General Irish politics discussion thread

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356330#Comment_122356330

I give votes as far as my understanding of the candidates extends, so in real terms usually nothing past a 2nd or 3rd choice. This is not a huge ask and you can't frame it as one.

Either democracy represents an accurate percentage of the voting public's choice, or else it's not democracy. Advocating a system that provably results on a less representative government is not democratically sound, vague talk of "fudge" doesn't really say otherwise.

BonnieSituation

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356354#Comment_122356354

These are all classic far-right red flags, eh, sorry, discussion points. "Strong decisive leadership and government" is always the calling card.

Calling coalition governments a "fudge" is absolutely bananas. And unfortunately not a sundae.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122354114#Comment_122354114

Your certainly entitled to that opinion of course. There is no question that FPTP is a more straight forward system in terms of its operation. However personally I prefer PR as it is a more democratic system. Plus as others have pointed out nobody is forcing you to pick down as far as 5th preference or even second in PR. You can just put down your first preference and thats fine also.

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356354#Comment_122356354

FPP does that, it's just more unequivocal

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356421#Comment_122356421

I'm not sure the question of whether FPTP is more straight forward in operation is as definitive as all that. It has less writing for sure. However, in terms of making your vote count, it can actually be more complicated. In PR-STV, you need to rank your candidates in order of preference, and that's it. There is no gaming the system*. Tactical voting is essentially not a thing.

That's not the case in FPTP. You could be a strong Labour supporter, but depending on where you live, voting for Labour might be as useful as tossing your vote in the bin. You might be far better off voting for the LibDems, or the SNP. You need to know the details of the likely outcome of your constituency, which actually requires more knowledge than a comparable PR-STV one

*There is one exception (in Ireland, at least). If a party picks up enough FPVs, they're entitled to a certain level of funding from the Exchequer, so you may want to give you FPV to a lower preference if you believe they deserve funding.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356701#Comment_122356701

What does that even mean? You're just talking in vague aphorisms: show me some concrete distinction between the systems that yield something "unequivocal" in terms of an ability to deliver a mandate; FPTP yielded a situation in the UK where Labour won 63% of all seats, with only 34% of the vote. That's fundamentally undemocratic no matter how you spin it; all because, to spin it back to your original point, you didn't wanna give someone a 5th preference vote.

PR by design often necessitates compromise, but that's a feature not a bug and requires centrist, cooperative solutions instead of open runways for wild ideological swings; which as we saw with Liz Truss' brief tenure can have disastrous consequences. Again though, show a clear scenario where the PR system has somehow limited delivery of something tangible? Otherwise I don't find the prospect of middle-ground politics an especially apalling outcome of a fair and provably more democratic system. It ain't perfect by any stretch but it's clearly more democratic than FPTP.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356106#Comment_122356106

Not that rare:

• Two elections in 1910
• Five elections in 1922-1931
• Two elections in 1950-1951
• Three elections in 1970-1974

Edit: Party with most votes lost in 1929, 1951, and 1974.

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356920#Comment_122356920

That's rare , handful over a hundred years

We had three elections in 1981 - 1982

Hotblack Desiato

So we have elections rapidly followed by other elections even less often than the UK does - even though we don't use FPTP.

FPTP is bad in a lot of ways, but these are two of the worst:

• It creates "safe seats" where pretty much any warm body parachuted in by the party HQ is guaranteed a seat
• Millions of votes count for nothing and they may as well not bother voting at all if they don't support the "safe seat" party - and as a result, many don't bother. With PR-STV the vast majority of votes have a real effect (OK it's possible to only vote for candidates who end up eliminated, but even then order of elimination has an effect)

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356152#Comment_122356152

So you'd prefer a party who the majority of the electorate did not vote for gets to implement their entire manifesto rather than have a programme for government out together by combining various party's promises based on the number of votes they got?

Sure, that's a democratic idea... 🙄

Peregrinus

Obviously, if a manifesto fails to secure majority support — if more voters vote against it that vote for it — it should be watered down, so that the views of the majority of voters can be seen to have some influence over government policy and actions.

BonnieSituation

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356957#Comment_122356957

Stop digging.

gym_imposter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122357544#Comment_122357544

" Digging"

It's only happened a handful of times in one hundred and ten times

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122352579#Comment_122352579

 It is clearly more democratic as it produces results that more accurately reflect the voters preferences in the elections. Given this it is much harder for one party to win an overall majority thus coalitions are much more the norm and thus naturally require more compromise and negotiation for a government to be formed. 

This is not compatible with this

This is not the case with FPTP thus leaving the door open to extremists getting control of power never mind the fact that governments in general whether extremist or not under FPTP often do not reflect the wishes of the majority of voters ie more then 50%.

