The strange affair of Dimmy Tooley

expectationlost

how did all these TDs come to the opinion that tellers are supposed to (only) check their own groups votes?
My understanding of teller(s) is that check all votes. (btw the 4 of them)

PF: What did you see your role as the Teller including on the day in question? Deputy Murphy: You make sure you know your own Group and the numbers. You make sure they are all there and you check the screen to see if any adjustments are required and reflect that in the vote. As far as I can recall there were no adjustments in the votes I was Teller for on that day , although I couldn’t be sure

PF: In terms of your function as a teller, what do you see as your role? Deputy Mitchell: I make sure that what I am signing off on reflects the actual vote. In relation to the numbers, you just make sure that your people are in their seats and all voting in accordance with the whip in our block.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/committee/dail/32/committee_on_procedure_dail_eireann/reports/2019/2019-10-24_report-on-the-review-by-the-clerk-of-dail-eireann-of-electronic-voting-in-dail-eireann-on-thursday-17-october-2019_en.pdf

Beasty

Boggles wrote: »

It wasn't a big deal, it wasn't based on malice or fraud.

I think it's a massive deal

Elected representatives paid to make laws not being able to follow simple rules. What sort of message does that send out to the voters? Why should anyone have any respect for them, other than people looking for an excuse to have flouted rules?

Calhoun

Beasty wrote: »

I think it's a massive deal

Elected representatives paid to make laws not being able to follow simple rules. What sort of message does that send out to the voters? Why should anyone have any respect for them, other than people looking for an excuse to have flouted rules?

Agreed, they are supposed to be examples of doing things in the right manner. People being absent from the Dail should have an impact on getting a vote through.

It undermines the democratic process as it gives off an air of gaming the system.

Boggles

Beasty wrote: »

I think it's a massive deal

Elected representatives paid to make laws not being able to follow simple rules. What sort of message does that send out to the voters? Why should anyone have any respect for them, other than people looking for an excuse to have flouted rules?

It really isn't a massive deal for 2 reasons.

Which way a party member will vote is predetermined.

Most of the time they haven't a clue what they are voting for unless they oppose it or it's something controversial. I can guarantee if they showed the footage from the Debate of what was been voted on you will see a largely empty chamber.

Now is any of that right? No. Is it a massive deal? No. As for the message it sends to the voters, not a jot will be given. Story will be forgotten about next week.

bladespin

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Hi, what vote passed with a narrow majority that concerns you?

Any and all. If the voting carried out is open to question, which all involved have admitted, then I can't see how any legislation could stand, just my personal opinion.

bladespin

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Hi, what vote passed with a narrow majority that concerns you?

Any and all. If the voting carried out is open to question, which all involved have admitted, then I can't see how any legislation could stand, just my personal opinion.

Boggles wrote: »

It really isn't a massive deal for 2 reasons.

Which way a party member will vote is predetermined.

They're supposed to be predetermined but they're not = Adams - Tobin.

Also, not too sure if all who voted were actually present, if they weren't then that's rigging, definitely not allowed.

Boggles

bladespin wrote: »

Also, not too sure if all who voted were actually present, if they weren't then that's rigging, definitely not allowed.

The Whip system is essentially rigging.

What were they actually voting on? I haven't seen it reported, half of them probably don't know themselves.

There is limited if any interest in 95% of legislation, because it is mind mumbling boring, no one shows up the debates, the text is all handled by civil servants and legals, and the formality of voting is basically just a formality concocted a 100 years ago.

Now none of that makes it right, but it explains why.

For me it is a minor issue not a major one.

tjhook

Boggles wrote: »

There is limited if any interest in 95% of legislation, because it is mind mumbling boring, no one shows up the debates, the text is all handled by civil servants and legals, and the formality of voting is basically just a formality concocted a 100 years ago.

If they have so little interest in it, they shouldn't apply for the job!

Boggles

tjhook wrote: »

If they have so little interest in it, they shouldn't apply for the job!

Sorry you think Irish Politicians apply for the job to make a difference?

