General Irish politics discussion thread

Dual wheels

I am just baffled at how Leo Varadkar has become Taoiseach for a second time, I genuinely wouldn’t even put him in the top 5 in Fine Gael, he has no personality, he has a poor track record as a minister, he has never won an election for FG, he barely scrapes past the post in his own constituency and he never had a mandate to be Taoiseach, firstly taking over from enda kenny mid term and last time only via linking in with FF, it’s actually a joke and says very little for the opposition, SF back story still holds them back

Podge_irl

Linking in with FF does give him a mandate and nor is the count he is elected on relevant. Its not that surprising how we ended up here, even if you think e.g. Coveney would do better.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120008331#Comment_120008331

(1) A Taoiseach's mandate comes from being elected by the Dail to the position. The electorate in a general election do not have any input into the mandate for Taoiseach.

(2) The seat you get elected on in your constituency means nothing to your legitimacy. This is one of the silliest arguments made against Varadkar. If you look at the Dublin West constituency results from 2020, you will see that if SF had run two candidates instead of one, and FG had run one candidate instead of two, then Varadkar would have topped the poll and been elected on the first count. The order of election therefore had nothing to do with his popularity and all to do with the number of candidates put forward by each party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_West_(D%C3%A1il_constituency)#2020_general_election

(3) How do you define winning an election? If it is defined as winning a majority of seats, no party has won an election since 1977. If it is defined as being the biggest party then FF won every election since it was created, bar two (2011 and 2016). SF has never one on either criteria. If you define it as going into government, then FG did win the election under Leo Varadkar.

Dual wheels

Coveney has proven himself to be nefarious but yes he is a more capable politician than vradkar, remember vradkars own party didn’t want him as leader, they wanted coveney

Dual wheels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015105#Comment_120015105

1) A Taoiseach's mandate comes from being elected by the Dail to the position. The electorate in a general election do not have any input into the mandate for Taoiseach. - completely incorrect, I suggest you study this in more detail, the electorate have the say otherwise there is no constitution, the electorate vote based on the leader of the party bringing them into an election, if someone becomes Taoiseach outside of this juncture then they have no mandate from the people, in vradkars case he doesn’t even have a mandate from his own party and as leader in the last election he lost seats, in fact he hasn’t won any seats for FG as leader, ie, no mandate.

(2) The seat you get elected on in your constituency means nothing to your legitimacy. This is one of the silliest arguments made against Varadkar. If you look at the Dublin West constituency results from 2020, you will see that if SF had run two candidates instead of one, and FG had run one candidate instead of two, then Varadkar would have topped the poll and been elected on the first count. The order of election therefore had nothing to do with his popularity and all to do with the number of candidates put forward by each party. - if Argentina scored less than France yesterday then France would have won the World Cup…this is utter nonsense to say if FG only ran one candidate, if the Taoiseach can’t bring in a running mate in his own constituency then he has no business being there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_West_(D%C3%A1il_constituency)#2020_general_election

(3) How do you define winning an election? If it is defined as winning a majority of seats, no party has won an election since 1977. If it is defined as being the biggest party then FF won every election since it was created, bar two (2011 and 2016). SF has never one on either criteria. If you define it as going into government, then FG did win the election under Leo Varadkar. - seriously, I’m thinking now that you are a Leo-bot, vradkar is Taoiseach only by doing a deal with FF, he lost FG seats, he lost them the last election which is why it’s utterly bizarre that he is now Taoiseach and makes a mockery of democracy, there is no opposition in the dail, this is akin to the tories and labour joining forces in the uk and go into government leaving the bottom of the barrel to provide opposition, neither FF nor FG care about having a balanced forum, they just operate as individuals to hold power for themselves

Hermy

It’s spelt Varadkar.

Podge_irl

completely incorrect, I suggest you study this in more detail, the electorate have the say otherwise there is no constitution, the electorate vote based on the leader of the party bringing them into an election, if someone becomes Taoiseach outside of this juncture then they have no mandate from the people, in vradkars case he doesn’t even have a mandate from his own party and as leader in the last election he lost seats, in fact he hasn’t won any seats for FG as leader, ie, no mandate.

