Right to Run.

Kappar

I want to ask people what there views are on amending Art.16 section 1 sub-section 1 of the Irish Constitution to allow people of eighteen years or more to run for election to the Dáil. I think it is quite important for our society to treat all adults with an egalitarian sentiment.

I know some will say that 18 year old are not mature enough to be in the Dáil but even though I disagree with this statement should this judgement not be up to the electorate and allow them to use their franchise how they wish.

Anyway if you agree with me please sign my petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/art16/petition.html this will be submitted to TDs and to other relevant authorities.

Thank you.

DadaKopf

If you're old enough to vote, you're old enough to run for office. I don't think there's any compelling, rational argument to keep it at 21.

If people cared enough and it was brought before the people in a referendum, I doubt it'd have any problem getting passed.

Sparks

The real question is why would you want to get into the Dail? It's not like it's actually providing a useful function anymore.

sceptre

Originally posted by DadaKopf
If you're old enough to run, you're old enough to run for office. I don't think there's any compelling, rational argument to keep it at 21.

Agreed.

simu

I also agree.

Many ppl remain immature all their lives:)

I think alot of young ppl would take an interest in politics if some of the TDs were younger.

I hate the way young ppl in Ireland (i.e. between 18 and 25, say) are treated in a patronizing manner by older ppl, politicians especially.

The minimum age for running for president (35, I think) should also be lowered.

Éomer of Rohan

Like I said when I commented on the petition page, if people are old enough to vote and therefore, by implication, to understand politics then they are old enough to hold the responsibility of public office; in fact is our duty to the ideals of democracy to keep public offices out of the hands of the same bureaucrats, old men and corrupt politicians that regularly occupy them. We should be encouraging young candidates for they are our future and will re-invigorate a stale democracy.

Victor

Oddly, this could create the situation where someone who had never, ever voted, could become a TD (possible, but unlikely at the moment).

Originally posted by DadaKopf
If you're old enough to run, you're old enough to run for office.

I was able to run from about the age of 3 or 4 ....

Typedef

Originally posted by Sparks
The real question is why would you want to get into the Dail? It's not like it's actually providing a useful function anymore.

Because of the priviledge TD's enjoy presumably.

I am aware of one TD, who didn't have a licence for over 20 years, since he could always say to a Garda.

"I'm on Dail business".

Sparks

Sounds about right Typedef. I mean, seriously, what's the point of being elected to the Dail when if you even try to point out that a TD is lying, you get hauled up by an ceann comhairle, and told that you will either retract your statement or be chucked out - irregardless of whether or not the TD actually is lying. It might make for a funny paragraph in the times when Willie O'Dea resorts to saying something is a "terminological inconsistency", but given how much it costs us for every TD to be in there, I expect a more professional service....

Kappar

Thanks for all the responses and Signatures keep 'em coming.

I hopefully plan to run for next election I'll be old enough then though but i still for strongly and suporting rights of yound people in Ireland.

The minimum age for running for president (35, I think) should also be lowered.

Yes, art. 12 section 4 sub-section 1. I would like to see it say eighteen but i can never see someone 18 years old making it but mabey someday.

Éomer of Rohan

The minimum age for running for president (35, I think) should also be lowered

Sure what difference does that make? The President is only a figure head in the republic, no?

Also, what age limits are placed on the prime ministership in the ROI? Are these set by parties who can choose what age a potential leader has to be?

Sparks

I want to ask people what there views are on amending Art.16 section 1 sub-section 1 of the Irish Constitution to allow people of eighteen years or more to run for election to the Dáil. I think it is quite important for our society to treat all adults with an egalitarian sentiment.

You know, I've actually been thinking about this, and the more I think about it, the more annoyed I get with the whole thing.

First off, those two sentences are completely unrelated. The minimum age limit for office being 21 is not a serious problem and it does not endanger the equality before the law of citizens. Stringing those two sentences together is at best ignorant, at worst disingenously manipulative.

Second off, the problem with TDs is not that an 18-year-old can't be a TD, it's that any tom, dick or harry that wins a popularity contest and becomes a TD can get put in charge of public spending without any qualifications whatsoever, academic or otherwise. That might be fine for the local pub quiz team, but this is the bloody country and out tax money we're talking about. I don't want some unqualified person making decisions regarding the economy or the justice system or the health system or foreign policy!

