New Dail / New Taoiseach

kah22

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He can refuse to dissolve the Dail. Brian Lenihan senior famously called the president to ask him not to dissolve the Dail. If he feels there is a better option he could refuse. I think if Leo went to the president in the next few weeks the president can refuse & suggest that they try harder. Obviously eventually if no government is formed the president would agree to an election.
I think I'm correct in the above. Happy to be corrected

That sounds sensible

Bishop of hope

This one would make a good minister for housing, she's good at free housing.

https://extra.ie/

feargale

I keep hearing that Sinn Féin have a manddate to form a government, that people voted for change. More propaganda. Some voted for change and some didn't.
FF 38 SF 37 FG 35. The last time I learned sums at school 38 was more than 37.
So both FF and FG got a bloodied nose, a big reduction in seats.
Let me see now:
Suppose the Dubs beat Kerry by 10 points in last year's final, but by only one point in this year's final. That's a big reversal for the Dubs. Do Kerry now get the cup? Huh?
The reality is that SF now go to the market with their 37 livestock ( no offence intended) and try for the best deal they can get. Everybody else has an equal right to do the same,
It's called democracy for slow learners

JP Liz V1

Sam Russell wrote: »

If there is a Gov formed between FF and FG (with support from a mudguard party or two) then it could be quite stable and last 4 or 5 years. They agree on most policies - only differ as to who gets the nice lucrative jobs. After all, FF supported FG for the last 4 years, and now with their trotters in the trough, they should just get along fine, as long as the mudguard party traps all the nasty stuff.

So basically the same government back in, no change, despite what the people voted

Dyr

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Now I would like to see the Irish language stronger. But I hate when it is used as political football high on symbolism, and low on practical action. For example the proposed Irish Language Act is definitely more symbolism than practical action. .

We should drop all mention of the Irish language until Arlene and the lads decide they're okay with it, just to avoid it becoming a political football, like that previous political footbal, civil rights.


What specific parts of the Irish Language act do you have a problem with?

realdanbreen

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So basically the same government back in, no change, despite what the people voted

Well 75% of the electorate didn't want SF so it looks like SF got it wrong when they said 'The shinners are at the f*****g table...we broke the b******s we broke the free state and this country will never be the same again'

Ludo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So basically the same government back in, no change, despite what the people voted

Where'd ya get that logic from? SF only got 24% of the first preference votes and only 37 seats? An incredible result for them no doubt, but they did not get a majority no matter what people seem to think.

Any combination that can make up 80 seats can claim that is what the people voted for. If SF can get together a group like that then off with them. If not...suck it up and do better next time (which they prob will if there is an election shortly).

_Brian

Ludo wrote: »

Where'd ya get that logic from? SF only got 24% of the first preference votes and only 37 seats? An incredible result for them no doubt, but they did not get a majority no matter what people seem to think.

Any combination that can make up 80 seats can claim that is what the people voted for. If SF can get together a group like that then off with them. If not...suck it up and do better next time (which they prob will if there is an election shortly).

But, but, but “the popular vote”

You know the one, the vote that people make up in their heads and pretend they won the election when clearly they didn’t win anything.

is_that_so

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

So basically the same government back in, no change, despite what the people voted

It's not votes, it's numbers of seats that make a government. I don't really want to be critical of voters but many really do not understand how our system works. A SF 1 (&2) only, reduces the chances of like-minded candidates being elected and allows the vote management system of FF & FG to get more TDs elected.

is_that_so

_Brian wrote: »

But, but, but “the popular vote”

You know the one, the vote that people make up in their heads and pretend they won the election when clearly they didn’t win anything.

Think the word propaganda is apposite here. I'd be strongly in favour of a government campaign to show people how their vote works and that it is not a straight-up popularity contest.

BarryD2

I don't think any party really wants to be in government in the present election outcome circumstances. If they're going to have to deal with the unpredictability of the Brexit trade talks coming up, then a rock solid arrangement is needed to get past this and over the next 4 or 5 years. And that 'rock solid arrangement' is just not on offer. So let's play pass the parcel and see who ends up with it.

Field east

is_that_so wrote: »

Think the word propaganda is apposite here. I'd be strongly in favour of a government campaign to show people how their vote works and that it is not a straight-up popularity contest.

A private TV production company could do it and ‘sell’ it to the TV stations. It could include how the PR system works. Show the effect of casting a vote for , say, 3 candidates as against voting down the whole list of candidates. How to vote strategically giving a few scenarios. Eg. Is there any point in giving your no 1 to a candidate that gets in on the first count election after election - or she/he may be close to the quota on the first count. Do you give your no 1 to somebody that has zero hope of getting/their party into gov?