There is almost nothing correct in this. Please point out where in the constitution there is any statement about the electorate voting based on the leader of the party bringing them into an election?

Also Varadkar does have a mandate from his own party. And from the electorate.

What exactly is it you suggest people study in more detail?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120015980#Comment_120015980

I really don't know where to start with this. It shows such a lack of understanding of Irish politics and democracy.

Let's just take the first point. You state clearly that

"the electorate have the say otherwise there is no constitution, the electorate vote based on the leader of the party bringing them into an election, if someone becomes Taoiseach outside of this juncture then they have no mandate from the people,"

This is just complete gobbledy-gook. Firstly, there is no such provision in the Constitution. Secondly, the Constitution is upheld by the Courts, so where is the court challenge to Varadkar being Taoiseach. Thirdly, there are precedents. I would just point you first to the 1948 general election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Irish_general_election

Richard Mulcahy was leader of Fine Gael, yet John A. Costello became Taoiseach. Now how do you square that happening with your constitutional nonsense?

Dual wheels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120017702#Comment_120017702

You’re talking through your hat man, you really don’t understand modern day politics

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120018042#Comment_120018042

No, I don't think I have a problem at all.

As I requested, explain to me where in the Constitution does it say that the leader of the biggest party becomes Taoiseach or that it is unconstitutional to change Taoisigh between elections? As you don't like going back to 1948, how about John Bruton becoming Taoiseach a couple of decades ago? Was that also unconstitutional and challenged in the Courts?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120018042#Comment_120018042

You've already confessed to being "baffled" by Varadkar's election as Taoiseach, and yet you think it's others who don't understand modern day politics?

L1011

Those who parrot the SF line about getting elected on lower counts are going to have to do a lot of deleting of old posts after the next election, as SF candidates will be getting in on much lower counts than in 2020 - as they'll run an appropriate number of them.

Romping home with vastly over a quota on count one shows poor candidate selection and vote management; not that you're actually more popular. Order of election is completely irrelevant and was only ever used to decide the Alderman title on councils anyway (first elected in each ward).

Trying to make it become a thing just to attack politicians who did proper vote and transfer management will backfire, and it'll be hilarious when it does. Some of the parroters are not SF supporters, but whatever Independent or minor candidate they support is also likely to end up coming in on a late count, so its an odd position to take.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120020712#Comment_120020712

It actually scares me sometimes how little is known and understood about how our political system works. Decades ago I was taught Civics in school and learned about how the political system works.

Whether people have forgotten what they learnt, or they are reliant on Facebook and Twitter to tell them what to think, the level of ignorance is incredible. I know the false narrative put about by SF that they "won" the last election doesn't help, but surely, given our levels of education, people can see through that.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120018042#Comment_120018042

Are you old enough to vote?

lumphammer2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120016062#Comment_120016062

My biggest problem with Varadkar is this .... Speech of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar 27 March 2020 - MerrionStreet

This will always been the defining moment of his last time as leader .... tipping Ireland into the grip of a cynical dictatorship that others continued to copy that did not solve what it was supposed to solve and caused problems we still have to this day ....

Before that I had a more favourable view of him .... he helped bring an end to civil war politics and other rubbish .... but I cannot forgive 27th March 2020 ... it was a black day for Ireland ...

Hermy

I must have been asleep when that happened.

How long did the dictatorship last?

And how did it end?

Was there a coup or did he go willingly?

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119962991#Comment_119962991

Has anyone number-crunched the stats on how many Green TDs got over the line due to the transfer of quota surpluses from other parties?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120026676#Comment_120026676

Of the 12 Green TDs elected, only Eamon Ryan secured in excess of a quota on the first count. The other eleven were all elected with the help of transfers from other parties. Even Catherine Martin, who topped the poll in Dublin Rathdown, did not get a quota on the first count. But a couple of points about this:

