Red C Poll

alaimacerc wrote: »

Point is, anyone whose primary criterion for voting is that, has entirely missed the point. Of this whole "politics" lark in general. Might as well just vote for the DDI crowd...

Not at all, if one's ultimate goal is to change how politics works in this country.
A Dail which is more frightened of the public than of the cabinet is a damn good start.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Only if one both on the one hand, wants to "change how politics works", and on the other, has a very odd set of ideas about how one does that. Do you feel that this is in any way reflective of the views of any significant number of people who'll vote independent at the next election? (Much less of, the people currently saying they will, who actually won't.) Because that seems a fairly far-fetched interpretation to put on such votes to me.

Well given how even FG is now publicly musing about relaxing the whip to some extent, I would reckon the answer to that is an obvious yes. But I'm not hijacking yet another thread with this debate which the two of us have done to death - we're never going to agree on the subject and that's that

DDI going on Grover Norquist, perhaps...

I support direct democracy but not DDI, because what DDI are calling for is not direct democracy. Don't know much about Norquist but isn't his main policy drive simply about reducing government expenditure rather than actually reforming how the government operates?

oscarBravo wrote: »

A government that's terrified to do anything that might be unpopular - what could possibly go wrong?

It's the lesser of two evils if the only alternative is a government which never feels it has to do anything the people are happy with.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We've never had a government of independents, so you cannot know that.

I know what we have now. There's almost no chance a government of independents could be less democratic or less representative of the public will. If they were even 0.1% more representative, that would be a major improvement.

CramCycle wrote: »

It would be interesting to have an election every few months, once a year at best.

Or a system of recall in which a majority of citizens in a given constituency could call for a bye-election at any time during a Dail term. Anything which would prevent TDs from taking decisions without taking into account how the people who elected them as a representative would like to be represented.

Let's not get into this here though. Latest poll suggests that the doomsday scenario for independents put out in the last SBP poll was a false dip. Will have to wait for their next poll to see if it corroborates.

Godge wrote: »

Does the Dail sit during a bye-election campaign?

Why shouldn't it…?

Could we end up with the dail never meeting if we organised recalls by rota?

Under the current system, the Dail could never meet and most major legislation would emerge to the statute books entirely as it has with the Dail in session. The guillotine has been the overriding theme of this government, something which would be impossible in a Dail full of independents.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Happily, that's not only not the only alternative, but it's not even the case at the moment.

It's notable that you describe it as the lesser of two evils - at least it suggests that you understand that it's a bad thing.

I support Swiss style direct democracy, so any system in which the majority of decisions are taken on our behalf rather than by us directly is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

The problem seems to be that you don't understand just what a terrible thing it is: you are demanding that the country be run by people whose only notable character attribute is a total lack of personal conviction, other than a deeply-seated desire to be re-elected.

If your ideal politician is one who doesn't need to think about issues, but only needs to vote in whatever way he believes is going win him popularity contests, then I hope for the sake of the country that you're bitterly disappointed after the next election.

Are you happy with the guillotine system we currently live under, in which the people you elect to represent you in our parliament vote in the cabinet at the start of the term and then do absolutely nothing except rubber stamp every single bit of legislation which comes their way for the rest of the term? Do you accept that the present system is bad, just as I have accepted that my alternative is also bad? We are of course discussing the lesser of two evils here.

But broadly yes, I have no shame in proclaiming that my ideal government is one which runs the country in the way that the people want it to be run, implementing the policies the people overwhelmingly support and not implementing those which are overwhelmingly opposed. Anything less as far as I'm concerned cannot be labelled democratic at all.

conorh91 wrote: »

It's difficult enough for governments to think about 5-year and 10-year strategies or longer. Imagine if they only took office for six months at a time. What would be the incentive for long-term projects? Governance would be taken up by short-term goodies like tax cuts or giveaway budgets.

Governments think in single electoral cycles. In my view, that's why the Oireachtas should extend the general electoral cycle to seven years, as provided for in the Constitution.

What incentive do they have now? At least in a short-term system, they'd have to keep validating that the electorate was actually pleased with how they were being represented.

This is drifting off topic however. The point I was making is that under our PR system, even if independents get the highest share of the vote percentage, we can't guarantee that this will translate to seats unless we come up with some way of disciplining transfers from one to another while still ensuring they all get votes.

It'll require a vote management strategy by those who support independents. Unfortunately it would probably also require some to ask people to vote for a potential colleague #1 and themselves #2 and so on - something I can't see happening. The only party I know of who employ such a strategy, to their credit, is FG.

I'll have to look into some stats on vote transfers tomorrow, but I fear that the independent vote could get massively diluted on election day by bad transfers even if they do get an initial majority of first preferences.

Any pro-indy folk have suggestions as to how this could be countered?

conorh91 wrote: »

Media opinion polls and internal opinion polls do exactly that. Anyway I understand this is a side-issue so I'm not going to labour the point.

You talk as if governments actually pay attention to the aforementioned. :rolleyes:

They certainly would if their seats were constantly under threat.

By identifying common political positions and shared objectives, and garnering alliances for vote-sharing? We could call it "a political party".

Sorry if that sounds more snide than intended. But in my view, either you are independent or your are allied with like-minded individuals. Distinguishing the latter from a political party is pointless semantics.

Not at all. All establishment parties in Ireland are subject to a three line whip. Independents are not. Big difference.

