Do you believe in Proportional Representation

Peregrinus

I think reducing the role of the state to "mostly down to where our money is spent" is absurdly reductive.

I think, even if you accept it, it provides no support for the argument that voting should be linked to taxation. Taxation isn't about where money is spent; it's about where it's raised. If government truly is mostly down to where our money is spent, then surely the vote should extend to everyoneone affected by, or with an interest in, that spending.

But the one that really puzzles me is this: if you are linking voting to taxation, why privilege PRSI in this way? PRSI raises a relatively small proportion of the state's revenue. If you insist on linking voting to taxation for no apparent reason, why should those who bear other, much more signficant, taxes (like VAT, say) not be equally entitled to vote?

joseywhales

One can always over contribute tax to have more of say in the running of the country.

AllForIt

osarusan wrote: »

OP nothing that you are saying makes any sense.

Really it sounds like you are trying to come up with a system that will lead to the result you want to see.

Any changes in how we vote would see massive changes in how people campaign and vote also. You cannot just imagine a series of 'what ifs' of projected results in a different system based on voting patterns in this system.

Well, you can, but it's useless.

I'm genuinely telling you 'getting my own way' (in what party is in power) has nothing to do with my opinion. I believe it outright. I shouldn't have mentioned SF in the OP because I'm actually not bothered with them being in gov.

I think what is important is that the government despite having a larger % of votes that did not vote for them should still have as much power as one that didn't.

I just don't agree with this 'didn't vote for' thing. I don't think the UK system is undemocratic and you hardly ever hear anyone complain about it except the losers. It's nonsense to say the UK isn't a democratic state. When UK Labour were in power they didn't do anything to change the voting system there at the time.

The essence of my thoughts is again I don't agree with this 'didn't vote for' idea.

So say a single party gets the largest 40% and 60% didn't vote for them. Lets say that 60% was divided equally between 2 party's , 30% each and they wen't into coalition. But 70% of voters didn't vote for them either. That's 10% more than who didn't vote for the 40% party.


We are now in position of having another election or one with in a year or 2 of a coalition. That is the mess a PR system creates - or is much more likely to create than a FPTP system. And even worse we'll get ineffectual gov in the meantime. Like the last gov. I don't think that's a good situation to be in.

UDAWINNER

I don't agree with FPTP as you only have to look up the North to see that many seats in Catholic majority Areas until recently have been gained by a Unionist due to them putting 1 Candidate up and SDLP/SF splitting the nationist vote. Hopefullly the argreements in certain areas like last time will end this practice.
Our system at least gives representation to the smaller parties which are not given a chance under FPTP

CelticRambler

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't think the UK system is undemocratic and you hardly ever hear anyone complain about it except the losers.

It isn't so much undemocratic as unrepresentative.

AllForIt wrote: »

So say a single party gets the largest 40% and 60% didn't vote for them. Lets say that 60% was divided equally between 2 party's , 30% each and they wen't into coalition. But 70% of voters didn't vote for them either. That's 10% more than who didn't vote for the 40% party.

Therein lies the problem: give one man one vote, and only one, and you create situation where you can never escape from those "60% didn't vote for them" and "70% didn't vote for them" scenarios, ever. It's "first choice or no choice" and as you'll rarely find any group of people to agree 100% on the same first choice, the vast majority of collective decisions in any context are based on second choices.

That switches the voting dynamic considerably for both candidates and voters. In FPTP, anyone who wants to stand for election knows that he or she will have little chance of being elected if not running on a party ticket, so they are encouraged to align their campaign message with that of the party regardless of their true beliefs or political ambitions. This creates parties within parties, and - as we saw in the UK, despite FPTP - can be enough to paralyse the government for years.

As for the voter, FPTP pretty much guarantees that the majority of electorate ends up with a government they did not want and didn't vote for, which allows them to attribute every misery in their life to the government of the day. That creates a climate of hostility which can be manipulated by anyone with a vested interest - again, as we've seen in the UK, the US and (to a lesser extent) in France.

