Should we drop Proportional Representation

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 9:40am

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd keep PR, but i'd change the voting. I'd have people from Cork voting for Donegal TDs and vice versa all over the country. We might them have TD's who realise they are in DE to represent the country, not their local area. We'd have less parish pump politics. Give them 2 weeks or so to canvass on national policies when there is an election. Let TD's do their jobs nationally, and County Councillors do theirs locally.

Actually i will give a good think on that as my thinking was kinda similar.

I was thinking have either smaller with 1 elected FPTP about 100 TDs.

The other i was thinking was larger something like 20 electrol areas in the country, that way each region could have more of a voice at cabinet.
For me we need less backroom TDs and more professional expert advisors and not appointed by Government.
Professional HR independent personnel recruiting these people.

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 9:53am

pixelburp wrote: »

You say "stale" like it's a bad or aberrant thing: that's just what happens when you have stable, relatively extremist free governance. I don't want excitement or "freshness" in my government, but a steady, stable - and yeah, kinda boring, hand at the tiller. "Mainstream" is also a curious epithet. The mainstream is US - the people - why wouldn't a government elected democratically be mainstream?

And no, PR doesn't favour "mainstream" parties, given there's more representation by smaller parties or indepedents in Ireland than (say) the UK - where the national vote does not reflect the seats taken by parties. Here's wild speculation to consider: with PR, the Brexit party would have had more seats in parliament, potentially including defecting backbencher Tory Eurosceptics. The same Eurosceptics whose rancour forced Cameron's hand to declare a referendum on the EU. The Brexit voice might not have disappeared, but the pressure to deliver a Brexit referendum might have.

I wouldn't deny there are flaws in the system; not least the rules around TDs' speaking rights or the relative power of local councils (or lack thereof). But by and large we have a fair, balanced system that avoids the various pitfalls and outright manipulations seen by our predominant neighbours such as the UK, US and France.

TBH, it sounds like you're advocating change just for the sake of it and some distraction, which is a recipe for disaster in any country where a broadly disengaged or ignorant electorate go for broke on a chance.

From what i read on boards.ie i am not the only person who things need to change.
As i said earlier i do not personally care whether it changes or not but it needs to in my opinion.
I have no interest in how politics done in other Countries but since you make the comparasion, the UK has i MP for each 100,000 voters, we have more than 3 times with similar geography spread, Fance has something the same...

YellowBucket · 08-07-2020 9:55am

There are arguments for changing some aspects of the system though but not the electoral process.

For example, you could try to mitigate the parish pump stuff by developing local and regional government into something meaningful. We’ve a lot of TDs who are effectively operating as local councillors, often undermining the actual local councillors by taking credit for things and involving themselves in issues that are local government realm.

Improving the Dail to make it operate more inclusively of all voices would also help. An expanded and enhanced committee system might be a good place to start. We’ve had a lot of progress on that and it seems to be a good way getting the whole legislature involved.

Peregrinus · 08-07-2020 9:58am

maestroamado wrote: »

Actually i will give a good think on that as my thinking was kinda similar.

I was thinking have either smaller with 1 elected FPTP about 100 TDs.

Your problem with FPTP is that a huge proportion of TDs are effectively chosen not by the voters but by a party committee. Depending on how the party is set up, this could be a local party committee, in which case parish pump considerations will loom as large as they ever did, or it could be the party head office, in which case there is no reason to think that candidates committed to serving the entire nation will be chosen; the party chooses candidates to advance the interests of the party, not the country, and the likely result will be the development of factions within the party, in which senior party figures compete to get candidates selected who are loyal to or dependent on them personally, who will support them as the contend for influence within or leadership of the party.

It seems to me that if you want to remove parish pump considerations from national politics, you don't want to tweak the electoral system at all. You want to devolve real power and real control to local government, so that if a citizen wants e.g. to get the roads fixed, they can achieve that much more effectively and much more quickly by approaching their county councillors than they can by approaching their TDs. People will stop electing TDs on the basis that they get the roads fixed if, in fact, it becomes apparent TDs don't have a huge role to play in getting the roads fixed.

maestroamado wrote: »

The other i was thinking was larger something like 20 electrol areas in the country, that way each region could have more of a voice at cabinet.
For me we need less backroom TDs and more professional expert advisors and not appointed by Government.
Professional HR independent personnel recruiting these people.

We've got a whole professional independent permanent civil service to advise the government and support and inform the policy formation process. Are you just lookign to reinvent the wheel there?

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 10:00am

Peregrinus wrote: »

You've got that completely wrong. PR (esp. the STV version that we have) favours the voters - as in, it gives the voters powers that in other systems are wielded by parties.

.

You will have to explain that one for me as my thinking may be wrong.
Do you mind giving an example...

