GE2020: Kildare North

missmatty

The Link's effort was impressive alright, had a read of it yesterday.

mloc123

The Renua fella... wow

Orion

mloc123 wrote: »

The Renua fella... wow

That's only the half of it. Immigrants are to blame for homelessness, trolley crisis and high crime rates too according to his leaflet.

L1011

I'm really quite perturbed that he's a teacher.

mloc123

Orion wrote: »

That's only the half of it. Immigrants are to blame for homelessness, trolley crisis and high crime rates too according to his leaflet.

Leaflet just came in the door, sorry I missed the guy going around with them. Worrying that he is a teacher alright, no doubt spreading his hate to kids every day

Scoundrel

L1011 wrote: »

I'm really quite perturbed that he's a teacher.

A history teacher no less..

ShyMets

Saw my first Reada Cronin election post in Celbridge. Hon the Reada. You really are campaigning

Mantis Toboggan

ShyMets wrote: »

Saw my first Reada Cronin election post in Celbridge. Hon the Reada. You really are campaigning

Probably thinking of the environment!

donspeekinglesh

ShyMets wrote: »

Saw my first Reada Cronin election post in Celbridge. Hon the Reada. You really are campaigning

There's more up around Maynooth now. Originally only on the Straffan Rd near the motorway, but there's now some up on the Moyglare Road and by her polling station at the Boy's school.

L1011

If she gets in it'll be off a party performance and from no effort of her own. One term wonder like on the council if so

mobpd

buffalo wrote: »

I got James Lawless' four-page flyer in the door today. The environment is high on my list of policy priorities, so I was interested to see what he had under a heading of 'PROVEN TRACK RECORD ON THE ENVIRONMENT' (his caps). His number one item is "Campaigning for better public transport since 2004" and number two is "Secured recycling bins in Sallins in 2008".

Campaigning doesn't make for a track record to me, so his number one actual achievement is from more than a decade ago? Further down he has a list of measures he's supported in the Dáil, but presumably he didn't propose any of them or that would be highlighted.

I'm only in Kildare a little over a year now, but none of these candidates bar Catherine Murphy has made any sort of decent impression on me in that period. The recent campaign has helped me get to know them a bit better, but I'm not seeing anyone really stand out.

For someone who says they care so much for the environment it is surprising to see the amount of paper leaflets being distributed by James Lawless. This last week 4 separate items have been put through our letter box.

Scoundrel

The greens were leafleting at the train station in Maynooth yesterday evening.

ShyMets

L1011 wrote: »

If she gets in it'll be off a party performance and from no effort of her own. One term wonder like on the council if so

If Cronin does get in it will be an indicator that Sinn Fein will have a good election. They have been traditionally weak in Kildare

Rosahane

Anyway, the best of luck to the only two worthwhile candidates in the constituency - Lawlor and Murphy.

For the other two seats I’d hope for Lawless and Martin.

Hopefully Cronin and the other dangerous loonies get wiped out.

I’d love to see a FG led coalition with SD and Labour and a decent programme for government.
Probably would have to include the Greenes as well sadly. However I think the most likely outcome is a FF led coalition with similar members and maybe a confidence and supply arrangement from FG.

Wishful thinking but I’d love to see the end of Zappone, Ross, Coppinger, Barrett etc.

Anyway, get out and vote.

mloc123

Rosahane wrote: »

Wishful thinking but I’d love to see the end of Zappone, Ross, Coppinger, Barrett etc.

I think almost everyone can agree on this

Mantis Toboggan

mloc123 wrote: »

I think almost everyone can agree on this

Wouldn't be surprised to see that idiot get back in like a lot of the other clowns in FG.

scheister

Rosahane wrote: »

Wishful thinking but I’d love to see the end of Zappone, Ross, Coppinger, Barrett etc.

Anyway, get out and vote.

I think 2 of these perhaps 3 will not get back in (Ross and Coppinger would be where my money is to get their P45) Think RBB is the strongest of them.
Would be an odd day for all 4 to miss out[/QUOTE]


Separately if PP betting is correct both FG will loss out in North Kildare

Calculator123

To make the most of my transferable vote, I'm looking for advice.

I'm a big fan of Catherine Murphy. She has done a great job at highlighting important national issues and corruption.

However as she's more or less guaranteed a seat, I want to maximise the effectiveness of my vote. If I give her #1, my second preference may be useless, unless it's counted amongst any surplus. It's looking likely that FF will be the largest party but I'd like to see them in a coalition with those who will hold them to account. I like Labour and the Greens and in fairness to James Lawless (FF), he has a reasonable profile on some Dail committees. I can't abide Frank O'Rourke (FF) or Fine Gael, so want to keep all three of these candidates out. I also cannot tolerate Sinn Fein.

So, to give either Martin (GP) or Stagg (Lab), the best chance of overtaking FF/FG, how should I structure my preferences? I'm thinking of giving Martin #1. If he gets eliminated, where do I go?

Seth Brundle

Calculator123 wrote: »

It's looking likely that FF will be the largest party but I'd like to see them in a coalition with those who will hold them to account.

I don't understand this logic.
You want a coalition of FF and a few others - the others there to hold FF to account.
But given they bollixed up the country yet you're happy to give them back the reins?
You've a chance to hold them to account and you're not using it.

L1011

Calculator123 wrote: »

To make the most of my transferable vote, I'm looking for advice.

I'm a big fan of Catherine Murphy. She has done a great job at highlighting important national issues and corruption.

