Recoupment of Presidential election expenses

Balf

https://kfmradio.com/news/17102018-1056/michael-d-higgins-tops-latest-presidential-election-opinion-poll

Polls seems to suggest that the current incumbent will be comfortably elected on the first count, with a surplus of the order of 16% of the poll.

For election expenses to be recouped, a candidate must achieve at least one quarter of a quota. Looking at the last poll, it is possible than none of the other candidates will achieve that margin.

However, there is a provision that may come to their assistance.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/proportional_representation.html#l1f4da

The surplus must be distributed if it can elect a candidate or save the lowest candidate from elimination or qualify a candidate for recoupment of their election expenses or deposit (if applicable).

So a very likely outcome of this election will be a second count, purely to determine if any candidate should have their election expenses recouped.

I know this is an extreme case (and hasn't actually happened yet!). But I think it highlights an anomoly. I get the overall point of this - support to encourage candidates representing some kind of significant cohort to participate, while at the same time excluding fringe/way-out candidates from support.

But making the assessement on the basis of a final distribution of all transfers strikes me as excessive. Surely, a rule based on passing (say) a 10% threshold of first preferences would be better than undertaking to hold a count with the sole purpose of bringing people over the line.

Any views?

L1011

I can see there being a huge volume of non-transferable Higgins votes.

I don't think there has ever been a case for this to occur before, most single seat elections have either been two candidates or required multiple counts to elect anyway.

ArmaniJeanss

Balf wrote: »

https://kfmradio.com/news/17102018-1056/michael-d-higgins-tops-latest-presidential-election-opinion-poll

Polls seems to suggest that the current incumbent will be comfortably elected on the first count, with a surplus of the order of 16% of the poll.

For election expenses to be recouped, a candidate must achieve at least one quarter of a quota. Looking at the last poll, it is possible than none of the other candidates will achieve that margin.

However, there is a provision that may come to their assistance.So a very likely outcome of this election will be a second count, purely to determine if any candidate should have their election expenses recouped.

I know this is an extreme case (and hasn't actually happened yet!). But I think it highlights an anomoly. I get the overall point of this - support to encourage candidates representing some kind of significant cohort to participate, while at the same time excluding fringe/way-out candidates from support.

But making the assessement on the basis of a final distribution of all transfers strikes me as excessive. Surely, a rule based on passing (say) a 10% threshold of first preferences would be better than undertaking to hold a count with the sole purpose of bringing people over the line.

Any views?

You've misread the meaning of your link in the citizens info link.

The surplus must be distributed if it can elect a candidate or save the lowest candidate from elimination or qualify a candidate for recoupment of their election expenses or deposit (if applicable).

This entire clause is just dealing with the situation where the counting officer needn't bother distributing a small surplus because the amount of votes involved can't elect anyone else or move them up above the next highest candidate, so they go straight to the next elimination and then see if that previous surplus has now become meaningful.
It's only a factor in multi-seat constituencies.

Also further down it says

Counting continues until all the seats have been filled.

which is very definitive. There's only one seat here - once its filled, probably on count 1, it's all over.