YellowBucket · 08-07-2020 10:00am

maestroamado wrote: »

From what i read on boards.ie i am not the only person who things need to change.
As i said earlier i do not personally care whether it changes or not but it needs to in my opinion.
I have no interest in how politics done in other Countries but since you make the comparasion, the UK has i MP for each 100,000 voters, we have more than 3 times with similar geography spread, Fance has something the same...

That argument comes down to a scale needed for a functioning house. If you applied that ratio, Ireland would have 47-48 TDs and would risk a lack of diversify of opinion and even a hegemonic mess where there would be limited opposition.

The French model is also not very effective. The country ranks very poorly on democracy indexes compared to Ireland and the U.K. model is producing cycles of extreme instability.

If France for example has PR-STV and more opinions actually making it into government and the legislature, it probably wouldn’t be expressing discontent with regular scenes of violent protest.

Those protests aren’t an indication of a healthy democracy, rather they indicate people aren’t being heard and are resorting to going to the streets to force change and it’s a pattern you see for the whole history of the French 5th republic.

I’d argue France, a country with huge political diversity, might thrive with more PR.

The U.K. had had really serious social unrest over the decades and doesn’t even achieve government representation for Scotland and Northern Ireland were you essentially have parallel political systems operating within Westminster, but ignored.

They’re not great models and would be, by all measures, a significant downgrade in democratic processes compared to what we have.

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 10:07am

YellowBucket wrote: »

That argument comes down to a scale needed for a functioning house. If you applied that ratio, Ireland would have 47-48 TDs and would risk a lack of diversify of opinion and even a hegemonic mess where there would be limited opposition.

I agree and we have around 160 i think, we started with about 100 when all our TDs were lucky if they had a bike.
So it much easier to getting around and we keep adding numbers.

Now most have cars and some have driving license.
There has not being real political opposition in this country for at least the last 10 years and it not coming any time soon

pixelburp · 08-07-2020 10:09am

maestroamado wrote: »

From what i read on boards.ie i am not the only person who things need to change.
As i said earlier i do not personally care whether it changes or not but it needs to in my opinion.
I have no interest in how politics done in other Countries but since you make the comparasion, the UK has i MP for each 100,000 voters, we have more than 3 times with similar geography spread, Fance has something the same...

You "don't care", you've "no interest" in other countries' own approach to electoral systems? YOU started the thread to "drop PR". Your words. You obviously cared enough to begin the discussion so it's a bit disingenuous to suddenly feign apathy because the question is asked: why change and what to? It reads more like your own personal boredom is advocating change, purely for the sake of change and not some fundamental technical or philoshophical objection.

All political systems find a plateau of normalcy; the question is simply: does Ireland present the fairest balance against the other systems out there? You say you're not the only one but it's on you to present the argument as to what other system beyond PR would work better. Or why PR is more ripe for abuse of the system than other mechanics of democracy.

To do that ... that involves ... comparing with other countries' and how they adapted their voting systems. You can't champion (say) FPTP but then pretend discussing the UK isn't needed or irrelevant.

YellowBucket · 08-07-2020 10:10am

maestroamado wrote: »

I agree and we have around 160 i think, we started with about 100 when all our TDs were lucky if they had a bike.
So it much easier to getting around and we keep adding numbers.

Now most have cars and some have driving license.
There has not being real political opposition in this country for at least the last 10 years and it not coming any time soon

We also expanded our population from 2.8m in 1956 to 4.8 million today.

Podge_irl · 08-07-2020 10:13am

maestroamado wrote: »

I agree and we have around 160 i think, we started with about 100 when all our TDs were lucky if they had a bike.
So it much easier to getting around and we keep adding numbers.

Now most have cars and some have driving license.
There has not being real political opposition in this country for at least the last 10 years and it not coming any time soon

I have no earthly idea what on earth you are on about with the bikes and cars, but the number of TDs is restricted by the constitution and can not be lowered much from where it is without a referendum.

Peregrinus · 08-07-2020 10:19am

maestroamado wrote: »

.

You will have to explain that one for me as my thinking may be wrong.
Do you mind giving an example...

With FPTP, many constituencies are "safe seats"; whoever Party A nominates will assuredly be elected; there is no realistic possibility of any other outcome. The result is that Party A nominates whoever it likes, and the way to become MP for that constituency is to appeal to a party selection committee of maybe 10 or 20 people; whether the voters like you or not is largely irrelevant.

But, even in seats where the outcome is not predetermined, the fact remains that voters who want to vote for party A will have to do so regardless of who the candidate is. It's not possible to express distaste for a candidate, or a preference for one candidate over another, and still support Party A. If there are divisions within the party over policy, values or personalities (and all big parties have such divisions) voters can't register a preference for, or influence success of, one side of the question through their votes.