:pac:

Some do, the system eventually gobbles them up though.

_Kaiser_

blanch152 wrote: »

It's unbelievable.

People were all for the guillotine and then disappeared when the bould Gerry was implicated. Then again, he probably couldn't remember which seat was his.

Right so...

- I don't give a toss about SF. Never have voted for them, never will - it'd be a disaster for this country which is wholly dependent on FDI

- When this story emerged I posted here saying that it wouldn't surprise me if others from other parties were implicated (this was based on Flanagan getting a bit stuck when questioned by Newstalk that morning)

- I also said that this looked like a mud-slinging attempt from someone on the back of what was supposed to be a done deal on Brexit and talk of early elections here (still stand by that by the way!) that's rather dramatically backfired

- I ALSO said that "any wrongdoing by TD's regardless of party affiliation should be exposed and actioned" and I stand by that as well.


So maybe stop trying to deflect by trying the predicatable and nonsensical claim that anyone who has an issue must be a Shinner :rolleyes: No-one is buying it.. no more than anyone still believes that FG are the party of law and order!

bladespin

Boggles wrote: »

The Whip system is essentially rigging.

Absolutely but as per the Tobin comment, some ignore the party whip and vote for themselves, in the Adams case it's a fraudulent vote as Tobin would never have voted for that bill.

Boggles wrote: »

What were they actually voting on? I haven't seen it reported, half of them probably don't know themselves.

There is limited if any interest in 95% of legislation, because it is mind mumbling boring, no one shows up the debates, the text is all handled by civil servants and legals, and the formality of voting is basically just a formality concocted a 100 years ago.

Very much agree but that's their job, what they're paid to do, they could at least do it properly.

Boggles wrote: »

Now none of that makes it right, but it explains why.

For me it is a minor issue not a major one.

I think it could be very major issue, potentially anything that has passed through the dail can now be challenged legally (on a sound basis), not just speaking about Mr.Dooley's vote in this instance, we're seeing admissions that it has been going on for some time, imagine the task of having to check back through each and every bit of legislation to prove all were present and correct?

All you need now is a motivated objector, there has been several pieces of legislation that have had bitter objectors: same sex marriage, abortion etc, across the board consensus for sure but if the result is not valid through technicality, what then????

Not being dramatic, just think it's worth debating the possibilities, it is one of the more interesting political topics lately.

Boggles

bladespin wrote: »

I think it could be very major issue, potentially anything that has passed through the dail can now be challenged legally (on a sound basis), not just speaking about Mr.Dooley's vote in this instance, we're seeing admissions that it has been going on for some time, imagine the task of having to check back through each and every bit of legislation to prove all were present and correct?

All you need now is a motivated objector, there has been several pieces of legislation that have had bitter objectors: same sex marriage, abortion etc, across the board consensus for sure but if the result is not valid through technicality, what then????

Not being dramatic, just think it's worth debating the possibilities, it is one of the more interesting political topics lately.

What legal credence is to their to suggest it would invalid legislation?

bladespin

Boggles wrote: »

What legal credence is to their to suggest it would invalid legislation?

We have voters who were not present who's vote was cast and counted, in my organisation that would require another vote, previous vote would be nullified.
Legally I'm not sure but as I said already, it's open to question now and so could be challenged.

Colonel Claptrap

bladespin wrote: »

We have voters who were not present who's vote was cast and counted, in my organisation that would require another vote, previous vote would be nullified.
Legally I'm not sure but as I said already, it's open to question now and so could be challenged.

If somebody is found to have voted twice in a divorce referendum do we rerun the entire vote?

This has the ability to unpick a lot of laws on our stature books. Do abortions become illegal until the Dail vote is reran?

Are same sex marriages annulled? Do people need to remarry?

Does the budget go out the window?

Can of worms.

Boggles

bladespin wrote: »

We have voters who were not present who's vote was cast and counted, in my organisation that would require another vote, previous vote would be nullified.

What do you mean?

bladespin

Boggles wrote: »

What do you mean?

In my organisation, like I said. ???

