Genuine question on the abolition of the Seanad

lcrcboy

I voted no in favor of keeping, the Seanad, because I have been told and come to the conclusion that without it we as a nation are loosing part of are democracy.

So my question is this to the people on here that fully understand how the Irish government works and how other democracies work. Without the Seanad would it be considered a genuine step away from democracy??? or do other democracies do fine without a 2nd house??

And if it is against democracy is it genuinely something to worry about and why our elected politicians would think of removing it

cheers in advance for any responses to this question.

the groutch

I would seriously question how democratic the Seanad really is, considering the majority of the members are appointed to their position, with the rest voted in by a very small elite, and alot of the members having already been rejected by democracy in a general election.

Iwasfrozen

the groutch wrote: »

I would seriously question how democratic the Seanad really is, considering the majority of the members are appointed to their position, with the rest voted in by a very small elite, and alot of the members having already been rejected by democracy in a general election.

FFS NUI graduates are not a very small elite. I would hardly class myself as a member of a very small elite. :rolleyes:

AlekSmart

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

FFS NUI graduates are not a very small elite. I would hardly class myself as a member of a very small elite. :rolleyes:

Hmmm,it kinda reopens an issue raised on another thread which wondered why a significant proportion of our people actively decry education and,more particularly,the educated.....

Iwasfrozen

AlekSmart wrote: »

Hmmm,it kinda reopens an issue raised on another thread which wondered why a significant proportion of our people actively decry education and,more particularly,the educated.....

Probably lack of opportunity to go to college. I totally believe free third level education is an absolute must for all citizens. And I say that even now as a graduate.

johnnyskeleton

While it might not be democratically elected in an election, the Seanad is not devoid of democracy. They are elected by the dail members and some are appointed by the Taoiseach.

To say that it is undemocratic is a bit like the way people said that nobody voted for Brian cowen as Taoiseach - we vote for a dail who in turn vote for a Taoiseach and Seanad and then the Taoiseach forms the government.

In effect, your vote for your local td will be important in determining who 54 of the 60 senators will be. Maybe more parties should pledge to appoint genuine technical experts to the Seanad instead of stuffing it with failed politicians.

Annasopra

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

FFS NUI graduates are not a very small elite. I would hardly class myself as a member of a very small elite. :rolleyes:

You're a University graduate - what makes you more special and entitled to a vote than someone who never entered third level education?

BTW University graduates are in fact a small elite. Firstly they are a very small percentage of the population, secondly the vast majority of graduates are from middle class backgrounds; there are very few university graduates from working class backgrounds. It is a fact that a small elite elect 6 senators in this country.

Harry Angstrom

lcrcboy wrote: »

I voted no in favor of keeping, the Seanad, because I have been told and come to the conclusion that without it we as a nation are loosing part of are democracy.

The people who say we are losing part of our democracy spout forward these grandiose airy-fairy ideals about The Seanad, when the truth of the matter is that it has no real power and it's completely undemocratic. Don't believe the hype.

lcrcboy

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

The people who say we are losing part of our democracy spout forward these grandiose airy-fairy ideals about The Seanad, when the truth of the matter is that it has no real power and it's completely undemocratic. Don't believe the hype.

Would reform of the Seanad be a better option then removing it??

johnnyskeleton

mango salsa wrote: »

You're a University graduate - what makes you more special and entitled to a vote than someone who never entered third level education?

The Seanad is supposed to have technical expertise from university graduates. Giving 6 seats to colleges is a way to ensure that they go into the Seanad. University grads electing the candidates is fairer than the university administrations simply appointing people.

BTW University graduates are in fact a small elite.

There are about 60,000 leaving cert students each year, and about 45,000 third level places. Now by everyone goes to leaving cert level and not all third level institutions are Seanad voting universities, but even still it's hardly an elite.

Firstly they are a very small percentage of the population,

Roughly a third of the population:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/number-of-third-level-graduates-doubles-214830.html

Bear in mind that the current reduced fees has only been in place for 16 years.

secondly the vast majority of graduates are from middle class backgrounds;

What is your definition of middle class, what percentage of the graduate population are middle class and what percentage of the general population are middle class?

