The strange affair of Dimmy Tooley

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Maybe the excuse the others put in where they don't vote if an opposite number doesn't? Meetings in the Dail, only voting for important votes etc. Not excusable in the grand scheme. I'd say a handful of days might be excused but there is some serious piss taking going on.
Maybe we could link payment to voting or something? FYI: this is a question. I don't know if that's viable. Just discussing.

There is a pairing system for when a Minister is absent on official business, but it is between party whips. That might explain some of the situations, but I don't think it could apply to Lowry who normally supports the government or opposition independents who aren't whipped (Healy-Raes etc).

irishgeo

blanch152 wrote: »

There is a pairing system for when a Minister is absent on official business, but it is between party whips. That might explain some of the situations, but I don't think it could apply to Lowry who normally supports the government or opposition independents who aren't whipped (Healy-Raes etc).

One of the healy Rae's says he does a vote pair for the government but not every week.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

A few elections ago, I indicated my preferences on a ballot paper and my son (not entitled to vote at the time) put my ballot paper into the ballot box for me. Should the election be anulled?

A TD in the Chamber indicates his preference to a colleague who presses the button for him, how is that different?

The preference had been indicated, the execution of the preference was done by someone else.

Why would the election be annulled just because your son placed your ballot paper in the ballot book.

You, (unlike some in Dáil Éireann using others votes), had by marking your ballot pressed the button yourself.
Had your son marked your ballot, (other than by receiving permission to do so by proxy), then he would have committed an offence.
Why should it be any different when voting, in above all places, Dáil Éireann ?

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Why would the election be annulled just because your son placed your ballot paper in the ballot book.

You, (unlike some in Dáil Éireann using others votes), had by marking your ballot pressed the button yourself.
Had your son marked your ballot, (other than by receiving permission to do so by proxy), then he would have committed an offence.
Why should it be any different when voting, in above all places, Dáil Éireann ?

I decided who I was voting for (marked the ballot paper) and my son formalised it (put the ballot paper in the box).

A TD decided who they were voting for (informed a colleague) and the colleague formalised it (pushed the button).

Now if the TD was not in the Dail Chamber, that is a very different issue, similar to what you have described.

The key thing is that anyone who is recorded as voting must have been in the Chamber and the vote must have been in accordance with their expressed preference.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I decided who I was voting for (marked the ballot paper) and my son formalised it (put the ballot paper in the box).

A TD decided who they were voting for (informed a colleague) and the colleague formalised it (pushed the button).

Now if the TD was not in the Dail Chamber, that is a very different issue, similar to what you have described.

The key thing is that anyone who is recorded as voting must have been in the Chamber and the vote must have been in accordance with their expressed preference.

Not for me. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference. I was in the room when someone else voted for me or I was in another county.
Also instead of charging expenses, if they aren't there to vote maybe conduct any business in their district.

marieholmfan

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not for me. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference. I was in the room when someone else voted for me or I was in another county.
Also instead of charging expenses, if they aren't there to vote maybe conduct any business in their district.

Article 15:

All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not for me. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference. I was in the room when someone else voted for me or I was in another county.
Also instead of charging expenses, if they aren't there to vote maybe conduct any business in their district.

I am sorry, but it does make a difference whether or not a TD is in the Dail chamber, as per the Constitution, so whatever blind bit of difference it makes to you, the Constitution begs to differ.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am sorry, but it does make a difference whether or not a TD is in the Dail chamber, as per the Constitution, so whatever blind bit of difference it makes to you, the Constitution begs to differ.