1. They weren't necessarily elected on the back of transfers from other parties - there were transfers from independents too. I haven't tried to break those out.
2. We'd expect this. In a three-seat constituency, the quota will be more than 25% of the vote; in a four-seater, more than 20%; in a five-seater, more than 16.67%. Parties other than the majors will nearly always have nearly all their candidates elected on the back of transfers. Even for the majors, the large majority of candidates will normally be elected on the back of transfers (but some of these will of course be transfers from within the party).
3. It cuts both ways; in constituencies where the Greens were not successful, other candidates were elected on the back of transfers from the Greens.
4. It tends all to come out in the wash; nationally, the Greens secured 7.1% of the vote and won 7.5% of the seats.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120027746#Comment_120027746

Thinking about my own (then-)constituency I suspect if MLMcD had a running mate it would have been Gary Gannon of the SDs rather than Neasa Hourigan of the Greens losing out. Christy Burke is a bit of a curveball that muddies the water though.

Sam Russell

We have had this multi seat, STV voting system for a century, and it is so simple for the voter - just put the candidates in the order of your preference. It could not be simpler for the voter, and the choice might be the voter likes candidates with red hair, or said they will give a particular candidate a preference and some voters vote down the card for a party and then stop. When the votes are counted, the daft ones cancel each other out. It does not matter - we get the politicians we deserve. (Unfortunately)

It is the political parties that try to game the system, and by doing so, corrupt it. Vote management is a corruption to try and spread the voters choice to the party that advocates it. The number of candidates fielded can effect the result - too few and the party gets fewer seats, too many and the party loses seats. But overall, it makes little difference, as someone else gets the seat and are equally preferred by the voters. The last seat may be down to just a few votes between the last few candidates.

Our system is very fair in that those parties with over 5% of the first preference votes, tend to get a very representative number of seats compared to their vote despite the shenanigans of the political parties to game the system.

Brussels Sprout

I was listening to the Irish Times politics podcast where they were talking about how, before the next election there will be a large number of new seats added to the Dail (in response to the latest Census). It'll be somewhere in the region of 10-21 addition seats on top of the current 160.

Now, famously in the last election SF made a bags of their candidate numbers and ended up transferring a lot of their surpluses to other parties and left-wing independents. For example, if SF had run the optimal number of candidates in each constituency (very easy to say that in retrospect btw) then I think the only member of PBP/SOL who would have been elected would have been Richard Boyd Barrett. Similarly the Greens benefited greatly from these surpluses.

Now we can assume that SF won't make the same mistake next time out (I'd wager, if anything, they might make the opposite mistake and run too many candidates) so if the number of seats was not changing then I think the big losers would be those parties and TDs that mopped up the SF surplus in 2020 - since those surpluses would now go to other SF candidates instead. However with all of these additional seats then a lot of those candidates might just be saved.

Another interesting point made on that podcast was the possibility of creating 6-seater constituencies. Apparently that would only require a legislative change (as opposed to a constitutional change requiring a referendum). Currently if a 5-seater expands in population then what happens is they add a seat but split it into two 3-seaters. I have never really considered a 6-seater before, simply because there hasn't been any, at least in recent memory. I wonder would they be more or less democratic?

L1011

We had up to 9 seaters in the past. This is very representative and lead to results like Labour having a TD in Donegal (and the poll topper there is an Independent Unionist!)

NI had six seaters for Stormont until recently, which gave them some minor party representation - PUP, two PBP rather than one - over 5 seaters.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120021054#Comment_120021054

It's not their job to understand. It is their job to just parrot whatever they are being told on social media.

The current line is all about "legitimacy" and "mandate" the latter of which doesn't actually exist in parliamentary democracy the way these people are using it.

It's funny because the same people are usually happy with a system that legally demands they must be part of the ruling coalition in another parliament.

CrabRevolution

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120043838#Comment_120043838

They'll need to be consider their moves carefully. Some portions of the internet will have an aneurysm at the thought of a TD getting elected to the 6th seat in a constituency.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120093101#Comment_120093101

Oddly enough, nobody seems to complain when it's one of the alphabet soup far left who squeaks in.

Peregrinus

The larger the constituency, the more you enable truly proportional representation for minor parties.

At the moment, with our pattern of 3, 4 and 5 seat constituencies, the major parties get a share of seats which pretty closely mirrors their share of the national vote, but with minor parties and independents there is greater variance. The larger the constituencies become, the more proportional the representation of the minor parties will be. The ultimate case, in theory, is that you turn the entire country into a single 166-seat constituency.

