Right to Run.

Sparks

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?

I don't see how that differs from the current situation!

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).

Well, how is it done now? A group of people who are competing for leadership of the party slug it out, each trying to get the most pork for their constituency and department, and the end result is almost never optimal. I fail to see how that procedure is made worse by each of the participants being qualified professionals.

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?

No, I'm proposing that each ministerial post is put to a vote, preferably staggered over a month or three. Why not do it that way? We're stuck with them for four years, why not have a week of televised analysis and debate on the merits of each candidate, see what the views of the shortlist are (the shortlist being chosen according to competency, selected some time ahead and with an appeals process), and then have the election over the weekend. Do that every week or fortnight for one ministerial post.
Frankly, I don't see the point in political parties when no human I've ever met has a single political stance for every issue. So why not allow for the choice of different people with different politics for different areas of political responsibility?

Besides which, none of this impacts on regional representation. There is, after all, no reason why the executive should not have a house of representative and a cabinet that are seperate. What would be lost?

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Frankly, I don't see the point in political parties when no human I've ever met has a single political stance for every issue. So why not allow for the choice of different people with different politics for different areas of political responsibility?

Yes politicians within parties have differences in their views but the party system means that someone can step in if there is a dissagreemant and say 'this is the way it's going to be'. How do you propose this happens with what you're suggesting?

It sounds like a better idea than what's there at present but to be turned into a practical solution, there has to be some mechanism for resolving the differences in views that will arise.

Originally posted by Sparks
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.

Yeap and despite that, to give him his due,he's up there with , Europes leaders as having done a comparably good job.I'd also profer that you will find many business people, who are doing exceptionally well in their field with nothing other than the leaving cert or less in some cases.
Regardless of the merits of your plan, how do you propose, telling them, they are not eligible for office, without insulting their inteligence?
You would automatically be creating a second class citizen there, because while not all of these people would be capable of doing a ministerial job, some would.
And indeed it's possible that , there are many housewives out there, who'd be good at it also, more so than a college graduate.
That applies also obviously to 18 year olds, who wouldn't have went to college, the ellectorate ultimately choose whether they are fit or not for office.

Incidently, I believe, Bertie never passed a driving test, or ever held a full licence, I'm not sure whether he has ever drove on a provisional, he only told the Dáil that he did not have a full licence.

Sparks

Imposter,

Yes politicians within parties have differences in their views but the party system means that someone can step in if there is a dissagreemant and say 'this is the way it's going to be'. How do you propose this happens with what you're suggesting?

Hang on a minute - that sounds suspiciously like you would advocate a dictatorship.

It sounds like a better idea than what's there at present but to be turned into a practical solution, there has to be some mechanism for resolving the differences in views that will arise.

The same mechanism that's used for every single company in the western world with good results should suffice, no? Debate, comprimise, voting and consensus.

Man,

Yeap and despite that, to give him his due,he's up there with , Europes leaders as having done a comparably good job.

As I've already said, that's both highly debatable and highly debated. Personally, I find the idea of Ahern being the public face of Irish politics to be rather disturbing, given that his brand of expertise is personified more by Jackie Healy Rae than by Kofi Annan...

I'd also profer that you will find many business people, who are doing exceptionally well in their field with nothing other than the leaving cert or less in some cases.

I'd point out that the private sector has a far more darwinian system of natural selection going on than the public sector. Those with talent succeed, those without don't. And I don't think you'll find too many people running large successful businesses without qualifications past the LC, not compared to those running businesses with MBAs and the like.

Regardless of the merits of your plan, how do you propose, telling them, they are not eligible for office, without insulting their inteligence?

Hmmm. Roughly the same way that I'd tell someone without qualifications that they weren't eligible to carry out brain surgery, or drive a car. It's not about intelligence per se, it's about knowlege, training and experience.

You would automatically be creating a second class citizen there, because while not all of these people would be capable of doing a ministerial job, some would.

That's simply incorrect, not because there wouldn't be people capable of doing the job but without the qualifications - but because that problem now exists in that we have people who'd be able to do the job easily now but who don't have the connections or the funding to get elected. A proposed system can hardly be blamed for creating a problem that already exists...

Incidently, I believe, Bertie never passed a driving test, or ever held a full licence, I'm not sure whether he has ever drove on a provisional, he only told the Dáil that he did not have a full licence.

Which doesn't contradict what I said...

PHB

I heard this idea once at a debate but I thought i'd lash it down here despite personal quams with it

People would have to pass a simple test to be allowed vote.


For example, in the last abortion referendum :

What will happen if you vote yes?
What will happen if you vote no?

--

The plus side to this is that people would actually understand what they are voting on, and would be giving their opinions.
It would stop slightly the whole, "I've seen 72 yes posters but 200 no posters so i'm gona vote no"

Then again I think its un-democratic

Sparks

PHB, how can a basic and fair competency test be undemocratic when we don't allow people to vote for other reasons (such as being out of the country, being committed to mental health institutions, and so on.
Besides which, we're talking about different things - I'm talking about a competency test for the elected offical, you're talking about a competency test for the electorate...

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
Hang on a minute - that sounds suspiciously like you would advocate a dictatorship.

Not at all. What i'm saying is that it's resolved like you mentioned here

Debate, comprimise, voting and consensus.

But in my opinion reaching this concensus with a cabinet that is drawn from very different political beliefs and as a result of the way the system is structured, this cabinet do not have to show a unified face in public. This IMO would probably lead to a constant state of dissagreement and abuses of the positions worse than what's there at the moment. After all most of the people that would apply for such a role would do so for some outside interest rather than trying to help their country or whatever reason can be given for it. If they didn't and they were so good they'd be in the private sector!

Sparks

But in my opinion reaching this concensus with a cabinet that is drawn from very different political beliefs and as a result of the way the system is structured, this cabinet do not have to show a unified face in public. This IMO would probably lead to a constant state of dissagreement and abuses of the positions worse than what's there at the moment.

How, specifically?

After all most of the people that would apply for such a role would do so for some outside interest rather than trying to help their country or whatever reason can be given for it. If they didn't and they were so good they'd be in the private sector!

But that's precisely the same situation that we're in at the moment with our current politicians.

Imposter

Originally posted by Sparks
How, specifically?

For example hiding behind your funding allocation as a reason why you can't do your job properly (as happens now), voting with like minded individuals (in cases of dispute) on issues you really don't understand (not being qualified and all). And what about any warped/corrupt/other ideas you bring from your training/qualification and/or previous experience of working in your area of expertise. Surely just because someone is 'qualified' to do a job doesn't mean they won't abuse it and sometimes those that are qualified find it easier to abuse the system than those who aren't as familiar with it.

But that's precisely the same situation that we're in at the moment with our current politicians.

So you want to replace incompetents with just more qualified incompetents?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
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.

Voted on by whom? Other economically-educated people? After all, if I dont have an economics education, how am I qualified to choose someone to lead me based on his/her qualifications?

That also begs the question about the other positions. Can we identify qualifications for all of them?