I'm tired of wrong doing getting a pass because of loop holes. ****ty people hiding behind ****ty rules. They shouldn't be voting for each other nor claiming expenses falsely, as they are with the exception of notifying when unable to turn up for good reason. That's my take. Change the constitution. What the constitution says doesn't change my opinion on it. It's up to the voters to cast judgment. I don't expect they'll be censuring themselves.

suicide_circus

blanch152 wrote: »

I am sorry, but it does make a difference whether or not a TD is in the Dail chamber, as per the Constitution, so whatever blind bit of difference it makes to you, the Constitution begs to differ.

this is the integrity of our democracy at stake here and i dont think we should be satisfied with slipshod fast and loose practices being a feature of parliament. for too long we have failed to demand high standards in public office in this country, this is just more gombeen sheithawkery. Politicians in other countries would resign over stuff like this, in Ireland people don't care. We get the governments we deserve.

James Brown

We let stuff slide if it's 'our own' and no harm no foul if it's everybody. Disgusting.

blanch152

suicide_circus wrote: »

this is the integrity of our democracy at stake here and i dont think we should be satisfied with slipshod fast and loose practices being a feature of parliament. for too long we have failed to demand high standards in public office in this country, this is just more gombeen sheithawkery. Politicians in other countries would resign over stuff like this, in Ireland people don't care. We get the governments we deserve.

I am not condoning bad practice, I am pointing out the distinction between illegality and bad practice.

suicide_circus

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not condoning bad practice, I am pointing out the distinction between illegality and bad practice.

fair enough. but i dont think we should need it to pass the test of illegality before having a reasonable expectation that holders of high office have the honour and integrity to fall on the swords when caught out in very bad pratice - they won't of course since honour and integrity are alien concepts to the sleeveens who populate dail eireann.

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

I am sorry, but it does make a difference whether or not a TD is in the Dail chamber, as per the Constitution, so whatever blind bit of difference it makes to you, the Constitution begs to differ.

The constitution says that they most be present to vote but there is no mechanism for voting by proxy in Dail Eireann so they did not vote regardless of where they were.

They can train a parrot to press the button for them but it still isn't voting.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm tired of wrong doing getting a pass because of loop holes. ****ty people hiding behind ****ty rules. They shouldn't be voting for each other nor claiming expenses falsely, as they are with the exception of notifying when unable to turn up for good reason. That's my take. Change the constitution. What the constitution says doesn't change my opinion on it. It's up to the voters to cast judgment. I don't expect they'll be censuring themselves.

What about illegally blocking cars in a peaceful protest? Should that be allowed?

Is it only the crimes or things you don't like that you are against.

I am against illegality, no matter its form, but I am not going to insist shoddy or bad practice be treated the same as illegality.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

What about illegally blocking cars in a peaceful protest? Should that be allowed?

Is it only the crimes or things you don't like that you are against.

I am against illegality, no matter its form, but I am not going to insist shoddy or bad practice be treated the same as illegality.

Calm yourself.
Yes. Garda are free to remove them but they shouldn't be stitched up by them.

Yes.

Neither should it be. However these people should be held to account IMO. And the rules should be changed. We should not shrug every time a chancer chances. I expect a defence of aul' Margaret Cash next time someone besmirches her good name

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I decided who I was voting for (marked the ballot paper) and my son formalised it (put the ballot paper in the box).

A TD decided who they were voting for (informed a colleague) and the colleague formalised it (pushed the button).

Now if the TD was not in the Dail Chamber, that is a very different issue, similar to what you have described.

The key thing is that anyone who is recorded as voting must have been in the Chamber and the vote must have been in accordance with their expressed preference.

By marking you ballot paper you had expressed your formal opinion of who you personally were voting for. It did not need to be further formalised by your son or anyone else.
Had your son been eligible to vote and had he been granted permission to vote on your behalf by proxy, then legally he could have voted on your behalf. (To vote under your name without permission to act as proxy he would be committing an offence).

This is not what happened in Dáil Éireann when TD`s pressed the voting button of other TD`s. The had no formal permission to do so by proxy and without it IMO they committed an offence.

Under Article 15 much has been made here of this somehow being licence for TD`s to press other TD`s voting buttons. It does not say present and voting on someone else`s behalf it says "present AND voting"
Even if it did somehow allow for TD`s voting on behalf of other TD`s, it does not specify that the have to be in the voting chamber.