However as she's more or less guaranteed a seat, I want to maximise the effectiveness of my vote. If I give her #1, my second preference may be useless, unless it's counted amongst any surplus. It's looking likely that FF will be the largest party but I'd like to see them in a coalition with those who will hold them to account. I like Labour and the Greens and in fairness to James Lawless (FF), he has a reasonable profile on some Dail committees. I can't abide Frank O'Rourke (FF) or Fine Gael, so want to keep all three of these candidates out. I also cannot tolerate Sinn Fein.

So, to give either Martin (GP) or Stagg (Lab), the best chance of overtaking FF/FG, how should I structure my preferences? I'm thinking of giving Martin #1. If he gets eliminated, where do I go?

Martin / Stagg 1/2 as you wish, Murphy 3 as insurance against the implausible, Lawless 4. The others you haven't said you can't abide will all be gone by then.

My own will be somewhat similar

Orion

Calculator123 wrote: »

To make the most of my transferable vote, I'm looking for advice.

I'm a big fan of Catherine Murphy. She has done a great job at highlighting important national issues and corruption.

However as she's more or less guaranteed a seat, I want to maximise the effectiveness of my vote. If I give her #1, my second preference may be useless, unless it's counted amongst any surplus. It's looking likely that FF will be the largest party but I'd like to see them in a coalition with those who will hold them to account. I like Labour and the Greens and in fairness to James Lawless (FF), he has a reasonable profile on some Dail committees. I can't abide Frank O'Rourke (FF) or Fine Gael, so want to keep all three of these candidates out. I also cannot tolerate Sinn Fein.

So, to give either Martin (GP) or Stagg (Lab), the best chance of overtaking FF/FG, how should I structure my preferences? I'm thinking of giving Martin #1. If he gets eliminated, where do I go?

You should always give your preferred candidate your #1. It will not be wasted. If your #1 has a surplus your vote will be transferred - that's how STV works.

Calculator123

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't understand this logic.
You want a coalition of FF and a few others - the others there to hold FF to account.
But given they bollixed up the country yet you're happy to give them back the reins?
You've a chance to hold them to account and you're not using it.

I'm not voting for FF at all. I'm voting for parties who will most likely hold the balance of power and whose policies I largely agree with. The likelihood is, that's in a coalition with FF or FG, neither of whom I like.

2lazytogetup

L1011 wrote: »

Martin / Stagg 1/2 as you wish, Murphy 3 as insurance against the implausible, Lawless 4. The others you haven't said you can't abide will all be gone by then.

My own will be somewhat similar

I concur, this seems to be the best strategy. unless you are die hard social democrat.

i can see your vote being used well if you go stagg first (though personalyl i wouldnt vote labour after 2011), when he gets eliminated, martin, and when he gets eliminated murphy. though murphy will probably not need it, so ultimately it will carry to Lawless. so in effect you are getting 4 or 5 votes. i dont think murphy will do that well so i dont think your vote will be used as a surplus.

Calculator123

Orion wrote: »

You should always give your preferred candidate your #1. It will not be wasted. If your #1 has a surplus your vote will be transferred - that's how STV works.

To an extent, I agree but as they only take a sampling of the votes as surplus, there's a good chance my ballot paper will not be used and thus second preference is redundant.

Orion

Calculator123 wrote: »

To an extent, I agree but as they only take a sampling of the votes as surplus, there's a good chance my ballot paper will not be used and thus second preference is redundant.

No they don't. When someone is elected on first count all their votes are counted to apportion the #2s.

If you don't give your preferred candidate your #1 you run the risk of that candidate not getting in if too many people follow your lead.

Always vote in order of your preference. This idea of "tactical voting" does not work in PR-STV.

Orion

https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/06/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-using-the-single-transferable-vote-stv-system/

"By encouraging candidates to seek first, as well as lower-preference votes, the impact of negative campaigning is significantly diminished. STV also removes the need for tactical voting."

Orion

FWIW I happen to know that a certain candidate and their team are encouraging people to vote for them #1 instead of Murphy as "she's guaranteed a seat". This same candidate tried to use that logic with me in 2016 too. It's a lie. There are no guarantees and this type of "logic" can harm a candidate - which is exactly the purpose here.

L1011

Orion wrote: »

No they don't. When someone is elected on first count all their votes are counted to apportion the #2s.

If you don't give your preferred candidate your #1 you run the risk of that candidate not getting in if too many people follow your lead.

Always vote in order of your preference. This idea of "tactical voting" does not work in PR-STV.

The physical selection of ballots to transfer (to meet the proportion of the surplus) is random and as a result very different #3s and lower can exist. In a case where there's a big surplus *plus* multiple candidates for parties that may get a decent block of the surplus *and* regional preferences within a constituency that could have a major impact

Now, there wouldn't be a huge transfer to FF or FG from Murphy's surplus anyway (although it went anywhere and everywhere in 2016) so that won't be a big factor here.

L1011

Rosahane wrote: »

Not true!

This only happens when a candidate is eliminated when a candidate is elected the surplus votes are randomly selected before being distributed.

When elected on the first count, as Murphy should be excepting for a disaster, the surplus is calculated as Orion stated. On later counts it's just from the last bundle of transfers

Rosahane

L1011 wrote: »

When elected on the first count, as Murphy should be excepting for a disaster, the surplus is calculated as Orion stated. On later counts it's just from the last bundle of transfers

Yes, I missed the "first Count" bit in the post