James Brown

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

If somebody is found to have voted twice in a divorce referendum do we rerun the entire vote?

This has the ability to unpick a lot of laws on our stature books. Do abortions become illegal until the Dail vote is reran?

Are same sex marriages annulled? Do people need to remarry?

Does the budget go out the window?

Can of worms.

And exactly why they shouldn't be doing it. Are we, (the state) opened to legal challenges now?

Boggles

bladespin wrote: »

In my organisation, like I said. ???

How can someone in your organisation cast a vote if they are not there?

bladespin

Boggles wrote: »

How can someone in your organisation cast a vote if they are not there?

They can't, but members have previously voted twice in the same box (accidentally), when there was more than one topic.

Boggles

bladespin wrote: »

They can't, but members have previously voted twice in the same box (accidentally), when there was more than one topic.

Oh right, so poor example.

bladespin

Boggles wrote: »

Oh right, so poor example.

Ah no, I'm not citing our club as a legal precedent or anything like that but they do make a serious effort re. member votes etc, and are quite strict about it all.

My posts aren't meant as argumentative (as such), just poking the nest. I can remember smaller things than that causing emergency sessions etc.

marieholmfan

bladespin wrote: »

Ah no, I'm not citing our club as a legal precedent or anything like that but they do make a serious effort re. member votes etc, and are quite strict about it all.

My posts aren't meant as argumentative (as such), just poking the nest. I can remember smaller things than that causing emergency sessions etc.

I don't think that you are being at all argumentative. Your examples are normative; it is the posters claiming that it can be acceptable for a deputy to vote on behalf of another deputy not present in the chamber whose claims are bizarre.

Colonel Claptrap

marieholmfan wrote: »

I don't think that you are being at all argumentative. Your examples are normative; it is the posters claiming that it can be acceptable for a deputy to vote on behalf of another deputy not present in the chamber whose claims are bizarre.

Who is claiming that?
I haven't seen anyone say it's acceptable.

Boggles

marieholmfan wrote: »

I don't think that you are being at all argumentative. Your examples are normative; it is the posters claiming that it can be acceptable for a deputy to vote on behalf of another deputy not present in the chamber whose claims are bizarre.

Have you a link for that when you are ready?

James Brown

We've had a few of the usual playing it down and talking around it TBF.

is_that_so

bladespin wrote: »

We have voters who were not present who's vote was cast and counted, in my organisation that would require another vote, previous vote would be nullified.
Legally I'm not sure but as I said already, it's open to question now and so could be challenged.

Not in the chamber sure but elsewhere in the chamber is more of a grey area. That said, in their sets is where they should all be. Party voting in parliament is not the same as elsewhere. Members actually know how others in the same party will vote because of party rules, with very few exceptions.

marieholmfan

Boggles wrote: »

Have you a link for that when you are ready?

More deflection?

charlie14

marieholmfan wrote: »

I don't think that you are being at all argumentative. Your examples are normative; it is the posters claiming that it can be acceptable for a deputy to vote on behalf of another deputy not present in the chamber whose claims are bizarre.

I would not see it as acceptable for any deputy to vote on behalf of another who is in the chamber either.
To me that is no different to when walking through the lobbies to vote, a deputy tells the teller count me twice because Mr/Ms so and so TD is down in their seat talking to someone or is busy on their phone.

Gru

It is absolutely unacceptable practice and should carry sanctions across all offenders.

The voting system should be fixed immediately so that no carry on of this sort can happen no matter how hard they try.

A simple fix? I presume all ministers have an email address. Give everyone a login/password that they must enter for each vote. That way it should only be possible for that minister to cast his/her vote, no matter what seat they are at/near.

I am not impressed with this carry on and just like all the other major issues should be kept in the public knowledge with the impending general election.

These people dont respect the office and responsibilities they hold. If they are willing to show little/no respect for voting then what else are they willing to do with no concern for ethics or fraudulent activities. We shouldn't accept it at all no matter the party.

expectationlost

the adams toibin vote was corrected the next day https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-03-21/18/