It specifically states "each House"

expectationlost

blanch152 wrote: »

I decided who I was voting for (marked the ballot paper) and my son formalised it (put the ballot paper in the box).

A TD decided who they were voting for (informed a colleague) and the colleague formalised it (pushed the button).

Now if the TD was not in the Dail Chamber, that is a very different issue, similar to what you have described.

The key thing is that anyone who is recorded as voting must have been in the Chamber and the vote must have been in accordance with their expressed preference.

TDs method of voting for electronic division is not by pointing or by voice, it is by pressing the button on their assigned seat. (see page 19 of the report)

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
Extract from the Handbook of General Information for Members of Dáil Éireann (March 2016)


cloudflare keeps blocking me when I try to copy and paste content from oireachtas pdfs

Plumbthedepths

expectationlost wrote: »

TDs method of voting for electronic division is not by pointing or by voice, it is by pressing the button on their assigned seat. (see page 19 of the report)

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

cloudflare keeps blocking me when I try to copy and paste content from oireachtas pdfs

Hope your post clears up the pathetic defence that has being gong on here.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

I am sorry, but it does make a difference whether or not a TD is in the Dail chamber, as per the Constitution, so whatever blind bit of difference it makes to you, the Constitution begs to differ.

It doesn`t make a difference as per the Constitution whether or not a TD is in the Dail chamber because the Constitution doesn`t mention the Dail chamber in relation to voting.
Only the Houses of the Oireachtas.

marieholmfan

I think this 'present and voting' thing is a red herring.

It's a sort of conversation management.

yes voting for someone not present is worse than voting for someone present, but even if they are present they should take their seats for the vote.

The worst example (that I know of) is Gerry Adams voting in favour of the abortion legislation on behalf of Peadar Toibin. That is fraud.

Pedro K

marieholmfan wrote: »

I think this 'present and voting' thing is a red herring.

It's a sort of conversation management.

yes voting for someone not present is worse than voting for someone present, but even if they are present they should take their seats for the vote.

The worst example (that I know of) is Gerry Adams voting in favour of the abortion legislation on behalf of Peadar Toibin. That is fraud.

Gerry Adams immediately made the tellers aware of the mistake, and Adams didn't vote again like Chambers did. They noted it on the debate record on the day as you can see here.

marieholmfan

Pedro K wrote: »

Gerry Adams immediately made the tellers aware of the mistake, and Adams didn't vote again like Chambers did. They noted it on the debate record on the day as you can see here.

In that case the attempt to compare them (which I heard on RTE is profoundly dishonest) and I have been taken in by a political ruse.


Adams must NOT resign!

charlie14

marieholmfan wrote: »

I think this 'present and voting' thing is a red herring.

It's a sort of conversation management.

yes voting for someone not present is worse than voting for someone present, but even if they are present they should take their seats for the vote.

The worst example (that I know of) is Gerry Adams voting in favour of the abortion legislation on behalf of Peadar Toibin. That is fraud.

Article 15.11.1. of the Constitution.
"All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member"

There is noting "red herring" in that. It states clearly that members must be present and voting. It does not make any provision for members voting for other members be they inside the chamber, outside the chamber or anywhere else.

In relation to this practice of members voting on behalf of others I found it interesting that you mention both fraud and Article 15.11.1. as "a sort of conversation management"

The general understanding of conversation management is an interviewing technique originally designed to improve the quality of police interviews with suspects.

If you or I were clearly involved in electoral fraud under the Constitution by voting on behalf of someone else without being granted permission of proxy then we would quite quickly learn about conversation management where I can not see a defence of the Constitution being a "red herring" carrying much weight.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

Article 15.11.1. of the Constitution.
"All questions in each House shall, save as otherwise provided by this Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting other than the Chairman or presiding member"

There is noting "red herring" in that. It states clearly that members must be present and voting. It does not make any provision for members voting for other members be they inside the chamber, outside the chamber or anywhere else.

