Red C Poll

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2015 04:55PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

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.

Fair point. So perhaps it's not necessary to do anything further than campaigning for independents and against established parties.

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.

It depends what this phrase means - I'm pretty sure he was referring to government spending, not government power. If he was referring to the latter, then yes absolutely.

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.

Fair point. I simply haven't seen any of those emerge yet, and personally I won't touch Lucinda's crowd with a barge pole for several reasons, the first being that they are former members of the current government and are likely to pursue broadly similar policies and the second being that they are including Fidelma "Fraping, where you're raped on Facebook" Healy-Eames as an apparent front line candidate. The last thing this country needs is more social conservatism, in my view.

Having said that, they're still a better choice than any of the establishment parties, no question whatsoever about that.

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.

In a Dail which only allows full speaking rights to groups with 7 or more members, this is effectively political castration. In a Dail where independent comprise the majority of TDs, this standing order would become completely unworkable and would be thrown out pretty quickly.

Of course, if the current government would take the initiative to scrap it themselves, I might not be so rabidly pro-independent.

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

Pay attention to programs like TWIP, Vinnie B, Prime Time etc when they're discussing the rise of independents and the effect of the guillotine on the current government. Based on audience comments, tweets, emails etc I am definitely not alone on this.

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

Again, all I can say is we'll see.

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 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.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, and I have a bit of a fuzzy brain at the moment due to lack of sleep so forgive my current mathematical inadequacy

but let's suppose 75% of the population in a given constituency want independent candidates and 25% want a party candidate.

There are three seats, and there are ten candidates running, 9 indies and one FG (just for a hypothetical example).

Problem here is, if each of the indies only gets 7/8% of the vote because people who want independents as a concept haven't decided collectively who to give votes to, and the other 25% all vote for the FGer, then the FGer will get elected first even though the vast majority wanted a non party candidate.

This is of course assuming that many people share my anti establishment view, which is impossible to prove or disprove at this point. But in that scenario, because of inefficient transfer strategy, The FG'er would have got elected to the first seat in the constituency and one of the indies would have been eliminated.

If, however, the 75% who want non party candidates all manage to agree to a strategy of voting for four of them, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on every ballot paper, then in my line of thinking the FGers and those indies outside that strategy would be eliminated fairly early on, and the victory of the four would be more or less guaranteed. Correct, or not? If I've misunderstood the transfer system or bungled the maths here, feel free to correct me.

alaimacerc · 05-03-2015 06:04PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair point. So perhaps it's not necessary to do anything further than campaigning for independents and against established parties.

If I were you, and I were trying to "get out the independent vote bloc" -- and I'm very glad I'm not! -- the key point I would stress to like-minded people is transfers. Then more transfers. Then still more transfers. There's no real "tactical voting" involved, though. Just that while one has a sincere preference (however much one of relative distaste rather than enthusiasm), one should keep transferring. Don't just vote your vote for one (or four) and then go home. If you your highest priority is voting non-party, then obviously transfer accordingly. I think that most people, though, would rather vote for a party candidate they largely agree with than an indie they're utterly opposed to the views of, even if they otherwise like the idea of "shaking them up".

The last thing this country needs is more social conservatism, in my view.

I comfort myself that it's something that's on its way down, rather than up. Just very slowly. Economic reaction and inequality I'm much less cheerful(!) about.

In a Dail which only allows full speaking rights to groups with 7 or more members, this is effectively political castration. In a Dail where independent comprise the majority of TDs, this standing order would become completely unworkable and would be thrown out pretty quickly.

I think some sort of reform to the party/technical group system is inevitable. Elected representatives should get speaking time and "ways and means" support in some reasonable implementation of proportionality. There shouldn't be artificial thresholds -- though equally, there shouldn't be perverse incentives for groups to keep "splitting" and get unduly rewarded for doing so.

Pay attention to programs like TWIP, Vinnie B, Prime Time etc when they're discussing the rise of independents and the effect of the guillotine on the current government. Based on audience comments, tweets, emails etc I am definitely not alone on this.