And the Taoiseach...what would his qualifications have to be? He's responsible for everything...so he must need multiple degrees. Or does the highest job somehow not have the highest entry requirements?

I'd point out that the private sector has a far more darwinian system of natural selection going on than the public sector. Those with talent succeed, those without don't.

I would also point out that the private sector is generally far less considerate of the people as a result of being more considerate of the bottom line. One of the biggest criticisms of the IMF, for example, is that it is a pseudo-political financial body run by people who have come directly from the world of high finance, and who will return there once finished. The term "conflict of interest" springs to mind.

No, I'm proposing that each ministerial post is put to a vote, preferably staggered over a month or three. Why not do it that way? We're stuck with them for four years, why not have a week of televised analysis and debate on the merits of each candidate, see what the views of the shortlist are (the shortlist being chosen according to competency, selected some time ahead and with an appeals process), and then have the election over the weekend. Do that every week or fortnight for one ministerial post.

Given the levels of voter apathy when it comes to turning up for one vote, once every N years, just how likely is it that people are interested in comitting this amount of time?

The system we have is a compromise. Its failings become increasingly evident when the public dont care enough to make the system work. Too many of us elect based on who mummy and daddy voted for...or we choose a party for some reason. Forget checking out the candidates...seeing what they really believe in....expecting more than a handshake and more empty promises".

If we wanted our existing system to work better, it would. Its as simple as that. Any "what-if" alternative strikes me as automatically assuming that the public will be willing to go the extra mile to do things right. But if we had that drive with the existant system, wouldnt we be just as well off?

The system is not what made our current elections a popularity contest. We, the voters did. What is needed is not a change in the system, but rather in voter mindset.

jc

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

As I've already said, that's both highly debatable and highly debated. Personally, I find the idea of Ahern being the public face of Irish politics to be rather disturbing, given that his brand of expertise is personified more by Jackie Healy Rae than by Kofi Annan...

straight away , you are demeaning the viewpoints ( it's not that they didn't have plent of choice) of those that voted for Jackie Healy Rae...,( and Bertie for that matter )I rest my case regarding creating a second class of citizen.

And I don't think you'll find too many people running large successful businesses without qualifications past the LC, not compared to those running businesses with MBAs and the like.

I know plenty, theres at least two in my neighbourhood, one of whom is now 64, a millionaire and left school at 12.
He's been running the same business since his mid 20's and was as clever back then as now.

Hmmm. Roughly the same way that I'd tell someone without qualifications that they weren't eligible to carry out brain surgery, or drive a car. It's not about intelligence per se, it's about knowlege, training and experience.

How can you equate Brain surgery with , the running of a government, thats a specific skill, you can be born with the inteligence to learn about it, but you cannot do it unless you learn.
That doesn't apply in the same way to management skills, youdo not need a college education to have or apply management skills, it's something you either have or you haven't.
My millionaire friend has plenty management skills and , got a very basic education, but he had drive and determination, a very important qualification, and one you don't learn, you are born with it.

A proposed system can hardly be blamed for creating a problem that already exists...

But it can be critisised for advocating an exclusive entry to a job,not too dis-similar to what you give out about when you say

that problem now exists in that we have people who'd be able to do the job easily now but who don't have the connections or the funding to get elected.

We'd have people, who are 24 years of age now, with no academic qualifications, who would have it in themselves to be wealthy business people and yet be excluded from political office, because, the fruits of their drive and ambition haven't been proven yet.
mm

Sparks

Man,

straight away , you are demeaning the viewpoints ( it's not that they didn't have plent of choice) of those that voted for Jackie Healy Rae...

No. I think it's an incorrect choice to select a man whose personal standards are xenophobic, racist and corrupt. (I'm referring to specific incidents that I know of relating to JHR, but the corruption one is a matter of public record - his son received over 60% of Kerry's county contracts during JHR's term of office, despite not having the best record or the best bids). But there's a difference between disagreeing with a choice and demeaning the person that made that choice, and I'm not trying to do the latter.

I know plenty, theres at least two in my neighbourhood, one of whom is now 64, a millionaire and left school at 12.
He's been running the same business since his mid 20's and was as clever back then as now.

Man, that's two versus thousands. I said not many compared to those with qualifications.

How can you equate Brain surgery with , the running of a government,

I'm not suggesting that they are equivalent, I just picked the first example of a skilled job that came to mind.

thats a specific skill, you can be born with the inteligence to learn about it, but you cannot do it unless you learn.
That doesn't apply in the same way to management skills, youdo not need a college education to have or apply management skills, it's something you either have or you haven't.

Which is probably why Ahern has done as well as he has : but economics is not the same skillset.

drive and determination, a very important qualification, and one you don't learn, you are born with it.

Actually, I'd dispute that, but it's not really relevant.

We'd have people, who are 24 years of age now, with no academic qualifications, who would have it in themselves to be wealthy business people and yet be excluded from political office, because, the fruits of their drive and ambition haven't been proven yet.

No, no, no!. *sigh*
I said put a competency test in place for Ministerial posts. I thought that was clear from all the "Minister for this" and "Minister for that" discussion?
If you're 24 and haven't proven you can do the job yet, well, firstly there's time yet to do so, and secondly, you can still run to be a regional representative.

Bonkey,

Voted on by whom? Other economically-educated people?

Hmmm. Peer-review? No, maybe not... though it's tempting...

After all, if I dont have an economics education, how am I qualified to choose someone to lead me based on his/her qualifications?

Hence the TV analysis and debate. Plus, resume's would have to be checked. You could have peer review right there - let anyone apply in the year leading up to election, then freeze it a few months in advance, use peer review to pick the top N candidates and then hold the election based on that.

That also begs the question about the other positions. Can we identify qualifications for all of them?

Possibly not, but basic qualifications should still apply, even if it's only reading/writing/ethics/civics/etc. I'm not yet sure of what Ministerial post wouldn't have a readily identifable qualification though (apart from a Mandelson-type post).

And the Taoiseach...what would his qualifications have to be? He's responsible for everything...so he must need multiple degrees. Or does the highest job somehow not have the highest entry requirements?

Only makes sense that it should. Multiple degrees might not be needed though, just one with other courses in specific topics. Law would obviously need to be covered, as would political science, management, history, ethics, and so on, but there would be more of an emphasis on general qualifications - the Taoiseach should be a generalist after all.

I would also point out that the private sector is generally far less considerate of the people as a result of being more considerate of the bottom line.

Indeed, but the bad points of a system aren't generally a reason to avoid taking the better elements of that system as a template.

Given the levels of voter apathy when it comes to turning up for one vote, once every N years, just how likely is it that people are interested in comitting this amount of time?

Voter apathy is something I have an unanswered question about. Are people apathetic because they are - or are they apathetic because they feel their vote is relatively toothless? After all, at present we get to elect one person from a short list every five years, usually from a very short list of parties. We have no mechanism to ensure that they comply with campaign promises, and no mechanism to put one in place. We have no influence over decisions made by those in power, and now we've even seen binding referenda made a mockery of over the Nice treaty.