Annasopra

AllForIt wrote: »

Wrong. If we had a FPTP system the number of first pref votes for SF would be reduced. I'm certain of that. I think many voted for SF as first pref as a kinda protest vote. How many of them voted for FF/FG as second pref? PR adds all kinds of dimensions to this argument - and that's why I don't care for it.

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

No way. You are very naive. With FPTP we would have a SF government with a massive majority.

Annasopra

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Granted there would be more constituencies in a FPTP system but if you look at the poll toppers it is: 26 SF, 5 IND, 2 FF, 2 FG, 2 GP, 1 SD, 1 SOL-PBP.

Is election data published anywhere on a polling station level?

Published privately by parties

is_that_so

AllForIt wrote: »

Wrong. If we had a FPTP system the number of first pref votes for SF would be reduced. I'm certain of that. I think many voted for SF as first pref as a kinda protest vote. How many of them voted for FF/FG as second pref? PR adds all kinds of dimensions to this argument - and that's why I don't care for it.

And even if you are right, it would be better if SF could do their thing without interference from FF/FG or any combination of, imo. If it turned out they were a total disaster then they'd be gone next election.

It would require a constitutional referendum. FF tried twice, at the end of the 50s & the 60s, to get Articles 12.3 and 16.5 changed to FPTP and it was shot down.

marko99

Yes.

woohoo!!!

By quite a number of measurements, it would be very foolish to copy the UK. Their are other European examples that could be looked at.

November Golf

woohoo!!! wrote: »

By quite a number of measurements, it would be very foolish to copy the UK. Their are other European examples that could be looked at.

I think I would favour a list system based on % of first preference vote.

And a constitution amendment to allow the dail select a taoiseach by the largest combined vote rather than simple majority. In that case, a minority government could be formed by the person who get the most votes in the dail even if not in a majority.

Peregrinus

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

I think I would favour a list system based on % of first preference vote.

In which case, what would the second preference vote be fore? Genuine question - not a snark.

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

And a constitution amendment to allow the dail select a taoiseach by the largest combined vote rather than simple majority. In that case, a minority government could be formed by the person who get the most votes in the dail even if not in a majority.

Mmm. Not gonna work, I think. First requirement for any functioning government is that they should be able to get legislation, budget, etc through the Oireachtas, and survive votes of confidence. If you have a Taoiseach who has already been rejected by a majority of TDs, then presumptively his government can't do any of these things. No point in forcing an ineffective government into office.

Marcusm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The FPTP system cleared it up by overriding the wishes of the majority. A clear majority of voters voted for parties whose platform included a second referendum, but the Tories who secured only a minority of the vote were installed in office, and there will be no second referendum.

You obviously prioritise a clear result over democratic control and democratic representation and, if those are your priorities, the FPTP is definitely the system you want (if you feel you must have elections at all, obviously). But there's a reason why very few democracies use this system, and the reason is that they take democracy seriously.

I’d agree with Peregrinus here and cite the Scottish Referendum in 2014 and subsequent U.K. election as examples. Only 45% votes in favour of inde pence, the campaign for which was led by the SNP. In the 2015 Westminster election, the SNP got 50% of the vote on a much reduced turnout (indyref was >85%) so you might suggest its voting share was magnified. The SNP got 95% of the seats (56/59) on that 50% vote. Would you really want the type of system? The 55% from indyref was essentially unrepresented in Parliament (much like NI non-unionists for the same period).

Eric Cartman

joseywhales wrote: »

One can always over contribute tax to have more of say in the running of the country.

everyone earning over 35k is already overcontributing tax and has very little say in the country...

November Golf

Peregrinus wrote: »

In which case, what would the second preference vote be fore? Genuine question - not a snark.


Mmm. Not gonna work, I think. First requirement for any functioning government is that they should be able to get legislation, budget, etc through the Oireachtas, and survive votes of confidence. If you have a Taoiseach who has already been rejected by a majority of TDs, then presumptively his government can't do any of these things. No point in forcing an ineffective government into office.