I think you're as near as dammit to being alone in your reason for voting independent. People are supporting an incohesive collection for indies for an incoherent set of reasons. Yes, there's unhappiness with aspects of parliamentary procedure. I'm not sure the two are even especially correlated, much less in lockstep the way you seem to think.

Problem here is, if each of the indies only gets 7/8% of the vote because people who want independents as a concept haven't decided collectively who to give votes to, and the other 25% all vote for the FGer, then the FGer will get elected first even though the vast majority wanted a non party candidate.

All depends on the transfers. To take the extreme cases: if each of the pro-indies "gives their number one" to just one of those, in roughly each proportions, and doesn't bother transferring at all, then the FGer and the top two indies get elected in that order "without meeting the quota". If on the other hand they all "vote the straight ABFG Indie ticket", and don't transfer to FG at all, then the top three Indies (after however many rounds of transfers are involved. No need for Bertie-in-Drumcondra type vote management, as no-one is exceeding the quota (at least not in any excessive way in any early round).

Obviously in practice it's somewhere in between, wherein the complexity and fuzziness kicks in...

If, however, the 75% who want non party candidates all manage to agree to a strategy of voting for four of them, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on every ballot paper, then in my line of thinking the FGers and those indies outside that strategy would be eliminated fairly early on, and the victory of the four would be more or less guaranteed. Correct, or not? If I've misunderstood the transfer system or bungled the maths here, feel free to correct me.

If you can get the 75% to agree, you're laughing all the way regardless of "strategy". The trickier bit is where you have some smaller cohort wanting "any independent whatsoever" and are trying to second-guess what other people might be doing for other reasons (like, actually preferring a particular candidate -- craziness!). Yes, there are marginal cases where you could get a candidates that's super-transfer-attractive gets eliminated early due to small numbers of high preferences. Arrow's Theorem, whachagonnado? But they're rarely worth worrying about in practice.

Actually, if there's some super-popular indie that could be put well over the quota on the first count by such antics, then it would work against the interests of the other indies. Because then your "strategic" transfers get lumped into the surplus, many of which may be transfer-ineffective, so they get proportionately diluted. Better to vote for those four in various different orders. But mainly best to vote for all nine indies, in whatever order, and tell others to do likewise, if that's genuinely what you want.

alaimacerc · 05-03-2015 06:07PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But we're talking about people who may not share any common ground at all, so what's the point of setting up a party?

By hypothesis, they share the common ground of wanting more direct democracy (unlike those DDI splitters!), comprehensive reform to Dáil procedure, etc. Given that much of that would best be done through constitutional change, setting up a political party is hardly over-engineered.

Zubeneschamali · 05-03-2015 06:24PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But we're talking about people who may not share any common ground at all, so what's the point of setting up a party?

Suppose that no-one from any party was elected next time, you had 100% independent TDs. Guess what would happen?

The TDs who have common goals would tend to vote together. After a while, some might make a pact, and say I'll vote for your crazy idea if you vote for mine. Then they'll need rules to make sure everyones ideas are treated equally. Then they'll need some sort of sanction for TDs who break the pact.

In short order, they'll reinvent the Parliamentary Party, whip and all.

And the ones who don't join such a group will not get any legislation passed, as the new Parties will always outvote them.

alaimacerc · 05-03-2015 06:31PM

CramCycle wrote: »

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.

I'm not convinced about that. What's the magic size of constituency that prevents rampant localism across it? Or across a half or a third over it, given the immediate instincts of the political parties to carve up a constituency to run candidates from different ends of it. I suspect you'd still get it even if we were down to Dublin, Rest of the Country 1, and Rest of the Country 2. Witness the Euros. And you have to have enough seats for cabinet government, opposition, and backbench scrutiny in committees. Go much below 100 and you start to look like an overgrown council chamber.

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2015 07:16PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Suppose that no-one from any party was elected next time, you had 100% independent TDs. Guess what would happen?

The TDs who have common goals would tend to vote together. After a while, some might make a pact, and say I'll vote for your crazy idea if you vote for mine. Then they'll need rules to make sure everyones ideas are treated equally. Then they'll need some sort of sanction for TDs who break the pact.

In short order, they'll reinvent the Parliamentary Party, whip and all.

