Ireland and the hereditary principle

The Corinthian

ninty9er wrote: »

They don't elect themselves you know;)

Well no, but simply having an election does not make something democratic.

To take a more extreme example, Russia's record on democracy is questionable. This is because the media - partially through self-censorship, but also due to the predminanace of the state, give an overwhelming biased level of coverage in favour of government candidates.

These government candidates don't elect themselves either, but the issue is whether such elections are fair or democratic. Simply arguing that a candidate has been elected, does not make for democracy. If the system is biased so that certain candidates have a significant and unfair advantage over others, then it will fail to reach the standard that would qualify it as fair or democratic.

Of course, Ireland is not Russia (or Iran), however given the high incidence of political nepotism in Irish politics, where prior to election (essentially behind closed doors) family members of dynastic political families will have an advantage over those who are not, it does raise questions about transparency in democracy.

Will anything be done about this? In a word, no; at least not until there is an abuse that cannot be ignored. Irish culture is quite passive and accepting where is comes to abuse of power. We all knew that politicians were taking bribes before Ben Dunne first blew the whistle on Haughey, and we all knew that the priests were fiddling with children - I remember these issues being discussed in hushed tones, almost jokingly, in the eighties. We still grumble and joke at the laughable level of petty corruption in the Gardai, even today, although even this issue is more out in the open than it used to be.

As such, nothing will happen until there is an event that will ignite public opinion into action and we can all act suitably indignant.

O'Morris

I think there is a lot to be said in defence of the hereditary principle in politics. A politician with an eye on securing his constituency for his offspring is more likely to care about the long-term interests of that constituency than a career politician whose main interest is in doing whatever is needed in the short-term to gain and retain power.

The German economist Hans Hermann Hoppe has written on the merits of the hereditary principle in a defence of monarchy. Hereditary monarchs have more reason to pass on their country in good shape to their successors than the leaders of other forms of government have.

asdasd

These government candidates don't elect themselves either, but the issue is whether such elections are fair or democratic. Simply arguing that a candidate has been elected, does not make for democracy. If the system is biased so that certain candidates have a significant and unfair advantage over others, then it will fail to reach the standard that would qualify it as fair or democratic.

I dont really understand the purpose of this thread. Ireland has a democratic system which gives huge power to the electorate. People can transfer votes.

Clearly then they vote for the sons and daughters of existing politicians for a reason, They see these guys as a benefit to the constutancy.If they didnt, they wouldnt.

No, the advantage is because of the fact that they can get on a party ticket easier and party tickets have, in turn, a much better chance of getting elected. Without using finger puppets, I don't really know how much clearer I can be with you on this.

They get on party tickets because they bring in the votes. With the STV system votes can vote easily outside their party without wasting the vote ( the guy gets eliminated and the vote is transfered back to the party). There are numerous examples of this. Dessie O'MAlley took a personal vote with him to the PDs.

Since the Irish electorate often vote on personalities there are personal, rather than party votes.

The Corinthian

asdasd wrote: »

I dont really understand the purpose of this thread. Ireland has a democratic system which gives huge power to the electorate. People can transfer votes.

Then by the same logic Russia has a democratic system which gives huge power to the electorate. They can transfer votes too.

Democracy is not simply that anyone may run for election, it is that anyone may run for election on a level playing field. I have explained this repeatedly in this thread, so why do some people ignore this point and repeatedly return to the "anyone can run, ergo it's democratic" argument? That alone does not make anything democratic.

Since the Irish electorate often vote on personalities there are personal, rather than party votes.

Of course, but on the merit of their own personalities, not their children.

Additionally, just because the electorate votes for a particular reason, does not make it acceptable. An election can be won on the basis of false information too - is deception democratic?

asdasd

Democracy is not simply that anyone may run for election, it is that anyone may run for election on a level playing field.

No. That would be Utopia. No democracy functions like that since most democracies are capitalist class based societies. The chances of getting elected if graduated from Eton/Oxbride in the UK, from the L'Ecole Nationale in France, and Yale etc. in the US are far greater than being from East Glasgow, from any other school in France, or working class Peoria in the US. Same applies across the democratic world. Ireland is less rarefied but most politicians are, if they are not "professional politicians" ( no job outside politics) are teachers, legal, farmers, etc.