In a list system, you vote for the party not an individual candidate and the seats are allocated based on the vote (20% vote = 20% of seats). The parties rank their candidates internally and awards on order of merit.

Its the responsible of the Dail to pass legislation not the government and the budget could be done through Dail Committees as was proposed under "new politics" to allow great scritiny and agreement on budget measures.

My suggestion would mean opposition party's couldn't table a no confident motion unless they offered an alternative candidate with a great level of support. In most cases, parties would likely seek a multi party coalition to ensure maximum "confident" anyways but it would not necessarily need to be 50%+1 seat as is the current method of selecting a government. I think of it like a constitutionally governed "confident and supply" system.

The reality is we are likely to see more minority government in years to come.... we can't spend months, every few year, with caretaker cabinets and ministers that have lost their seats in the election while we wait for an agreement on who will abstain on the confident vote and for who and what price will be paid.

joseywhales

Eric Cartman wrote: »

everyone earning over 35k is already overcontributing tax and has very little say in the country...

Sure they are, however what has this got to do with a system in which voters get a higher proportion of representation if they pay more tax, if anything under such a system the people you mention would have a more democratic power.

piplip87

If we used FPTP in this recent election we would have had 160 smaller Constituencies to elect the 160 candidates so to say SF would have an over majority or any majority would be fairly premature. Where would they or any small party get the platform to gain seats if they have been locked out of the system since the foundation of the state.

IMO it would see a massive increase in Parish Pump politics. As the local lad would get the large number of votes from their towns.

Look at Cork South Central for example. If it remained the same under FPTP. FF would have strolled to that seat as the combined first preference of Martin and McGrath was 7,000 votes higher than the SF poll topper.

I haven't digged enough into the data for other Constituencies but I am sure there's other examples of this.

I am also sure that if you look at the numbers of the last election you will find that the SF vote is confined to certain areas of large towns, within Constituencies, again I would have to look at each ballot box to get the figures on this.

While they system we use is not perfect it does however guarantee that smaller parties through transfers will get elected in later counts thus giving a broader representation of society.

One thing though the public need to be educated on PRSTV the amount of complete nonsense about popular votes I have seen this week is astounding

CelticRambler

piplip87 wrote: »

If we used FPTP ...

IMO it would see a massive increase in Parish Pump politics. As the local lad would get the large number of votes from their towns.

I think this would be the biggest difference between FPTP operating in Ireland compared to GB. Anyone parachuted in to a constituency would have to fight off all the local lads (and lasses) and party politics would take more of a back seat than they do in GB. No such thing as a safe seat in Ireland. The upshot would be no significant improvement on the supposed problem described by the OP of no party having absolute power.

Feisar

Calhoun wrote: »

I think the PR system adds protection from polarization type politics we see in the UK and America.

So yes i believe in it, as it means unless there is an overwhelming support from the public that there is a compromise at play.

Is compromise always a good thing? In war times for example a cabinet can often have far reaching powers.

Health for example ain't going to get fixed with compromise.

Idbatterim

Feisar wrote: »

Is compromise always a good thing? In war times for example a cabinet can often have far reaching powers.

Health for example ain't going to get fixed with compromise.

endlessly trying to reach concensus, public consultations and we wonder why nothing changes here? :rolleyes:

MadYaker

Feisar wrote: »

Is compromise always a good thing? In war times for example a cabinet can often have far reaching powers.

Health for example ain't going to get fixed with compromise.

We’re a small neutral island nation I don’t think we’re going to war anytime soon. Health isn’t going to get fixed by changing the way we do elections either. We’d be mad to copy the brits. They’re being railroaded towards a brexit that most don’t want by a government most people didn’t vote for.

Peregrinus

piplip87 wrote: »

If we used FPTP . . . it would see a massive increase in Parish Pump politics. As the local lad would get the large number of votes from their towns.