It's bad enough that Ahern never had to answer for faking his degrees, but the fact that the cabinet are appointed without any from of minimum requitements for the job is not just laughable, it's downright scary.

I say get a professionally appointed and publicly peer-reviewed administration in and monitor them by ensuring the right of the public to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue.

Éomer of Rohan

First off, those two sentences are completely unrelated. The minimum age limit for office being 21 is not a serious problem and it does not endanger the equality before the law of citizens. Stringing those two sentences together is at best ignorant, at worst disingenously manipulative

Alright, granted that it does not affect the equality of anyone before the law etc etc but at the same time, why is age a qualification for a governmental post? Many 18 year olds that I know have a better grasp of politics than many middle aged adults that I know - and the lower the age of being able to stand for office, maybe the more young TD's will get in to office and when that happens, maybe we will see some real shift to get the opinions of younger people heard.

It's bad enough that Ahern never had to answer for faking his degrees, but the fact that the cabinet are appointed without any from of minimum requitements for the job is not just laughable, it's downright scary

But this does not take into account the variety and diversity of our people; I may never complete a university degree (hypothetically speaking) but to be honest, I feel able to match anything Bertie or Tony can do because I am an intelligent person and I don't need some stupid test to tell me that; relate this to yourselves and tell me whether or not you agree. THAT is why there are no minimum requirements for the job - and obviously it would make sense to put a soldier in charge of the MOD, a diplomat in charge of the Foreign Office, an economist in charge of the equivalent of the Exchequer but it doesn't work like that because these people have pre-formulated ideas most of the time whereas a political appointee can utilise many sources to come up with objective policy.

Just as a by-the-by, do you agree with the IR£300 (I think that is it) sum that all candidates have to pay in order to stand in an election?

sceptre

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Just as a by-the-by, do you agree with the IR£300 (I think that is it) sum that all candidates have to pay in order to stand in an election?

Gone IIRC. Unconstitutional, unreasonable barrier to candidacy and all that.

Éomer of Rohan

Gone IIRC. Unconstitutional, unreasonable barrier to candidacy and all that.

Now that is strange; I was looking up www.irlgov.ie and it says that that still remains but obviously they haven't updated it in ages then.

Sparks

why is age a qualification for a governmental post?

It's not the age that the rule is there to enforce, it's a half-assed way of trying to ensure that the person is psychologically stable (ie., no teenage angst, no testosterone poisoning, etc, etc.). Ought to be replaced with a proper psychological work-up IMHO.

maybe we will see some real shift to get the opinions of younger people heard.

The problem isn't that "young people" aren't heard - the problem is that the voices heard are normally those representing vested interests.

But this does not take into account the variety and diversity of our people;

Yes it does. Variety and diversity do not have anything to do with competency - so a competency test doesn't affect the bias of the selection.

I may never complete a university degree (hypothetically speaking) but to be honest, I feel able to match anything Bertie or Tony can do because I am an intelligent person and I don't need some stupid test to tell me that

Firstly, for some jobs a degree of training is required as a necessity.
Secondly, we don't want someone that can do better than Ahern or Blair. We want someone that can do better than a relevant benchmark.

relate this to yourselves and tell me whether or not you agree. THAT is why there are no minimum requirements for the job

Yes, but recall that that rule was written when our educational system was so poor that literacy was a problem. Today we're a bit further on, and frankly most people wouldn't apply for a job they weren't qualified for. Can you see someone applying for the post of CEO without an MBA? And yet you can get responsibility for spending an equivalent amount of public money without any kind of qualification?
No thanks, I'd rather burn my own money!

- and obviously it would make sense to put a soldier in charge of the MOD, a diplomat in charge of the Foreign Office, an economist in charge of the equivalent of the Exchequer but it doesn't work like that because these people have pre-formulated ideas most of the time whereas a political appointee can utilise many sources to come up with objective policy.

Apart from the fact that not all of that makes obvious sense (a soldier in chager of the MOD would be illegal, wouldn't it?), there's the fact that a total lay idiot couldn't run a government office without some training in that office's business - and whomever trains them has a vested interest to train them in a mindset that favours the status quo.
So make it a requirement to have been trained already and you have more of a chance of the minister having a valid independent opinion.