The reason you don't do that is not that it wouldn't be democratic; it's that (a) it would largely break the notion of local representation, which for all its faults we generally like, and (b) it would create an unfeasibly large slate of candidates — it would be impossible for voters to have a sufficient awareness of most or all of the candidates to express a meaningful preference between them.

So, there's a sweet spot, where constituencies are large enough to provide a reasonable proportionality in representation, but small enough that voters can make reasonably informed judgements about the candidates offered to them.

Globally, in places that use the single transferable vote, having constituencies that elect more than six members is unusual, which seems to imply a view that that's about the upper limit of what works well.

In the past, though, we have had constituencies as large as 9 seats (Galway — from 1923 to 1948 the entire City and County was a single constituency returning 9 TDs). By the 1950s, however, the trend was towards smaller constituencies - by around 1960 we had 22 3-seaters, 9 4-seaters, 9 5-seaters and nothing larger than that; the average was 3.7 TDs per constituency. Today we still max out at 5-seat constituencies but there are 13 of those, plus 17-four seaters and just 9 3-seaters, giving an average of 4.1 TDs per constituency.

breezy1985

I get the feeling many people in 3 seaters will "feel" that they only have half the representation of a 6 seater especially so in parish pump constituencies.

I know it's only 1 more than a 5 but I can see how it could become one of those overblown issues that isn't worth the hassle.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097411#Comment_120097411

It would be a fairly weird thing to think.

Plus, if we wanted larger constituencies in order to improve the proportionality of the system them, rationally, we'd want fewer or no small constituencies, so there might not be any 3-seaters. Currently all 3-seaters with the exception of Roscommon-Galway are subdivisions of counties, so they could be merged into larger constituencies without losing a distinct county-based identity.

Sam Russell

This 'county' loyalty is fine for sport, but not for much else.

If one travels from Dublin to Clifden, then half the journey occurs in Co Galway, the other half travels through 4 or 5 counties. During the pandemic, people were restricted to travel within their county so a resident of Ballinasloe could go to Clifden but not Athlone. Residents in Leitrim were severely restricted.

The problem with redrawing constituency boundaries every so often can divide a TD's support area if it happens to be chopped up by the new boundaries. I think a better solution would be to restrict to Dail to 160 seats, with greater flexibility in population coverage for the constituency - so an increase or reduction can be tolerated a bit more.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097496#Comment_120097496

People are weird. The fact people still think along county lines is weird in itself. Shure Leitrim people often have "no" representation apparently.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097535#Comment_120097535

It would require a constitutional referendum to do this as article 16.2 outlines the constituency limits pretty clearly and I cant see such a vote ever passing where people to effectively vote to give themselves less representation

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120099272#Comment_120099272

You could interpret it differently.

Keeping a limit on the number of TDs limits the number of trotters in the golden trough. I think that would be more persuasive to the average voter.

Representation by the opposition is just a way of raising the political noise level, while backbench Gov TDs are just ignored. Why do they do it?

Politics is a blood sport.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120100254#Comment_120100254

This was the attempt used to pass the Senate abolition referendum and it didn't work.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120100397#Comment_120100397

Ya people were against losing the Seanad because they didn't want to lose elected officials

Oh wait 🤣

Many of the few who did vote were swung by the likes of Norris flapping on about reform. Whatever happened to that.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120100254#Comment_120100254

An upper limit of 30k voters per TD has always struck me as a very low number. Then again if there is to be a real cull of useless politicians I would be more inclined to start with the city councils.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120097535#Comment_120097535

You'rfe suggesting two different measures here. One is to set a fix limit to the number of TDs. The other is to allow unequal representation, with people in some areas electing more TDs per head of the population than people in other areas.

I think the fixed limit might be popular, but the unequal representation one, not so much. The only benefit you suggest would be to TDs, not voters, which is hardly going to generate mass appeal. (Plus it's very open to abuse — back in the 1960s, FF argued for better representation for rural voters on the grounds that constituencies were larger and more diverse, distances greater, etc. Not coincidentally, FF had stronger support in rural areas.)