Basically, under STV, each party presents a slate of candidates, and the voters decide both (a) how many seats that party will get, and (b) which candidates will fill them. So, for example, if they care to, FF voters could prefer FF candidates who are open to coaltion with SF, or they could prefer those who oppose it. Or they could favour women candidates, or minority candidates, or the opposite. Under FPTP the voters get to decide much less; they decide whether party A will or will not get the one seat available, and they have no say at all in who will fill it on behalf of Party A.

This tends to favour parties over voters, since the parties wholly control the candidate selection process, and can largely exercise that control with little regard to how the voters feel about the prospective candidates. And it favours dominant parties in particular, since when there is only one seat going it will almost certainly go to one of two dominant parties.

Cal4567 · 08-07-2020 10:26am

We are also looking at our system in the prism of the moment, i.e. now, where things are changing more so than ever before, with the reduction in support for FF and FG, which combined has been slowly and steadying in a downward trajectory over the last 10 to 15 years.

It's not ideal but it beats FPTP because that system does not give you true representation. Go and speak to a UK conservative voter in a seat that has always been Labour and vice versa. My only gripe is that we do tend to still have independents mopping up the final batch of seats across constituencies. A lot of these are either single issue dominated or it's just about local issues. At least we haven't got these sitting in government at the moment, although the contrasting argument is that being outside party politics they are able to provide a non partisan position.

The real problem for us is that the split of responsibilities and mindset between national and local politics. The last week with the FF moaning roadshow was a good example. It is only just over a decade ago that the dual mandate was abolished. We still have someway to go on this. Too many still just vote for TDs on local issues. We have a very poor local authority system compared to most other western democracies I have experienced and I see little evidence of much change on that.

Randy Archer · 08-07-2020 10:27am

maestroamado wrote: »

Since the two main parties are now one party should we drop the PR system.
The old style of politics is over so it may be a good time to reform the whole thing. The PR system is for parties where loyal party members kinda fallow party guidelines. Is it needed in modern politics where people are informed?

Without PR , headbangers like a Joan Collins would have been humiliated in the last election . Ff Catherine Armagh had double the amount of first preference votes at the first count , yet, Collins got ahead via transfers . Then again, Westmeath would have returned a SF TD in Longford - Westmeath in 2016 under first past the post as they lost to FG via transfers

It’s often the same for many small parties and in the past , Sinn Fein eg Mary Lou scrapping into the Dail for the first time 10 years ago on the last count

The first past the post would result in FG and FF dominating even more , most election years

You haven’t a clue what you are talking about . Epic fail. But yeah, let’s have first past the post . Brian Lenihan Senior would have been comfortably been President in 1990 with that system

PR gives small parties and independents a fair chance of getting elected , which they probably wouldn’t achieve with First past the post

In fact Dev tried to get rid of PR , which greatly helped his party in 1926, but the public said no in the referendum . Not sure people would want to change the system today either

Peregrinus · 08-07-2020 10:33am

YellowBucket wrote: »

We also expanded our population from 2.8m in 1956 to 4.8 million today.

The size of the population isn't that relevant, actually.

In a parliamentary democracy, the lower house needs to be of a size that the governing party or parties (typically having just over half the seats) will be a large enough group that there is a reasonable chance that it will include enough people with the talents, aptitudes and experience necessary to head a government department, occupy a junior ministry or chair a parliamentary committee, plus more such people that there will be some competition for these positions and some up-and-coming people who can be appointed to positions as vacancies arise.

The skills, aptitudes, etc that help people to get elected in the first place are not the same skills at all, so there can be no assumption that every TD is a potential minister or committee chairman. The total "pool" of government TDs therefore need to be much larger than the number of executive positions to be filled.

Ireland is towards the lower end of the range of "normal" for parliamentary democracies, which is roughly 150 - 450 members in the lower house. While its true that smaller countries do tend to be towards the lower end of the range, that relationship is actually quite weak.

If there were only 100 TDs, then the governing side would probably have 50-55 TDs, out of which you'd have to find 15 cabinet ministers, a similar number of junior ministers, a chief whip, and chairpersons for 10 to 15 parliamentary committees. Basically, you'd be left with a lot of people filling positions for which they are not really equipped by talent or experience, and a handful of backbenchers distinguished by being solid bone from ear to ear.

Quin_Dub · 08-07-2020 10:44am

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd keep PR, but i'd change the voting. I'd have people from Cork voting for Donegal TDs and vice versa all over the country. We might them have TD's who realise they are in DE to represent the country, not their local area. We'd have less parish pump politics. Give them 2 weeks or so to canvass on national policies when there is an election. Let TD's do their jobs nationally, and County Councillors do theirs locally.

That achieves nothing , that just means that a TD living in Donegal will play the parish pump for Cork and not Donegal , it doesn't stop them doing it - It won't change the fundamental behaviour in the slightest.

ArmaniJeanss · 08-07-2020 10:53am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The size of the population isn't that relevant, actually.

I assume the poster meant it in the context of the constitution which stipulates 1 TD per xx000 of population. So the increase in the population of 50% meant that the number of TDs goes up by the same level.