And the ones who don't join such a group will not get any legislation passed, as the new Parties will always outvote them.

You're assuming that the vast majority of independents have absolutely no integrity whatsoever. You could easily be right, but it's pure speculation without any evidence whatsoever.

If that does indeed happen, then subsequent political reform will have to target Dail standing orders rather than party make-up. It would still be a victory in that the entire establishment would have been gotten rid of, but it wouldn't achieve the objective of making cabinet accountable to parliament.

It's a gamble, sure. But if we re-elect establishment parties, there's no gamble - we'll be 100% definitely getting the same crappy guillotine system for another five years. I'll take my chances with anything that has even the slightest, tiniest possibility of being less autocratic.

alaimacerc · 05-03-2015 07:37PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're assuming that the vast majority of independents have absolutely no integrity whatsoever.

Only under your interpretation that independents are actually the anti-party party. Which seems unlikely, on what we see thus far. Including, what the independents themselves say, and people's stated reasons for voting for them.

You could easily be right, but it's pure speculation without any evidence whatsoever.

That's practically the independent motto. Vote for me, there's No Evidence Whatsoever I'm exactly like all the other politicians! (Assuming we ignore any such evidence that doesn't suit.)

Zubeneschamali · 05-03-2015 08:00PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're assuming that the vast majority of independents have absolutely no integrity whatsoever.

No, I am assuming that people go into politics and get elected to try and get things done.

The most effective way to get things done is to be in a party of like-minded TDs, so that is what will happen.

Field east · 05-03-2015 08:04PM

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd buy into that. The thing about independents is, they may get c 28%, but not secure all that many seats (may just miss out on many, despite getting a lot of votes).

When the monthly survey is carried out I assume that the question asked - of the 1000 rang- is :- 'who would you give your 1st preference to if a general election was held today ' . There are three issues that are never addressed in relation to the % that opt for voting independents ie:-

(1) the assumption that an independent candidate will be put forward in every electoral area - the number put forward would be very relevant
(2)the assumption that they will all be 'electoral friendly'. It is a very unproven field for independents in most constituencies- they do not have a tradition of polling well..
(3) how much of the swing towards the Ind is due to the performance of some of the independents on the floor of the Dail/on radio and TV. And if there are not similar in dependant performers/personalities available in each electoral area will the same percentage votes pertain?

In summary, maybe those who are politically more savvy might be of the opinion that the above points are irrelevant given the large % casting their first preferences for independents.

hatrickpatrick · 05-03-2015 08:20PM

This is what currently happens.

Cabinet: here's the legislation. You have 24 hours to read it and we'll vote on it tomorrow.
Government TDs: Well, we might need to change-
Cabinet: HMMPH!
Government TDs: Yeah but-
Cabinet: YMMPH!
Government TDs: But are you sure this is the best wa-
Cabinet: RMMMPH!!!!!

Now in a proper parliamentary democracy, the government TDs would then say "right, well if you won't give us time to look at the legislation, we'll vote against it. And we'll keep voting against it until you give us time to look at it, and consider any proposed amendments. If we're still not happy, we'll reject it outright".

Instead, what happens is "well we're not happy, but if we lose the party whip we can no longer speak in the Dail, so f*ck it this legislation isn't worth losing that right over. *begrudgingly votes for the legislation even though they know it's a bad idea*

In essence: the guillotine.

Are those who are so vehemently opposing independents seriously implying that this is how government should be run? Because I'm being totally serious when I say this is the only choice I see us being given. Vote independent, or vote for five more years of that utter sh!te.

EDIT: I've come up with a fantastic slogan for the anti-establishment movement as well: "vote independent - because whips belong in the bedroom, not in the Dail" :pac:

marienbad · 05-03-2015 08:49PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

We have a government that is accountable (ask Bertie & co.) ,maybe not as accountable as you would like but don't go to the other extreme.And permanent accountability is just another phrase for paralysis

alaimacerc · 05-03-2015 09:09PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Now in a proper parliamentary democracy, the government TDs would then say "right, well if you won't give us time to look at the legislation, we'll vote against it. And we'll keep voting against it until you give us time to look at it, and consider any proposed amendments. If we're still not happy, we'll reject it outright".