These are important figures because even if 70% of college grads are middle class, there is nothing wrong with that if 70% of the general population is middle class.

there are very few university graduates from working class backgrounds.

Why? There are grants and reduced fees and part time jobs, and if it can secure a better job it is worth it to spend a few years getting a college education.

If someone, of whatever background, drops out of school and makes loads of money during the boom from a trade and laughs at his contemporaries, he/she can't turn around now and say "damn those elites who went to college and are still employed. It's because I'm working class and they're middle class".

Since many people from modest backgrounds have gone on to the top irish universities, the problem is not with the system but with the life choices of people.

Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate the difficulties of getting through school and then university if you are from a disadvantaged background, but for every one person who the system genuinely fails there are a dozen who choose not to go to college because it's too hard work, but would rather blame the system than themselves.

It is a fact that a small elite elect 6 senators in this country.

It is a fact that those senators are elected by a more educated demographic than most TDs and councillors. It is not a fact that this amounts to an "elite", since college is available to all.

Harry Angstrom

lcrcboy wrote: »

Would reform of the Seanad be a better option then removing it??

Is it going to be reformed? Fundamental reform would require another referendum and we're not going to have that anytime soon.

hfallada

University graduates only elect a very small number of the senead. Your local councillors vote for nearly 2/3 thirds of the senead. I think that is more shocking element of the senead, the fools in a county council can element people into a institution that is"important"

Now days pretty much everyone has the opportunity to a university education if they work hard to get into college. University is no longer just for the elite. But this whole notion of the "1% percentage" was constantly thrown around during the campaign.

Hidalgo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Roughly a third of the population:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/number-of-third-level-graduates-doubles-214830.html

Bear in mind that the current reduced fees has only been in place for 16 years.



.

That Examiner article only states the % of the population with a third level qualification, i.e it includes institutes of technology and universities like DCU and UL, none of which have a vote in Seanad elections.

COYW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

FFS NUI graduates are not a very small elite. I would hardly class myself as a member of a very small elite. :rolleyes:

Elite, I wish. NUI graduates go on to form the middle classes for the most-part. The people who are keeping this country going.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Is it going to be reformed? Fundamental reform would require another referendum and we're not going to have that anytime soon.

Nah, I say that'll be all on the Seanad for the lifetime of this government. I can see reform being a policy that parties will use in the next election. I can certainly see FF running with it, after their 'No' campaign.

Javan

lcrcboy wrote: »

I voted no in favor of keeping, the Seanad, because I have been told and come to the conclusion that without it we as a nation are loosing part of are democracy.

So my question is this to the people on here that fully understand how the Irish government works and how other democracies work. Without the Seanad would it be considered a genuine step away from democracy??? or do other democracies do fine without a 2nd house??

And if it is against democracy is it genuinely something to worry about and why our elected politicians would think of removing it

cheers in advance for any responses to this question.

For me the bottom line on this is the number of people involved in the legislature and the division of responsibility for the legislature, judiciary and executive.

I voted 'no', and strongly believe that is the correct answer to the question we were given. I also believe there are many more efficient and effective ways we can run the country with or without the Seanad.

IMO (and it is just an opinion) if we were to abolish the Seanad we would need to change a lot of other things to maintain a functioning democracy:
- At the moment the decisions in the Dail are made by the Cabinet (or arguably by the four-man economic council). Their decisions are implemented by a strict application of the whip system. Unless you happen to vote for a minister your elected reps have no authority. That is undemocratic and should change.
- There is no clear distinction between the legislature and executive. The legislature (the Oireachtas) contains members that are the leaders of the executive (the civil service). There should be a clear line between the legislature that sets policy and the executive that executes the policy.
- The current government has made attempts to usurp the role of the judiciary also most notably by trying to get additional powers for Oireachtas enquiries. We need to be vigilant about this and make sure there is clear space between the legislature and judiciary.
- The Dail as it stands spends an enormous amount of time on local issues. It does this because there is no effective local government in this country. The Dail should delegate some legislative authority to local government (properly elected, and not led by unelected managers or mayors). The Dail could then do a better job at improving the national situation knowing that local issues will be resolved at local level.

If you look at the unicameral democracies that were presented by the 'yes' campaign as evidence that we can do without a senate you will see that they all have strong local government and an independent judiciary, and most have clear space between the legislature and executive.