PommieBast

Xertz wrote: »

The role of trade unionism here is also fairly weak and I would suspect that a lot of the population tends to see it as something associated predominantly with the public sector. Most of the rest of us aren’t very likely to be protected by a union. Maybe that’s become less necessary due to strengthened statutory workers rights and rising standards of living, but the unions really haven’t done that much for people on zero hours contracts and in precarious employment and those are really the most vulnerable, not the public sector.

There is a branch of Unite round the corner from my (new) flat. It has the stylised picture of Che Guevara on the window. Stuff like that puts me off the whole union movement as a whole, as it shows a warped sense of priorities.


Of course another factor is that a lot of jobs are in IT, and culturally that sector is notoriously anti-union.

It’s a pity as the party has a long history and played an important role since the foundation of the state, but it needs to adapt to the realities of the contemporary Irish political landscape or it will fizzle out.

It does not help that the media basically ignored them ever since the 2016 election.

Sam Russell

Field east wrote: »

A private TV production company could do it and ‘sell’ it to the TV stations. It could include how the PR system works. Show the effect of casting a vote for , say, 3 candidates as against voting down the whole list of candidates. How to vote strategically giving a few scenarios. Eg. Is there any point in giving your no 1 to a candidate that gets in on the first count election after election - or she/he may be close to the quota on the first count. Do you give your no 1 to somebody that has zero hope of getting/their party into gov?

The point about STV is that it is incredibly simple for the voter.

The rule is ; 'Vote for the candidates in the order of your preference.' It could not be simpler*.

The complication arises from the counting, which is relatively simple but time consuming. The chosen strategy by parties to select the right number of candidates is the tricky bit.

The problems arise from the attempt of political parties trying to game the system. In a 3 seater, the quota is 25%, but if two candidates are put up by a party expecting 1.5 quotas, they could increase the chance to win the seat by splitting their party vote evenly between their two candidates, and hope to keep ahead of everyone else. Of course, for this to work, it requires a solid party vote, with solid transfers. However, it can backfire and the party gets no seats even though they might have more than a quota between the two candidates.

Lots of No 1 votes get seats, but relying on transfers is not reliable. Putting too many candidates can lose seats, not having enough candidates means more seats could have been won. It is a tricky strategy to pick the right number.

*[Well the British system is simpler, the voter has only one choice].

AndrewJRenko

spitonmedickie wrote: »

Would I be mad to join labour? Policy wise it's compatible with me but I don't think I'd have a vote in the leadership contest and I do think Alan Kelly could bring the whole thing crashing down around him, what do other people think? Is he the man labour need or a brat?

If their value system is closest to your value system, go for it. What are you trying to achieve? Are you trying to achieve policy changes or improve local services or develop your career or what?

PommieBast wrote: »

Of course another factor is that a lot of jobs are in IT, and culturally that sector is notoriously anti-union.
.

I saw one union specifically targeting the computer gaming industry recently, where employees are often treated particularly badly.

Xertz wrote: »

The role of trade unionism here is also fairly weak and I would suspect that a lot of the population tends to see it as something associated predominantly with the public sector. Most of the rest of us aren’t very likely to be protected by a union. Maybe that’s become less necessary due to strengthened statutory workers rights and rising standards of living, but the unions really haven’t done that much for people on zero hours contracts and in precarious employment and those are really the most vulnerable, not the public sector. I think there’s a justifiable sense that the unions have gone after low hanging fruit and that Labour in many people’s heads and in organisational reality is still quite linked to them.

If people haven't joined unions, they can't really be complaining that unions aren't supporting them. I saw Mandate battling to represent Paddy Power staff, which has got to be a good thing.

Johnboy1951

I wondered how our present system would compare to a straight 'ranking' system, where the voters' preferences were taken and all vote preferences added to give a result which would be a direct list of preferences.

No complications, no percentages etc, just candidates listed in order of preference by each voter.
Is this used in any Western democracy? (I know nothing of how voting is managed in other locations).

realdanbreen

MintyMagnum wrote: »

Just heard Pearse Doherty suggesting this on Rte1 - thoughts..

All Pears has to do is propose Mary Lou for Taoiseach get a seconder and if she gets enough votes she's in so simple.

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I wondered how our present system would compare to a straight 'ranking' system, where the voters' preferences were taken and all vote preferences added to give a result which would be a direct list of preferences.

No complications, no percentages etc, just candidates listed in order of preference by each voter.
Is this used in any Western democracy? (I know nothing of how voting is managed in other locations).

That is how we vote, one vote each.

The highest preference you give goes to that candidate until they are eliminated. It then goes to the next preference that is still in until you fix on a candidate that is elected, or there is no further preference.

If you are suggesting that someone who votes down the card registers a vote for each preference then that is giving voters more than one vote each and is nuts.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is how we vote, one vote each.