Given the "impressionistic" nature of your description of how the whip system and guillotine work, any indication of what "time to look at it" would be? Because the general gist I'm getting is that what you want is endless filibustering, paralysis, gridlock, and government that can't actually govern.

CramCycle · 05-03-2015 09:15PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not convinced about that. What's the magic size of constituency that prevents rampant localism across it? Or across a half or a third over it, given the immediate instincts of the political parties to carve up a constituency to run candidates from different ends of it.

65

I suspect you'd still get it even if we were down to Dublin, Rest of the Country 1, and Rest of the Country 2. Witness the Euros.

You would get more of the accountability without the localised rubbish because if they were using the local stuff for half the constituency then there 8 a chance they won't get it done for the other half. The idea would be that they would then focus on national issues only where people can look at the choices more objectively instead of "this **** me so I won't vote for them agaon", it would change to "tough choice but they either made the right 0 ne or the wrong one".

And you have to have enough seats for cabinet government, opposition, and backbench scrutiny in committees.

Between the oi reacts and the 65 TDS yes, surprised how much time will be there for them when the country TDS are not running to every mildly popular persons funeral and the likes of Shane Ross are turning up to talks on trying to reopen a swimming pool. An issue solely within the remit of the local council and people.

Go much below 100 and you start to look like an overgrown council chamber.

35 below would be nice.

alaimacerc · 05-03-2015 09:27PM

CramCycle wrote: »

65

So about 15-20 constituencies, with 2-3 county constituencies becoming the norm. Perfect recipe for "vote for the fellah from your own local place, not themuns from the other county(s)!" stumping.

Also, if you're forming a government with 33 people, what size do you make the cabinet? Is the committee system going to operate in any form whatsoever?

You would get more of the accountability without the localised rubbish because if they were using the local stuff for half the constituency then there 8 a chance they won't get it done for the other half.

Seems to me you're just lumping the local rubbish. By a larger factor than is workable, I think, while not actually even solving the essential problem.

hatrickpatrick · 06-03-2015 01:00PM

marienbad wrote: »

We have a government that is accountable (ask Bertie & co.) ,maybe not as accountable as you would like but don't go to the other extreme.And permanent accountability is just another phrase for paralysis

If we'd had permanent accountability we could have got rid of Bertie as soon as the economy started to tank rather than having to wait until after the IMF were called in.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Given the "impressionistic" nature of your description of how the whip system and guillotine work, any indication of what "time to look at it" would be?

As long as it takes to convince a majority of TDs that the legislation deserves to be passed.

Because the general gist I'm getting is that what you want is endless filibustering, paralysis, gridlock, and government that can't actually govern.

This would only happen if legislation coming from cabinet was so God-awful that TDs repeatedly shot it down. In that scenario the cabinet would end up being voted out by TDs and replaced by another one.

I still say gridlock is better than crappy governance.

FreudianSlippers · 06-03-2015 01:05PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we'd had permanent accountability we could have got rid of Bertie as soon as the economy started to tank rather than having to wait until after the IMF were called in.

Wouldn't have stopped the IMF coming in. The guarantee was the wrong move in retrospect only; it appeared to be the right move at the time and I'm fairly certain no matter what the opposition at the time said, they would have done the same thing.

It transpired that Anglo had cooked the books well after the blanket was put in place.

As long as it takes to convince a majority of TDs that the legislation deserves to be passed.

This would only happen if legislation coming from cabinet was so God-awful that TDs repeatedly shot it down. In that scenario the cabinet would end up being voted out by TDs and replaced by another one.

I still say gridlock is better than crappy governance.

I take it you have never lived in the US. Gridlock and partisanship are way worse than what you perceive to be "crappy governance"

Quin_Dub · 06-03-2015 01:07PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This would only happen if legislation coming from cabinet was so God-awful that TDs repeatedly shot it down. In that scenario the cabinet would end up being voted out by TDs and replaced by another one.

I still say gridlock is better than crappy governance.

Not necessarily..

