Red C Poll

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then why is it that between elections there is so much intense discontent and "buyer's remorse"? We may get the government we want in terms of people, we certainly don't get the government we want in terms of policies.

How much of this buyer's remorse comes from people who actually voted for government parties? Most people I know IRL who complain and people I see screaming at the government on TV would never have voted for FG in a million years.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am pro-independent because independents are not whipped, ergo they must do as they believe a majority of their citizens want them to do as opposed to what the chairman of a bank or corporation asks them to do over a round of golf. Yes, that is anti-establishment. No, that is not anti-democratic.

Our independents only have to worry about doing what a Quota's worth of their neighbours care about. Typically a quarter of the active voters in their constituency, that's a big jump to say they are mindful of what the majority of the country want.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Interesting, and I didn't know they'd done that in this case, but a long way away from by-constituency: at the finest, it allows a five-way breakdown (four ways geographically). That will still, as I said, significantly increase the margin of error, as you now effectively have a sample size of 200, 250, 500, etc. But nothing like what you'd see if you were to try to use a 25-person subsample from each of the forty constituencies. Which would be hilariously inaccurate.

Interesting point. What we actually need then is a 1,000 person sample in each constituency nationwide.

The straws you're using to construct that man, perhaps? That's not remotely like anything I actually said. Thus I would be hard pressed to "go on claiming" something I never claimed in the first instance!

I got the impression you were implying that Red C poll results were being deliberately skewed or misrepresented by those publishing them. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

Godge wrote: »

I don't think you need a 1,000 person sample in every constituency because the size of the constituency is smaller. That being said, it is not a linear relationship, it is quite a complicated formula, and from what I recall, a sample size of 500 is considered good enough for a constituency-level poll. You still need to get a balance between young and old, male and female, working and non-working, etc. It is just the regional balance issue is less thus facilitating a reduced sample size. For example, in Dublin Central, you don't need to worry about an urban/rural balance. When you reduce the number of variables you need to control for as well as the population size, your required sample size for a particular confidence level is reduced.

Makes sense. To be honest I've always found it philosophically troubling that groupthink is so extensive that a sample size of 1,000 is enough. Basically implies that you could take me, poll me, and apply my supposedly individual thinking to a vast swathe of people who share my demographic attributes.

We're getting into a weird area here, but it's a bit like questioning how free will could exist alongside time travel - if someone can come back from the future to try and influence my decisions, then that means that on a universal scale, my decisions were already somehow fixed in stone. Creepy stuff.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be honest I've always found it philosophically troubling that groupthink is so extensive that a sample size of 1,000 is enough. Basically implies that you could take me, poll me, and apply my supposedly individual thinking to a vast swathe of people who share my demographic attributes.

The demographics aspect is secondary. The fundamental idea is to randomly sample the entire population. It's impossible to do that in a strictly randomised manner, for obvious practical reasons, so you have to approximate it as best as you can. The tricky thing is doing that in a way that's not demographically biased. For example if you just wandered down O'Connell Street and grabbing people at random you'd clearly be skewing the survey in several important respects.

Nothing to do with "groupthink".

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I got the impression you were implying that Red C poll results were being deliberately skewed or misrepresented by those publishing them.

No.

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

Here's what I said:

alaimacerc wrote: »

They deliberately don't give that breakdown, as if it's spread over the country, the sample size in each constituency would be so small the margin of error would be huge.

Which coincidentally enough, is also what I meant.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Based on the latest poll results though , that is unlikely to happen..

At the next election, I agree. SF will be broadly content if they're seen to be making progress towards that as a longer-term goal. In fact if they're the third-largest party it is in some way handy, because the pressure to prop up an coalition there's little enthusiasm for "in the national interest" will fall mainly on FF, rather than on them.

FF will gather about 15% more actual votes/seats than they show in the polls , whereas SF will be 25-30% below their poll results..

To which add a significant transfer differential.

If they don't do well, it will likely trigger a leadership challenge. A change of leadership could be a good thing for them but a lot depends on how divisive that change is..

Who on earth do they have in the Dáil at present who wouldn't be even worse than MM? I think they'd be better advised to hold off to the other side of the next election. It'll look less irresolutely internecine, and they'd hope to have at least some new blood available.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would what be a problem?

Allowing local government to levy its own taxes etc.