So in answer to your question: other democracies work very well without a second house. We could too. If we adopt a huge, wide-ranging reform program that would take years to implement.

Harry Angstrom

COYW wrote: »

I can see reform being a policy that parties will use in the next election. I can certainly see FF running with it, after their 'No' campaign.

Reform is always a burning issue for parties in opposition. They quickly forget about reform when they get into power though.

Harry Angstrom

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Roughly a third of the population:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/number-of-third-level-graduates-doubles-214830.html

Bear in mind that the current reduced fees has only been in place for 16 years.

Not all third level graduates can vote in Seanad elections. Graduates from Institutes of Technology and graduates from UL and DCU are not entitled to a Seanad vote.

Carlos Orange

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Not all third level graduates can vote in Seanad elections. Graduates from Institutes of Technology and graduates from UL and DCU are not entitled to a Seanad vote.

Looking at the student numbers I wouldn't be surprised if more people with 3rd level cannot vote than can.

COYW

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Reform is always a burning issue for parties in opposition. They quickly forget about reform when they get into power though.

Oh god yeah, they will talk about it during the campaign. However, I would be pleasantly surprised if that talk resulted in concrete action after the election.

Sierra Oscar

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Not all third level graduates can vote in Seanad elections. Graduates from Institutes of Technology and graduates from UL and DCU are not entitled to a Seanad vote.

The franchise can be extended immediately - all it requires is for legislation to be introduced.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Harry Angstrom

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The franchise can be extended immediately - all it requires is for legislation to be introduced.

They've been sitting on that for over 30 years.

Hidalgo

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The franchise can be extended immediately - all it requires is for legislation to be introduced.

FF's Avril Power already calling for the entire electorate be given voting rights in Seanad elections

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Javan

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not necessarily.

If, for example, you create constituencies that are based on the existing panel system (ie; not based on geography but based on expertise) and you give everyone in the electorate the opportunity to vote in one of those panels then you will not get a mirror of the Dail. You will get a get a house with a range of specialists rather than all generalists.

nesf

Javan wrote: »

Not necessarily.

If, for example, you create constituencies that are based on the existing panel system (ie; not based on geography but based on expertise) and you give everyone in the electorate the opportunity to vote in one of those panels then you will not get a mirror of the Dail. You will get a get a house with a range of specialists rather than all generalists.

That wouldn't work. I'd fall under three panel headings due to my work, education and other factors. Do I get to vote 3 times? Terrible idea. Do I get to pick which panel I get to vote in? Even worse, I can pick the one that maximises my vote. Other people I know wouldn't qualify for any of the current panels.

A popular vote would be a bad idea precisely because we don't want the same electorate voting in both houses. You could do some kind of list system and 4 constituencies or whatever to mix things up but you'll still basically get the same FF/FG/Lab/SF/Other split as you get in the Dáil making it pointless. A second house that isn't open to general vote yet is restricted in its powers due to the lack of generality is the most interesting option I think.

Annasopra

It's absurd and shocking that people are claiming that giving people with third level qualifications extra votes is not elitist.

In fact when you read the definition of elitism it is very clear that it is elitist and frankly anyone arguing otgerwise really has no argument.

1. 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.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Iwasfrozen

mango salsa wrote: »

It's absurd and shocking that people are claiming that giving people with third level qualifications extra votes is not elitist.

In fact when you read the definition of elitism it is very clear that it is elitist and frankly anyone arguing otgerwise really has no argument.

1. 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.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Anyone can get a third level degree, all it requires is hard work. Why should people not be rewarded for their hard work?

Javan

nesf wrote: »

That wouldn't work. I'd fall under three panel headings due to my work, education and other factors. Do I get to vote 3 times? Terrible idea. Do I get to pick which panel I get to vote in? Even worse, I can pick the one that maximises my vote. Other people I know wouldn't qualify for any of the current panels.

A popular vote would be a bad idea precisely because we don't want the same electorate voting in both houses. You could do some kind of list system and 4 constituencies or whatever to mix things up but you'll still basically get the same FF/FG/Lab/SF/Other split as you get in the Dáil making it pointless. A second house that isn't open to general vote yet is restricted in its powers due to the lack of generality is the most interesting option I think.