Additionally, just because the electorate votes for a particular reason, does not make it acceptable. An election can be won on the basis of false information too - is deception democratic?

First, yes it does make it acceptable. "Deception" is in the eyes of the beholder. If really deceived - i.e. campaign promises gone wrong - then the electorate tends to turn at the next election.

Otherwise the promoters of the "deception" argument tend to assume the right to guess the electorates intentions in the absence of "propaganda" ( which always exists).

For instance the YES campaign for Lisbon didn't take their defeat graciously, the people were deceived by Libertas - as if that was the only game in town ( in fact support for the YES campaign was from far more powerful groups).

We can't have elite groups deciding that the electorate is "deceived". As "O'Morris" points out there may be very good reasons why people support the hereditary principle. Either way they have voted, and their vote counts. if you think them deceived then you need better propoganda on your side.

The Corinthian

asdasd wrote: »

No. That would be Utopia. No democracy functions like that since most democracies are capitalist class based societies.

Just because Utopia is unachievable, does not mean that we should not better ourselves either. Democracy is not a static, orthodox concept, that cannot be questioned. Democracies do and should evolve and fine tune themselves.

First, yes it does make it acceptable. "Deception" is in the eyes of the beholder. If really deceived - i.e. campaign promises gone wrong - then the electorate tends to turn at the next election.

If discovered or if there is another election.

Otherwise the promoters of the "deception" argument tend to assume the right to guess the electorates intentions in the absence of "propaganda" ( which always exists).

No, as per the above answer.

For instance the YES campaign for Lisbon didn't take their defeat graciously, the people were deceived by Libertas - as if that was the only game in town ( in fact support for the YES campaign was from far more powerful groups).

Given your belief that an electorate should be given the opportunity to turn on a deception, I take it you'd favour a second referendum?

We can't have elite groups deciding that the electorate is "deceived". As "O'Morris" points out there may be very good reasons why people support the hereditary principle.

There may be good reasons, but this is by no means proven. I've repeatedly contended that the primary reason such candidates are elected is principally down to what happens before the election - they get chosen in a party back-room and are presented (with all the party support that comes with it) to the electorate as being 'anointed'.

Either way they have voted, and their vote counts. if you think them deceived then you need better propoganda on your side.

So you believe that democracy is alive and well in Russia?

asdasd

So you believe that democracy is alive and well in Russia?

You are obsessed with Russia, are you not. We are debating Ireland. As for Russia, I think Putin would win anyway.

I've repeatedly contended that the primary reason such candidates are elected is principally down to what happens before the election - they get chosen in a party back-room ....

And then the voter can, uniquely compared to most democracies, not vote for that guy but vote for candidates of the same party. Since the the thread is about the hereditary principle you should stick to that topic, by the way, not the fact that candidates are

chosen in a party back-room and are presented (with all the party support that comes with it) to the electorate as being 'anointed'

since that is the way all democracies work, and is materially worse in First Past the Post systems, or the List system. Far worse.

In any case if registered party members were asked to vote in a "primary" style election first they would vote for the candidate they know, or the son of the candiate they know.

The Corinthian

asdasd wrote: »

You are obsessed with Russia, are you not. We are debating Ireland. As for Russia, I think Putin would win anyway.

I'm giving an example of a country that has questionable democratic credentials, yet follows your definition of democracy. If you can't rebut the point, perhaps you should withdraw from the debate.

And then the voter can, uniquely compared to most democracies, not vote for that guy but vote for candidates of the same party. Since the the thread is about the hereditary principle you should stick to that topic, by the way, not the fact that candidates are since that is the way all democracies work, and is materially worse in First Past the Post systems, or the List system. Far worse.

Again, use of PR in itself does not prove or disprove anything.

In any case if registered party members were asked to vote in a "primary" style election first they would vote for the candidate they know, or the son of the candiate they know.

Actually, in theory most parties are supposed to elect their candidates internally. Problem is that democracy at cummin or branch level is pretty laughable at the best of times. I've voted in a few (in a number of political parties) myself and I've not even been a member of the party, let alone for that branch.