The system we have is a compromise. Its failings become increasingly evident when the public dont care enough to make the system work.

Ah, but there's the vicious circle. Much of the public doesn't vote because the system is seen not to work!

Forget checking out the candidates...seeing what they really believe in

But given the party system, there's no point in voting for an individual candidate - after all you've no way of knowing if that candidate will even become a Minister!

If we wanted our existing system to work better, it would. Its as simple as that.

I'm not sure about that jc, it strikes me that there are a lot of vested interests in the status quo.

Any "what-if" alternative strikes me as automatically assuming that the public will be willing to go the extra mile to do things right. But if we had that drive with the existant system, wouldnt we be just as well off?

Well, no. And that's the point.
We've mentioned the publically-called referenda idea before, for an example. It would solve some problems, it has a lot of potential - but people don't know how to bring it about (there is in fact no mechanism to do so, short of the government abdicating some power to the electorate outside of election season), so noone bothers. No drive - but that doesn't mean that the idea is unsound...

The system is not what made our current elections a popularity contest.

On the contrary, that's what the current system promotes.

What is needed is not a change in the system, but rather in voter mindset.

I won't argue that point, it'd be a foolish stance to take!
I just happen to think that voter apathy is tightly linked to perceived vote worth.

Imposter,
For example hiding behind your funding allocation as a reason why you can't do your job properly (as happens now), voting with like minded individuals (in cases of dispute) on issues you really don't understand (not being qualified and all). And what about any warped/corrupt/other ideas you bring from your training/qualification and/or previous experience of working in your area of expertise.[/quote]
But all these problems exist right now - and my idea gives the advantage of an assurance of a highly qualified cabinet. So if the worst is no better and the best is a step up....

So you want to replace incompetents with just more qualified incompetents?

"Qualified incompetent" is an oxymoron, which is the whole point of the idea.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

No. I think it's an incorrect choice to select a man whose personal standards are xenophobic, racist and corrupt. (I'm referring to specific incidents that I know of relating to JHR, but the corruption one is a matter of public record - his son received over 60% of Kerry's county contracts during JHR's term of office, despite not having the best record or the best bids). But there's a difference between disagreeing with a choice and demeaning the person that made that choice, and I'm not trying to do the latter.

I won't comment on what you've said about JHR, but his voters are the people whose opinions count, and they are the people, who look up to him and consistantly return him to office, because of what he does for them.
They are the same people who are very unlikely to vote yes in a referendum for what you are proposing.

Man, that's two versus thousands. I said not many compared to those with qualifications.

I can say with confidence, that there are thousands of people in this country,running business's very well without academic qualifications.

I'm not suggesting that they are equivalent, I just picked the first example of a skilled job that came to mind.

The first example that you took , just happened to be a job that definitely needs specific training alongside the drive and natural talent to do the job, which isn't always the case for a good manager who can delegate.
Regarding Drive and determination being a suffecient qualification to do a particular job, you say:

Actually, I'd dispute that, but it's not really relevant.

That again is very condesending towards those (and there are many) who achieve anything in Business without an Academic qualification.
And it is relevant, as arguably Bertie must have had lots of it to get to his current position.
It would be an essential ingredient( in the context of the subject of this thread ), for an 18 year old to suceed in office.
But life tells me, that at 18 or rather 21,very few would have the experience and wisdom to go immediately as far as someone ten or twenty years older.
Theres no need to impose a competency test for that to happen, it already does.

I said put a competency test in place for Ministerial posts. I thought that was clear from all the "Minister for this" and "Minister for that" discussion?
If you're 24 and haven't proven you can do the job yet, well, firstly there's time yet to do so, and secondly, you can still run to be a regional representative.

Yet that would still have to get over the hurdle of giving, the masses an inferiority complex.
Thats the perception JHR's voters already have if they are reading this, and why I think, the prospects of such a system getting voted in, by the electorate would be a very unlikely prospect.
mm

Sparks

Man,

I won't comment on what you've said about JHR, but his voters are the people whose opinions count, and they are the people, who look up to him and consistantly return him to office, because of what he does for them.

And I was born and raised in his constituency. I stand by my opinions on the basis of what I know of his area and his actions.

They are the same people who are very unlikely to vote yes in a referendum for what you are proposing.

Indeed, but mainly for reasons that have little to do with the merits of the proposal, and again I'm stating this from personal knowlege of a broad spectrum of the people from that area.

I can say with confidence, that there are thousands of people in this country,running business's very well without academic qualifications.

But the original call was for "large successful businesses", not just small enterprise businesses. We're talking about an analogue to responsibility for public monies here, recall, and that means reasonably large sums.

The first example that you took , just happened to be a job that definitely needs specific training alongside the drive and natural talent to do the job, which isn't always the case for a good manager who can delegate.

I would beg to differ - managers need specific training as well, just nowhere near as much. But yes, a better example could be found. But did you see the point?

Regarding Drive and determination being a suffecient qualification to do a particular job

Actually I was trying to say that I thought drive and determination were not inherent properties of a person's character but could be learnt through experience.

Yet that would still have to get over the hurdle of giving, the masses an inferiority complex.

I still don't get this. No-one has an inferiority complex when told you can't drive a car without passing the test, or fly a plane without passing the PPL, or teach without a H.Dip, or whatever - this is simply the same thing. Presented properly and rationally, I believe it would be accepted. The problem would not be the electorate - the problem would be vested interests.

Thats the perception JHR's voters already have if they are reading this, and why I think, the prospects of such a system getting voted in, by the electorate would be a very unlikely prospect.

From what I know of JHR's voters, two things come to mind. Firstly, they don't have inferiority complexes, they're just used to a corrupt political system and have decided to go with it; and second, you don't want to use them as a guideline for creating a new political system.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks

Indeed, but the bad points of a system aren't generally a reason to avoid taking the better elements of that system as a template.

Certainly...as long as you can show that there is no connection between the bad and the good points.

As I said ..."conflict of interest" is already raising its head in what you are describing....so the question is how to avoid it (or show that it isnt there).

We've mentioned the publically-called referenda idea before, for an example. It would solve some problems, it has a lot of potential - but people don't know how to bring it about (there is in fact no mechanism to do so, short of the government abdicating some power to the electorate outside of election season), so noone bothers. No drive - but that doesn't mean that the idea is unsound...

But you describe how to do it in the same paragraph here as saying that people dont know how to get it done.

IF people cared enough, then there would be support for individuals, or a small party, who was going ot use its political power to move for such a reform. You effect political change by electing those who will change the system to the way you wish it to be changed, or you find people who can leverage it.

I mean...its generally accepted that the govt. didnt want to call the last abortion referendum...they were backed into it as a "purchase condition" of support for something else, werent they?

And thats my point. Something like abortion, which is emotive, gets people up in arms. There is enough popular support, that the government are willing to make concessions to the demands to prevent the protestors turning their emotion into votes which would give them what they wanted also.