The highest preference you give goes to that candidate until they are eliminated. It then goes to the next preference that is still in until you fix on a candidate that is elected, or there is no further preference.

If you are suggesting that someone who votes down the card registers a vote for each preference then that is giving voters more than one vote each and is nuts.

I am suggesting that each voter could provide a list of their preferences ..... so for 5 candidates they would vote 1,2,3,4,5.
All voters preferences (grades) could then be counted and seats allocated to those with the best preferences from ALL voters.

I fail to see where that is 'nuts'.
It would provide the best 'compromise' from all voters.

What am I missing?
Each voter ticks the same number of boxes as presently.
The count is done differently.

seamus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am suggesting that each voter could provide a list of their preferences ..... so for 5 candidates they would vote 1,2,3,4,5.
All voters preferences (grades) could then be counted and seats allocated to those with the best preferences from ALL voters.

I fail to see where that is 'nuts'.
It would provide the best 'compromise' from all voters.

What am I missing?
Each voter ticks the same number of boxes as presently.
The count is done differently.

You're basically describing PR-STV. The candidates with the "best" arrangement of preferences get the seats. That is, those with the most #1's, #2's, #3's, #4's, etc...

Or are you saying that a candidate with 500 #1s and 750 #2s should beat a candidate with 750 #1s and 250 #2's ?

PommieBast

seamus wrote: »

Or are you saying that a candidate with 500 #1s and 750 #2s should beat a candidate with 750 #1s and 250 #2's ?

Think that is Condorcet voting. Not aware of anywhere actually using it though..

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I am suggesting that each voter could provide a list of their preferences ..... so for 5 candidates they would vote 1,2,3,4,5.
All voters preferences (grades) could then be counted and seats allocated to those with the best preferences from ALL voters.

I fail to see where that is 'nuts'.
It would provide the best 'compromise' from all voters.

What am I missing?
Each voter ticks the same number of boxes as presently.
The count is done differently.

If I understand you, if I vote 1 for candidate A, but do not vote down the card, I get one vote. However, if I vote 1,2,3,4,5 down the card, I get 5 votes. That is nuts.

Democracy as we understand it is one vote per person over 18 years of age. No other qualification other than you have a pulse and you turn up to vote where you are registered.

The STV system we use allocates your vote to the candidate you prefer most. Simples.

Counting the votes to make that happen is the hard bit, but simple enough - it just takes time. However, it is great fun.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

If I understand you, if I vote 1 for candidate A, but do not vote down the card, I get one vote. However, if I vote 1,2,3,4,5 down the card, I get 5 votes. That is nuts.

I see nothing 'nuts' about it.
You vote down the card 1,2,3,4,5 under our present system.

Democracy as we understand it is one vote per person over 18 years of age. No other qualification other than you have a pulse and you turn up to vote where you are registered.

So drop the STV and have 'one person, one vote' if you think a single expression of preference is sufficient for democracy.
I believe we would agree it is not.

The STV system we use allocates your vote to the candidate you prefer most. Simples.

...... and then goes through a huge process to see what your other preferences/opinions are.
What I suggested was something much simpler, except ALL preferences count, not just the preferences of what are votes that failed to influence an outcome ...... those over a quota and those for eliminated candidates.
So those voters only get a second vote?

Of course that would be true democracy, where all opinions of all voters are taken into account.

[/QUOTE]Counting the votes to make that happen is the hard bit, but simple enough - it just takes time. However, it is great fun.[/QUOTE]

That is a large drawback of what I suggested ...... there would be no long, involved count and the main 'fun' part of an election would be lost.

cantwbr1

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I see nothing 'nuts' about it.
You vote down the card 1,2,3,4,5 under our present system.



So drop the STV and have 'one person, one vote' if you think a single expression of preference is sufficient for democracy.
I believe we would agree it is not.



...... and then goes through a huge process to see what your other preferences/opinions are.
What I suggested was something much simpler, except ALL preferences count, not just the preferences of what are votes that failed to influence an outcome ...... those over a quota and those for eliminated candidates.
So those voters only get a second vote?

Of course that would be true democracy, where all opinions of all voters are taken into account.

Counting the votes to make that happen is the hard bit, but simple enough - it just takes time. However, it is great fun.[/QUOTE]

That is a large drawback of what I suggested ...... there would be no long, involved count and the main 'fun' part of an election would be lost. [/quote]

Does that not mean that, assuming everyone votes all the way down the ballot paper, they will all end up with the same number of votes?
Or do you assign a weighting to second, third etc votes?

Sam Russell

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I see nothing 'nuts' about it.
You vote down the card 1,2,3,4,5 under our present system.