YellowBucket · 08-07-2020 11:05am

Peregrinus wrote: »

The size of the population isn't that relevant, actually.

In a parliamentary democracy, the lower house needs to be of a size that the governing party or parties (typically having just over half the seats) will be a large enough group that there is a reasonable chance that it will include enough people with the talents, aptitudes and experience necessary to head a government department, occupy a junior ministry or chair a parliamentary committee, plus more such people that there will be some competition for these positions and some up-and-coming people who can be appointed to positions as vacancies arise.

The skills, aptitudes, etc that help people to get elected in the first place are not the same skills at all, so there can be no assumption that every TD is a potential minister or committee chairman. The total "pool" of government TDs therefore need to be much larger than the number of executive positions to be filled.

Ireland is towards the lower end of the range of "normal" for parliamentary democracies, which is roughly 150 - 450 members in the lower house. While its true that smaller countries do tend to be towards the lower end of the range, that relationship is actually quite weak.

If there were only 100 TDs, then the governing side would probably have 50-55 TDs, out of which you'd have to find 15 cabinet ministers, a similar number of junior ministers, a chief whip, and chairpersons for 10 to 15 parliamentary committees. Basically, you'd be left with a lot of people filling positions for which they are not really equipped by talent or experience, and a handful of backbenchers distinguished by being solid bone from ear to ear.

My point was really that there’s a ratio in Irish law that’s been following the population.

I find it concerning that certain commentators seem to see an efficiency in removing aspects of democracy or scaling it down. You see that kind of commentary rather a lot and also in Irish public policy decisions:

1. Abolished town councils rather than reforming and modernising. Irish towns are bizarrely without any kind of proper local administration and we tend to them scratch our heads wondering why they’re not as well organised as continental equivalents.

2. Slammed Limerick and Waterford cities into their respective rural counties of the same names, with little thought about how those mergers would function, given the huge differences between rural and urban needs. Cork managed to prevent it happening, as did Galway.

3. Trying to abolish rather than reform the Seanad.

4. Regular discussions about cutting the number of TDs ...

Capt'n Midnight · 08-07-2020 11:07am

Peregrinus wrote: »

With FPTP, many constituencies are "safe seats"; whoever Party A nominates will assuredly be elected; there is no realistic possibility of any other outcome. The result is that Party A nominates whoever it likes, and the way to become MP for that constituency is to appeal to a party selection committee of maybe 10 or 20 people; whether the voters like you or not is largely irrelevant.

But, even in seats where the outcome is not predetermined, the fact remains that voters who want to vote for party A will have to do so regardless of who the candidate is. It's not possible to express distaste for a candidate, or a preference for one candidate over another, and still support Party A.

MPs are not chosen by 'the people' - they are chosen by their local constituency parties: thirty-five men in grubby raincoats or thirty-five women in silly hats
- Yes Minister

In the UK 59% of seats are generally safe. So your vote there won't change anything unless there is a landslide.

In the remaining 41% of seats any votes for a candidate who doesn't win or finish second are wasted. If you support anyone else you are effectively limited to choosing between voting against Party A or against Party B depending on who you think is least worst.

Here STV means that TD's have to fight amongst themselves for the vote of the faithful, without looking like they are trying to hobble their running mates.

Local vote management and Tallymen (and women) are things that make our elections more entertaining than our neighbours, if you know what to look out for. It also means central office can't just parachute anyone into a constituency like they can in the UK.

YellowBucket · 08-07-2020 11:10am

After an election in Ireland your local TDs must continuously try to remain relevant in the constituency as they’ve multiple colleagues doing the same job, be they from their own party (worst rivals) or others. British MPs once elected can more or less disappear as they’ve no competitors outside of election time.

Having a loyal government backbencher as your local MP with no ambition can mean your constituency just gets left to rot in some cases.

In others you can find MPs pursuing bizarre politics as they’ve been elected on the party ticket and have little connection with constituents beyond the logo over the door.

The upside of it is that our TDs are very available and focused on electorates but the downside is the parish pump politics and focus on local minutiae.

VinLieger · 08-07-2020 11:58am

maestroamado wrote: »

.

You will have to explain that one for me as my thinking may be wrong.
Do you mind giving an example...

CGPgrey has some great explainers on the pros and cons of voting systems

Heres FpTP which tbh is only cons in my view as far as representative democracy is concerned

And heres STV which is objectively far more representative and gives smaller parties a much better chance

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 2:00pm

pixelburp wrote: »

You "don't care", you've "no interest" in other countries' own approach to electoral systems? YOU started the thread to "drop PR". Your words. You obviously cared enough to begin the discussion so it's a bit disingenuous to suddenly feign apathy because the question is asked: why change and what to? It reads more like your own personal boredom is advocating change, purely for the sake of change and not some fundamental technical or philoshophical objection.