On the contrary, that's what the current system promotes.

OK, but Switzerland (being a relatively good example of semi-direct-democracy) suffered a massive apathy of voting in the 70s and 80s, which was only turned around when the laws were changed to make it easier to vote.

This would begin to indicate that it is not necessarily the perception of the influience we have which is the prime factor.

Most of your suggested changes, on the other hand, require more and more voter involvement. While its a laudable ideal, I believe that it would lead to even greater apathy, not decrease it.

I just happen to think that voter apathy is tightly linked to perceived vote worth.

I would agree, but it is also a factor of the "opportunity cost" of voting. The more involved the process, the less interested people are. Its the inverse of what it should be, but thats the base problem I see - democracy works when we find a balance between involvement and responsibility. We dont have it in ireland, but I feel your suggested "improvements" would simply shove us to the other side of the balance....yielding no net improvement.


jc

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

And I was born and raised in his constituency. I stand by my opinions on the basis of what I know of his area and his actions.

Equally true of those, that don't hold your opinion and who vote for the man, and clearly there are enough of them.

Indeed, but mainly for reasons that have little to do with the merits of the proposal, and again I'm stating this from personal knowlege of a broad spectrum of the people from that area.

My comment,was in relation to peoples rights to disagree with the importance, you attach to implementing such a system versus, peoples right to choose.
The latter will and should always carry more weight.

But the original call was for "large successful businesses", not just small enterprise businesses. We're talking about an analogue to responsibility for public monies here, recall, and that means reasonably large sums.

So what are you saying here, that a person who runs a good ship, that doesn't make multi millions, should be dis-qualified from attaining high political office on account of having no Academic qualifications?
Don't put that in your election literature, if you want to run for the Dáil;)

I still don't get this. No-one has an inferiority complex when told you can't drive a car without passing the test, or fly a plane without passing the PPL, or teach without a H.Dip, or whatever - this is simply the same thing. Presented properly and rationally, I believe it would be accepted. The problem would not be the electorate - the problem would be vested interests.

you are asking the electorate to change the current system whereby anyone could aspire to run for high political office.
In doing so you would be laying down conditions, which would rule out people who would otherwise feel they were competant to run for office.
Thats saying people would not vote for such a proposition, it's not saying that there is no merit in the proposition.
For what it's worth, I'd have more common ground with you if I thought, that your position would be that those with a sufficient track record in management ( regardless of what size their business was) could still run for office.

But I still believe, you wouldn't get it past the masses as , there would be two perceptions out there: 1. That you are trying to make the position for the elite only and 2. That you are asking people to declare themselves as incompetant if they don't meet your criteria.
mm

Kappar

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:

I don't agree with it, i was putting the question to you and it was meant to be ludicrous you were suposed to oppose it also
This is how it used to be in Britain and i imagine Ireland in pre 1900ish were only gradutes and land owners could voite this was then changed.

Sparks

Kappar

This is how it used to be in Britain and i imagine Ireland in pre 1900ish were only gradutes and land owners could voite this was then changed.

Unfortunately, the system of representative democracy that made sense then managed to survive, despite the fact that the circumstances that made it a good idea have since changed to those that make it a bad idea
Man,

Equally true of those, that don't hold your opinion and who vote for the man, and clearly there are enough of them.

Indeed. That doesn't change my opinion of him, however, and there's no possible argument that it should, since it's my personal opinion.

My comment,was in relation to peoples rights to disagree with the importance, you attach to implementing such a system versus, peoples right to choose.
The latter will and should always carry more weight.

I'm not sure where we disagree then. In fact I'm not even sure what you meant by that first sentence!

So what are you saying here, that a person who runs a good ship, that doesn't make multi millions, should be dis-qualified from attaining high political office on account of having no Academic qualifications?

No, I'm saying that running a corner shop provides less qualifications for running a government ministry than running a large successful business where the monetary amounts dealt with and the sizes of the projects taken on, are at least comparable.

you are asking the electorate to change the current system whereby anyone could aspire to run for high political office.

Actually, in reality that's not the system. There are other qualifications required to run for office - mental competency for example

In doing so you would be laying down conditions, which would rule out people who would otherwise feel they were competant to run for office.

There are lots of 18-year-olds that feel they are competent to drive at 100 mph on country roads - it doesn't mean they actually are!

For what it's worth, I'd have more common ground with you if I thought, that your position would be that those with a sufficient track record in management ( regardless of what size their business was) could still run for office.

Ah, but the size of business, as shown above, is a significant factor.

But I still believe, you wouldn't get it past the masses as , there would be two perceptions out there: 1. That you are trying to make the position for the elite only and 2. That you are asking people to declare themselves as incompetant if they don't meet your criteria.

Well, 1) is incorrect as it's not the elite, but the qualified.
2) is simply incorrect because everyone is already incompetant in many areas (I'm not a competent skydiver, surgeon, scuba diver, rally driver, tae-kwon-do instructor or woman, for example) and it doesn't bother them because they don't have interest in those areas and wouldn't expect to stroll in off the street to them with no training anyway.

bonkey,

Certainly...as long as you can show that there is no connection between the bad and the good points.

Indeed.

As I said ..."conflict of interest" is already raising its head in what you are describing....so the question is how to avoid it (or show that it isnt there).

But you describe how to do it in the same paragraph here as saying that people dont know how to get it done.

Well, yes - but the point was that the odds of a politician giving up power were exceptionally low...

IF people cared enough, then there would be support for individuals, or a small party, who was going ot use its political power to move for such a reform.

But how could you ever trust them to not pull a bait-and-switch?

You effect political change by electing those who will change the system to the way you wish it to be changed, or you find people who can leverage it.

Yes, but you're talking about someone that will voluntarially give up power to a larger group of people - and I've yet to see that outside of "The West Wing"....

I mean...its generally accepted that the govt. didnt want to call the last abortion referendum...they were backed into it as a "purchase condition" of support for something else, werent they?

Yes, in return for support from an Independent in Wicklow... what, me name names?

And thats my point. Something like abortion, which is emotive, gets people up in arms. There is enough popular support, that the government are willing to make concessions to the demands to prevent the protestors turning their emotion into votes which would give them what they wanted also.

Yes, but that argument is self-defeating because you're saying that politicians will effect change to maintain their political power. If that change was to give up their political power, the leverage no longer exists.

OK, but Switzerland (being a relatively good example of semi-direct-democracy) suffered a massive apathy of voting in the 70s and 80s, which was only turned around when the laws were changed to make it easier to vote.
This would begin to indicate that it is not necessarily the perception of the influience we have which is the prime factor.

But how much of the difference in the "national character" or "national psyche" (for want of a better term) and how much is the ease of voting? I'd argue that until we do it, we won't know...

Most of your suggested changes, on the other hand, require more and more voter involvement. While its a laudable ideal, I believe that it would lead to even greater apathy, not decrease it.

There would be an aspect of that - which is why mandatory civics&ethics&politics courses are needed for the JC and LC cirricula as a long term solution.
But I'm still not sure if it would be the dominant factor. After all, the recent surveys of voters have shown that the majority rated our system as only "fair" or worse.