No-one should have more than one vote. That should be obvious.
And as I said it anyone could pick the panel that they voted in; there are no qualifications to be an elector in a panel.

I don't know exactly how the nomination system would work, but I'm sure it would be possible to devise a nomination system that maintained the integrity of the panels while also giving anyone the opportunity to vote for any nominated candidates in their chosen panel. Also if the nomination system was not based on party politics then the members of the house would not come from party politics either.

There is only one electorate: the people of this country. Any plan based on different electorates just brings forward the worst of the current Seanad electoral system.

Harry Angstrom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Anyone can get a third level degree, all it requires is hard work. Why should people not be rewarded for their hard work?

That's a ridiculous argument. The very concept of a democratic republic is that all its citizens are equal. The fact that a third level degree entitles a person to a vote over a person who doesn't hold a degree is absurd. Maybe we should only allow people with an IQ above a certain threshold to vote in general elections? :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

That's a ridiculous argument. The very concept of a democratic republic is that all its citizens are equal. The fact that a third level degree entitles a person to a vote over a person who doesn't hold a degree is absurd. Maybe we should only allow people with an IQ above a certain threshold to vote in general elections? :rolleyes:

The two situations aren't comparable. IQ is genetic, it's something you're born with while a college degree can be obtained by anybody who is prepared to work for it.

If we consider a highly educated population a national asset then there's nothing wrong with incentivising citizens to strive for this. Also on a practical level a meritocratic upper house keeping check on a more volatile lower house makes a lot of sense.

Javan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The two situations aren't comparable. IQ is genetic, it's something you're born with while a college degree can be obtained by anybody who is prepared to work for it.

If we consider a highly educated population a national asset then there's nothing wrong with incentivising citizens to strive for this. Also on a practical level a meritocratic upper house keeping check on a more volatile lower house makes a lot of sense.

A university degree is not an option for everyone. It is not even an option for all the most intelligent people.
An electorate based on that sort of qualification is fundamentally undemocratic.

Harry Angstrom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The two situations aren't comparable. IQ is genetic, it's something you're born with while a college degree can be obtained by anybody who is prepared to work for it.

So how come the majority of college graduates are still coming from middle class backgrounds? Are we to deduce that middle class people work harder than those from poorer backgrounds? :rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

Javan wrote: »

A university degree is not an option for everyone. It is not even an option for all the most intelligent people.
An electorate based on that sort of qualification is fundamentally undemocratic.

Let's not talk about intelligence, that's not important.

There's nothing undemocratic about incentivising a particular achievement seen as desirable for the population to strive for.

Iwasfrozen

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

So how come the majority of college graduates are still coming from middle class backgrounds? Are we to deduce that middle class people work harder than those from poorer backgrounds? :rolleyes:

Of course not. Most college graduates come from middle class backgrounds because those families place a greater emphasis on their children for education. Exactly why we should incentivise working class children to education.

Javan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let's not talk about intelligence, that's not important.

There's nothing undemocratic about incentivising a particular achievement seen as desirable for the population to strive for.

You brought up intelligence with your comment on IQ.

Agreed; there is nothing undemocratic about having incentives for achievement, but I'd make 2 points:
- A Seanad vote is not useful as an incentive for achievement because it is not offered to everyone who has a degree and because it does not enter into the decision making process of people considering degrees.
- The right to vote for the legislature of the country should not be conditional on anything other then citizenship. Making it conditional undermines the democratic mandate of the legislature.

Harry Angstrom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Of course not. Most college graduates come from middle class backgrounds because those families place a greater emphasis on their children for education. Exactly why we should incentivise working class children to education.

That's bollocks. I know plenty of people from poor and working class backgrounds who had no other option but to leave school and get a job straight after the Leaving Cert. It had nothing to do with their parents not placing a greater emphasis on further education. It had everything to do with straitened financial situations.

Iwasfrozen

Javan wrote: »

You brought up intelligence with your comment on IQ.

No I didn't. Harry Angstrom did. I dismissed it as not important.

- A Seanad vote is not useful as an incentive for achievement because it is not offered to everyone who has a degree and because it does not enter into the decision making process of people considering degrees.

