General Irish politics discussion thread

markodaly

Late October, early November election has been mooted for a while now. Forget the talk, its going to happen this year.

HalloweenJack

In my own case, my mother's parents were born in the 30s and have voted against most recent referenda and would follow the Church's view on most thing as opposed to what politicians would say.

However, come election time they always vote FF without a moment's hesitation. My father's parents were similarly unwavering FG voters while my parents have mostly voted Labour/DL/SD.

The dilution of the civil war parties can only be a good thing, imo.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338303#Comment_122338303

Except we can see that last line isn't vaguely true from the various FPTP countries around the world that have incredibly poor, weak and ineffective Governments.

A "stronger Government" created by FPTP is going to be a party that is effectively its own coalition to begin with, and will suffer severe internal divisions that prevent divisive actions. And even if they do manage to make "harder decisions", they could easily be opposed by well over half of the electorate at the time.

FPTP is awful in every single way and has no advantages.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338303#Comment_122338303

careful what you wish for there, coalitions actually bring far more diversity, including in decision making, they also generally create far more stable outcomes, as we can see whats been unfolding in our nearest neighbors, both the us and the uk are in serious trouble, with rising tensions and dysfunctionality

yes all systems have drawbacks, but pr-stv really isnt all that bad when compared to others such as fptp, does the uk and the us truly look all that 'strong'!

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338326#Comment_122338326

Every party is going to have factions.
Do you not think that FF or FG or even the Greens have factions?

Tonight in the UK, Labour is going to win a landslide election, and they will have a huge mandate. I.e. they will have the power to 100% follow their manifesto and drive through what change they and the voters who elected them think is needed.

Just because the Tories were awful doesn't mean the system itself is 100% bad. There can be advantages to each one.

There are of course drawbacks to FPTP.

It is not representative for example. One party on 40% of the vote can win a landslide. Another party with 15% of the vote might be lucky to get a few seats.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338303#Comment_122338303

There's not much evidence to suggest that coalition governments are weak. If the parties have a good working relationship, they can make firm and strong decisions.

This idea of 'weak' coalition governments is rooted in the memory of coalition parties in the past who mostly hated each other and who barely got along.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338349#Comment_122338349

The Tories had a huge mandate and haven't got their manifesto / Sunak's "five pledges" implemented in the slightest.

Labour will not get 100% of their manifesto across either.

The "strong government" thing is a lie; it does not happen and cannot be a benefit of FPTP because it doesn't exist in the first place.

FPTP has no benefits, and huge downsides. It is a dumpster fire of a system, creating unrepresentative, unequal outcomes and encouraging "broad church" political parties that spend their time in power (and out) fighting internally and not getting anything done.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338335#Comment_122338335

Oh for sure, coalitions give a broader range of views and wants, but that makes actual, real change very very hard to implement as all it takes then is one party to just veto the whole thing.

Take for example our own situation of using the Citizens Assembly to come up with recommendations that the government rubber stamps. Why do we need this, when we have a Dail and Government in the first place?

Because our governments are generally weak and don't want to be seen to push through any legislation that my be unpopular but might be better in the long run.

The biggest manifestation of this weakness is the power our permanent government has. They actually run the country and many ministers will not go against their Sec Gen or tell them where to go. Just look at the Dept. of Justice and Helen McEntee. The immigration stuff at the moment is also going through the Dept. of An Taoiseach as Simon Harris wants to assert some control over it.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338349#Comment_122338349

Labour will have a huge mandate, but 60% of people do not want them in government.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338374#Comment_122338374

Is there any evidence that the UK is more capable or making "actual, real change" than any continental democracies? I get where the view comes from on a surface level, but as others have said the need to keep wildly different factions in your own party on side negates a lot of the supposed benefits.

dulpit

Labour in the UK would be a broad spectrum of parties here. That's the issue with FPTP. So while they won't need to worry about an opposition for a few years, they will have a lot of internal battles between the left and centrists in the party.

rock22

@markodaly "real change very very hard to implement as all it takes then is one party to just veto the whole thing.

…

The biggest manifestation of this weakness is the power our permanent government has. They actually run the country and many ministers will not go against their Sec Gen or tell them where to go. Just look at the Dept. of Justice and Helen McEntee. The immigration stuff at the moment is also going through the Dept. of An Taoiseach as Simon Harris wants to assert some control over it. FG government?