I would agree, but it is also a factor of the "opportunity cost" of voting. The more involved the process, the less interested people are. Its the inverse of what it should be, but thats the base problem I see - democracy works when we find a balance between involvement and responsibility. We dont have it in ireland, but I feel your suggested "improvements" would simply shove us to the other side of the balance....yielding no net improvement.

Interesting. I'm going to have to think about this one JC.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
No, I'm saying that running a corner shop provides less qualifications for running a government ministry than running a large successful business where the monetary amounts dealt with and the sizes of the projects taken on, are at least comparable.
[/B]

That rules out any sucessfull business person then whose turnover is (while admirable for the area they operate in) considerably less than a government department....more reason for, my conclusion that the public would not pass such a proposition, it's too elitist.

In relation to existing reasons ruling out one serving in high political office, You said:

Actually, in reality that's not the system. There are other qualifications required to run for office - mental competency for example

You could have mentioned, people on life support also, and you'd be talking about a tiny minority of the population.
I'll give you another tip, when you get the referendum on this subject, don't mention either of those , as it will weaken your case;)
Your assertion that:

everyone is already incompetant in many areas (I'm not a competent skydiver, surgeon, scuba diver, rally driver, tae-kwon-do instructor or woman, for example) and it doesn't bother them because they don't have interest in those areas and wouldn't expect to stroll in off the street to them with no training anyway.

avoids the point that people are now in office who do not have the qualifications or are incompetant to hold high political office as you see it in the system you are advocating.
I was simply stating that you would be asking people to change that situation.
In other words ordinary people could not aspire to hold high office.
Take Joe Jacob for example, his C.V here for instance, tells us he has only had a leaving cert education and from there went on to run a small country pub.
People's competency for office would be re-defined with what you are advocating, in such a way as to rule out those who could already aspire to high office, without major academic experience, or running a multi-million Euro business.
Thats not going to wash with the great Irish Public.
You are right, I'm not argue-ing with you that, incompetant people should be in office, they should not.
But defining the level of competancy required is not cast iron, and to my mind , our current system doesn't favour un intelligent/ incompetant people entering office.
But then I've stated earlier that, I think ( whether I agree or disagree with his policies ) Bertie is doing a reasonable job when compared to his peers in other countries.
So If I think that we ain't going to agree on competency levels here are we?
mm

Sparks

That rules out any sucessfull business person then whose turnover is (while admirable for the area they operate in) considerably less than a government department.

No, it rules out those that have no experience with large projects. There is a difference in running projects the size of (say) the M50 constuction, as opposed to running a corner sweetshop.[/quote]

You could have mentioned, people on life support also, and you'd be talking about a tiny minority of the population.
I'll give you another tip, when you get the referendum on this subject, don't mention either of those , as it will weaken your case

The point was that we do have competency tests allready - we're just discussing raising the bar for those that want to run the country. Oddly enough, the mental attitude that says that I'm talking about elitism would be more than happy to raise the bar for people who are trying to govern those with the attitude...

avoids the point that people are now in office who do not have the qualifications or are incompetant to hold high political office as you see it in the system you are advocating.

No, those people are what I would describe as the motivation for bringing in these changes. Or are you saying that they've done the best job possible?

In other words ordinary people could not aspire to hold high office.

I'd be less willing to use the word "ordinary" in that context.
Again, we're not testing for intelligence here, we're testing for experience, knowlege and competency.

Take Joe Jacob for example, his C.V here for instance, tells us he has only had a leaving cert education and from there went on to run a small country pub.

Would you argue that Joe Jacob could be a better Minister for Finance than, say, Michael O'Leary, or Dermot McAleese?

People's competency for office would be re-defined with what you are advocating, in such a way as to rule out those who could already aspire to high office, without major academic experience, or running a multi-million Euro business.

The point is that if you can have a Dermot McAleese, why would you want a less-qualified person (assuming similar political ideologies)? And we're not talking about major academic experience, we're talking about a basic standard to apply for the job, and then we just choose the best qualified candidate.

Thats not going to wash with the great Irish Public.

You keep saying this, but I don't think you're correct. The possible outcome of a better-run economy and government would, I believe, overrule any (incorrectly) perceived elitism. Besides which, the average voter has no political ambitions and wouldn't be too bothered.

But defining the level of competancy required is not cast iron, and to my mind , our current system doesn't favour unintelligent/ incompetant people entering office.

I would argue that the fact that the system makes it possible is not a good thing, and sufficent reason to change the system. Some jobs are too critical to risk incompetence along with all the other risks that go with the job.

But then I've stated earlier that, I think ( whether I agree or disagree with his policies ) Bertie is doing a reasonable job when compared to his peers in other countries.
So If I think that we ain't going to agree on competency levels here are we?

Given that our inflation rate is twice the EU average even at a 3-year-low, that our cost of living is higher than in St.Tropez, that our public transport infrastructure is a cruel joke and our disabled services are worse, that our health system is close to breaking point, that our FOI act has been gutted, our police have a long list of convicted gardai for serious offences, the N.Ireland situation is facing Yet Another Crisis (tm), our neutral status has been made into an international joke, and our referenda have been mocked by the nice debate (and that's just the top few), I don't think we'll be agreeing on Ahern's record at all...

Originally posted by Sparks

Would you argue that Joe Jacob could be a better Minister for Finance than, say, Michael O'Leary, or Dermot McAleese?

Again you are missing my point entirely.
I am saying you would be asking ordinary people to give up their right as ordinary people to be in high office.
That would be perceived by them as elitist and wouldn't pass the test of a referendum, I'd say there would be an outcry, not alone from the public themselves but from existing public representatives, who got to their current position without initially meeting the requirements you are laying down.

You keep saying this, but I don't think you're correct. The possible outcome of a better-run economy and government would, I believe, overrule any (incorrectly) perceived elitism. Besides which, the average voter has no political ambitions and wouldn't be too bothered.

Really??you are very dismissive of the average voter, if you think that.
The "incorrectly" you use above is your opinion, there are millions more.

Given that our inflation rate is twice the EU average even at a 3-year-low, that our cost of living is higher than in St.Tropez, that our public transport infrastructure is a cruel joke and our disabled services are worse, that our health system is close to breaking point, that our FOI act has been gutted, our police have a long list of convicted gardai for serious offences, the N.Ireland situation is facing Yet Another Crisis (tm), our neutral status has been made into an international joke, and our referenda have been mocked by the nice debate (and that's just the top few), I don't think we'll be agreeing on Ahern's record at all...

I notice in that, you've attempted to cherry pick there for bad things.
To round off, you've even contradicted a basic principal of your own, in that, you wouldn't allow people to change their mind on Nice, which they did by a convincing majority.
Your mention of NI policy as a bad reflection of Aherns government is also to put it mildly very unfair.
...and these two are in your top few examples of Aherns bad management as you see it:rolleyes:
strange that you have got me defending him, considering thats not my politics.
But then if you've persuaded me to do that,it doesn't auger well for convincing joe public.
mm

PHB

I believe, overrule any (incorrectly) perceived elitism

I hate to do this but, definition of elitism from dictionary.com

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

That is exactly what you are advocating.
You can pretend its not all you want, but it is, you might aswell accept that it is and argue from there.