Well let's change that. As part of reforms giving the Seanad more powers lets extend the right to vote to all third level institutions.

- The right to vote for the legislature of the country should not be conditional on anything other then citizenship. Making it conditional undermines the democratic mandate of the legislature.

1. Democracy is volatile. Sometimes checks on rampant democracy is a good thing. That's why I voted no.
2. The Seanad is not the entire legislature. The one man one vote principal still stands in the Dáil.

Iwasfrozen

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

That's bollocks. I know plenty of people from poor and working class backgrounds who had no other option but to leave school and get a job straight after the Leaving Cert. It had nothing to do with their parents not placing a greater emphasis on further education. It had everything to do with straitened financial situations.

For the first two years of my degree I didn't require any financial support from my parents. My free fees and 6k maintenance grant was more then enough to cover me living in Dublin. Only when the maintainence grant was cut and my rent went up as a consequence of the recession did I seek financial help.

Harry Angstrom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the first two years of my degree I didn't require any financial support from my parents. My free fees and 6k maintenance grant was more then enough to cover me living in Dublin. Only when the maintainence grant was cut and my rent went up as a consequence of the recession did I seek financial help.

Well bully for you. Give yourself a pat on the back and a Seanad vote while you're at it.

Iwasfrozen

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Well bully for you. Give yourself a pat on the back and a Seanad vote while you're at it.

No bully for me I'm just calling your bluff when you claim third level education is out of the question for people from working class backgrounds.

Harry Angstrom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No bully for me I'm just calling your bluff when you claim third level education is out of the question for people from working class backgrounds.

Calling my bluff? I'll tell that to the people I know who couldn't attend third level because family circumstances didn't dictate it, will I?

Javan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No I didn't. Harry Angstrom did. I dismissed it as not important.

Fair enough.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well let's change that. As part of reforms giving the Seanad more powers lets extend the right to vote to all third level institutions.

Still not good enough. Is academic achievement the only thing worthy of this prize, or the only behaviour that should be incentivised? What about sporting achievement? Or entrepreneurs? Surely building a business and employing people is worthy of some special reward if you are going to reward going to college?
You can't start making exceptions like this and expect it to work.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

1. Democracy is volatile. Sometimes checks on rampant democracy is a good thing. That's why I voted no.
2. The Seanad is not the entire legislature. The one man one vote principal still stands in the Dáil.

Agreed that democracy can devolve to mob rule, and that the Seanad should have a different role to the Dail. That does not speak to making exceptions for graduates.

One final point, because I think this thread is getting hijacked:
No matter what; this is an argument you are not going to win. You are never going to get enough people to vote for this sort of exceptionalism.

Edit: I lied; another final point:
The one man one vote principle is broken in the Dail by the whip system. I don't happen to have any ministers in my constituency, so my reps have no effective say in the government. My Dail vote is stolen by the whip system.

View

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let's not talk about intelligence, that's not important.

There's nothing undemocratic about incentivising a particular achievement seen as desirable for the population to strive for.

Grand, so we limit the (Dail) vote to people earning 100K+ a year, maybe give some of them fancy titles and life membership of the Seanad.

Feeling incentivised yet?

Harry Angstrom

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No bully for me I'm just calling your bluff when you claim third level education is out of the question for people from working class backgrounds.

You don't have a clue. You're only a youngfella. You should have tried growing up in this country in the 60's 70's or 80's to see exactly what it was like for people from poor and working class backgrounds to pursue a third level education. For many it was impossible. These people are still of working age and have probably contributed a lot more to this economy than the ones who got their degrees and took the next plane out of here.

Iwasfrozen

Javan wrote: »

Still not good enough. Is academic achievement the only thing worthy of this prize, or the only behaviour that should be incentivised? What about sporting achievement? Or entrepreneurs? Surely building a business and employing people is worthy of some special reward if you are going to reward going to college?
You can't start making exceptions like this and expect it to work.

Business wouldn't work because there's no formal achievement you can have in business to base it on.

One final point, because I think this thread is getting hijacked:
No matter what; this is an argument you are not going to win. You are never going to get enough people to vote for this sort of exceptionalism.

I don't need to win people over. The Seanad will keep it's University votes. They're untouchable now.

