Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Presidential Nomination Discussion

245

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,310 ✭✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    if they enable someone you don't want running to be president, you don't vote for them in the next council elections.

    Or, just don't vote for that person as president...?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭mikep


    Perhaps I phrased that badly...I meant that if your local councillor supports someone you regard as totally unfit to be president, CMcG or GOD for example, don't vote for the councillor again.

    Of course you won't vote for someone for president if you don't think they are suitable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭RoTelly



    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,641 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    I wouldn't mind a Scandinavian-style one but recognise that would be very much a minority opinion…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,092 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    well, this is a discussion forum, personally I don't care that much who is president, provided it's not some headcase like McGregor.

    With FG telling their councillors not to nominate anyone (which is entirely understandable), there were some saying this was anti-democratic. I'm suggesting an alternative mechanism that still adhere's to the "nomination via elected officials" idea.

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    I don't think McGregor would have got a nomination TBH. But should he be stopped looking for one and should councils be stopped from voting for him or Oireachtas members? However… I do agree with you on him … but unfortunately what can you do?

    I don't believe it to be anti-democratic, at the end of the day we vote in politicians who are part of a party, but I would argue it means the presidential election is not as apolitical as many would suggest, including FG's candidate when she starts her campaign.

    For example if 20 FF backbenchers wanted they could put Kelleher on the ticket if they so wished. They won't and they certainly won't propose anyone outside their party.

    The system limits the numbers get on the ticket to 18 candidates.

    I would like to see a public nomination process: -

    Candidates put themselves on a list, they must be nominated by 2 Irish citizens that are not close relatives to get on this ballot.

    The ballot goes to each county council.

    Voters who can vote in a presidential election must go to the HQ of their local authority to vote/nominate.

    You only get one nomination, and you nominate by simple marking an X beside the name of the person you are nominating. You must have ID, polling card and proof of address with you.

    I suggest to get nominated you need 10K (10K is a small enough number not to effect the outcome of the presidential election, 100k and then potential people think the nominee has won, once 10k is reach and remaining nomination are kept secret until after the election proper to avoid bias).

    You many only campaign by going door to door, no posters or advertising, the only leaflet is an A4 page with your details and why your running for president, and how to nominate you.

    You can only start the campaign a week before ballots open.

    Nominations would open for a week.

    Its a long process and the vote in the HQ is done on purpose as people have to go out of their way to nominate.

    Many might even consider it pointless.


    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    Which family? It's too late to reintroduce a monarchy. And who would vote for it, at the end of the day to make any changes to the Election or nomination of the president it would have to go to referendum.


    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,641 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Why not the Higginses? Alice Mary seems to be pretty respected…maybe choose by sortition, just have some safeguards to ensure you don't end up with the Kinahan First Family…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    You quoted me in another thread, that the people are always right, and you agreed with that statement in another thread.

    That means that your opinion in this thread is hypocritical.

    You are arguing in this thread that the people are wrong when they elect councils and governments that don't allow your favoured candidates to be elected President, but you are arguing in another thread that the people are right because they elected councillors to take a sectarian position.

    As I said elsewhere, your arguments are falling apart.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,621 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    You are arguing in this thread that the people are wrong

    I never said anything about the 'people' on this thread.

    Exaggerating again.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    "If the route can be open or c closed by an election outcome, then that is by definition a 'random' occurrence because NOBODY knows what the outcome of a given election will be."

    Here is what you said. You don't want the route to be left to the outcome of an election, which means that you believe the people would be wrong if they closed the route in an election.

    Unless you think cats and dogs rather than people vote in elections.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,621 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Ah, so you took that to mean me saying the 'people are wrong'?

    Well sadly that is wrong.

    It has nothing to do with how the people vote.

    It has everything to do with the 'random' blocking of a route for people who are not politicians or attached to politic party's and don't want to be attached to political party's though.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,492 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    This is a ridiculous discussion. "Random" has an actual definition and this is not it. It is as random as selecting a Taoiseach is - i.e. not at all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    It is not random, it is how the people vote and decide!!! Therefore the people are right to create the outcome that the council route is closed.

    Your cognitive dissonance on the people being right is mindblowing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,621 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    After one election cycle, a route to the presidency can be closed.
    After another election cycle, that may not be possible.

    We cannot predict how any given election might go.

    That is the definition of a 'random' situation to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,195 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    No, it is how the people decide.

    After one election, the SF vote goes up, after another election the SF vote goes down.