You want people who have degress or qualifications, i.e certain classes, to have preferential treatment when it comes to who gets elected.

This is a democracy, and the simple foundation on which all this is base is that all men/woman are equal. If this system was introduced all people who no longer be equal.

Do you think its just that people who get degress have a vote in the seanad election while most don't?
I dont think thats just, and its essentially the same as an 18 year old not being allowed to run for office.

Does it make you a better citizen if you have gone to college? No.
Do you become a better person? No.

I dont want people elected because of their intellect, I want them in office because they are people who stand up for what they believe in. Its something you respect a person a lot more for.

p.s. Our neutral status has always been a joke, can't blame bertie for that

Sparks

PHB,

I hate to do this

Not to worry, you proved my point for me.
Observe:

The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

This proves what I am talking about is not elitism, because I'm talking about people with actual qualifications be allowed to apply to be elected, which is a very, very different animal to deserving favoured treatment by virtue of perceived superiority.

You can pretend its not all you want, but it is, you might aswell accept that it is and argue from there.

Except that it demonstratably isn't.

You want people who have degress or qualifications, i.e certain classes, to have preferential treatment when it comes to who gets elected.

Nope. What I want is for people that have a desire to hold public office be qualified to do so. After all, we're talking here about people that desire to have authority over my everyday life - I'm fairly entitled to desire that they be qualified to do so, am I not?

This is a democracy, and the simple foundation on which all this is base is that all men/woman are equal.

No, it's not. Firstly, there is no single foundation, there are several, and secondly the actual tenet you refer to is that all men and women are equal before the law. The two are subtly different. I may be equal to you legally, but that doesn't qualify me to do your job!

If this system was introduced all people who no longer be equal.

Nope. Or do you think that all people should be allowed to do jobs they are totally unqualified for?

Do you think its just that people who get degress have a vote in the seanad election while most don't?

Actually, that's the current practise. As an alumni, I get to vote on who TCD elects to the Seanad - non-alumni don't.
However, the statement in itself is disingenous. Up to now, the only people here who've been saying that a qualification is the same thing as a degree have been you and Man. I never said degree - I said qualification. It makes logical sense that the more qualified candidate be chosen, political ideologies being equivalent, but there's no reason to stipulate that without a degree you can't be qualified.

I dont want people elected because of their intellect, I want them in office because they are people who stand up for what they believe in. Its something you respect a person a lot more for.

While a person's moral character is indeed an important factor, I think it's wholly unfair to presume that you couldn't find a qualified candidate with moral character. Or do you think that anyone that takes academic courses of any kind is required to give up their morality on graduation? For example, the politician who has arguably the best record in terms of morality in this state is David Norris. A senior lecturer in TCD at one point, and a foundation scholar.

Our neutral status has always been a joke, can't blame bertie for that

I can most certainly blame him for the recent debacle, it was his decision to make and he made it.

Man,

Again you are missing my point entirely.
I am saying you would be asking ordinary people to give up their right as ordinary people to be in high office.

I most certainly am not.
Look, examine the current situation. An ordinary person who wishes to hold the office of Minister of Finance cannot just walk in off the street and apply to be elected to that post. Full stop. They have to be elected as a TD, and then convince (through fair means or foul, there are no ethical rules on this so long as criminal law isn't broken) the ruling party of the day to give the job to them.
I'm saying, change that system. And the system I'm putting forward gives the average person the opportunity to apply for the job. They merely have to obtain the qualifications. Which is a damn sight easier than convincing Ahern to kick McCreevy out and give them the job.
So in fact, I'm advocating the elimination of an old boy's network in favour of a more open procedure.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you're saying I'm advocating.

Really??you are very dismissive of the average voter, if you think that.

3.5 million people in the country eligible for running for office, and how many go for it in total?
I'd say my opinion was backed by fact.

I notice in that, you've attempted to cherry pick there for bad things.

It's not cherry picking, the bad things tend to throw themselves at you.

To round off, you've even contradicted a basic principal of your own, in that, you wouldn't allow people to change their mind on Nice, which they did by a convincing majority.

That's a misleading and incorrect interpretation of what I said.
The first Nice treaty referendum was a binding referendum. And we voted No. In response, the government called a second referendum. Now, if there had been public outcry and a demand for a second referendum, that would be one thing. (In point of fact, since the public in this country are not entitled to call for a referendum, it would have had no legal standing, but it would at least have shown support for one). But this never happened. There were no protests, no petitions. Just governmental embarressment at having voted against the Nice Treaty. That is why the second referendum was a mockery.

Your mention of NI policy as a bad reflection of Aherns government is also to put it mildly very unfair.

No, credit where it's due, Ahern seems to have a genuine talent for that class of situation. But the recent development of suspension of elections is a fiasco, and that's that, effectively.

PHB

Firstly what exactly is a qualification to you?
To me it would be a degree or a diploma in a certain field of expertise. Would you agree with that?

This proves what I am talking about is not elitism, because I'm talking about people with actual qualifications be allowed to apply to be elected, which is a very, very different animal to deserving favoured treatment by virtue of perceived superiority.

I didn't make myself clear enough. A degree is a percieved superiority. Just because you have a qualification in economics does not nessacarily make you "better" at it.

A comparision to this would be MENSA. You have a cert saying that you got over 120[guess] in an IQ test. It is a "qualification" in the field of intelligence.
However many people would argue, I myself included, that an IQ test is not nessacarily a true reflection of someones aptitude in the "field of intelligence", just as I would argue that a "qualication" in economics is not nessacarily a true reflection on someones aptitude in the field of economics.

Nope. What I want is for people that have a desire to hold public office be qualified to do so. After all, we're talking here about people that desire to have authority over my everyday life - I'm fairly entitled to desire that they be qualified to do so, am I not?

You are entitled to desire that, however it does not make it so. You are entitled to choose the person whom you feel best represents your views or policies, just as every other person is entitled to do so.
Your choice, based on your desire, is to pick the qualified candidate, and thats is your choice.
However someone else also has the choice to pick an un-qualified candidate, if his/her desire leads them to that choice.
That is what democracy is all about, the right to choose.

Nope. Or do you think that all people should be allowed to do jobs they are totally unqualified for?

Absolutely! I think people should be allowed do whatever job they wish to do, even if they havn'y the slighest clue what its about.
Our choice however is if we want to elect someone who is totally un-qualified.

Actually, that's the current practise. As an alumni, I get to vote on who TCD elects to the Seanad - non-alumni don't.
However, the statement in itself is disingenous. Up to now, theonly people here who've been saying that a qualification is the same thing as a degree have been you and Man. I never said degree - I said qualification. It makes logical sense that the more qualified candidate be chosen, political ideologies being equivalent, but there's no reason to stipulate that without a degree you can't be qualified.