On your criteria, Putin probably has the best form of government as he can rule by diktat. But thankfully, the measure of a government is not simply based on how easy it is to make and implement decisions.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338973#Comment_122338973

There is no way of knowing what 60% of the population want who do not vote for the winning party because the choice a voter has is one single vote for a candidate in a large array.

Who knows what was taken into account with the one vote?

1932 was the last time the largest party got over 50% of the popular vote.

When was the last civil war in the UK over an unrepresentative parliament? [In Ireland's case it was 1916 - 1922 just in case you have forgotten!]

Brussels Sprout

One of the major issues with FPTP is the way that it results in many uncompetitive electoral areas. This is really pronounced in the USA where the vast majority of House districts are not competitive in the general election (aided also by partisan gerrymandering). That is bad enough but this also has the knock-on affect where the primary elections have become the real elections in many districts. They in turn are often won by candidates who are more partisan.

The upshot of all of this is that you have more and more extremists representing districts, who have no incentive to try and find consensus with the opposite party, since there is no electoral benefit for them in doing so.

Thankfully people are starting to wake up to the corrosive nature of FPTP and some states (Maine & Alaska) have now moved away from it with more, hopefully, on the way after November (Nevada, Oregon and potentially Idaho)

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338326#Comment_122338326

It is also a system that lends itself to being to over run by extremist governments as we are seeing all too glaringly in the US where they are on the verge of becoming an authoritarian state.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122340010#Comment_122340010

Totally agree. I think as we clearly see in the US that FPTP is a toxic system which greatly facilitates extremist types getting elected and it makes it very open to extremist parties gaining governing power and all the damage that entails as we have been witnessing for years in the UK and we are now likely seeing coming to a horrific conclusion in the US.

eire4

Personally I think the citizens assemblies are a very positive growth to our democracy. Getting experts and those directly involved in the respective fields involved in analysis/discussion of the field and offering solutions to problems is a great addition to our democratic process overall.

Facts are Ireland is only independent 100 years now roughly and we are one of the most stable and democratic countries in the world which is a remarkable achievement and pat on the back to our political system.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338374#Comment_122338374

Every party does indeed have factions, and that applies to the parties in FPTP systems too. In fact, it applies to them in spades.

In a PR system, the factions within government are largely represented by different parties, and the voters get to decide the relative strength of each party. Even for factions within parties, in the Irish system the voters get to express a judgement on that too; I get to choose which FF or FG or whatever candidate I will give my first preference to, and this determines which of the party's candidates get elected and which do not, and so voters decide the relative strenght of the factions within the party. Voters in an FPTP system have no similar right.

The result is that factions matter far more, and have far more power that is not conferred on them by voters, in an FPTP system than in a more democratic system.

The FPTP system does have the advantage, if you consider it an advantage, that a party that a majority of the voters has rejected gets a thumping majority to drive through the manifesto that failed to secure majority support among voters. But they also get a thumping majority not to drive through the manifesto, if they decide not not to, and to drive through things that weren't in the manifesto, if they decide to do that (which is mostly what they do; probably 90-95% of the legislation enacted at Westminster has not been put before the electorate in a manifesto). What they will actually use their majority to do is decided by a factional struggle within the party, and the voters have little to no say about it. Therefore the factions do not greatly care about the opinions of voters.

It's theoretically possible that the dominant faction would decide to use its dominance to deliver good long-term policy making. But the system is not set up to incentivise that; it incentivises the dominant faction to use its dominant position to secure the continuation of its own dominance. So there's no real reason to think that countries which have FPTP systems are, in general, better than other countries at forming and delivering good long-term policy. And a look at the recent history of the UK does nothing to subvert this analysis.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122334866#Comment_122334866

This is the county that elected a TV deflector TD!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Gildea

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342442#Comment_122342442

Donegall is the most Northern county in the republic - in more ways than just geographically.

markodaly

On FPTP, everyone knows that it's not representative and that is by far its biggest disadvantage.
But the advantages are.

You know who is going to be PM and in government the morning after.
Sunak has already resigned and left No.10 Downing Street, a mere 12 hours after the polls closed.

The morning after a PR-STV election, often its up on the air as to who will actually govern.

PR-STV will lend itself to coalitions. It took 4 months to elect a Taoiseach last time in Ireland.

I think Holland had a year without a government because parties could not agree on a program for government. FPTP will not (usually) led to such outcomes.

It's also a simple system to vote on and understand. The winner takes all.

Explain the concept of PRSTV to random people on the street, they will look at you sideways. Sure we had people proclaiming SF 'won' the last election because Leo got elected on the 5th count.