Look at the utter paralysis in the US with the Republicans blocking every piece of legislation just to spite Obama regardless of the quality or otherwise of the legislation.

Whilst , conceptually, giving every single TD the opportunity to run the rule over every piece of legislation seems like a hugely democratic thing to do , in reality , it just means nothing will ever get done as we'll get stuck in Analysis Paralysis over everything..

Also - Human nature as is it , everything will descend into the worst kind of pork-barrel side deals to get thing done...

We'll have Community centres and ring-roads of a standard not yet seen anywhere in the world.....

hatrickpatrick · 06-03-2015 01:59PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Wouldn't have stopped the IMF coming in. The guarantee was the wrong move in retrospect only; it appeared to be the right move at the time and I'm fairly certain no matter what the opposition at the time said, they would have done the same thing.

It transpired that Anglo had cooked the books well after the blanket was put in place.

Regardless, we would still have got rid of FF long before they actually went, and perhaps begun repairing the economy at an earlier stage.

Do you deny that given the opportunity, the public would have voted them out earlier than Feb '11?

I take it you have never lived in the US. Gridlock and partisanship are way worse than what you perceive to be "crappy governance"

The US government is hardly more accountable than the Irish. Corporatism has overtaken democracy in the US - which is why I will always oppose further EU integration.

What I'm talking about only works on a local, national level.

Quin_Dub · 06-03-2015 02:21PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regardless, we would still have got rid of FF long before they actually went, and perhaps begun repairing the economy at an earlier stage.

Do you deny that given the opportunity, the public would have voted them out earlier than Feb '11?

The US government is hardly more accountable than the Irish. Corporatism has overtaken democracy in the US - which is why I will always oppose further EU integration.

What I'm talking about only works on a local, national level.

But in your model it becomes even more parochial...

If there was a system of recall and open voting for every piece of legislation then TD's would spend their time "checking in" with their constituents for everything, making sure that they were happy every day to avoid the recall trigger..

So.. now , all the TD is concerned about it is keeping his constituents "onside" for ever , terrified that one wrong move (or a move they don't like , regardless of right or wrong) will get him the shepherds crook..

Might sound like accountability , but it's not, it's reverse micro-management , hundreds/thousands of people 2nd guessing the guy every single day , to the point that he does nothing for fear of offending somebody...

Not saying that the current system is perfect... Far from it , but what you are suggesting would just be a different kind of wrong..

Zubeneschamali · 06-03-2015 02:31PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What I'm talking about only works on a local, national level.

What you're talking about only works in your imagination.

Good thing it'll stay there.

ChicagoJoe · 06-03-2015 05:49PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If we'd had permanent accountability we could have got rid of Bertie as soon as the economy started to tank rather than having to wait until after the IMF were called in.

Wouldn't have made the least bit of difference, Cowen would have taken over earlier that's all. And likewise Kenny isn't a tiny bit different from either of them as we have seen since 2011 with cronyism, broken promises etc FG and Labour in opposition were calling for even more tax breaks on property, lifting stamp duty on housing to throw more fuel on the out of control fire. But then all the ' experts ' in the ECB, IMF were cheering on these policies, Anglo Irish got a AAA rating 12 months before it went bust for God's sake.

FreudianSlippers · 07-03-2015 02:21PM

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Wouldn't have made the least bit of difference, Cowen would have taken over earlier that's all. And likewise Kenny isn't a tiny bit different from either of them as we have seen since 2011 with cronyism, broken promises etc FG and Labour in opposition were calling for even more tax breaks on property, lifting stamp duty on housing to throw more fuel on the out of control fire. But then all the ' experts ' in the ECB, IMF were cheering on these policies, Anglo Irish got a AAA rating 12 months before it went bust for God's sake.

That's the thing people don't seem to understand - no matter who was in government at the time, the blanket guarantee looked like a good idea because Anglo had effectively ensured they would be covered, knowing that they were on the brink of failure. Had anyone had proper insight into Anglo's books, they wouldn't have guaranteed it.

I don't care who was in government, this would have played out the same way or worse (if all banks were left to fail).

frankbrett · 07-03-2015 04:14PM

@namawinelake: Ambitious: Martin McGuinness sees 80-TD left-wing govt in 2016 with combination SF, "chastened" Labour and like-minded Independents.