All political systems find a plateau of normalcy; the question is simply: does Ireland present the fairest balance against the other systems out there? You say you're not the only one but it's on you to present the argument as to what other system beyond PR would work better. Or why PR is more ripe for abuse of the system than other mechanics of democracy.

To do that ... that involves ... comparing with other countries' and how they adapted their voting systems. You can't champion (say) FPTP but then pretend discussing the UK isn't needed or irrelevant.

The very cheek of you to say another poster "DON'T CARE"
I think you should read the OP again, i asked "should we drop PR? "
You in your wisdom decided i wanted to drop PR, completely not true as i do not know which best.
It was others on here who decided to introduce other countries so i went with what they were saying comparing.
If people yourself included want to compare everything on the table.

sid waddell · 08-07-2020 2:27pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Heres FpTP which tbh is only cons in my view as far as representative democracy is concerned

Right-wing politics of the Republican/Tory type (and Fianna Fail used to be like this as well) has always hated representative democracy.

First past the post is one such tool they use to deny it.

Denying universal suffrage, gerrymandering, poll taxes (where you literally had to pay to vote), anti-democratic constitutional engineering, mass propaganda and the current voter suppression we see in the US were/are other tools used by the right to deny representative democracy.

VinLieger · 08-07-2020 2:52pm

maestroamado wrote: »

The very cheek of you to say another poster "DON'T CARE"
I think you should read the OP again, i asked "should we drop PR? "
You in your wisdom decided i wanted to drop PR, completely not true as i do not know which best.
It was others on here who decided to introduce other countries so i went with what they were saying comparing.
If people yourself included want to compare everything on the table.

You may not have intended it but your OP reads very much as if you are suggesting at dropping it.

Also i think its a fair criticism of you considering you don't seem to understand the basics of our PR/STV system and erroneously claimed it favors larger parties.

VinLieger · 08-07-2020 3:01pm

sid waddell wrote: »

Right-wing politics of the Republican/Tory type (and Fianna Fail used to be like this as well) has always hated representative democracy.

First past the post is one such tool they use to deny it.

Denying universal suffrage, gerrymandering, poll taxes (where you literally had to pay to vote), anti-democratic constitutional engineering, mass propaganda and the current voter suppression see in the US were/are other tools used by the right to deny representative democracy.

I dont think its solely limited to right wingers. Just look at the reaction from some left wingers, specifically hard line sinn feiners. Since the election many of their online followers have been calling for changes to our STV system, mainly due to a complete lack of comprehension of how our system works which in a large part is thanks to SF making a big mistake in not fielding enough candidates.

CrabRevolution · 08-07-2020 3:20pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont think its solely limited to right wingers. Just look at the reaction from some left wingers, specifically hard line sinn feiners. Since the election many of their online followers have been calling for changes to our STV system, mainly due to a complete lack of comprehension of how our system works which in a large part is thanks to SF making a big mistake in not fielding enough candidates.

I wouldn't say it's a lack of comprehension, just scrambling for excuses.

They were holding victory rallies, talking of crowning Mary-Lou and the end of FF and FG. Once reality set in and it became clear their complete and total victory was nothing of the sort, they had 2 choices:

1. Eat some humble pie and admit you got carried away saying you were kings in waiting before potentially working towards a coalition/settle in opposition and work for the next election.

2. Claim the system is rigged and that you should be in charge.

sid waddell · 08-07-2020 3:21pm

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont think its solely limited to right wingers. Just look at the reaction from some left wingers, specifically hard line sinn feiners. Since the election many of their online followers have been calling for changes to our STV system, mainly due to a complete lack of comprehension of how our system works which in a large part is thanks to SF making a big mistake in not fielding enough candidates.

You could argue that yes, and I totally agree that there is a deliberate misunderstanding of our political system being pushed as a propaganda narrative by Sinn Fein in order to discredit what is a legitimate government, whatever you think of it. It's a government that has been formed in the same way every coalition government in the history of the state has been formed.

I would disagree that Sinn Fein are actually left-wing though, I think they're just populists who adopt the cloak of being "left" for pure convenience. The term "tax and spend" is commonly thrown around as a trope about the left, but Sinn Fein in my view are really a "spend but not tax" party.

Sinn Fein as a party has made a conscious decision that anger and tribalism is the fulcrum of their appeal. Certainly a lot of their followers exhibit Trump supporter-like tendencies. While I believe that moral anger very much has its place in politics, nationalistic tribal anger, which is generally uniformly negative, non-constructive and destructive, is a different thing altogether.

Twitter as a forum for such anger is a car crash given its soundbyte nature.

Inquitus · 08-07-2020 3:29pm

No, its much better than FPTP!

Hotblack Desiato · 08-07-2020 5:03pm

maestroamado wrote: »

I would like a system that encourages people to vote for the best person for the job regardless of their party or none

It's a government we're electing not a county council, of course party affiliation is vital.
You're not voting for a guy to "fix the road", the purpose of a general election is to decide who governs the country.