If we have larger constituencies then we have fewer constituencies and, therefore, fewer boundaries, so the boundary-changing problem that you point to tends to diminish anyway. But, honestly, I don't see that it's a problem. Whatever the considerations that go into drawing constituency boundaries, keeping the current TDs in office should not be among them.

PommieBast

@Peregrinus

(Plus it's very open to abuse — back in the 1960s, FF argued for better representation for rural voters on the grounds that constituencies were larger and more diverse, distances greater, etc. Not coincidentally, FF had stronger support in rural areas.)

Was that around the same time they also tried to get STV replaced with FPTP?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120101361#Comment_120101361

From memory, after it. When they failed to secure the adoption of FPTP, they tried instead to secure greater representation for rural voters than for urban voters. The Supreme Court squashed it on the grounds that it was repugnant to the constitutional requirement of equality before the law.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120101372#Comment_120101372

constitutional requirement of equality before the law.

That's an absolutely gas line for a judge in 1960s Ireland to be throwing around.

Sam Russell

I am not suggesting unequal representation - more like an increase in flexibility in definition of when that inequality gets large enough to require boundary changes.

Boundary changes are not just a few hundred voters moved from one constituency to another. It means a three seater being increased to a four seater by the addition of voters from adjoining constituencies. Or two three seaters becoming a five seater, or the reverse. By widening the criteria, it would mean less of this.

However the rules are set, the larger parties will do their best to game the rules to benefit themselves - so best not to change more than necessary.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120101711#Comment_120101711

Boundaries are set by an independent commission, and revised after each census. That's another change since the 1960s, introduced to prevent the parties in power gaming the system. At present the Commission decides on the mix of 3, 4 and 5 seat constituencies; the Commission could be mandated to consider 6-seaters or not have 3-seaters or whatever, and still be left to draw up boundaries independently, based on the latest population data.

And what you're talking about is unequal representation - i.e. its an increase in the degree of inequality which the system will permit. And your only reason for proposing it seems to be to benefit sitting TDs. No offence to sitting TDs, but that's not a good reason.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120101711#Comment_120101711

Your last statement does not reflect the historical reality.

Yes, in the mid-1970s, large-sized constituencies fell out of favour with a preference for three- and four- seat constituencies, most famously, with what became known as the Tullymander, which backfired on Tully, with FF gaining their biggest majority ever in 1977. Since then, there has been a trend upwards in five-seater constituencies, which favour smaller parties over larger parties.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120101341#Comment_120101341

A fixed limit would require a Constitutional amendment. Currently, the constitution allows for a range between 1:20,000 voters and 1:30,000 voters. We are close to the upper limit, and extra seats are inevitable without a referendum.

Sam Russell

@Peregrinus

No, it is not to benefit sitting TDs or those would-be TDs in any way, but it is to prevent the frequent move of electoral boundaries from one constituency to another and back again.

I would support the removal of three seater constituencies because it removes the possibilities of smaller parties getting seats in favour of larger parties. Didn't Dick Spring miss out is a three seater by nine votes with only four candidates?

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103632#Comment_120103632

I thought Dick Spring held on by four votes.

At the time I remember a story about a FF bus from Dublin bringing students down to vote which broke down en route and that they would have made the difference.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103632#Comment_120103632

What exactly is wrong with moving boundaries ?

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120103632#Comment_120103632

I don't think there has been a 3 seater with 4 candidates in the modern era. Back when you had uncontested constituencies you might have had one; but not recently at all.

The year (1987) Spring held on by 4 votes, there were 7 candidates.

When he went out on transfers in 2002 (despite 22.4% FPV) there were, again, 7 candidates.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120105113#Comment_120105113

It was me misremembering the election. I think it was 2002 when he lost by 489 votes as the fourth in a three seater. Basically he lost by the second count as all lower candidates were eliminated but redistributing the surpluses cemented his loss. He was third on first preferences though.

Memory plays tricks.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120105335#Comment_120105335

You're misremembering everything.

It wasn't four candidates, it wasn't nine votes, he was second on FPV.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120105341#Comment_120105341

Mea culpa. I will resign my seat straight away.

Oh, wait, this is just the interweb thingy. It was a shock result though.