Labour eh?

hatrickpatrick · 09-03-2015 02:25PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But in your model it becomes even more parochial…

I keep saying this, it wouldn't be parochial if local issues were removed from national government agenda and given to local government instead.

If there was a system of recall and open voting for every piece of legislation then TD's would spend their time "checking in" with their constituents for everything, making sure that they were happy every day to avoid the recall trigger..

So.. now , all the TD is concerned about it is keeping his constituents "onside" for ever , terrified that one wrong move (or a move they don't like , regardless of right or wrong) will get him the shepherds crook..

Precisely. Voting patterns in parliament would become truly representative of what people want.

Might sound like accountability , but it's not, it's reverse micro-management , hundreds/thousands of people 2nd guessing the guy every single day , to the point that he does nothing for fear of offending somebody…

It's not as ideal as direct democracy would be, but it's the closest thing on the table at the moment.

hatrickpatrick · 09-03-2015 02:26PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What you're talking about only works in your imagination.

Good thing it'll stay there.

The swiss have semi-direct democracy and it works pretty well for them. Why is this fact always ignored whenever this debate comes up?

Zubeneschamali · 09-03-2015 03:02PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The swiss have semi-direct democracy and it works pretty well for them. Why is this fact always ignored whenever this debate comes up?

I wasn't talking about semi-direct democracy, I was commenting on your mad notion of having a Dail entirely made up of independents.

There are a ton of political parties in Switzerland, the parties are even more explicitly included in the election process than they are here.

Godge · 09-03-2015 06:01PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The swiss have semi-direct democracy and it works pretty well for them. Why is this fact always ignored whenever this debate comes up?

Very very confused.

I don't think any independents at all can be elected to the National Council in Switzerland. How is it comparable to your system? It seems as far as possible away from your system as one can go i.e. you want only independents, the Swiss only have political parties.

hatrickpatrick · 10-03-2015 02:12AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wasn't talking about semi-direct democracy, I was commenting on your mad notion of having a Dail entirely made up of independents.

Same difference. A Dail full of TDs who are constantly checking in with their electorate, as has been prophesized here under my independent Dail idea, would ultimately result in direct democracy by proxy.

There are a ton of political parties in Switzerland, the parties are even more explicitly included in the election process than they are here.

True, but the people have far more of a direct say in how their country is run than we do.

hatrickpatrick · 10-03-2015 02:14AM

Godge wrote: »

Very very confused.

I don't think any independents at all can be elected to the National Council in Switzerland. How is it comparable to your system? It seems as far as possible away from your system as one can go i.e. you want only independents, the Swiss only have political parties.

If there were only independents in the Dail, and a system of popular recall for individuals, then as Quin_Dub said above, they would have to keep checking how their constituents wanted them to vote on various bills or risk being recalled. It would, in essence, be an indirect direct democracy.

Quin_Dub · 10-03-2015 08:58AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If there were only independents in the Dail, and a system of popular recall for individuals, then as Quin_Dub said above, they would have to keep checking how their constituents wanted them to vote on various bills or risk being recalled. It would, in essence, be an indirect direct democracy.

That is what I said , however I think that's a very bad thing...

Leadership by committee doesn't work , nothing gets done , hard decisions would be avoided and effective governance would grind to a halt..

Everybody checking back with their constituents would mean every trivial bit of legislation taking months to agree followed by various TD's holding up things until they get their little "rider" added to the bill so they can get it approved so you end up with bloated regulation full of exceptions and exclusions to appease individuals from all points of the compass.

Do the board members of a large corporate ask all the employees for their approval for every decision they make?

No they don't - Good ones take the time to explain the decisions to the staff so they understand the bigger picture and the larger plan etc. , but the buck stops with them , they make the calls..

That's how Government should work..

No question , our TD's could benefit from spending more time on the ground in their localities explaining legislation to their constituents and helping people understand the bigger picture and how it all hangs together..

That would be more useful time spent rather than holding clinics where people bitch and moan about pot-holes and street lights...

Red C Poll

Comments