Presidential Election 2025

I saw Pat Leahy journalist had a theory that McDowell didn’t vote for Steen because he was afraid she would win. Which is a contradiction in terms. McDowell was willing to use Steen to a point in the more recent referendum. When he could make use of her.

As for Steen’s support. In 2011 SF had 6.9% of the electorate. I never voted for SF in the Dail. But I voted for McGuinness no1, Higgins no2. Because I thought McGuinness would be more symbolic of an inclusive Ireland shaking hands with the British Queen etc.

In the 2011 election McGuinness ended on 13.7% despite on SF on under 7% in DE. If you equate the 2011 SF DE support it wouldn’t be far off Steen/Aontu/likeminded TD’s are now.

But Steen would arguably be a more polished performer given the quality of opponents she would have been up against she could in theory have been in contention.

let’s do a politics PR voting 101 lesson again 😩

A fourth candidate who took 1st pref’s from FF and Fine Gael who was eliminated first ie came fourth in the first count would have their 2nd preference going back in the main to FF and Fine Gael

Ergo making no difference or not accidentally helping CC be elected at all,I presume you are confusing PR with first past the post system used in the north?

With the latter there’s only 1 count

Personally I think I have my mind made up 75%. Thanks to this thread helping me sound it out. Looking at all the arguments pros/cons of all the candidates.

It will be HH number 1 for me. Even though I find the woman insincere. There is no way she will bother importing her Gaeilge over 7 more years, for example.

However, she is the most capable politician of the three. Also for the same reason I voted for McGuinness in 2011, it is the same reason to vote for HH in 2925. Peace and inclusion the image of the tricolour. Echoing Article 7 of BnaE Green while AND orange.
Given that some diehard Republicans sneeringly call HH an “Orangewoman” (she is not merely lineal connections) and the DUP sneeringly claim that the ROI is not a place for their traditions. It says to me HH is the choice if it puts it up to both those extremes.

Jim Gavin no2 - careful by nature. But I don’t like the parachuted celebrity candidate. More and more appearing like a fish out of water. Stuttering through interviews. Nervous unsure of himself. Very unlike that leader of men that stood on the Dublin sideline. Hamfisted PR to try to appeal to the rural vote looked more than silly.

CC no3 -the one I would have liked to vote for initially. But she is not shrewd enough in her choice of words. Irish speaker, legal background, pacifist, proud Irishwoman. Can all be negated by that naivety and bluntness she has when speaking. She seems like a poor “politician” and more an idealist.

As I previously stated, you clearly don't understand the difference between nominating and supporting somebody. Your reply only seems to cement that

Let me try break it down for you more simply

• Support = wants to be president
• Nomination = wants to be on the ballot paper

Do you understand now?

He didn't "use Steen in the recent Referendum" - he agreed with her on the specific issue in the recent referendum. He would not in any away align with her more broadly - particularly her association with the US religious-political right a la Vance, Bannon, etc. And I suspect that, more than specific policy and religious beliefs, he saw the potential for a constitutional crisis if Steen got to occupy the presidency.

More likely that McDowell simply didn't want her on the ballot paper. The world has changed in the last 7 years, previously giving one of these candidates a nomination provided for a bit of comedy but these days nominating one of these loons gives them a platform to whip up dissent. McDowell likely didn't want that to happen

I'm not sure if it's ever happened before but a president that refuses to sign legislation can resign, or can be forced to resign. The only exception is if they believe it to be unconstitutional they can refer it to, I think, the supreme court, but if said court deems it to be constitutional she would have no choice but to sign it, or resign

This is effectively what happens already, with the added safeguard of the president checking it over for any constitutional errors.

It did cross my mind in 2020 that legislation around restrictions on our movements were unconstitutional as we have a constitutional right to freedom of movement. The fact that our president didn't have an issue with it gave me confidence that I was wrong

A president who refuses to sign a specific piece of legislation can, of course, resign but there is nothing to say they must resign. Essentially the Constitution is blind to this issue and doesn't seem to have envisaged it. A President can be impeached but that would be a drawn out cumbersome process and requires a 2/3 Dail majority (and probably the Seanad also). Getting into that would certainly be a constitutional crisis. And no doubt a president like Steen would draw lot of support from the US political-religious right.

It would probably have to go to the Presidential Commission if that ever happened, or as you say a 2/3rds Dail majority to impeach. Not signing legislation even if approved by the supreme court would be grounds for impeachment surely

There have been so many potential reasons posted here already. Feel free to pick one if it puts your mind at ease

Say if Catherine Connolly won and the government wanted to change the law around the triple lock? You could make an argument that Connolly would oppose such changes and the Dáil arithmetic would only have a bare minimum to pass.

Having said that - none of the 3 candidates would be the kind of person to do anything to bring about a constitutional crisis. All 3 are fit and capable to be the president which is a good thing.