I note you ignored my Lisbon question, btw...

O'Morris

The Corinthian wrote:

I've repeatedly contended that the primary reason such candidates are elected is principally down to what happens before the election - they get chosen in a party back-room and are presented (with all the party support that comes with it) to the electorate as being 'anointed'.

So what's the alternative? Do you want to regulate political parties to make sure that they reverse-discriminate against the offspring of politicians? I think that would be a very bad idea.

The Corinthian wrote:

I note you ignored my Lisbon question, btw...

That would be straying off-topic. This thread is not about the Lisbon Treaty.

asdasd

If you can't rebut the point, perhaps you should withdraw from the debate.

The debate is about the hereditary principle in Ireland. Your form of argumentation is to bring in another country, and is a large big old smoke screen. Let me explain:

Even were I to cede your point that democracy were imperfect in Russia, it does not follow that there is any proof that democracy is imperfect in Ireland based on your self-defined criteria - you dont like the way certain people vote for the sons and daughters of established politicians. You are arguing consistently in "whataboutary" fashion. But to put this to rest: the argument that Russia has a controlled media is orthogonal to any debate about Ireland's hereditary principle.

Again, use of PR in itself does not prove or disprove anything.

Clearly I explained exactly how STV ( not just PR) allows people to reject back-room deals.

I note you ignored my Lisbon question, btw.... [your question]

Given your belief that an electorate should be given the opportunity to turn on a deception, I take it you'd favour a second referendum?

I couldn't be assed because it was even more off-topic. But no, I dont believe that the people were "deceived" on Lisbon ( in voting no). So no second referendum.

The Corinthian

O'Morris wrote: »

So what's the alternative? Do you want to regulate political parties to make sure that they reverse-discriminate against the offspring of politicians? I think that would be a very bad idea.

Who said I have an alternative? This is just an Internet forum and I'm just having a bit of fun.

As for an alternative and as I said earlier, a gross abuse in this area may result in a backlash in the future - no doubt a badly designed one. Another, distinct possibility is that the demographics of Ireland are changing and with them so may traditional politics. I was at a fund raiser a few years ago and remember the daughter of one of the sitting councillors essentially boast that her father would retire soon and pass his seat to her. He didn't get re-elected, largely because the demographics of his area had changed so dramatically.

asdasd wrote: »

Even were I to cede your point that democracy were imperfect in Russia, it does not follow that there is any proof that democracy is imperfect in Ireland based on your self-defined criteria - you dont like the way certain people vote for the sons and daughters of established politicians. You are arguing consistently in "whataboutary" fashion. But to put this to rest: the argument that Russia has a controlled media is orthogonal to any debate about Ireland's hereditary principle.

Incorrect. The point of using a foreign, undemocratic, country as an example is to point out how your definition of what is democratic is flawed. I am not defining any criteria, I am testing and finding fault in your self-defined criteria.

Clearly I explained exactly how STV ( not just PR) allows people to reject back-room deals.

Except it doesn't. Typically if there is more than one non-sitting candidate on a party ticket, the one with the greatest party resources will get the greatest first preference votes. And typically, this will be the one who has greater influence within the party machinery.

I couldn't be assed because it was even more off-topic. But no, I dont believe that the people were "deceived" on Lisbon ( in voting no). So no second referendum.

Then why did you raise it in relation to deception if you don't believe that the people were "deceived" on Lisbon?

asdasd

Then why did you raise it in relation to deception if you don't believe that the people were "deceived" on Lisbon?

Really there is no point. I claimed that there were people who claimed that the NO voters were deceived. I made it clear that I didnt believe that


Here it is

For instance the YES campaign for Lisbon didn't take their defeat graciously, the people were deceived by Libertas - as if that was the only game in town ( in fact support for the YES campaign was from far more powerful groups).

We can't have elite groups deciding that the electorate is "deceived"

Was the boldifeid part that difficult to understand?

The Corinthian

asdasd wrote: »

We can't have elite groups deciding that the electorate is "deceived"

Who gets to decide then? If there is no accountability in an election or referendum, what you're really suggesting that as long as you win, it does not matter how. Interesting definition of democracy.