nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

First past the post

Our man in Havana

If Ireland used a First past the post system, how would it affect representation? Would it differ much from the PR system? What I am asking is would typically the same people get elected?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

athtrasna

Here's a little info I prepared earlier:

Party
FF 68 70 77 79 81 86
FG 45 46 54 52 31 31
Lab 33 31 16 18 21 20
PD 10 9 4 2 8 6
GP 1 1 2 0 6 4
DL 4 4 4 6 n/a
SF 0 0 1 2 5 8
SP 0 0 1 1 1 1
Others 5 5 7 6 13 10

166 166 166 166 166 166

The first column of numbers is 1992 results, next 1992 1st past the post in a multi-seat constituency, same for 1997 and 2002.

Did a college assignment on this last year. Couldn't make up single seat constituencies so worked off the results from the current 3, 4 and 5 seaters.

FF do well out of this, the other parties less so, hence the importance of transfers.

TheVan

We would probably have a two-party system, which would probably have moved beyond civil war divisions to a clearer left/right divide.

The PDs, Greens and Sinn Féin would be restricted to council seats and Labour would probably only a bit player in the wings á la the Lib Dems in England.

FF would (if current strength was the indicator) have constant government and FG would always be in Opposition.

Or something....

maybe someone who has actually studied this stuff has a better / more correct answer!!!!

Jo King

In a television programme broadcast before the last referendum on the issue, in 1968, it was estimated that Fianna Fail would gain about two thirds of the seats.
There are a number of variables because constituency boundaries would change. At that time the constituency boundaries were decided by the Minister for Local Government. A number of devices were commonly used to maximise the vote of the incumbent party.
One way used until the O Donovan case in the early 1960's was to have proportionately more seats in areas where the incumbent party is strong and fewer where it is weak. It was found in O Donovan that there were more seats per head of population in the West of the country that the East.
Another was the "three seats where you are strong and four seats where you are weak" rule.
Also used was a tactic of splitting pockets of strength of opponents into different constituencies.
Ending PR would however do away with clientelism and how people would vote
after a few years of not having TD's clinics etc, is not easy to predict.

Our man in Havana

Gerrymandering you mean?

murphaph

I think if we went FPTP things would certainly change. I believe FF would steadily become weaker and FG stronger. It would IMO end up like Britain with government shifting to and fro between two large parties. I think it makes for stronger government that isn't constantly answering to 'prop up' minority interests like the PDs/independents and so on, I mean.....the PDs are a TINY party yet punch way above their weight simply because they can collapse the government at will. That's the problem with coalitions. We've been fortunate of late what with the economy doing well, but remember the bad old days of governments lasting a year or two before some falling out brings it down. I don't think our two large parties would automatically become Left/right, I think they'd be more centrist given our heavy dependence on FDI for prosperity. Some good aspects to PR though, like some bad aspects to FPTP. You gotta take the rough with the smooth. I would certainly like to see constituencies reduced to single seats. I don't like the idea of up to 5 representatives for one area.