Voting reform, Dail Scandal and Politican's greed [See post 172]

Infernal Racket

is_that_so wrote: »

So what punishment should they have got? It's slack procedures and needs to be stopped right now.

There should be a garda investigation and let a judge decide the punishment. Do you disagree?

Infernal Racket

NIMAN wrote: »

They do themselves no favours, do they?

No. And the bigger picture is that some barrister somewhere will pick out some contentious legislation that was passed by this crowd and their dodgy voting and then all cases prosecuted after the fact are in jeopardy. That is the reality

Adamcp898

Time to bring back walk-through voting. Heard Pat "The Cope" complaining yesterday that it would be too "cumbersome" but surely we'd be more than happy to take slow & fair over fast & fraudulent?

Same old story here though; nothing ever happens.

Tea Shock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I would imagine whomever brought Dooley and Collins to the attention of the Indo is seething the reprehensible behaviour spread far and wide beyond FF.
I'm surprised that some would believe there would be sanctions.

Timmy Dooley (at least 6 times), Barry Cowan, Dara Calleary and Michael Martin himself have all had others vote form them when they weren't in the chamber.

I haven't seen any TDs from any party's other than FF found to have done this.

Others have voted for TDs who were present in the chamber, but that's not against the rules!

Although I am sure others have done it and are afraid it will soon be discovered.

murphaph

The technological solutions to this are several. It's an easy problem to fix to prevent this ever happening again. Voting lobby rubbish is a terrible idea.

Plumbthedepths

Tea Shock wrote: »

Timmy Dooley (at least 6 times), Barry Cowan, Dara Calleary and Michael Martin himself have all had others vote form them when they weren't in the chamber.

I haven't seen any TDs from any party's other than FF found to have done this.

Others have voted for TDs who were present in the chamber, but that's not against the rules!

Although I am sure others have done it and are afraid it will soon be discovered.

I took a look at the standing orders that someone posted on another thread. Have tbh honest but I couldn't find anywhere where it stated in the rules that voting on behalf of another TD was acceptable and within the rules.
It seems it was a practice that TD's decided to engage in themselves since electronic voting was instigated in the early 2000's.

ArrBee

Adamcp898 wrote: »

.... fast & fraudulent...

You should trade mark that!

It would easily reach the franchise status that the movies have.
Every month there'd be a new installment!

Tea Shock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I took a look at the standing orders that someone posted on another thread. Have tbh honest but I couldn't find anywhere where it stated in the rules that voting on behalf of another TD was acceptable and within the rules.
It seems it was a practice that TD's decided to engage in themselves since electronic voting was instigated in the early 2000's.

I'm just going by what I read in the Irish Times earlier in the week,

Are TDs allowed to vote for each other?
TDs vote for each other if they have moved from their assigned seat to speak to another member and will ask a colleague to press the button on their bench. Sometimes TDs go to the back of the chamber to take a phone call and will ask someone in their row to press the button. The protocols for voting are set out in the handbook that each new TD receives when elected to the Dáil.

Plumbthedepths

Tea Shock wrote: »

I'm just going by what I read in the Irish Times earlier in the week,

Standing order 73 is a better guide.

Tea Shock

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Standing order 73 is a better guide.

I don't see anything about in in SO 73

SO 77 to me is a better one. But again, the rules are very loosely outlined

Casting vote and abstentions.
77. (1) Questions in the Dáil or in a Committee of the whole Dáil, shall, save as otherwise provided by the Constitution, be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting, other than the Ceann Comhairle, or presiding member, who shall have and exercise a casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.21

(2) The phrase “members present and voting” means “members present and casting an affirmative or negative vote” and the phrase “to abstain” means “to refrain from voting either for or against the question”.

(3) Members may formally register their abstention but members who abstain from voting, whether they choose to formally register their abstention or not, shall be considered as not voting: Provided that the names of members who formally register abstention shall be recorded as abstaining in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

The rules need to be tightened - and they need to be given longer than 60 seconds to cast their vote when doing so electronically.

riddlinrussell

As in the title, given the apparent issues the country has with 'parish pump' politicians, should we reform our voting system to something closer to Scotland's Mixed Member system?
Or another system entirely?

Would be interested to see what people think should be done, I think you need to find a balanced mix; Some people at a national level representing the interests of each area, but the majority of members not strictly beholden to a specific area for votes, thus able to look at the larger national picture without worrying too much about NIMBY issues.

Plumbthedepths

Tea Shock wrote: »

I don't see anything about in in SO 73

SO 77 to me is a better one. But again, the rules are very loosely outlined



The rules need to be tightened - and they need to be given longer than 60 seconds to cast their vote when doing so electronically.

Apologies I got my numbers mixed up. The point I was making the rules do not allow for one member to vote for another but by the same token they do not expressly forbid it. Maybe the author of the standing orders would have thought it was obvious you don't vote on behalf of another TD. Clearly they were wrong, our TD's are like children that need to have things spelt out in very clear terms.

beggars_bush

They should have an ID card that they insert into the machine then they vote

salmocab

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Apologies I got my numbers mixed up. The point I was making the rules do not allow for one member to vote for another but by the same token they do not expressly forbid it. Maybe the author of the standing orders would have thought it was obvious you don't vote on behalf of another TD. Clearly they were wrong, our TD's are like children that need to have things spelt out in very clear terms.