Now of course not everyone votes that way, which is why we have so many and largely useless independents in the Dail. I regard a vote for an independent as a wasted vote and/or a sign of extreme voter naivete. I'd rather people voted for a party (even one I strongly dislike) based on their policies, rather than some gombeen only out for himself and who can't join/remain in a party because of inability to stand behind a coherent policy position on national issues.

When you vote for an independent you get some vague parochial promises which (a) are usually council matters and (b) they're extremely unlikely to be able to do a damn thing about, unless by some chance the government depends badly enough on their vote.

So it seems things will stay as they are which is fine but i think there must be a better way, unfortunately there are few on here who seem to agree.

That's because you've failed to coherently state what is wrong with the current system, which alternative system would fix it, and how.

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 8:06pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's a government we're electing not a county council, of course party affiliation is vital.
You're not voting for a guy to "fix the road", the purpose of a general election is to decide who governs the country.

Now of course not everyone votes that way, which is why we have so many and largely useless independents in the Dail. I regard a vote for an independent as a wasted vote and/or a sign of extreme voter naivete. I'd rather people voted for a party (even one I strongly dislike) based on their policies, rather than some gombeen only out for himself and who can't join/remain in a party because of inability to stand behind a coherent policy position on national issues.

When you vote for an independent you get some vague parochial promises which (a) are usually council matters and (b) they're extremely unlikely to be able to do a damn thing about, unless by some chance the government depends badly enough on their vote.

That's because you've failed to coherently state what is wrong with the current system, which alternative system would fix it, and how.

I pretty well agree with what you are saying.
Now we have three main parties.
I did not see any real policies from any of them that were different.

What were the policies of FF before election?
What were the policies of FG before election?
What were the policies of SF before election?
What be difference in these policies?

It not matter if i fail as this just chatter.
What matters is clear direction from from people we elect...

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 8:08pm

VinLieger wrote: »

You may not have intended it but your OP reads very much as if you are suggesting at dropping it.

Also i think its a fair criticism of you considering you don't seem to understand the basics of our PR/STV system and erroneously claimed it favors larger parties.

So you cannot read??

GarIT · 08-07-2020 8:16pm

The only thing I would change about our voting system is that votes shouldn't transfer from elected candidates. Once you get someone to represent you, your vote is spent.

PommieBast · 08-07-2020 8:37pm

GarIT wrote: »

The only thing I would change about our voting system is that votes shouldn't transfer from elected candidates. Once you get someone to represent you, your vote is spent.

I'm starting to think that transfers should be done away with completely and people only allowed to vote for a single party. Without transfers the squabbling rabble of AAA/PBP/RISE would sink without trace, as would a significant portion of toys-out-of-the-pram independent TDs.

Podge_irl · 08-07-2020 8:40pm

maestroamado wrote: »

I pretty well agree with what you are saying.
Now we have three main parties.
I did not see any real policies from any of them that were different.

I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic of voting systems?

I would also be curious as to how you define "real policies" as by my definition of it you are pretty incorrect, but nonetheless, I don't see how it is relevant to your point.

GarIT · 08-07-2020 8:41pm

PommieBast wrote: »

I'm starting to think that transfers should be done away with completely and people only allowed to vote for a single party. Without transfers the squabbling rabble of AAA/PBP/RISE would sink without trace, as would a significant portion of toys-out-of-the-pram independent TDs.

I like that almost everone ultimately gets to pick someone to represent them even if it's not their first pick.

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 8:59pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic of voting systems?

I would also be curious as to how you define "real policies" as by my definition of it you are pretty incorrect, but nonetheless, I don't see how it is relevant to your point.

You mentioned policies and i just asked what policies so you entered this to conversation.
The original chat was on voting practices.

The policies are outlined by the parties/reps looking to be elected, why would i define policies for Government.

Just tell me what is incorrect?
What point are you talking about?

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 9:01pm

GarIT wrote: »

I like that almost everone ultimately gets to pick someone to represent them even if it's not their first pick.

I like your style Mr rrr...

maestroamado · 08-07-2020 9:44pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem with FPTP is that a huge proportion of TDs are effectively chosen not by the voters but by a party committee. Depending on how the party is set up, this could be a local party committee, in which case parish pump considerations will loom as large as they ever did, or it could be the party head office, in which case there is no reason to think that candidates committed to serving the entire nation will be chosen; the party chooses candidates to advance the interests of the party, not the country, and the likely result will be the development of factions within the party, in which senior party figures compete to get candidates selected who are loyal to or dependent on them personally, who will support them as the contend for influence within or leadership of the party.