Cancer services? Roads? Police? Prisons? So your local government - elected specifically on the basis of running its own geographical area, not the country - is involved in decision-making about disbursement of funds on a national level? Except that you've already proposed that the local politicians should get involved in national issues, and you still haven't explained how to prevent the national politicians from getting involved in local issues.

What if, again, individual councils levied their own taxes to pay for those local services? And the national government only got involved in issues which affected the entire country?

If one candidate tells the people of (say) Carlow that, if elected, he'll do XYZ for the country, and another candidate tells them that he'll do ABC for Carlow - you honestly think that people are going to say "hmm, I think I'll vote for the one who'll put the national interest first"? Because if so, you haven't explained how you're going to fix the electorate. We could. I don't have a problem with devolution. My problem is with the idea that people will magically stop voting for whichever candidate promises to deliver for them.

My point is, if national government didn't have the power to do anything as local as fixing potholes etc, then even if a national politician promised to do ABC for Carlow, he or she would get into the Dail and discover that they had no remit over purely local issues.

I also think that the day local authorities in this country try to introduce income taxes is the day the entire country will erupt in flames.

If all of these powers and responsibilities were first removed from national government and given to local government, the amount of tax paid to the national exchequer would decrease substantially. If local taxes were simultaneously designed and implemented, people wouldn't see that big a difference in how much tax they were paying. I know there'll be the argument that areas with lower populations would pay less tax, but those areas would also require fewer services and less spending than more densely populated areas. As for disparity in income levels across the country, this would give all politicians a good incentive, at the local and national level, to try and ensure a fairer distribution of jobs, wealth etc geographically.

Irish people love taxes, as long as someone else is paying them. As a matter of interest, have you ever witnessed a local authority meeting?

You think our national politicians are gombeens...!

Of course I have. Sat in on many of them during the Save Our Seafront protests which I helped to organize in Dun Laoghaire and Sandycove circa 2005-2006. Main thing I noticed? Those who were independents at the time were far less likely to vote in favour of the monstrous development which a vast swathe of the local population opposed, but most of the parties supported. Why? Presumably because an independent candidate has less room to vote for hugely unpopular proposals. It shouldn't have taken so many months of sustained public opposition to finally get the proposal thrown out - if the parties had been more afraid of the public than of their vested interests, it would never have reached the finalisation stage that it did.

I think the ultimate difference of opinion regarding all this is whether you believe that people should get the policies they want, or the policies which others who are somehow regarded as knowing "what's best for us" want to impose on us. As a supporter of direct democracy, I'm more in favour of people deciding for themselves what's best for them and what they want, not leaving it to others who too often don't care about individuals.

It's like my argument against banning supplements like St John's Wort because some people might not read the label and might f*ck themselves up. I'm more in favour of erring on the side of responsible individuals who know what they want and should be allowed to make their own decisions, rather than the minority who are irresponsible. As far as I'm concerned, Ireland infantilizes its citizens far more than other countries do, and this thread is a perfect example of that. The main argument against independents seems to be that they would achieve exactly what I want them to achieve - quasi-direct democracy in which policies implemented line up far more with what people actually want - and that this would lead to policies which bring about armageddon. Said argument is based on the fundamental condescending assumption that Irish people are thick.

I don't buy that.

First Up wrote: »

Good luck with getting an answer. I'm stil waiting for hatrick to say if he is advocating a Dail made up entirely of independents.

I have already stated repeatedly that this is precisely what I would regard as ideal - as long as direct democracy is off the table, of course.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So you are advocating the United States of Ireland ??

I hadn't thought of it like this, but I suppose in a way yes. Although as it's being practised with a much smaller population and on a smaller scale, I don't think it's the best comparison.

Godge wrote: »

This wouldn't work

Why not?

even though as a Dubliner it would be so great to pay that much less tax or have public services beyond anything else in the country.

Dublin has a much denser population, so the number of services required etc would be higher than elsewhere. Would this not offset the higher population paying more tax?

Besides, we don't have to take the federal Ireland idea to its absolute extreme (although I know you like to do this in order to rubbish alternative political systems). Why couldn't a happy medium be found which would allow for directly representative government / direct democracy without screwing over smaller constituencies?

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The nearer we get to an election the more fixed will peoples mind be on their pockets. If in 12 months time unemployment is down by another 50000 people will be inclined to vote for the present government

Defo. The other "options" looking increasing risky. The next budget will have to give back to working people and if it's fairly generous I'll gladly vote them back in tbh.