This is the point I think, the rules aren’t air tight because whoever wrote them assumed that it was obvious that you only cast your own vote.
Nothing will come of any of this except hopefully they get clear and concise rules and importantly punishments for voting.

Plumbthedepths

beggars_bush wrote: »

They should have an ID card that they insert into the machine then they vote

It was suggested before but the claim was they would lose the card.
Very simple solution, fingerprint scanner at their seat. They won't lose their hand unless in an unfortunate accident.

reg114

Lads this happens on a daily basis on all sides of the house. The dail is peopled by lawless clowns who dont take the privilege of serving the people of ireland seriously, that is patently obvious. This voting nonsense undermines everything that a democracy represents. But then again since when did Irish politicians value democracy.

L1011

Only by making constituencies larger and breaking old boundaries to reduce the parish pump link

The Scottish system is a mess and preserving preferential voting is critical, as is avoiding lists - the ability to reject a specific candidate is critical

is_that_so

Gerry G wrote: »

There should be a garda investigation and let a judge decide the punishment. Do you disagree?

Yes because it's not illegal as party colleagues can very reasonably predict how colleagues will vote. Very poor form though and they should not be doing it. Someone needs to update and enforce the rules.

is_that_so

murphaph wrote: »

The technological solutions to this are several. It's an easy problem to fix to prevent this ever happening again. Voting lobby rubbish is a terrible idea.

Having to get out of their seats and march up and down stairs to vote would focus minds! At least two week of it every time someone messes up!

L1011

is_that_so wrote: »

Having to get out of their seats and march up and down stairs to vote would focus minds!

And slow everything down, and give opportunities for politicking (SF sometimes call for walk-through votes on things they've clearly lost for this reason)

Card login as the EP does and we're sorted. Ridiculous response given to Howlin about them being lost when you need ID to get in in the first place!

is_that_so

L1011 wrote: »

And slow everything down, and give opportunities for politicking (SF sometimes call for walk-through votes on things they've clearly lost for this reason)

Well, if they can't do the basics right, I'm all for it as a punishment!

L1011

is_that_so wrote: »

Well, if they can't do the basics right, I'm all for it as a punishment!

Delaying legislative passage punishes us not them

is_that_so

L1011 wrote: »

Delaying legislative passage punishes us not them

By what, 15 minutes?

James Brown

beggars_bush wrote: »

They should have an ID card that they insert into the machine then they vote

You'll just have some poor junior with a stack of cards.

riddlinrussell

I was offering up the Scottish system for an example, I'm not massively well versed in its pros/cons personally.

I accept the idea in principle of being able to always reject/accept a specific candidate, but I don't think such a system would ever eliminate the parish pump, making the constituency bigger and changing the boundaries just makes the parish look different, it doesn't prevent representatives from naked compromising of their party position or foolish grandstanding to guarantee themselves votes in their area.

Would be interesting to see which democratic system is generally considered 'the best' on balance.

Jim2007

Gerry G wrote: »

Of course it's corruption if no action is taken. The initial crime is a fraud too. If I walked in to a ballot box and voted for you it's a crime. I can't see the difference here. Cowboys, every last one of them

It is neither corruption nor fraud. And if you voted on someone else's behalf you not be charged under a made you law that you invented either.

Jim2007

riddlinrussell wrote: »

As in the title, given the apparent issues the country has with 'parish pump' politicians.

Which issues exactly are you talking about how exactly do you expect changing the voting system would change things.

In general people are happy with the voting system, except of course those minorities that have convicted themselves that it somehow does not represent the real public, and on two occasions have to retain it, so you'd what to present some very good arguments in order to be take seriously.

riddlinrussell

Jim2007 wrote: »

Which issues exactly are you talking about how exactly do you expect changing the voting system would change things.

In general people are happy with the voting system, except of course those minorities that have convicted themselves that it somehow does not represent the real public, and on two occasions have to retain it, so you'd what to present some very good arguments in order to be take seriously.

As an example (not to recommend any specific system of governance), Eamonn Ryan, has regularly come out with statements on things such as building heights in his constituency and unrealistic public transport ideas for his constituency which make the entire Green party look utterly detached from reality (not claiming this isn't a general issue with the Green's), while simultaneously making him look like a hypocrite by calling for High rise in cities, just not the parts of cities that his voters live in.

blanch152

Gerry G wrote: »

Of course it's corruption if no action is taken. The initial crime is a fraud too. If I walked in to a ballot box and voted for you it's a crime. I can't see the difference here. Cowboys, every last one of them

The difference is there is legislation deeming that if you walked to a ballot box and voted instead of someone else, that is a crime.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1992/act/23/section/134/enacted/en/html#sec134

There is no such legislation that I am aware of that deems Dooley and Collins' actions to be a crime. Yes, they are illegal, but not everything illegal is a crime. There needs to be a crime to be a garda investigation.

L1011

is_that_so wrote: »

By what, 15 minutes?

Multiple times a day. It adds up very, very considerably which is why we replaced it