You are arguing against your very own point. How exactly does FPTP leave the door open for extremists?

Yes, PR is more representative and one has a bigger spread of opinions and parties getting seats. This also includes extremist parties on both the right and left. Just look at any European country, e.g. Austria's FPO whose founder was a Minister in the Nazi party, and a former SS officer. Austria uses PR.

In an FPTP system, it's normally 2 big centrist parties (one a social democratic party, the other one from the more Christian Democrat hue) that gain from the system and it makes it harder for smaller, niche parties to make a dent and gain seats an momeutum. Sure its unfair, and one gets this perpetual centrism that many people hate today but..

In 2010, the BNP would have had 12 MPs in Westminster given their vote share in PR. They got zero under FPTP. The evidence simply does nor correlate to your opinion.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122357591#Comment_122357591

FPTP can result in a party shifting left or right and because of the system the rest of the party has to follow.

The ERG was the tail wagging the dog of the tories. You could argue similar with the tea party for the Republican party and trumpism now.

If these were standalone organisations in a pr system they'd be there as a small percentage off to the side rather than taking over the big parties.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122357973#Comment_122357973

FPTP can result in a party shifting left or right and because of the system the rest of the party has to follow.

But it depends on how right or left they go as there is a limit.

Labour shifted left and was deemed unelectable.
Blair created "New Labour", moved to the centre and had huge electoral success.

David Cameron created a new liberal Conservative party and he had electoral success. His big downfall was losing the Brexit vote, which ushered in a Civil War between the Torries.

The Tories have been dumped out of government as they are too divided to come up with anything clear and concise. There are the ERG Brexit group, and the One Nation Tory group.
If the Tories decide to go full into the ERG, Brexit, Faragism, .i.e more extreme they will not win back power.

As to PR, yes it is more representative, but even in coalitions, you have small parties having a big say.

Look at the Irish Greens. They are the lightning rod for everyone even government parties, because they are an easy target. They got 7.1% of the vote, but are in power. Is that more democratic?*

If so, why is everyone turning on them?

Say the next government is made up of Independant Ireland and FF/FG. Would everyone all of a sudden be happy that the populist right is in government, where they make policy and legislation to row back on this like clean air and water, public transport, abortion, divorce, drunk driving etc…?

In Ireland, we have had centrism and pragmatism in the form of FG and especially FF, for decades. These parties are not really all that ideological. But as the electorate is fracturing, we are going to become more ideological, like they are in Europe.

Then we will see actual far left and far right TD's in the Dail, and dare I see it one of those rumps in government. I guess that is democracy.

*I say that as a Green supporter

Peregrinus

You are arguing against your very own point. How exactly does FPTP leave the door open for extremists?

FPTP delivers considerable power to parties that a more democratic system would deliver to voters. The result is that the way to advance a radical position (whether you categorise it as "extremist" or not) is not to offer it to voters and seek their support; it's to have it adopted by a faction of one of the two dominant parties. Basically, extremists don't need popular support in the UK; they need control of one of the two dominant parties.

Under FPTP party factions contend for control in a process over which voters have next to no influence. Advocates for FPTP will point to the negotiations that, in countries with more representative parliaments, go into forming coalitions. But pretty much the same process takes place in FPTP countries, but it mostly takes place before the election rather than afterwards, and the factions don't seek to maximise their influence in the process by seeking voter support. Whether the Wets or the Drys, ERG or the One Nation groups, come to dominate in the Tory party has nothing at all to do with what voters want.

In the UK this feature is coupled with a doctrine of parliamentary supremacy which means that the faction that can take control of the party that secures the largest minority of the popular vote can do pretty much what it wants, including pursuing policies that are quite extreme or quite insane, like invading the Suez or slashing taxes in a way that undermines the currency or holding a referendum to implement a policy that you don't want to implement and haven't the first clue how to implement.

And, if we've learned anything from the past 8 years, its that this definitely does not make for stability or good government.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122358257#Comment_122358257

Yet, the Brexit referendum and all the instability that came from it, came by, not by FPTP of a Westminister General Election, but a referendum, which then realigned party politics, especially the Tories, in the UK.

FPTP systems lend themselves to having 2 big broad church parties, that are usually centrist in their approach. I see you ignored my comment about Corybn and his lurch to the left, which was rejected by the electorate eventually.

Is it a coincidence that Starmer moved to the centre and won power, like Blair before him? No, not at all.
Reform or Farage would never become PM in the same vein.