The minute any independent candidates decide to band together under any kind of arrangement which would constrain how freely they could vote on legislation given to them by the cabinet during the next government, I for one will cease all support for those candidates. We're looking for a Dail which is completely independent in its decision making, rather than beholden to the cabinet.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well given how even FG is now publicly musing about relaxing the whip to some extent, I would reckon the answer to that is an obvious yes. But I'm not hijacking yet another thread with this debate which the two of us have done to death - we're never going to agree on the subject and that's that

But this is a question of fact, not a question of opinion. Either this is the reason people (are saying they might) vote independent, or it isn't. Transfer patterns will determine this pretty conclusively.

Don't know much about Norquist but isn't his main policy drive simply about reducing government expenditure rather than actually reforming how the government operates?

I was thinking in particular of his "reduce government to the size where you could drown it in the bathtub" motto. Your thinking seems to be heading in a very similar direction.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all. All establishment parties in Ireland are subject to a three line whip. Independents are not. Big difference.

That's entirely a matter of party policy. Gruppetto Lucinda is promising "whip a la carte". A "true DD party" could give similar undertakings on a broader basis.

Mind you, your dire vista of the whip is somewhat belied by the fact that it's ultimate sanction... is to turn someone into an independent, which is exactly what you want.

We're looking for a Dail which is completely independent in its decision making, rather than beholden to the cabinet.

Who's this "we", kemo sabe? I'm counting you, thus far.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is drifting off topic however. The point I was making is that under our PR system, even if independents get the highest share of the vote percentage, we can't guarantee that this will translate to seats unless we come up with some way of disciplining transfers from one to another while still ensuring they all get votes.

We can pretty much guarantee this won't happen, for the very reason that this isn't remotely what people actually want.

It'll require a vote management strategy by those who support independents. Unfortunately it would probably also require some to ask people to vote for a potential colleague #1 and themselves #2 and so on - something I can't see happening.

No, this type of arrangement is only needed where someone might pass the quota in a "wasteful" way, and their running mate loses out due to "transfer inefficiency". i.e. the people putting the more popular party candidate over didn't bother to transfer at all, or they transferred to other candidates. (Personal vote, localism, etc.) It also requires pretty close estimates of how many "available" votes there are to manage. None of that really applies in any seat or for any permutation I'm aware of.

I'll have to look into some stats on vote transfers tomorrow, but I fear that the independent vote could get massively diluted on election day by bad transfers even if they do get an initial majority of first preferences.

Any pro-indy folk have suggestions as to how this could be countered?

I assume you mean an initial plurality. i.e. "topping the poll". Or the leading "party"... which is of course meaningless, for all the reasons we keep pointing out, as they're not.

If everyone voting independent -- or even a significant chunk of them -- were doing so for your reasons, it would be simplicity itself. Just rank all the independents ahead of all the party candidates. Job done. (For extra credit rank them in some actual order of preference on policy grounds, but that's entirely besides the point for present discussion.) The wedge of "omni-indie" support will end up with whoever might possibly be electable, on the basis of any other support.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's the lesser of two evils if the only alternative is a government which never feels it has to do anything the people are happy with.

dream on .

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You talk as if governments actually pay attention to the aforementioned. :rolleyes:

The idea that political parties and the Government don't pay attention to opinion polls is extremely naive. Why else would they regularly commission their own opinion polls?

Not at all. All establishment parties in Ireland are subject to a three line whip. Independents are not. Big difference.

That's a convention, not a rule. You're really just talking about a looser political party than has heretofore been seen.

The difference between a 'platform of politicians with common objectives organized in a co-ordinated alliance' and 'a political party' is semantic and serves absolutely no function.

conorh91 wrote: »

The idea that political parties and the Government don't pay attention to opinion polls is extremely naive. Why else would they regularly commission their own opinion polls?

Why was reform of IW and water charges not mooted until we had a hundred thousand people on the streets? Poll after poll had previously shown that people weren't ok with it.

That's a convention, not a rule. You're really just talking about a looser political party than has heretofore been seen.

The difference between a 'platform of politicians with common objectives organized in a co-ordinated alliance' and 'a political party' is semantic and serves absolutely no function.

Fair point. But in Ireland, "political party" has now become synonymous with "lemmings who vote as they're told or face horrible consequences". Even without this, any kind of party, when formed, is almost guaranteed to dilute the level to which TDs vote in line with how their constituents feel about legislation, no?

marienbad wrote: »

dream on .

So you're saying you feel a government which has no accountability is the lesser of two evils against a government which is permanently accountable? Or are you suggesting that we have some third option I'm unaware of?

CramCycle wrote: »

I forgot the god damned smiley face/pac man. It would clearly be a mess, the country would be in tatters unless, somehow, the country was running perfectly when this happened with enough overage to cover the cost of elections (clearly not going to happen and if it did, not llong till it failed due to changing conditions in any direction).

It was one of the reasons that I am a strong proponent of reducing Dail seats, the main reason in fact. At the minute it is a contest of pandering to your constituents to get the best for some small area. Rather than doing whats best for the country regardless of the localised issues. A TDs priority should be the country, not their constituency. If there were reduced seats, they would have to pander on more national issues, rather than small, localised, county/town/city council issues. Councils should filter local issues that could be national issues up to TDs, maybe through a constituency council with reps from each council to flag these issues.

If we properly devolved Dail powers over local issues to local government, there would be no need for any of this. And I totally believe that this must go hand in hand with political reform by the way, in order to prevent parish pump situations.