It seems to me that if you want to remove parish pump considerations from national politics, you don't want to tweak the electoral system at all. You want to devolve real power and real control to local government, so that if a citizen wants e.g. to get the roads fixed, they can achieve that much more effectively and much more quickly by approaching their county councillors than they can by approaching their TDs. People will stop electing TDs on the basis that they get the roads fixed if, in fact, it becomes apparent TDs don't have a huge role to play in getting the roads fixed.

We've got a whole professional independent permanent civil service to advise the government and support and inform the policy formation process. Are you just lookign to reinvent the wheel there?

do you want to censor opinion of people??

ancapailldorcha · 08-07-2020 9:51pm

maestroamado wrote: »

So you cannot read??

maestroamado wrote: »

I like your style Mr rrr...

maestroamado wrote: »

do you want to censor opinion of people??

These comments are adding nothing to the thread. Please refrain from posting like this in future.

Peregrinus · 09-07-2020 3:00am

maestroamado wrote: »

do you want to censor opinion of people??

Not at all. Completely the opposite, in fact. My main objection to FPTP is that it reduces choice for voters and therefore narrows the range of views they can express through their votes.

YellowBucket · 09-07-2020 10:13am

I just think it’s very disappointing to see this kind of conspiracy theory being injected to undermine what is one of the better systems in use in any democracy.

Ireland ranks extremely highly in terms of democratic processes. We score a perfect 10 on the mechanics of our democracy on the Democracy Index. We rank 6th in the world, only held back very slightly by a category on functioning of government, which is where I think we should be focused - Dáil reform to allow the house to be more able to work in a highly proportional democracy & enhancement of the systems of local government would be very useful steps forward.

Ireland’s basically as democratic as it gets on planet earth, and with not very much effort and a few minor tweaks to government structures, could quite literally be the most democratic country in the world. It’s already in the top few, and there’s not much between them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

The only significant change I would look for on the electoral system is the establishment of a permanent, independent electoral commission to ensure that it’s maintained, monitored and enhanced to make sure those processes always work transparently, smoothly and are user friendly.

If SF and others want to do something useful, start advocating for real reform of the Oireachtas. This isn’t a winner takes all system and it needs to more fully reflect that in a far more active Dáil.

Throwing toys out of the pram because the numbers didn’t add up for you is being Trump. Don’t be Trump. It’s depressing to watch. As parties you are better than that. It should be beneath you.

Brussels Sprout · 09-07-2020 10:17am

FPTP is such an undemocratic system.

A stark example of this was in the 2015 UK general election with three different parties that competed across Britain:

Lib Dems received 7.9% of the vote and got 1.2% of the seats (8)
UKIP received 12.6% of the vote and got 0.2% of the seats (1)
The Conservatives received 36.8% of the vote and got 50.8% of the seats (330)

The problem for the Lib Dems and especially UKIP, was that they came second in many, many constituencies. However FPTP rewards only the winners in each constituency. In many cases those winners were not even getting majorities of the votes. So you could have a scenario where 60% of the voters in a constituency did not vote for someone who was elected.

One of the beautiful things about our PR-STV system is that even if the person who you gave your #1 preference to is eliminated, your vote can then transfer on to other candidates who are still in the race. This allows people to vote for who they really want to vote for AND also to vote tactically to try and keep out some other candidate. In FPTP you can only do one or the other - and one of those options is often a waste of your vote. This is why the Green Party in the UK, for example, is one of the lowest supported Green parties in western Europe.

Our ancestors had the good sense to reject FPTP twice at the ballot box already and I thank them for it.

L1011 · 09-07-2020 10:44am

Belfast South in 2015 had 75.5% vote for parties other than the winner, and then 69.6% in 2017. In 2019 with less candidates running the winner got an outright majority.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-07-2020 11:53am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

One of the beautiful things about our PR-STV system is that even if the person who you gave your #1 preference to is eliminated, your vote can then transfer on to other candidates who are still in the race. This allows people to vote for who they really want to vote for AND also to vote tactically to try and keep out some other candidate.

What's often overlooked is another benefit of PR-STV - your vote isn't "wasted" if it's a surplus vote for an already elected candidate - your lower preferences are taken into account. If surplus votes are discarded then some votes count for more than others. e.g. let's say quota is 10,000, Ms A gets 20,000 votes so if surpluses are not redistributed then every Ms A supporter effectively got half a vote.

Quin_Dub · 09-07-2020 12:13pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What's often overlooked is another benefit of PR-STV - your vote isn't "wasted" if it's a surplus vote for an already elected candidate - your lower preferences are taken into account. If surplus votes are discarded then some votes count for more than others. e.g. let's say quota is 10,000, Ms A gets 20,000 votes so if surpluses are not redistributed then every Ms A supporter effectively got half a vote.

Exactly - You are voting for ALL the seats in your constituency , not just one.

Ideally your vote should contribute in some way to the filling of each and every seat.

Sam Russell · 09-07-2020 12:24pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - You are voting for ALL the seats in your constituency , not just one.