So drop the STV and have 'one person, one vote' if you think a single expression of preference is sufficient for democracy.
I believe we would agree it is not.



...... and then goes through a huge process to see what your other preferences/opinions are.
What I suggested was something much simpler, except ALL preferences count, not just the preferences of what are votes that failed to influence an outcome ...... those over a quota and those for eliminated candidates.
So those voters only get a second vote?

Of course that would be true democracy, where all opinions of all voters are taken into account.

Counting the votes to make that happen is the hard bit, but simple enough - it just takes time. However, it is great fun.

That is a large drawback of what I suggested ...... there would be no long, involved count and the main 'fun' part of an election would be lost.

If you have one vote, it attaches to one candidate - that is the fundamental principle of STV. Once it does that, it contributes to that candidate until they are elected, or excluded. If you have further preferences, the vote travels on, but only ever counts as a single vote for one candidate.

In the case of a candidate getting over the quota, then the counters take the excess votes and the continue to lower preferences. This works for the first count because the votes are thoroughly mixed before counting begins. (Randomised). Otherwise, the counters adopt a process of last in, first out. This is not correct in a pure STV system, but it is what they do and without computer counting, would be hard to do STV properly. The error is only slight anyway.

Anyone can stand - so that is democratic. Anyone can get elected, so that is democratic. The system tends to give results in line with 1st preference votes, so that is democratic. Even when political parties try gaming the system, it does not work out too well for them - so that is good.

What is the problem? Your horse did not win?

Plastik

spitonmedickie wrote: »

Would I be mad to join labour? Policy wise it's compatible with me but I don't think I'd have a vote in the leadership contest and I do think Alan Kelly could bring the whole thing crashing down around him, what do other people think? Is he the man labour need or a brat?

Anyone that has seen Alan Kelly in action, up close and personal behind closed doors, knows that he would bring the whole thing crashing down. He is utterly toxic. There was a reason he couldn't even get a party colleague to give him a second nomination in the last leadership election. Labour would be far better served if AK - power is a drug and I think it suits me - 47 turned independent and ran with the rest of the other crackpots in that Tipperary constituency.

Johnboy1951

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you have one vote, it attaches to one candidate - that is the fundamental principle of STV. Once it does that, it contributes to that candidate until they are elected, or excluded. If you have further preferences, the vote travels on, but only ever counts as a single vote for one candidate.

In the case of a candidate getting over the quota, then the counters take the excess votes and the continue to lower preferences.

I find it interesting that you do not see this as a second vote, yet when I proposed that all preferences be taken into account you see that as multiple votes.

This works for the first count because the votes are thoroughly mixed before counting begins. (Randomised). Otherwise, the counters adopt a process of last in, first out. This is not correct in a pure STV system, but it is what they do and without computer counting, would be hard to do STV properly. The error is only slight anyway.

Anyone can stand - so that is democratic. Anyone can get elected, so that is democratic. The system tends to give results in line with 1st preference votes, so that is democratic. Even when political parties try gaming the system, it does not work out too well for them - so that is good.

What is the problem? Your horse did not win?

Really? That is the best you have to offer?
That you want to question my personal motives rather than discuss the comparative merits of each is sufficient for me to stop here.

hammerdub

I think the fairest way to do or would be
First preference votes total
2nd preference half the total
3th preference a third the total
4th preference a quarter total
5th preference a fifth the total
And so on to end of number candidate. Add the totals up and that's your vote. May take longer to count but fat more fairer than geography playing a part of transfers.

storker

hammerdub wrote: »

I think the fairest way to do or would be
First preference votes total
2nd preference half the total
3th preference a third the total
4th preference a quarter total
5th preference a fifth the total
And so on to end of number candidate. Add the totals up and that's your vote. May take longer to count but fat more fairer than geography playing a part of transfers.

This would just be a water-down version of FPTP, and would ditch the main advantage of STV: that you end up with seats allocated as closely as possible in the same proportion as vote share.

What's so wrong with STV all of a sudden anyway?

Johnboy1951

hammerdub wrote: »

I think the fairest way to do or would be
First preference votes total
2nd preference half the total
3th preference a third the total
4th preference a quarter total
5th preference a fifth the total
And so on to end of number candidate. Add the totals up and that's your vote. May take longer to count but fat more fairer than geography playing a part of transfers.

Maybe ...... The scaling could be decided according to whatever the experts say would be best.

As for counting, I wonder why the voting papers could not be put through a 'reader' which would keep a running total of all papers read, rejected etc and thus produce a result almost as quickly as the papers could be fed through it. Manual input of valid votes that were rejected by the reader could then be applied and added in.
It could then apply whatever scaling factor was previously decided and output a result.

All stages could be manually checked if there is any doubt as the original written papers are available.