    Is that random, or the people deciding and the people being right?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,862 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    I agree, they don't.

    But the whole intent of Article 12.4 is that the democratic majority of those who have already been elected in higher order elections, across the Country, whomever they may be, retain a high degree of control over the process, and thats the point you refuse to recognise.

    Don't worry though, when Sinn Féin get a Dáil majority and have almost 600 out of 949 Council seats, they will fully justified in managing the presidential nomination process as they see fit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,621 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The people are deciding to vote for SF. Others decide to vote for FG. Others again for FG and so on.

    Nobody votes for a situation that allows those parties acting independently to block a route to a presidential nomination

    If it was ONE party capable of blocking a route, you might be right, but it isn't.

    FF yesterday doing the nod and the wink, 'we won't impose the whip but remember where your bread is buttered' just highlighted how shambolic and bizarre it has become.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,862 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Just on this topic in general, I would have no problem voting in favour of a referendum to expand the nomination process to include a petition of nominating signatures from the general public.

    In fact, such a process was recommended by the citizen's assembly.

    However I wouldn't agree with their suggested threshold of 10,000 signatures. In a fast growing population of 5.5 million, which will be over 6 million by the 2032 election, I would insist on a minimum of 100,000 signatures, from Irish citizens of voting age, verifiable by PPS number.

    If someone is good enough to be considered for the presidency, outside of the current guardrails, they should be well able to get 100k backers.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 31,492 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I'm afraid it is not the actual definition of the word "random" so while you can call it whatever you want, I dont understand why you're digging in on this clearly ridiculous point.

    After one election there is a route to government for SF and after another there isn't. That is not a random situation. We are not rolling some dice and deciding who can run for President on that basis.

    It is, however, unpredictable but if you want to remove unpredictability from politics you'll need to install a dictatorship.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,621 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Just on this topic in general, I would have no problem voting in favour of a referendum to expand the nomination process to include a petition of nominating signatures from the general public.

    All I am suggesting is another route to a 'non-political' office for non-political people and more importantly, people who want nothing to do with political party's then that should be always available.

    I think those who wrote the constitution intended the CC route for this, because I cannot see what it was provided for if not.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    Why not the McDowell's ?

    I think a 7 year term elected president is best for us all.


    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,719 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    I believe the thread is back to shinner vocabulary redefining.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,862 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    Yerra, Francie wants to believe black is white at the best of times.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,474 ✭✭✭JVince


    sf are going to sit it out and "sort of" back connolly.

    From what is seems, sf are afraid of coming 3rd as that would be seen as total failure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,892 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Who says the presidency is non political? And all we can say about the constitution is that they wanted 3 ways to be nominated (oireachtas, councils, former president who has served 1 term). The reasoning or intention isn't part of the constitution, it's just the facts.

    So if you want to change this, do you have suggested changes?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,738 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    The reasoning or intention isn't part of the constitution, it's just the facts.

    This.

    Otherwise we start to go down the ridiculous route the US Supreme Court is taking, of trying to divine the inner thoughts of the long-dead founding fathers rather than interpret their words.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,142 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    How about a rule that says you have to declare your candidacy 3 months before?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,621 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    do you have suggested changes?

    Yes, a clear route without political party influence.

    As stated in David McCullagh's programme on Dev last night, one of Dev's primary concerns in the constitution was control.

    In a lot of cases that did a lot of damage.

    The constitution is only sacrosanct until we decide to change it.

    Time to loosen the controls a bit IMO



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,081 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    The constitution has to be sacrosanct, otherwise the government of the day can introduce bills as the feel fit. It should give control to the people.

    It means that the government has to think about legislation keeping in mind the constitution.

    The constitution is largely a good model, it may not get everything right but it keeps checks in place.

    Should a government want to change it, then they should put it to the people.

    Anyone going for the presidency will be met with their political background.

    Catherine Connolly is a Left Unity candidate, simply put while she is an independent she is supported by the Left PBP, Labour and SD. She want's to be some kind of continuity candidate, this is important for the left, the presidency is ours, Ireland is a left wing country.

    FF have choose Paul Gavin as he was the Dublin manager with success, he is there to try to bring the Dublin vote back to FF.

    FG want the presidency, something they have failed to achieve this is why they are telling their councilors to stop any vote for an "independent" candidate.

    If you want us to believe it is apolitical or non-party political, then the President should be chosen from an older group of people that have done something for the country, and agreed upon by the majority in the Oireachtas (2/3).

    Michael O'Leary for President!


    ______

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



Advertisement