Ideally your vote should contribute in some way to the filling of each and every seat.

Well, one quota (approx) does not elect anyone, so in that case your vote dies without counting towards any candidate.

The STV system we have is very simple as far as the voter is concerned - put the candidates in the order of your choice - whatever that choice is based on.

Counting is a different matter, and the political parties try to game the system to give it another dimension by vote management, and parachuting candidates into a constituency.

However, there is a wobble - the number of seats is not the same for each constituency - it should be.

Also, the Ceann Comhairle should be voted in as the last act of the Dail dissolution. He then remains as the sole TD until the Dail re-forms. He ceases to be a member of a party, and must resign as a TD should he resign as the Ceann Comhairle. Generally, (s)he will be a long standing TD, with significant experience of the Dail.

Currently, the Ceann Comhairle is automatically returned, which means that if (s)he represents a three seater, then only two candidates are elected there. It would mean that there are only 159 seats contested in 3, 4, 5, seater constituencies.

ArmaniJeanss · 09-07-2020 1:51pm

One theoretical flaw in our system is the situation where a candidate is no-ones first choice but is everyone's second choice - they should logically get a seat. However they will instead be eliminated after the first count (unless someone exceeds the quota in which case they may get enough transfers to survive).
Whilst this is extreme, there have probably been instances where bland candidates have consistently been #4,#5 choice of a big percentage of the electorate but haven't polled enough #1s to survive that far.

A different Formula One type counting system would get around this, e.g, 20 points for your first choice, 15 for your 2nd, 12 for your 3rd etc. Sum it all up and the candidates with the most points get the seats.

This would be incredibly difficult and slow to count manually though, could probably only work with an e-vote system.

PommieBast · 09-07-2020 2:16pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

One theoretical flaw in our system is the situation where a candidate is no-ones first choice but is everyone's second choice - they should logically get a seat. However they will instead be eliminated after the first count (unless someone exceeds the quota in which case they may get enough transfers to survive).
Whilst this is extreme, there have probably been instances where bland candidates have consistently been #4,#5 choice of a big percentage of the electorate but haven't polled enough #1s to survive that far.

There is Condorcet voting which is targeted precisely at this scenario.However I personally think that someone who is unable to attract a decent clutch of first (and higher) preferences should not get elected.

ArmaniJeanss · 09-07-2020 2:56pm

PommieBast wrote: »

There is Condorcet voting which is targeted precisely at this scenario.However I personally think that someone who is unable to attract a decent clutch of first (and higher) preferences should not get elected.

Cheers I had a read up on Condorcet - very interesting and not something I'd been aware of.

I get you what you say about someone who fails to attract a decent clutch of 1s &2s &3s not particularly deserving election, it's a valid viewpoint.

I'm thinking of something like my own Dublin West (and it probably applies to other constituencies). There's very much a rich/poor split in the constituency, so Sinn Fein and the AAA/PBP types campaign almost exclusively on the Mulhuddart/Corduff/Hartstown side and get 2 seats there. Meanwhile FF/FG have perfunctory campaigns in these areas and throw the bulk of their resources into the posher area of Castleknock/Clonsilla and wrap up two seats there.
A candidate who attempts to straddle this divide will likely make little headway into #1 votes but will plausibly be 3rd or 4th choice of the bulk of the constituency. But this won't be enough to be elected.

It was this geographical split which was a big part of the reason the Greens didn't get a seat here in 2016 (although they did the last time).

Sam Russell · 09-07-2020 4:15pm

PommieBast wrote: »

There is Condorcet voting which is targeted precisely at this scenario.However I personally think that someone who is unable to attract a decent clutch of first (and higher) preferences should not get elected.

There is a case for eliminating any candidate (after first round surpluses are distributed) that fails to get 5% of a quota. That would speed counting, and eliminate the several loony no hopers that get a handful of votes each.

YellowBucket · 09-07-2020 4:34pm

I know we had the e-voting fiasco back in the day, but there were some positives to a properly developed e-voting or at least assisted counting system.

The system that was rolled out was just lacking in transparency and reliant on far too many invisible 'black box' processes that you couldn't really audit properly.

If we had a system that used, for example, optically scanned ballots, we could do a lot more to improve the speed and accuracy of the count, while still retaining the transparency of paper ballots and visible count processes. It would just be done a lot more quickly with OCR scanning and sorting. If you wanted to manually count any stage of the process, you still could.

The problem is the system is relatively obscure, so it's always going to be a rather bespoke system.

Probably won't happen though due to the technical challenges and the bad experience of the previous e-voting mess.

Any kind of online system risks security problems, but also not being maintained as we only vote every few years, and you could easily foresee problems where there'd be question marks over IT budgets for voting infrastructure, which could easily end up with obsolete software and huge security risks developing over time.

Should we drop Proportional Representation

Comments