As I said earlier, history did not begin in 2016 and all the turmoil that emanated from that Brexit vote. One should not look at 200 years of FPTP in Westminister through the prism of the last 8 years alone.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122358407#Comment_122358407

The Referendum itself came because of internal politics caused by the FPTP system. in a PR system the referendum never would have been called in the first place.

dulpit

Margaret Thatcher changed the shape of the UK. In 1979 her party was rejected by 56.1% of the electorate. In 1983 her party was rejected by 57.6% of the electorate. In 1987 her party was rejected by 57.8% of the electorate. But the Tories went from a majority of 22 to 72 to 51.

Tell me that is fair.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122358457#Comment_122358457

How do you know that? You don't.

Say in an alternative universe, there was a PR system in the UK, the populist right bloc/Anti-EU bloc would be a large part of Westminister, say 20% of the electorate, thus 20% approx of the seats. Given that PR systems lend itself to coalitions, what makes one think that

a) This party would never enter a coalition with other more like-minded centre-right parties.

b) That the referendum on the EU would not be a precondition to the said coalition for the government.

Far fetched?

Not at all.
When the Lib Dems entered government with the Tories in 2010, in the form of a coalition, they made it a precondition that a referendum on FPTP was put to the people, on the form of AV. (It was rejected)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

In summary, the idea that it is the fault of FPTP that a Brexit referendum was called in the first place is fantasy. It was inevitable at some stage and if there was a PR system, it probably would have happened much sooner.

After all, 52% of the people voted for it, did they not?

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122358491#Comment_122358491

I dont think anyone said that FPTP is a fair system.

The debate is about the trade-offs between it and PR.

Neither system is perfect.

You will get a fairer system with PR, for sure, but is it 'better' and does it lead to better outcomes?

That is the debate, and its not as binary as some would like to make out.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122358510#Comment_122358510

I think more likely in that situation is that the ukip/Brexit vote would have remained contained to 1 party of say 10-20%. If they had made it a precondition to go into government with the tories, the tories wouldn't have done it, they'd have aligned more with the likes of Lib Dem. But we'll never know.

I still think the fundamental issue is a question of fairness. It's unfair that reform, as repugnant as they are, got so few seats. It's unfair that Labour got as many as they did. That's the only issue for me when it comes to voting systems.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122358814#Comment_122358814

Indeed - Cameron called the Referendum not because he thought he'd lose seats to UKIP (or whatever Farage was calling his club then) but because he feared that under FPTP they would lose him seats to Labour by hacking off 15/20% of the Tory vote thereby handing seats to Labour - Which is what just happened in this latest election in many many places.

Those concerns would have been greatly lessened under any PR style voting system as those 3rd placed UKIP/Brexit/Reform candidates would have been excluded and the transfers would have gone to the Tories for the most part giving them the win.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122359171#Comment_122359171

In a PR system, Labour and the Tories would be much much smaller anyhow. And if a UKIP-type party existed, they would have gotten a fair shake of seats, going back the last 10 or more years, at the expense of more center right parties.

Look at France over the past 15 years. The centre-right party of the day, the party of Chirac, UMP are now nowhere to be seen and is more or less irrelevant. FN have eaten their lunch for a large part, while the old school centrists have moved to Macron's ensemble.

In a PR system, there would have been much more ebbs and flows, with big parties becoming small, and small parties gaining ground and traction.

markodaly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122359171#Comment_122359171

But I do take your point. Big parties are afraid of smaller parties coming up and splitting the vote of a block, thus letting the other side in. It can be a difficult dance. No doubt we will see similar in the UK now that Starmer is in power but for many he wont be left-wing enough.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356330#Comment_122356330

Our system reflects the nuance that exists in the electorate.

FPTP is a crude device that gives disproportionate power to parties in relation to their popularity amongst the electorate.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122359290#Comment_122359290

Agree to a point - In this latest election what likely happens under a PR style of voting is that everyone is a lot smaller but Reform and greens pick up some seats (but not the big numbers the 1st preference might suggest) and you'd likely have ended up with a Labour/Lib Dem government with a small but manageable majority.

Also the parties would all have campaigned very differently.

Reform for example would have had to dial back the rhetoric massively and those multiple toxic candidates would have cost them transfers in a big way.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122357591#Comment_122357591

It leaves the door open for extremists because they do not need to build any consensus with other parties via a coalition. They just need to get into power even as a minority which very often happens in FPTP. PR is much more democratic and its need for negotiation and consensus building makes it very difficult for extremists to gain control of the government. Not so with FPTP which requires little of no consensus.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122359554#Comment_122359554

I think they would have needed the Greens to make up the numbers, and then possibly, someone like the SDLP to give regional credibility.