One other advantage, you can kick someone out of office.

PR-STV tends to lend itself to coalitions, so while a party's support may decline, they could still end up in government. If the tide goes out for you in FPTP, you are turfed out with no way back.

I am NOT saying that FPTP is better than PR STV before people have a go.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342699#Comment_122342699

You know who is going to be PM and in government the morning after.

This is not any real advantage, it is a mild convenience. Ultimately it matters not at all.

It's also a simple system to vote on and understand. The winner takes all.

The definition of winner however is perverse. If you explained to someone on the street that their MP was elected with 20% of the vote they'd probably be quite confused too.

I'm not a huge fan of AV, but it at least is objectively better than FPTP and retains most of the advantages that you claim. However, it was rejected so what can you do, I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Thankfully we don't have to worry about overcoming historical inertia to remove a terrible voting system, cause we don't have it in the first place.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122341418#Comment_122341418

You can make the same argument the other way, that FPTP keeps out extremists.

Corbyn was too extreme for the middle ground so was never going to be PM.

If there was a PR-STV system in the UK, we would be waking up to a Tory/Reform coalition, not a Labour landslide.
Its a bit of a paradox in a way, as one of the reasons why people are unhappy with the Tories (and Labour) is that they are or were too centrist. So these other parties are set up, and may get some support but ultimately the system works against them. Therefore the more centrist and established parties continue to win.

The only way for extremists to come to power is to take over a party from within, like what Trump did in the GOP.
I don't see Farage taking over the Tory party.

Look at the French system. It's a kind of FPTP with a few guardrails. But the presidential election is really FPTP in round 2, which is designed to keep out an extremists i.e Le Pen

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342725#Comment_122342725

If there was a PR-STV system in the UK, we would be waking up to a Tory/Reform coalition, not a Labour landslide.

With the proviso that we have no idea how people would have voted under a PR-STV system, you are wildly overstating their combined vote share.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342724#Comment_122342724

This is not any real advantage, it is a mild convenience. Ultimately it matters not at all.

I beg to differ.

People know who won and who lost.

People know who has power and who lost it.

Often here and in Europe, the election is a sideshow for months of negotiations between various parties to come up with an acceptable programme for government and what is contained in said programme can be anyone's guess.

Take 2019.

FF and FG both lost seats and votes, yet remained in government. Did the people really vote for that? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows.

In Ireland we have escaped the worst excess of this because both FF and FG are quite pragmatic, but over time we will see more and more instability as FF and FG vote share will decline and more ideological parties take to the fore.

And also, we compare ourselves to the UK for lots of things.

PR-STV isnt a bad system per say, but it does have weaknesses to it.

We will find out in due course when we have our own election in some months to come. We will be lucky to have a new government by Christmas unless FF and FG get a jump in support.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342734#Comment_122342734

Indeed. People did vote tactically but that would may mean even less seats for Labour looking at the data.

Maybe a Labour/Lib Dem coalition vs a Tory/Reform coalition. We don't really know, but the question was about how to keep extremists out and FPTP does that well enough as small extreme parties never get enough votes to get people elected, unlike say in Europe, where the Far Right and Far Left always do have people elected.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342780#Comment_122342780

Maybe a Labour/Lib Dem coalition vs a Tory/Reform coalition. We don't really know

Lab/LD would be 46% vs 37% for Tory/Reform. It really wouldn't be that close.

FPTP allowed the extremists to take over the Conservative Party, it didn't keep them out of government at all.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342762#Comment_122342762

PR-STV has the advantage that the voter can vote against a candidate by giving them the lowest preference, or no preference. Its weakness is when choices a low as 7 or 8 come into play, as no one can be that discerning.

In FPTP, the voter can only show first preference, or vote tactically and vote for the most likely candidate that is not the one most hated. However, unless there is a wide campaign for this, it is a bit haphazard. Most seats are forgone results, even where the winner might only get 30% of the vote.

FPTP is a terrible system.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122342442#Comment_122342442

That was the first ever election that I watched with interest. I remember being so confused when they mentioned this guy. Of course back then there was no real internet to look something like that up so I had no notion what a TV Deflector candidate was.

Seth Brundle

Well this says lots...

https://twitter.com/Niall_Boylan/status/1809225746386235813

Quite how or why anyone would think the likes of Farage is going to benefit anyone except Farage is beyond me. Is there anything that he has done that we can see which has been beneficial to the average Brit?