituents would be more inclined to get off their arses and vote if they saw they were being represented by only four td's instead of five.

    Though maybe given turnout is usually about half the empty seat is truly reflective of a lot of peoples attitude to politics anyway



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mmm. Conventional republican theory is that citizens have not only a right but also a duty to exercise their share of political power for the common good. In electoral terms, this means that each constituency must be represented in Parliament; you can't opt out and elect not to be represented, or to be underrepresented, simply because some of the candidates on offer don't meet your exacting standards. If that's your issue, the proper response is to nominate more suitable candidates, rather than to try to get yourself disenfranchised.

    Bear in mind that, under your rule, the people who decline to express a preference among the remaining candidates aren't just reducing their own representation; they are reducing the representation of the entire constituency, including those who did have, and did express, a preference. Why should they be given that right?

    Basically, declining to express a preference between candidates is not a statement that "If it comes to it, I don't wish to be represented by any of these people; I would prefer to be unrepresented". Being unrepresented is not an option offered in elections in a republic. The statement you are making is "If it comes to it, I don't mind which of these people represents me; let someone else choose".



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    constituents would be more inclined to get off their arses and vote if they saw they were being represented by only four td's instead of five.

    The quota adjusts based on number of eligible ballots, not registered voters so this doesn't even make sense.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,650 ✭✭✭rock22


    In fact, the candidate elected without reaching the quota must be more popular than all the other unelected candidates added together.(otherwise there the lowest is eliminated and there is another count)

    Not electing the last candidate because he does not reach the quota means there is a large amount of votes (though less than a quota) which have not elected any representative.


    @Brussels Sprout said "The answer really is nothing much would have been different (for the first 90 years of the state anyway)".

    I think that is due more to the legacy of the civil war than of the electoral system. For a long period of time, certainly up to the late 60s, early 70's, voting for the 'other side' irrespective of the abilities of the candidate would have been seen as treachery within the family - leading to likely ostracism ( perhaps, along with democracy, another practice we should have copied from the Athenians).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,438 ✭✭✭davetherave


    If you did that in the last General Election, we would be deficient 64 Td's. Longford-Westmeath would have one TD instead of 4.


    Take Galway-East as an example. Names changed for simplicity It took the 7th count for someone to be elected.

    The quota was 10,631. The first to be elected was Alan. He had 12,292. There were 1,661 valid transfers to the three remaining candidates.

    • 900 went to Brian which brought him over the quota and thus he was elected.
    • 274 went to Clare, leaving her on 9,658, 973 below the quota.
    • 487 went to Daphne, leaving her on 10,022. That is 609 below the quota but she is above Clare.


    On the next count you would have used Brians 259 excess, even if all of those were for Rabbitte it still wouldn't bring her over the quota. And even if all of those were for Clare, it still wouldn't move her total ahead of Daphnes total.


    So what do you do then? The excess isn't enough to get someone past the quota or change the person in last place so you eliminate the last person and do their transfers, at that stage you only have one candidate left anyway.


    Or using Kildare Souths numbers might be a better example. Alice got elected on the 7th Count. The quota was 11,816, and she ended up with 12,152. There were 336 valid transfers. At this stage there were three people fighting for two seats.

    • Brian got 34 putting his total at 11,710. Below the quota but ahead of the other two
    • Cathal got 247 putting his total at 10,940. Below the quota, below Brian but ahead of Denise
    • Denise got 55 putting her total at 10,425. Below the quota, and below the other two.

    The only way to get more transfers or excesses is to eliminate the lowest candidate and do their transfers, so you remove Denise and then it doesn't matter where her preferences go, you have two people for two spots. Or do you say that only Alice exceeded the quota only she gets elected and Kildare South has one TD instead of three?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,866 ✭✭✭standardg60


    Doh! I'd forgotten of course that when there's only two candidates left they don't bother transferring the lower person's votes.



  • Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    We end up with complete morans anyway


    A 6 - 7 seater will/should give a wider range of views (from far right to far left) and end this perpetual thing of having 2 - 3 main parties,all offering same thing



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Not necessarily.

    Taking the 1932 general election - I picked it at random - we see that there were five 7-seat constituencies, three 8-seat constituencies and one 9-seat constituency. And yet the top three parties (FF/CnaG/Lab) came out of that election with, between them, 89% of the seats. The top two parties had 84% of the seats. One other party (Farmers Party) is represented. Independents get 9% of the seats.

    Contrast the result of the 2020 election - no 7, 8 or 9-seat constituencies. But the top three parties (SF/FF/FG) get only 67% of the seats; the top two parties only 46%. Six other parties (Green/Lab/SD/PBP/Aontú/I4C) are represented. Independents get 12% of the seats.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    No. The more seats the less votes are needed for the last seat. What happens is that a candidate with very low first preferences that survives the first round of elimination can end up getting elected.

    The way you balance the views is by spreading around the 5 seaters. Here we have a constituency commission to do that.

    Wiki says that in the past we had between 3 and 9 seaters.

    In the UK's totally different system Nigel Farage got elected as an MEP in a 10 seater. Under normal FPTP in the speakers constituency where none of the main political parties stool he still finished behind a dolphin.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,537 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    A higher turnout would likely lead to even more fragmentation of the vote and more empty seats under your system



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I think the likely outcome about having more TDs per constituency depends on whether the constituencies are expanding to cover more area (thereby maintaining a similar number of total TDs to now) or you're maintaining the current boundaries but electing more TDs from them - thereby vastly increasing the number of TDs.

    If it's the former then you'll likely end up with similar enough representation in the Dail as TDs just gravitate to their new larger constituencies depending on where their local turf ends up.

    If it's the latter, since the barrier to getting elected is now lower, then you'd likely see some fringe candidates/extremists getting elected.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    You can't realistically do the latter as each TD has to represent between 20-30,000 constituents constitutionally. Which is probably too low a number these days.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement