Gerry Adams to run for President ?

oscarBravo

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Ok, strictly speaking they can't vote here in a geographical sense of attending an actual polling station. But certain classes of non-resident Irish citizens can participate in Irish elections via the postal system of voting.

No. Certain classes of Irish citizens (resident or otherwise) can participate in Seanad elections via the postal voting system.

Whats your point? To repeat, certain non-resident Irish citizens can vote in elections here, via the postal voting system.

Repeating it doesn't make it more true, and doesn't negate any of the points I've made.

Mr Cumulonimbus

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. Certain classes of Irish citizens (resident or otherwise) can participate in Seanad elections via the postal voting system.

Ok then. A Seanad election is a form of Irish election, with 49 members (including 6 representing TCD & NUI) elected by postal vote, plus 11 nominated by the Taoiseach.

If you seem to be against non-resident Irish citizens having voting rights in elections here, would you remove those voting rights that currently exist for this group of Irish citizens (NI + elsewhere resident TCD & NUI grads)?

According to this paper submitted to an oireachtas committee (p. 74-75), TCD's senate electorate amounts to some 100,000 with 20% resident outside the state.

Imagine, today's referendum on Seanad abolition was going to disenfrancise a particular class of Irish citizen's voting rights without their consent. What's that about integrity again oscar?

Mentioned here by Sean Barratt in a letter to the Belfast News Letter.

Northern Ireland residents have no vote in the referendum to abolish their voting rights.

Manassas61

I think we can rule Gerry Adams out of running for Irish President now. He should perhaps look to disappear from the public eye for good. Any little bit of credibility he had is now gone.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Now, you'll almost certainly engage in yet more hand-waving about how electronic voting is one of those minor details we can figure out later, but that just demonstrates that you haven't thought about the problem - and believe me, I have. And that's just a lazy ad-hominem attack to avoid having to contemplate the idea that anyone who doesn't subscribe completely to your single-minded political philosophy is a "neandarthal", a "partitionist", and whatever other names you feel the need to call people who disagree with you.

Just because we cannot organise a secure election (I think it can be done)
does not mean that we cannot give citizens the right to vote. For instance, people organise their own transport home from colleges to vote in elections BECAUSE they have the right to vote. The actual 'right' comes first, your reservations about actually organising that vote are noted, can you stop going on about it now and get to the substantive issue?

Let's bring this back yet again to first principles. Happyman42 believes that a referendum to allow people in Northern Ireland to vote would unquestionably pass, because there couldn't possibly be any conceivable objection to such a proposition.

Happyman said no such thing, Happyman asked, 'what possible objection could an Irish person have to giving another Irish citizen the vote'. You still haven't answered that. Move to the hypothetical, we have a secure system to do it and the ROI have sanctioned it...would you have further objections?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Happyman said no such thing, Happyman asked, 'what possible objection could an Irish person have to giving another Irish citizen the vote'. You still haven't answered that. Move to the hypothetical, we have a secure system to do it and the ROI have sanctioned it...would you have further objections?

Here's two.

1. What passes in our legislature does not directly affect them.
2. We don't have a vote in the house of Commons.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Here's two.

1. What passes in our legislature does not directly affect them.
2. We don't have a vote in the house of Commons.

1. I think it can be shown in the 'special circumstances that the GFA represents that "The President' of a state they identify with is something they are entitled to affect.
2. That's a tad simplistic and childish ('it's my ball' ) a response tbh.

losthorizon

I thought he already was President? He never takes part in any meaningful political debate anyway just like a president should. The non political Higgins says more. Mary Lou MacDonald the not leader of Sinn Fein is always wheeled out to answer questions.

Plus he has big big questions to answer about what and when he knew about his brother and why it was not reported earlier.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Just because we cannot organise a secure election (I think it can be done)
does not mean that we cannot give citizens the right to vote.

Your belief that a secure form of electronic voting can be implemented has no bearing on whether or not it can.

The actual 'right' comes first, your reservations about actually organising that vote are noted, can you stop going on about it now and get to the substantive issue?

You just don't get it, do you? For you, the substantive issue is letting people in Northern Ireland vote. For me, the substative issue is the integrity of the ballot. I get that you don't care about the integrity of the ballot (and no, "I'm sure we can figure it out" doesn't count as caring about it), but your lack of concern is never going to make me stop caring about it.

Happyman said no such thing, Happyman asked, 'what possible objection could an Irish person have to giving another Irish citizen the vote'. You still haven't answered that.

I have. Repeatedly. The fact that you don't agree with my objections doesn't mean I don't have valid objections.

Move to the hypothetical, we have a secure system to do it and the ROI have sanctioned it...would you have further objections?

After we've perfected a means of securely running an election outside the state, I'll review my objections.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think it can be shown in the 'special circumstances that the GFA represents that "The President' of a state they identify with is something they are entitled to affect.

That's a near-perfect example of circular reasoning: "I think people in Northern Ireland should be entitled to vote for the President because I feel that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote for the President."

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Your belief that a secure form of electronic voting can be implemented has no bearing on whether or not it can. You just don't get it, do you? For you, the substantive issue is letting people in Northern Ireland vote. For me, the substative issue is the integrity of the ballot. I get that you don't care about the integrity of the ballot (and no, "I'm sure we can figure it out" doesn't count as caring about it), but your lack of concern is never going to make me stop caring about it. I have. Repeatedly. The fact that you don't agree with my objections doesn't mean I don't have valid objections. After we've perfected a means of securely running an election outside the state, I'll review my objections.

That's a near-perfect example of circular reasoning: "I think people in Northern Ireland should be entitled to vote for the President because I feel that people in Northern Ireland are entitled to vote for the President."

We give the right to vote to people in the Republic without any regard to how they are actually going to vote (eg, people living/working/studying outside their constituencies) THE RIGHT comes first.
We could for instance say, you are entitled to vote if you can make it to a polling station in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. The point is the enfranchisement of all people who see themselves as citizens. Logistics can come later.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

We give the right to vote to people in the Republic without any regard to how they are actually going to vote (eg, people living/working/studying outside their constituencies) THE RIGHT comes first.
We could for instance say, you are entitled to vote if you can make it to a polling station in Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal. The point is the enfranchisement of all people who see themselves as citizens. Logistics can come later.

Oh, come on. That's bollox. We give people resident in constituencies the right to vote in those constituencies, if and only if they present themselves at a polling booth in the constituency in which they're registered.

I have a right to vote in Mayo, because I'm an Irish citizen who's registered to vote in Mayo. If I'm not in Mayo on election day, I don't get to vote, because my RIGHT to vote is trumped by the physical requirements designed around the security of the ballot.

Irish citizens living abroad have the RIGHT to vote in Irish elections, but as they're not registered to vote in constituencies in which they're resident, they can't exercise that right.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

1. I think it can be shown in the 'special circumstances that the GFA represents that "The President' of a state they identify with is something they are entitled to affect.
2. That's a tad simplistic and childish ('it's my ball' ) a response tbh.

1. Where exactly in the GFA does it explicitly say that?
2. Nope. We can see in the UK what problems are caused when one jurisdiction gets it's own parliament and a vote in it's neighbours. (Free education in Scotland anyone?) When we have a vote in your house of Commons then you can have a vote in our Dáil Eireann.

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. That's bollox. We give people resident in constituencies the right to vote in those constituencies, if and only if they present themselves at a polling booth in the constituency in which they're registered.

I have a right to vote in Mayo, because I'm an Irish citizen who's registered to vote in Mayo. If I'm not in Mayo on election day, I don't get to vote, because my RIGHT to vote is trumped by the physical requirements designed around the security of the ballot.

Irish citizens living abroad have the RIGHT to vote in Irish elections, but as they're not registered to vote in constituencies in which they're resident, they can't exercise that right.

Exactly...the RIGHT is the important thing from a citizenship point of view not whether you get to excercise it or not. In that sense your objection on logistical grounds is moot.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Where exactly in the GFA does it explicitly say that?

It doesn't refer to presidential elections, but it does refer to freedom to express identities. That applies if they are invited to vote in presidential elections by the ROI . It does not dilute or diminish the current status of N.I.

1. Nope. We can see in the UK what problems are caused when one jurisdiction gets it's own parliament and a vote in it's neighbours. (Free education in Scotland anyone?) When we have a vote in your house of Commons then you can have a vote in our Dáil Eireann.

Plenty of things apply in Scotland that don't in England. Other than allowing a significant community to express their identity what problem could it cause in either jurisdiction?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It doesn't refer to presidential elections, but it does refer to freedom to express identities. That applies if they are invited to vote in presidential elections by the ROI . It does not dilute or diminish the current status of N.I.

Express identities is meaningless waffle, if you want to introduce a major law like this you're going to need more substantial then the GFA to justify it.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Plenty of things apply in Scotland that don't in England. Other than allowing a significant community to express their identity what problem could it cause in either jurisdiction?

Lots of problems. They don't have a constituency to vote in and if we extended the vote to people living in Northern Ireland we'd have to extend it to other Irish citizens living in foreign countries. It's simply not practical.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Express identities is meaningless waffle,

Yes, Unionists laboured under that delusion for long enough, look how that turned out.

if you want to introduce a major law like this you're going to need more substantial then the GFA to justify it.

All it requires is a change in the constitution here. It doesn't affect N.I. as a state nor should it.

Lots of problems. They don't have a constituency to vote in and if we extended the vote to people living in Northern Ireland we'd have to extend it to other Irish citizens living in foreign countries. It's simply not practical.

What constituency is an American abroad in? Allowing people on islands off our shore to vote isn't 'practical' either but we overcome the logistics, because having the right to vote is important.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes, Unionists laboured under that delusion for long enough, look how that turned out.

What?

All it requires is a change in the constitution here. It doesn't affect N.I. as a state nor should it.

Then you'd have to pass a referendum you have no hope of passing.

What constituency is an American abroad in? Allowing people on islands off our shore to vote isn't 'practical' either but we overcome the logistics, because having the right to vote is important.

None, that's why they can't vote. And the people who live on islands are residents of Ireland*.

*The legal definition of Ireland not geographical obviously.

LordSutch

HRH_The_Queen wrote: »

Gerry Adams to run for President?

Never mind why Adams might run, Why is this thread still running?

And why has it been resurrected after an eight year coma?

Iwasfrozen

LordSutch wrote: »

Never mind why Adams might run, Why is this thread still running?

Because someone is wrong on the internet!!!!!

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Then you'd have to pass a referendum you have no hope of passing.

That is your opinion.

None, that's why they can't vote.

Americans can vote from abroad.

https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=I_BRUrKWOdPn7AbD2oDgCw#q=can+americans+vote+from+abroad

And the people who live on islands are residents of Ireland*.

*The legal definition of Ireland not geographical obviously.

But the point was, allowing them to vote isn't practical logistically, but it is overcome because they have the RIGHT to vote. The Right comes first, logistics shouldn't rule it out.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is your opinion.

It is.

Americans can vote from abroad.

https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=I_BRUrKWOdPn7AbD2oDgCw#q=can+americans+vote+from+abroad

Irish citizens in America can't vote in our elections. That's the point, remember?

But the point was, allowing them to vote isn't practical logistically, but it is overcome because they have the RIGHT to vote. The Right comes first, logistics shouldn't rule it out.

All residents of the Republic of Ireland (I know technically it's not called that but it eases confusion) have the right to vote. Citizenship on it's own is not enough, you have to be a resident citizen.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It is.


Irish citizens in America can't vote in our elections. That's the point, remember?

I asked in answer to your question, 'What constituency are Americans abroad in?' To which you replied 'None, that's why they can't vote'.
I think you are confused,

All residents of the Republic of Ireland (I know technically it's not called that but it eases confusion) have the right to vote. Citizenship on it's own is not enough, you have to be a resident citizen.

Yes, at the moment that is the case, the proposal would be to change that.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

I asked in answer to your question, 'What constituency are Americans abroad in?' To which you replied 'None, that's why they can't vote'.
I think you are confused,

I was talking about Irish citizens voting in foreign countries. You're the one who brought up America as if our systems of government are in any way similar.

Yes, at the moment that is the case, the proposal would be to change that.

Well at least we can agree on what we're arguing about. That's always a nice start.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All residents of the Republic of Ireland (I know technically it's not called that but it eases confusion) have the right to vote. Citizenship on it's own is not enough, you have to be a resident citizen.

TCD & NUI graduates who are Irish citizens living outside the RoI using a postal vote, can vote in the Seanad election to elect candidates to the university panel of that body. If a certain class of Irish citizen who aren't living here can vote to elect representatives to one of our parliamentary bodies, why can't other Irish citizens who are also not living here do the same?

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

TCD & NUI graduates who are Irish citizens living outside the RoI using a postal vote, can vote in the Seanad election to elect candidates to the university panel of that body. If a certain class of Irish citizen who aren't living here can vote to elect representatives to one of our parliamentary bodies, why can't other Irish citizens who are also not living here do the same?

You're right, let's ban Seanad postal votes.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I was talking about Irish citizens voting in foreign countries. You're the one who brought up America as if our systems of government are in any way similar.

:rolleyes: You said 'They (people in NI) don't have a constituency to vote in'
I asked 'What constituency are Americans abroad in?'

Well at least we can agree on what we're arguing about. That's always a nice start.

You are talking about logistics, I am talking about the right to vote.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're right, let's ban Seanad postal votes.

So for those non-resident Irish citizens who can elect Seanad members, what form of voting would you replace it with?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

:rolleyes: You said 'They (people in NI) don't have a constituency to vote in'
I asked 'What constituency are Americans abroad in?'

America is not relevant to the discussion at all.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are talking about logistics, I am talking about the right to vote.

What part of "All residents of the Republic of Ireland have the right to vote. Citizenship on it's own is not enough, you have to be a resident citizen" mentions logistics?

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So for those non-resident Irish citizens who can elect Seanad members, what form of voting would you replace it with?

None. If they're not resident they can't vote.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

None. If they're not resident they can't vote.

So you would disenfranchise them without their consent?

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you would disenfranchise them without their consent?

They're not being disenfranchised. They still have the right to vote.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're not being disenfranchised. They still have the right to vote.

And how will they do that then, since you've taken away their postal vote?

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

And how will they do that then, since you've taken away their postal vote?

They'll have to either travel back to the home sod to cast their vote or don't. Just like Dáil elections.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They'll have to either travel back to the home sod to cast their vote or don't. Just like Dáil elections.

How can they do this? Their permanent home address is outside the jurisdiction. Your requirement that they have to be a resident here to vote here is a form of disenfranchisment for these voters.

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

How can they do this? Their permanent home address is outside the jurisdiction. Your requirement that they have to be a resident here to vote here is a form of disenfranchisment for these voters.

I really don't see the problem here. Anyone who has left the country for more then 18 months does so with the knowledge and understanding they will not be able to vote in our elections.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I really don't see the problem here. Anyone who has left the country for more then 18 months does so with the knowledge and understanding they will not be able to vote in our elections.

Except the class of voters I already mentioned. I think there's a problem tbf. Either all non-resident Irish citizens have a vote (say to the Seanad or for the Presidency) or none have it. It's strange don't you think that some have this right, while others don't? I personally think they should have a vote. Proposed Seanad reform mentions this I believe.

Iwasfrozen

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Except the class of voters I already mentioned. I think there's a problem tbf. Either all non-resident Irish citizens have a vote (say to the Seanad or for the Presidency) or none have it. It's strange don't you think that some have this right, while others don't? I personally think they should have a vote. Proposed Seanad reform mentions this I believe.

All Irish citizens do have a vote. Unless they are not permanent residents in this country. Then their right to vote should be forfeit.

Mr Cumulonimbus

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

All Irish citizens do have a vote. Unless they are not permanent residents in this country. Then their right to vote should be forfeit.

And there is where i disagree.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

America is not relevant to the discussion at all.

Of course it is relevant to the logistics of voting and to those that object because it can not be organised.

What part of "All residents of the Republic of Ireland have the right to vote. Citizenship on it's own is not enough, you have to be a resident citizen" mentions logistics?


None. If they're not resident they can't vote.

And which bit of 'that is what the proposal will seek to change' do you not understand?

Given that we can overcome the logistical hurdle and we vote to change the constitution I am assuming you have no further objections.
I don't have time for this silly circular argument you are having fun with.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

. The point is the enfranchisement of all people who see themselves as citizens. Logistics can come later.

This is ludicrous.

I like France, the climate, the culture, the films, the people. I see myself as a citizen of France. Does that give me the right to vote?

Godge

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you would disenfranchise them without their consent?

We are not disenfranchising them.

They still have the right to vote so long as they are resident. That is their choice.

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Of course it is relevant to the logistics of voting and to those that object because it can not be organised.

Again with the straw man. Nobody has said that it can't be done; I've made the point that it can't be done without damaging the integrity of the electoral process, and that that's a tradeoff I'm not willing to make.

You can claim that it's not a tradeoff you're willing to make either, because you're introducing magical thinking to the discussion: it suits you to believe that remote voting can be conducted securely, therefore it can be conducted securely. No evidence, no reasoning, no logic other than "I believe this, therefore it's true."

The best you've been able to do is to point to the fact that other countries have postal voting, which is a lazy cop-out. Sure, the US allows its citizens to vote by post: so what? Are you seriously going to hold the US up as a model of how to hold elections?

I'll ask you the same question I've asked Mr C: do you actually understand why we hold elections the way we do?

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

This is ludicrous.

I like France, the climate, the culture, the films, the people. I see myself as a citizen of France. Does that give me the right to vote?

Again you are in denial about N.I. being a special case. You are in denial that it is a failed state in limbo and in a process, a process governed by the unique GFA. That alone makes it different to any comparisons to France or any other country you want to use. A cosignatory to that deal is a state which has a constitutional and recognised(by the British) aspiration to unity. Unity the British will have no objection to when the majority vote for it. The British will not imo have any objections to that growing majority having a vote in the south's presidential elections, as it has no implications for them, so basically it is a decision to be made by us, the people of the south.
Oscar Bravo keeps on about electoral integrity ignoring the fact that no method has full integrity. (Is 30% turnout a referendum with integrity? I would have to say no, but nothing would ever get done if we didn't compromise in some way)

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again you are in denial about N.I. being a special case. You are in denial that it is a failed state in limbo and in a process, a process governed by the unique GFA. That alone makes it different to any comparisons to France or any other country you want to use. A cosignatory to that deal is a state which has a constitutional and recognised(by the British) aspiration to unity. Unity the British will have no objection to when the majority vote for it. The British will not imo have any objections to that growing majority having a vote in the south's presidential elections, as it has no implications for them, so basically it is a decision to be made by us, the people of the south.
Oscar Bravo keeps on about electoral integrity ignoring the fact that no method has full integrity. (Is 30% turnout a referendum with integrity? I would have to say no, but nothing would ever get done if we didn't compromise in some way)

Sorry, as repeatedly pointed out it is only IRA apologists and SF supporters who see NI as a special case.

The Constitution gives equal weight and balance to those who gain citizenship by being born in Northern Ireland and those who gain citizenship by being born abroad to Irish parents.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the GFA, the constitution, the legislation in Britain or elsewhere that suggests everybody thinks the people of the North should have a vote in the Presidential election.

Just because one person dreams that the words mean something else doesn't make it true.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the GFA, the constitution, the legislation in Britain or elsewhere that suggests everybody thinks the people of the North should have a vote in the Presidential election.

Just because one person dreams that the words mean something else doesn't make it true.

That is what the proposal will attempt to change in the constitution....it's really simple, have you read any of the stuff from the Constitutional Convention at all?:rolleyes:

Mr Cumulonimbus

Godge wrote: »

We are not disenfranchising them.

They still have the right to vote so long as they are resident. That is their choice.

If you want to enforce the residency rule on all types of Seanad voter, some of them that currently have this right to vote will be deprived of it, i.e. disenfranchised.

Democracy Matters is in favour of broadening the number of those eligable to vote in Seanad elections, including Irish citizens resident in NI and elsewhere.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is what the proposal will attempt to change in the constitution....it's really simple, have you read any of the stuff from the Constitutional Convention at all?:rolleyes:

Anyone can propose to change anything in the Constitution. A mere proposal doesn't change what the Constitution or the GFA currently saying.

But you are going around claiming that the GFA, the Constitution and the various other agreements envisage a change when the truth is the opposite.

I have no problem with you making any fairytale amendments you wish but to then claim that these fairytale amendments have support from the GFA is the bit I have trouble with.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

Anyone can propose to change anything in the Constitution. A mere proposal doesn't change what the Constitution or the GFA currently saying.

But you are going around claiming that the GFA, the Constitution and the various other agreements envisage a change when the truth is the opposite.

I have no problem with you making any fairytale amendments you wish but to then claim that these fairytale amendments have support from the GFA is the bit I have trouble with.

Are you seriously suggesting that this would be on the table without the GFA being in place?

In the event of it happening, what, if any, would be the objections of Unionists?

oscarBravo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oscar Bravo keeps on about electoral integrity ignoring the fact that no method has full integrity.

I'm not ignoring that fact. I've addressed that point explicitly. You pretending I haven't said something isn't the same thing as me ignoring it.

I'll say it again, so you can ignore me saying it again, and look even sillier next time you try to claim I've ignored it: you don't have to believe a system is perfect in order not to want to see it made any worse.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that this would be on the table without the GFA being in place?

In the event of it happening, what, if any, would be the objections of Unionists?

There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this getting to the ballot paper for a referendum.

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this getting to the ballot paper for a referendum.

From another thread:

Even before the Seanad poll, however, there was doubt in Government circles about the merits and feasibility of the convention’s proposals to lower the voting age to 16 and expand the franchise in presidential elections to citizens living abroad.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-says-seanad-reform-is-on-the-agenda-1.1552321

Happyman42

oscarBravo wrote: »

From another thread:

Even before the Seanad poll, however, there was doubt in Government circles about the merits and feasibility of the convention’s proposals to lower the voting age to 16 and expand the franchise in presidential elections to citizens living abroad.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-says-seanad-reform-is-on-the-agenda-1.1552321

Is that the government with it's finger on the pulse of the nation and what it wants?