The one man one vote principle is broken in the Dail by the whip system. I don't happen to have any ministers in my constituency, so my reps have no effective say in the government. My Dail vote is stolen by the whip system.

That's the purpose of the whip system. To stop TDs putting the needs of their constituencies over the national interest. Not saying it works but that's the idea.

View wrote: »

Grand, so we limit the (Dail) vote to people earning 100K+ a year, maybe give some of them fancy titles and life membership of the Seanad.

Feeling incentivised yet?

Oddly yes.

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

You don't have a clue. You're only a youngfella. You should have tried growing up in this country in the 60's 70's or 80's to see exactly what it was like for people from poor and working class backgrounds to pursue a third level education. For many it was impossible. These people are still of working age and have probably contributed a lot more to this economy than the ones who got their degrees and took the next plane out of here.

Thankfully those days are gone. Third level education is open to everyone now.

nesf

Javan wrote: »

No-one should have more than one vote. That should be obvious.
And as I said it anyone could pick the panel that they voted in; there are no qualifications to be an elector in a panel.

I don't know exactly how the nomination system would work, but I'm sure it would be possible to devise a nomination system that maintained the integrity of the panels while also giving anyone the opportunity to vote for any nominated candidates in their chosen panel. Also if the nomination system was not based on party politics then the members of the house would not come from party politics either.

There is only one electorate: the people of this country. Any plan based on different electorates just brings forward the worst of the current Seanad electoral system.

There is far more than one electorate. We indirectly elect a lot of very important people, e.g. Judges, Ombudsmen and Regulators. We've no direct say in any of these.

A limited electorate of some kind for an upper house is ok, so long as it itself can never create or enact law. If it is a house of scrutiny which on its own cannot affect matters but in concert with TDs from the lower house delay Bills and send them off for further checking then this is fine, the real power is (and should be) in the Dáil. The upper house would serve as a constructional check rather than a popular check on the Dáil.

johnnyskeleton

mango salsa wrote: »

It's absurd and shocking that people are claiming that giving people with third level qualifications extra votes is not elitist.

In fact when you read the definition of elitism it is very clear that it is elitist and frankly anyone arguing otgerwise really has no argument.

1. 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.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Well if it were the case that only the children of college grads could go to college, and that only college grads could vote to elect the Taoiseach, then that would be an elite.

But the university senators are not in a position of power they are there to assist the dail as technical experts. If you like, the real question is why don't other important parts of civic life - doctors, school teachers, emergency services, writers, journalists, farmers, lawyers, dare I say it bankers - who can provide their expertise to the Seanad and ultimately to the government.

As for the vote - again it is not a question of giving university grads a special status in society, it's that universities are supposed to appoint experts to the Seanad and they have decided that elections are better than the administrations just appointing people.

Meaning no disrespect, I think your misunderstanding of the reasons why there are six university senators is why you believe that it is elitest.

syklops

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

For the first two years of my degree I didn't require any financial support from my parents. My free fees and 6k maintenance grant was more then enough to cover me living in Dublin. Only when the maintainence grant was cut and my rent went up as a consequence of the recession did I seek financial help.

Free fees yes, but what about admin(or whatever its called) charge of about 1k? Plus books. Considering the basic dole is 9600 a year I find it surprising you lived and went to college on 6k.

They're untouchable now.

If only they had some power to wield!

Iwasfrozen

syklops wrote: »

Free fees yes, but what about admin(or whatever its called) charge of about 1k? Plus books. Considering the basic dole is 9600 a year I find it surprising you lived and went to college on 6k.

The admin charge was covered too. And yep. 6k was all I needed to live in the big smoke for 9 months.

syklops wrote: »

If only they had some power to wield!

Indeed.

1865

To answer the op. Losing the Seanad could be ok for democracy but not with our current situation.
In most unicameral countries there is a very well developed local government system. There could be multiples of the number of councillors that we have here. Some of the nordic countries have a local councillor for every thousand odd voters. But bear in mind that many of the councillors would be unpaid.

So a solution to losing the Seanad could be to massively improve local government I.e. more councillors with real local democracy.

Btw I voted no as I would like to see a reformed Seanad which is subordinate to the dail but with defined watchdog powers.

Unfortunately any solution requires more politicians of some sort.