Constituency changes

I suppose if the population ever did become as substantial as the likes of the UK, we'd have no choice but to reign that in or build a 1 billion euro extension onto Leinster House.

According to the link in the OP, we're right in the middle of the graph, and comparable with other countries with a similar population (Denmark, Slovakia, Finland, Bulgaria), so it's somewhat reassuring to see there isn't a problem with the stipulations in our Constitution on this matter.

Thanks, OP, you've just saved us a needless referendum!

That's very much more a rant about multi seat constituencies than it is about the ration of TD to population and doesn't answer the question asked.

That said, you have a point re: national legislators doing local work. However, nothing else in your post supports the notion that reducing the ratio of TDs to population is a good idea.

IMHO, the benefits of the Multi-Seat Constituency are borne out at the national level. I would concede that to make TD's more local as seems to be your want? That single seat seat constituencies with a 50%+1 quota might be more attractive as a means to address the "locality" concern. It would have greater knock on consequences however in leaving 49%+ of each such constituency without any representation at all to represent their votes. The current setup is a balanced means of ensuring representation of the broadest political preference.

As for your wondering why we need more of them? We live in a representative democracy with a ratio lain down in the Constitution for TD to population. It is a system that works and the PR-STV with multi seat constituencies is IMHO a far better system than PR-list or the abomination of FPTP. Every person who chooses to vote is entitled to at least see representation in the Dail.

TDs attending funerals is for some of them part and parcel of keeping themselves visible to the their electorate. I dont like it but, I fail to see why that means you can't go to your local councillor for a local issue?

The government rarely puts stuff that really matters to referendum, the last really relevant one was 20 years ago when Michael mcdowel put to referendum the automatic right to citizenship of anyone born on the island of ireland. This was accepted by an overwhelming majority, in other words this automatic right was changed to qualified on parents also being irish or ni nationals.

Ever since the government has never put anything important to referendum again .

Another ridiculous factor is that this representation quota is not based on the electoral register but on simple population statistics. Therefore you could have thousands of refugees or people with no right to vote in a constituency and these are all included in that 30k figure.

The constitution was written by de valera in 1930s and it is ridiculous that this is being used as the basis to redraw and increase TD numbers in a totally different world a century later

They always get a retired judge to chair these reviews they are as establishment as you could get

I agree with you Gloom. I'm in DBN and have no interest in the nonsense peddled by SF but have to accept the fact that Denise Mitchell is a shoe in for a seat in the next Dail and will likely bring a running mate in with her. Despite the fact that she will receive very few votes from Clontarf/Killester/Raheny. The constituency boundaries are massive and we end up with a rainbow of representation, as was exactly the case in DBN last time out when we elected 1 each of FG, FF, SF, SD and Lab.

Ex Maths teacher and all !!!! Probably explains the "ex" part! Thanks !!

The 27th Amendment (To limit the right to Irish citizenship by birth) vote in 2004 was passed by 79.17% of the total poll, not 90%.

The 38th Amendment in 2019 (Removed the requirement of a period of separation before proceedings for divorce are initiated, and allowed for recognition of foreign divorces.) was passed by 82.07% of the total poll.

By your logic, changing the period of separation before divorce was more important than the citizenship change.

Best option is a mix - 50 elected in single seat STV constituencies to ensure local representation and 50 elected from a list designed to make it to the % share of the vote - in the UK example above the Lib dems may have won just 1 seat and topped up with 10 from the list. The tories on the other hand won 56% of seats on 43% of the vote, so in 50 FPTP constituencies could have won 28, and would then get +15 from the list. The SNP could have won 4 seats but only got 4% of the vote so no additional seats.

Require that the list and order get published in advance. And you either get elected from constituency or list. The list not to be a back up to failing to getting elected on your own right