(Mind you, I still think that direct democracy is a better idea, but if you're going to do the representative method, at least it should be done right!)

Éomer of Rohan

Ought to be replaced with a proper psychological work-up IMHO.

But then who decides where the bar for 'A OK' and 'flunk' is to be set for this psychological work up? And can they not be influenced by political opinions and so on?

The problem isn't that "young people" aren't heard - the problem is that the voices heard are normally those representing vested interests.

Agreed BUT at the same time, young people, who by definition are not part of the 'vested interests' group have to be heard as well - and even where the voices of vested interests silent, it is hard enough to be taken as credible by an adult, trust me on that.

Yes it does. Variety and diversity do not have anything to do with competency - so a competency test doesn't affect the bias of the selection

No, you made the point regarding Bertie and his fake 'degree' - and I am making the point that people should not be required to have a degree in anything before they could become Prime Minister or whatever. A competency test is altogether a different ball game; who is to set the grade for that particular test - if it is to be based on knowledge of political and world affairs, literacy, numeracy and basic things like that then fair enough but otherwise, we're into descrimination again.

Firstly, for some jobs a degree of training is required as a necessity.
Secondly, we don't want someone that can do better than Ahern or Blair. We want someone that can do better than a relevant benchmark.

As to the first part of that, what sort of training can you go through that will prepare you for being Prime Minister that Prime Ministers don't get when elected, given to them by the civil service. Diplomatics and all are taught to them when elected. The second part is irrelevent.

Yes, but recall that that rule was written when our educational system was so poor that literacy was a problem. Today we're a bit further on, and frankly most people wouldn't apply for a job they weren't qualified for. Can you see someone applying for the post of CEO without an MBA? And yet you can get responsibility for spending an equivalent amount of public money without any kind of qualification?

So what you are saying here is that someone with a degree is better qualified for political leadership and the leadership of the country than someone without? I think that is crap; especially given, as I pointed out, that people can be very intelligent and simply not interested in university or can have other qualities than simply book learning or whatever; character, charisma, principles and so on are just as important.

there's the fact that a total lay idiot couldn't run a government office without some training in that office's business - and whomever trains them has a vested interest to train them in a mindset that favours the status quo.
So make it a requirement to have been trained already and you have more of a chance of the minister having a valid independent opinion

I'd say in certain posts you could have members of boards.ie who would be qualified to deal with certain aspects of government; foreign affairs, ministry of the interior, things like that simply because they have knowledge of the affairs to be dealt with; it is the responsibility of the civil service to provide legal advice and to see that things happen, which is why they don't change from admin. to admin. The only requirement that should be placed on holding a ministerial position is that they have knowledge of the relevent issues of the day.

mike65

I'd raise the voting age to 25 and would'nt trust an 18 year old
to tell me time never mind legistate for my future...you are familair
with student union politics?

Mike.

Sparks

But then who decides where the bar for 'A OK' and 'flunk' is to be set for this psychological work up? And can they not be influenced by political opinions and so on?

There are clinical definitions. How else would psychiatrists be able to do their job?

Agreed BUT at the same time, young people, who by definition are not part of the 'vested interests' group have to be heard as well - and even where the voices of vested interests silent, it is hard enough to be taken as credible by an adult, trust me on that.

Maybe, but dealing with the bigger problem first is the usual problem-solving method...

No, you made the point regarding Bertie and his fake 'degree' - and I am making the point that people should not be required to have a degree in anything before they could become Prime Minister or whatever. A competency test is altogether a different ball game; who is to set the grade for that particular test - if it is to be based on knowledge of political and world affairs, literacy, numeracy and basic things like that then fair enough but otherwise, we're into descrimination again.

Competency in one are is not competency in another. Therefore you'd have different tests for different posts. Want to be Minister for Finanace? You'll need to demonstrate solid understanding of economics. Minister for Health? You need to understand medical administration. Minister for Defence? You need to be familiar with the structure of the army, how it works, what it requires in terms of funding and so on. Minister for Sport? You need to have an understanding of sport - and I don't mean when Kerry's next match is coming up, but how you go about running an arbitary sport club, how coaching is set up and run, what sport does for a nation overall and how that translates to core principles to be promoted (this is the inclusion vs. excellence debate).
And so on, and so forth....