CelticRambler wrote: »

I think this would be the biggest difference between FPTP operating in Ireland compared to GB. Anyone parachuted in to a constituency would have to fight off all the local lads (and lasses) and party politics would take more of a back seat than they do in GB. No such thing as a safe seat in Ireland. The upshot would be no significant improvement on the supposed problem described by the OP of no party having absolute power.

Not at all. The general view is that STV does a lot to promote and entrench parish pump politics. As a candidate, you are competing not just with candidates from other parties but also with other candidates from your own party. You can't compete with them on the basis of offering different policies, or of putting a different government in office, so what you do you? You compete on the basis of service to consituents - taking up their specific concerns and trying to satisfy them, or at least to pretend that you are in a position to satisfy them. You have a strong interest in promoting the idea (a) that this is what TDs can and should do, and (b) that this is done more effectively and efficiently than by other methods.

There is also a view, I should say, that STV is the reason, or at least one of the reasons, why alt-right populism has found so little traction in Ireland. One of the key drivers for alt-right populism is the sense people feel that politicians are detached from them, that they do not care about them, that they do not repfresent them or their concerns, that they live in an elitist political bubble detached from the real world, etc, etc. But this is patently untrue of Irish TDs, whose level of attention to, and service of, individual constituents' interests is pretty much unrivalled in the democratic world.

Snickers Man

AllForIt wrote: »

FPTP is the best system imo.

Ah wudya gerrup the yard!!!

Ya eejit!!!

AllForIt wrote: »

I'd liken it to Who Want's To Be A Millionaire when you ask the audience. If you didn't know the answer you would go with the biggest majority - not necessarily an outright majority.

.

Wow! Good example.

Do you actually watch WWTBAM? The most popular vote is often WRONG. "I'm afraid you've lost £450,000. The correct answer is Mickey Mouse, even though 48% of our studio audience said Goofy. (Says more about them, actually)"

FPTP is a terrible system. People live in abject terror of the split vote. You don't have to have a particularly good program. You just have to have one which opponents disagree on how best to oppose it.

If you have 35% of the vote, and can get the bulk of the opposition to split 30-30 on the best opposing strategy, then you win. And the TRULY disproportionate influence goes to the last 5% whose votes are regionally based.

Look at the last UK election.
The Liberal democrats got 3.7million votes and got 11 MPS

The Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and the Greens got a mere 2.8million votes COMBINED, yet ended up with a total of 70 seats!!! More than six times as many seats for a smaller share of the vote!!!!

You call that democracy??

And in America, it's even worse. You get two choices: Trump, or whatever deadbeat the Democrats can find to run against him. Tweedledum or Tweedledumber.

Ours is better. Any proportional system is better. That's why most proper democracies have it.

feargale

AllForIt wrote: »

I don't - I think it sucks.

I think there should be loosers in an election just like in a referendum.

I think the largest majority should win and have a strong mandate just like they have in the UK - as seen in the last UK GE.

FPTP is the best system imo. I'd liken it to Who Want's To Be A Millionaire when you ask the audience. If you didn't know the answer you would go with the biggest majority - not necessarily an outright majority.

I don't agree with mish-mash coalitions. Look at the current numbers - there is all sorts of scenarios for a gov that could transpire. The more even the split the worse PR is as a system.

IMO it's not right that independents end up in government, no mind tiny party's. That's what we're faced with now.

If we had a FPTP system, ppl would have put more consideration into their first prefs and we wouldn't' be in the horrid state we are in now. And not faced with SF in gov either.

Ah you're only half right. Let the party with the most votes take all the seats in the Dàil/Parliament. Then you won't have to put up with the nuisance of a pesky opposition. You could run the country by twitter from Dublin's equivalent of Trump Tower, or even from your own private Inishvickillaun. And you needn't even bother heaping Trumpian foul abuse on your opponents because there wouldn't be any.
They used to tell us that FPTP kept out extremes and nutters. Oh it does, like in the last UK general election or the last US presidential election. Honest!