In relation to this practice of members voting on behalf of others I found it interesting that you mention both fraud and Article 15.11.1. as "a sort of conversation management"

The general understanding of conversation management is an interviewing technique originally designed to improve the quality of police interviews with suspects.

If you or I were clearly involved in electoral fraud under the Constitution by voting on behalf of someone else without being granted permission of proxy then we would quite quickly learn about conversation management where I can not see a defence of the Constitution being a "red herring" carrying much weight.

You are missing the point that being present in the Chamber and asking someone to press the button has been seen as operating an informal proxy arrangement. It is certainly bad practice but is likely legal, while someone voting for you when you are absent is definitely illegal. That is why Adams corrected the record in respect of the abortion vote. Notably, Dooley and Collins did not.

marieholmfan

blanch152 wrote: »

You are missing the point that being present in the Chamber and asking someone to press the button has been seen as operating an informal proxy arrangement. It is certainly bad practice but is likely legal, while someone voting for you when you are absent is definitely illegal. That is why Adams corrected the record in respect of the abortion vote. Notably, Dooley and Collins did not.

Yes but that indicative of laziness and incompetence on the part of successive Dail clerks and Ceann Comhairli

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

You are missing the point that being present in the Chamber and asking someone to press the button has been seen as operating an informal proxy arrangement. It is certainly bad practice but is likely legal, while someone voting for you when you are absent is definitely illegal. That is why Adams corrected the record in respect of the abortion vote. Notably, Dooley and Collins did not.

I`m not missing any point.
If you or I ended up in court charged with using someone else`s vote without formal permission to do so by proxy we would rightly be found guilty of voter impersonation.



No matter how posters here try to twist Article 15.11.1 to excuse those of their own political persuasion and beat those with a stick that are not, the Constitutional Article is clear.



Even if it was acceptable for members to vote on behalf of others, this claim that it would only apply to members in the Chamber is disingenuous. Article 15.11.1 makes no reference to the Chamber. It specifies the Houses of the Oireachtas

blanch152

marieholmfan wrote: »

Yes but that indicative of laziness and incompetence on the part of successive Dail clerks and Ceann Comhairli

Laziness, incompetence and bad practice are not illegal.

Pressing a button for someone who is not there is.

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

I`m not missing any point.
If you or I ended up in court charged with using someone else`s vote without formal permission to do so by proxy we would rightly be found guilty of voter impersonation.



No matter how posters here try to twist Article 15.11.1 to excuse those of their own political persuasion and beat those with a stick that are not, the Constitutional Article is clear.



Even if it was acceptable for members to vote on behalf of others, this claim that it would only apply to members in the Chamber is disingenuous. Article 15.11.1 makes no reference to the Chamber. It specifies the Houses of the Oireachtas

Given that I voted Green in the last election, and have no political allegiance of any kind, I am not twisting anything for any purpose.

I am making a distinction between bad practice and illegality. Both are wrong, but one is worse than the other.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Laziness, incompetence and bad practice are not illegal.

Pressing a button for someone who is not there is.

IMO pressing the button for another member without formal permission to do so is illegal under the relevant Constitution Article.


Even if it was not, where is this "not there" of yours. Is it alright to do so if the member is anywhere in the House of the Oireachtas where the vote is taking place ?
Based on your argument under Article 15.11.1 it is as it only makes reference to the Houses, not the Chamber.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

Given that I voted Green in the last election, and have no political allegiance of any kind, I am not twisting anything for any purpose.

I am making a distinction between bad practice and illegality. Both are wrong, but one is worse than the other.

Of course you are twisting for whatever reason by attempting to make the point that it is legal for someone to press the button of other members because they are in the chamber yet it is illegal for them to do so when these members are not in the chamber.


Article 15.11.1 makes no reference to the chamber. It only references the

House of the Oireachtas where the vote is taking place.


By your argument if a member is anywhere in the relevant House then it is acceptable for others to vote on their behalf.
Ridiculous and disingenuous IMO.