As to the first part of that, what sort of training can you go through that will prepare you for being Prime Minister that Prime Ministers don't get when elected, given to them by the civil service. Diplomatics and all are taught to them when elected.

So we elect someone to office with no experience in the affairs he must then oversee....
Tell me Dave, does that not sound familiar to you?
Yup, that's right, it's the way that US presidents are elected. And the end result is that sometimes you get someone that's travelled and literate and reasonably intelligent and he does an acceptable job - and sometimes you get Dubya.

The second part is irrelevent.

No it wasn't. The point was that if you set your benchmark at the level of Ahern, you're saying that the metric is how well can you avoid making a decision and avoid blame. That's not the right metric, obviously...

So what you are saying here is that someone with a degree is better qualified for political leadership and the leadership of the country than someone without?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that someone with a background in economics is going to make a better finance minister. Likewise for other posts. These aren't meant to be vocations, recall, they're jobs.

character, charisma, principles and so on are just as important.

The first two make for an interesting person - not a good minister. They've got nothing to do with professionalism. Take a look at Hans Blix to see what I mean.
As to principles, you'll have to excuse me if I would prefer those principles to be enshrined in law rather then be reliant on human judgement.

I'd say in certain posts you could have members of boards.ie who would be qualified to deal with certain aspects of government; foreign affairs, ministry of the interior, things like that simply because they have knowledge of the affairs to be dealt with;

I dunno. There are certainly people here with sufficent experience and judgement to have an opinion on a topic that could be trusted for formulating public policy, but I've yet to see anyone here with sufficent expertise in a wide enough range of areas to handle ministerial posts in finance or foreign affairs or whatever at a level that those posts should be handled at. They'd do as good a job as those currently in charge, to be sure, but that's like having a human rights record that's better than Saddam Hussein...

it is the responsibility of the civil service to provide legal advice and to see that things happen, which is why they don't change from admin. to admin. The only requirement that should be placed on holding a ministerial position is that they have knowledge of the relevent issues of the day.

And sufficent experience and mental stability to make the correct choice...

DadaKopf

Sparks: blah blah. Even if an 18 year old ran, it's unlikely he/she would be successfully elected because society recognises life experience as a vital qualification. That's not so much a prejudice as it is a reality, which most people recognise. I expect our Constitution to be consistent and if we have a universal franchise, we have a universal franchise across sex and across age.

Then there's the argument: it's possible that someone could be elected into office who never voted. See above. Why is that bad? Is voting some rite of passage into adult political life? No, it's a duty, as is becoming a public servant. What might be the implications of this change? Change in party structure? Not a bad thing. More unaligned representatives? Not a bad thing. Increased voter volatility? Not a bad thing in the short term - which is what it would be. Politics might even become 'sexy' again. Certainly not a bad thing.

Victor

How about a test like this:

• Name the 32 counties.
• Name the members of the EU (15 + 10).
• What is the difference between a Bill and an Act?
• Name the government departments.
• How much is a litre of milk and a loaf of bread (most TDs couldn't answer this at the last election)?
• Name the constitutional officers (a little tricky).
• Name X number of senior international politicians.
• What are the main types of tax?
• How much is child benefit
• ... and so on.

And let the electorate judge, based on a marked scorecard.

Separately, have all politician undergo obligatory politics training in their first year in the Dáil (no exam).

Kappar

I'd raise the voting age to 25 and would'nt trust an 18 year old

Then don't vote for them.

Spark, I disagree with most of your veiws as I think they are anti-democratic, I am totaly in favour of deomcracy. I do agree with getting this right that you metioned "ensuring the right of the public to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue." I think that is fair but should we only allow people with a degree or intellegient people to vote in them and should we go further to only allow people with degrees and clever people to vote full stop.

Have all politician undergo obligatory politics training in their first year in the Dáil (no exam).

That's a good idea as long it's done fairly and not try to force any type of political ideas on them just explain how everything works etc.

mike65

Originally posted by Victor
How about a test like this:

• Name the 32 counties.
  

Why? Wont 26 do just fine?

Mike.

Sparks

mike65,
Nope, has to be all 32. Foreign affairs and all that

Kappar,

Spark, I disagree with most of your veiws as I think they are anti-democratic, I am totaly in favour of deomcracy.