Ok, I apoligise for implying that.
It does make logical sense to choose the person who is best qualified assuming political ideologies equivalent. I totally agree!
However as that will never happen, as no two persons ideologies are the same, one must allow for the possibility that you could have the following situation.
A qualified candidate who has completely different ideologies to yourself.
An un-qualified candidate who has similar ideologies to yourself.

I personally would want to elect the person who has similar ideologies, even if he does not have the "qualifications" required to do the jon.

While a person's moral character is indeed an important factor, I think it's wholly unfair to presume that you couldn't find a qualified candidate with moral character. Or do you think that anyone that takes academic courses of any kind is required to give up their morality on graduation? For example, the politician who has arguably the best record in terms of morality in this state is David Norris. A senior lecturer in TCD at one point, and a foundation scholar.

I wasn't trying to imply that. I was trying to imply that one is not nessacarily going to have the other, as in the above situation.
Ideally it would be nice to have a qualified candidate who holds similar ideologies.

I can most certainly blame him for the recent debacle, it was his decision to make and he made it.

Of course you can, but its not fair to claim that he has anyway changed our policy from the last 50 years, but thats a different discussion.

Also

The first Nice treaty referendum was a binding referendum. And we voted No. In response, the government called a second referendum. Now, if there had been public outcry and a demand for a second referendum, that would be one thing. (In point of fact, since the public in this country are not entitled to call for a referendum, it would have had no legal standing, but it would at least have shown support for one). But this never happened. There were no protests, no petitions. Just governmental embarressment at having voted against the Nice Treaty. That is why the second referendum was a mockery.

FF had it in the election campaign that they were planning to run a second referendum, and when the people choose them to lead our government, they in turn choose for a second referendum.
If they had not done this they would have been flamed for not following election promises.

Originally posted by Sparks
[Man,

They merely have to obtain the qualifications. Which is a damn sight easier than convincing Ahern to kick McCreevy out and give them the job.
So in fact, I'm advocating the elimination of an old boy's network in favour of a more open procedure.
Which is pretty much the opposite of what you're saying I'm advocating.

But you would ask the electorate to impose this rule.
Now you've already told me that in your opinion , the owner of a corner shop wouldn't meet your criteria.
In fact you'd go much further:

No, it rules out those that have no experience with large projects. There is a difference in running projects the size of (say) the M50 constuction, as opposed to running a corner sweetshop.

The likes of poor old Joe Jacob would be ruled out entirely and he often tops the poll in his constituency.
Now I am not argu'ing with the notion that, competant people should be in office, just with the impossibility of selling what you propose to the commonor garden voter.

You would be telling the voter, that for the most part,only wealthy successfull individuals ie the elite of society could attain certain ministries

3.5 million people in the country eligible for running for office, and how many go for it in total?

Thats not the point.
The point is that,those people vote and have opinions and feelings, you would tell them that if they didn't have the equivalent experience of oversee'ing the construction of the M50 that they need not apply.
Try telling that to working class voters for a start and see how you get on...

The first Nice treaty referendum was a binding referendum. And we voted No. In response, the government called a second referendum. Now, if there had been public outcry and a demand for a second referendum, that would be one thing. (In point of fact, since the public in this country are not entitled to call for a referendum, it would have had no legal standing, but it would at least have shown support for one). But this never happened. There were no protests, no petitions. Just governmental embarressment at having voted against the Nice Treaty. That is why the second referendum was a mockery.

Thats your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Clearly a substantial majority disagree with you on that score.
Your dislike of the second Nice referendum would hold water if the people had voted no.

And just in relation to your reply to phb:

I'm talking about people with actual qualifications be allowed to apply to be elected, which is a very, very different animal to deserving favoured treatment by virtue of perceived superiority.

It's not different at all as you are requiring, people with substantial business's to have preference at a ministerial job application over those with a smaller business.
That is by definition Elitism:
"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status,or financial resources "
You'd be giving the ordinary public an inferiority complex by questioning their intellect and social status to boot.
mm

Sev

I'm afraid that at the end of the day, people who get elected democractically are elected because the majority of people want that person elected. (setting aside corruption and scandal)

Despite any beliefs you may have that a person may not be wholly qualified to suit the job, if he gets elected, it can only mean that there is a greater majority of those who feel that he deserves the job regardless. You can argue all you like about how those should or should not be qualified to hold a seat in the dail or whatever you're talking about (I only read 2 posts approaching the end of the page), but the sad and sorry fact is that democracy prevails, and you're beliefs are unfortunately in the minority.

So, yes, you might think that you should have some right to ensure that the person elected to make decisions on your behalf should be properly qualified with some kind of formal degree/cert/whatnot.. but tough luck, there are others, and more, that disagree. And if you can't accept that, then Im afraid what you're suggesting is not democracy.

By the way, this post was entirely written on the assumption that most people disagree with you, I do.

Sev

I'm loving all this quoting lark too.

Sparks

PHB,

Firstly what exactly is a qualification to you?

That would depend heavily, if not entirely, on the actual job. Minister of Finance and Minister of Sport, for example, would need wholly different qualifications.

To me it would be a degree or a diploma in a certain field of expertise. Would you agree with that?

I would agree some measure of academics would be involved - but in some cases it wouldn't be more than a diploma - in others it might be far more.

I didn't make myself clear enough. A degree is a percieved superiority. Just because you have a qualification in economics does not nessacarily make you "better" at it.

That is simply not true.
Look, a degree shows that you've passed an exam in a subject after a set course of study. Now for some subjects, that's arguably not as good as real-world experience without academic qualifications. IT for example. But not for all subjects. For example, engineering (excluding computer engineering). Or medicine. Or science. Or economics (as opposed to running a business).
For example, I have a degree in engineering. That doesn't give me legal superiority over another person, I still have the same rights and so forth - but I am a better engineer than someone without a degree in engineering. To such an extent in fact, that you cannot legally use the title "engineer" without a recognised qualification. Not in Ireland anyway.
And, in an important note on that, I can't set up practise as a doctor with that degree - the qualifications are different for different jobs.

A comparision to this would be MENSA. You have a cert saying that you got over 120[guess] in an IQ test. It is a "qualification" in the field of intelligence.

That's a spurious example. MENSA is a private club, not a qualification - and not only is there no "field of intelligence", the IQ test is not proven to be a viable measure of human intelligence. MENSA, therefore, is a private club where the entry requirement is to be able to do better than a set threshold (150 AFAIR) on a particular test. It's not the same as having a qualification like a diploma or a degree or experience - as those require work, while the IQ test is supposedly unreliant on any prior qualifications. (Which is why they give them to children as well as adults without modification).

You are entitled to desire that, however it does not make it so.

Of course not, I'm not dictator just yet
But if I desire it, and a sufficent number of other people desire it, then that's a whole other ball game.

However someone else also has the choice to pick an un-qualified candidate, if his/her desire leads them to that choice.