But what kind of democracy? We live in a representative democracy, which a quick archive search will show you, I personally see as a very, very bad idea. Direct democracy, which I prefer, still requires an administration and an executive, and since the populus has greater control over the government, it makes more sense to restrict entry into either body according to competency.

I do agree with getting this right that you metioned "ensuring the right of the public to call for a binding referendum on a topical issue." I think that is fair but should we only allow people with a degree or intellegient people to vote in them and should we go further to only allow people with degrees and clever people to vote full stop.

And you're in favour of democracy? I don't mind the idea of restricting the right to vote to those that complete a basic education - but before implementing it there are several conditions:
1) That basic education must be completely and utterly free of charges to those going through it, and their guardians.
2) That basic education must contain courses in history, civics, politics, philosophy and ethics. In other words, it's not just to be an academic education, but must contain educational courses which are required to allow someone to make an evaluated choice on matters of public policy in full recognition of the consequences of that choice.

That's a good idea as long it's done fairly and not try to force any type of political ideas on them just explain how everything works etc.

Which won't happen if it's done by the Civil Service - which is how it's done now.

Originally posted by Sparks
Direct democracy, which I prefer, still requires an administration and an executive, and since the populus has greater control over the government, it makes more sense to restrict entry into either body according to competency.

But you'd have to get the great unwashed, including the un intelligent and incompetant to agree to that in a referendum first, a very unlikely prospect;)
mm

Sparks

But you'd have to get the great unwashed, including the un intelligent and incompetant to agree to that in a referendum first, a very unlikely prospect

Man,
So you're saying that the public would object to restricting the post of Minister of Finance to those that have economic qualifications, despite the fact that that person would have control over the country's economy?
I think you'll find that most people are somewhat more pragmatic. After all, it's not exactly impossible to get economic qualifications; and you'll find that in jobs where the job affects other people's lives (medicine is the first example that springs to mind), that they're not very tolerant of incompetency. So long as the qualification standard is reasonably attainable (ie. a BA in economics as opposed to the nobel prize in economics ), I would think that it would be passed. The key is being specific about the standards required and ensuring that those that want to get those qualifications have the opportunity to get them.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
The key is being specific about the standards required and ensuring that those that want to get those qualifications have the opportunity to get them.

Yerrah, not at all,the key is to get the ordinary,uneducated joe Soaps to vote yes for what you propose without giving them an inferiority complex.
Thats what is the very unlikely prospect.
Of course, qualified people should be doing the job of government.
Now what degree has Bertie again...?? He's not bad at his job and can't even drive.
mm

Sparks

Now what degree has Bertie again...??

None. He claimed to have a BA from UCD and qualifications from the LSE - and both schools have stated that he never attended, let alone graduated.

He's not bad at his job

That's a highly debatable point. In fact, it's a highly debated point!

and can't even drive.

He can, he just doesn't have a current licence.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
So you're saying that the public would object to restricting the post of Minister of Finance to those that have economic qualifications, despite the fact that that person would have control over the country's economy?

I would object (and not just cause I like playing Devil's Advocate).

Ministers are not elected, they are appointed from the elected TDs, yes? So, to restrict the post is not only saying "you must have X qualifications to do this job", but also that we don't trust our elected officials to be able to select appropriate people for the job from within their own ranks.

If you don't trust them to do this, then requiring the qualification is a waste of time. They can still

I know people with IT degrees who shouldn't be let near anything more computerised than a SpeakNSpell. I know people with various different degrees who basically are incapable of realising that the world doesnt owe them a living, and that "doing your job" is not the same as being employed from 9 to 5 (with work costing extra).

Why would economics qualifications be any different?

In truth, I don't believe they would be. Therefore, for me, it still boils down to either trusting the TDs to appoint someone they believe can do the job well, or not trusting them and expecting the job to be handed out as a nice little reward for some toady or bootlicker, or traded as part of some deal or whatever....

If its the former, I believe qualifications are irrelevant. If its the latter....I believe qualifications are irrelevant.

(Also remember that the Minister of Finance only needs to be able to listen to his advisors and manage the whole scene. He doesn't have to actually think up everything on his own.)

Back on topic.....I fully support the idea of allowing 18-yr olds to run. I agree - if you're old enough to elect, you're old enough to be elected.