Ah, but my point was that the majority would prefer a qualified candidate.

That is what democracy is all about, the right to choose.

Actually, that's not democracy's central tenet.

Absolutely! I think people should be allowed do whatever job they wish to do, even if they havn'y the slighest clue what its about.

Well, if you want that opinion, it's yours - but that's not legal in our country in reality. All manner of jobs have legislation saying who can and cannot do those jobs - GPs, surgeons, lecturers, engineers, soliciters, barristers, even driving instructors (though they only need a valid licence).

In fact, I think TD is the only "skilled" job in the country that you can get with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever.

It does make logical sense to choose the person who is best qualified assuming political ideologies equivalent. I totally agree!
However as that will never happen, as no two persons ideologies are the same, one must allow for the possibility that you could have the following situation.
A qualified candidate who has completely different ideologies to yourself.
An un-qualified candidate who has similar ideologies to yourself.
I personally would want to elect the person who has similar ideologies, even if he does not have the "qualifications" required to do the jon.

Totally correct, that situation could arise. But the fact of the matter is that in our current system, we don't have it any better. By which I mean that we must choose a representative whose political profile does not match our own. (ie. they'll agree with us on some issues and not on others). Plus, we do not get to choose our ministers. At all. Ever.
So how can the idea of giving us that choice be worse than not having that choice?

I was trying to imply that one is not nessacarily going to have the other, as in the above situation.

True, but I'm not saying that if you have the qualifications, you automatically get the job. I'm saying we elect from a pool of qualified candidates. That gives us the same level of protection from immoral candidates as we allready have... though somehow I'd rather have more protection than that!

Of course you can, but its not fair to claim that he has anyway changed our policy from the last 50 years, but thats a different discussion.

Indeed, but one that took place in a court of law. Horgan v. Ireland showed that policy regarding the use of shannon over the last 50 years was significantly different from the policy enacted by Ahern in the pre-Iraq-Invasion months. It's a matter of public record.

FF had it in the election campaign that they were planning to run a second referendum, and when the people choose them to lead our government, they in turn choose for a second referendum.

I'm not sure you can say that. How do you know that the single sole reason that FF were re-elected was the promise of a new referendum? (This is the single most serious problem with representative democracy in our country - you are taking many complex issues over several years and multiple future issues and giving the public one single chance every five years to have any say. There is no way to do that - to put it in engineering terms, the information is lost and unrecoverable.)

If they had not done this they would have been flamed for not following election promises.

*chortle*

Sparks

Man,

But you would ask the electorate to impose this rule.

Well, I'm not dictator yet, ya'know

Now you've already told me that in your opinion , the owner of a corner shop wouldn't meet your criteria.

No, I said that running a corner shop didn't give you experience with large projects. You might have run large projects and then retired to run a corner shop, after all.
(Not that unlikely, I've known of a nuclear physicist that retired to become a cooper).

The likes of poor old Joe Jacob would be ruled out entirely and he often tops the poll in his constituency.

No, he wouldn't be ruled out. He couldn't take the job of Minister of Finance - but he could still be a TD, and could still apply for the job of Minister of Finance after getting the required qualifications. That's kind of the point here - you can apply for the job directly with my system, you have no hope of doing so with the present system. It's just that in my system, if you want the job, you have to have the training for it.

just with the impossibility of selling what you propose to the commonor garden voter.

Well, I've seen far, far less saleable things merrily sold to the public.

You would be telling the voter, that for the most part,only wealthy successfull individuals ie the elite of society could attain certain ministries

No, I wouldn't be.
For one thing, at the moment only an elite of the population have a realisitic chance of going into government. My system would change that to a qualified minority, ie. Instead of it being "who you know" , it would be "what you know".
For another, while our educational system has problems, those can be fixed - at which point the "wealthy" part of your sentence gets dropped. The "successful" part is probably going to stay - but that's how it should be - in our present system, only the successful get to go for the job anyway (they have to succeed in being elected before Bertie can choose them...)

Thats not the point.

But it is the point. 3.5 million are eligible to try for the job, and very, very, very few ever do. I'm not saying "you cannot apply", I'm saying "you can apply, you just have to be qualified". Which is a damn sight better than the present system of "don't bother, bertie's giving charlie the job".

Try telling that to working class voters for a start and see how you get on...

How about I tell them this instead:
"If you make sure your kid goes to school and works hard, he can one day have a real chance at running the country. In the meantime, you'll know that a qualified professional is running the economy instead of one of bertie's pals, plus you can apply directly to run any aspect of the country that you're qualified to run. Have you run a sports club, and coached soccer or played GAA for donkey's years? Minister for sport. You've been a fisherman for donkey's years? Take a night course or two in the local FAS and go for Minister for fisheries. "

Clearly a substantial majority disagree with you on that score.
Your dislike of the second Nice referendum would hold water if the people had voted no.

My dislike was not for the result: my dislike was for the fact that two "binding" referenda were called on the same question.
Either change the rules to require a mandatory turnout, or accept the result. But stop throwing the rules out if the answer doesn't suit!

It's not different at all as you are requiring, people with substantial business's to have preference at a ministerial job application over those with a smaller business.

No, I'm not. Again, you're looking at "qualification" and seeing "degree" or "runs a large business". Those would be qualifications for one ministerial post - but not for another.

You'd be giving the ordinary public an inferiority complex by questioning their intellect and social status to boot.

I'm beginning to wonder who's got the complex! I'm said now, several times, explicitly, that qualifications are not related to intellect. Well, okay, to an extent they are - but only in that you need sufficent intelligence to do the job - you don't need to be a genius. Experience is usually the better qualification.

Sparks

Sev,

You can argue all you like about how those should or should not be qualified to hold a seat in the dail or whatever you're talking about (I only read 2 posts approaching the end of the page), but the sad and sorry fact is that democracy prevails, and you're beliefs are unfortunately in the minority.

Firstly, I'm talking about Ministerial posts, not TDs in general.
Secondly, you're point requires that those living in a democratic society be wholly powerless to ever change the nature of their government - and that does violate a central tenet of democracy, which is that the people decide on matters of government.

So, yes, you might think that you should have some right to ensure that the person elected to make decisions on your behalf should be properly qualified with some kind of formal degree/cert/whatnot.. but tough luck, there are others, and more, that disagree.

How on earth could you, or any other person, possibly know that without carrying out an actual referendum on the topic? Polls won't show it because they're not secret ballots and are not always accurate and never take opinions from the entire population. In short, you don't know that the majority disagree. Nor do I, for that matter. But they might in fact agree...

By the way, this post was entirely written on the assumption that most people disagree with you, I do.

I've yet to understand how people can disagree with the notion that they be given the choice of who they want for specific ministerial posts - shy of laziness that is.
I mean, what I'm talking about here doesn't take choice away from the people - it gives it to them for the very first time. And it doesn't take away opportunity from them - it gives them a real opportunity for the very first time. With the sole exception of those that are better at manipulation of people than the actual job, that is...