The worst thing it could do is lead to an upsurge in youh voting, and lead to a new "force" in politics.

As for any comlpaints about these people not understanding the full implications, or this that and the other.......its the same thing as before....either you trust the electorate to make smart choices, or you dont. If you do, then age isnt a problem. If you dont, then age isnt the issue at all.

There's enough clowns in the Dail in any given government. I dont see how giving the 18-25s a chance to get in there could do anything worse than change the clown's faces.

jc

Sparks

Ministers are not elected, they are appointed from the elected TDs, yes?

Bonkey, we're effectively playing at "what-if" here, given the incredible amount that would have to be changed to accomodate these ideas. So I wouldn't take this as being a single change to be made to the current government - but as a possible alternative structure. Currently, the TDs choose who handles what Ministry. I'm proposing that that system be done away with alltogether and professionally qualified people be appointed to the job by direct election. Got an economics degree and want the job? Apply for it. Come election time, your resume is voted on.

but also that we don't trust our elected officials to be able to select appropriate people for the job from within their own ranks.

Apart from the fact that I regard unmitigated trust in politicians as being on a par with being a small tasty flightless bird with no natural enemies on an island suddenly discovered by hungry sailors; there is the fact that they must select from a small pool of candidates and as such may not have a good choice available. To use an engineering analogy, the filter is in the wrong place. We filter the population by popularity first and competence second - it should be the other way round...

Why would economics qualifications be any different?

That's confusing the problem with 3rd level IT courses (take it from me, those problems are directly related to the nature of the subject, which is one of the youngest branches of systems science and as such has very little in the way of a body of methodology, in comparison to other areas of science and engineering. Economics is an older discipline and the general standard of their graduates, w.r.t. competency in economics, is somewhat higher) with the problem of determining competency for a post.

expecting the job to be handed out as a nice little reward for some toady or bootlicker, or traded as part of some deal or whatever

Which does happen and which is why the system has to be changed. Or is everyone okay with paying for the current circus we have?

Also remember that the Minister of Finance only needs to be able to listen to his advisors and manage the whole scene. He doesn't have to actually think up everything on his own.

Firstly, to say he can even listen to his advisors without either having training or completely abdicating the office of Minister of Finance to his advisors is a bit silly. Secondly, in order to make a choice on a policy issue (which is pretty much the core process of preparing a budget), he needs to understand the situation, which requires training.

I fully support the idea of allowing 18-yr olds to run. I agree - if you're old enough to elect, you're old enough to be elected.

I've got no real problem with a qualified 18-year-old running. But for me, the qualification matters more than the age. So if we got some prodigy with a PhD in economics at age 18 running, I'd vote for him over McCreevy in a heartbeat.

The worst thing it could do is lead to an upsurge in youh voting, and lead to a new "force" in politics.

No, the worst that could happen is that we could get a group of male 18-year-olds in Dail Eireann. 18-year-old girls are, in general, reasonably stable mentally. 18-year-old males are in general, choking on testosterone and would pretty much end up as the new Sinn Fein in Dail Eireann (ie. the party everyone else takes great pains to annoy and score points off). Of course, we might get the few who have managed (or been force by circumstance) to mature faster than average. But we were talking worst-case scenarios here...

There's enough clowns in the Dail in any given government. I dont see how giving the 18-25s a chance to get in there could do anything worse than change the clown's faces.

Perhaps because what we need is to get rid of the circus, not get new clowns...

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Bonkey, we're effectively playing at "what-if" here, given the incredible amount that would have to be changed to accomodate these ideas. So I wouldn't take this as being a single change to be made to the current government - but as a possible alternative structure. Currently, the TDs choose who handles what Ministry. I'm proposing that that system be done away with alltogether and professionally qualified people be appointed to the job by direct election. Got an economics degree and want the job? Apply for it. Come election time, your resume is voted on.

Fair points but 'what if' of these X number of ministers who get elected for there competences in their particular fields, have vastly differing political views. Who sits at the cabinet table to stop a war breaking out? Who decides what budgets get allocated to what departments (and don't say the minister for finance, because he'll possibly have people with similar ideas to him in the cabinet).

Or are you suggesting that all the polital parties give up on their individual candidates in constituencies and that everyone votes for a government based on the potential cabinets put forward by the various parties?