General Irish politics discussion thread

To be fair STV isn't perfect either, we get many candidates getting seats without reaching the quota. Take for example in 2016 where 49.8% of the vote gave FF and FG 94 seats (or 59% of the 158 available)

I don't think there is a "perfect" system though to be fair, just degrees of perfection. Of which STV has a much higher degree of it than FPTP. With that being said FPTP makes for stronger governments so you have to weigh positives with negatives the whole time

It would suggest that people gave a first preference to one party (or indo) and a second preference to another suggesting party loyalty is not very high so that would be the main bug.

The system itself is a good one aside from the numbers that can get in without a quota, min 1 per constituency you could essentially have a political party on the fringe in theory gain 43 seats without a quota

Get rid of 3 seat constituencies and most of this "problem" goes away. But as Podge says, first prefs are certainly not the be all and end all in PR-STV. Your tenth pref might be the one that pushes someone over the line.

It's also very possible to protest vote (or even pity vote) with your no.1 and then move on to candidates who are actually electable.

Yes, the larger the average constituency is, the more proportional the result.

But we're wedded to the old county lines, which makes it difficult.

The Quota figure that is announced before Count 1 is 'the figure at which it is mathematically certain to win a seat'. It remains a constant throughout all the counts.

But should it remain constant, as in reality it is always trending downwards? If Candidate X is eliminated after count 1 with 1000 votes, generally some of their votes are not transferable. Clearly the 'Effective Quota' has changed - it is now Original Quota minus (NonTransferable Votes / No Of Seats). Anyone who surpasses this new figure is uncatchable, is effectively elected and in theory has a distributable surplus.

However, they won't be deemed elected until they've reached the original quota, and will ultimately have a smaller surplus to be distributed. Doing it this way would give marginally more weight to surpluses than is currently the case where the count is weighted towards transfers from eliminations. May or may not change the end result, but would definitely largely reduce the amount of 'elected without reaching the quota' candidates.

The overall time would likely be constant, i.e. the time for a 7-seater would be similar to the accumulated time for the 4-seater and 3-seater it has theoretically replaced.

But you are then giving weight to votes not cast. If a voter wants to, they can continue their preference to the end of the list. The fact they don't is the main cause of votes not being transferable.

Secondly the 'adjustment' would need to take into account various non-transferable totals and the scale of those totals would not be known until after the count

If you take that approach, what about the people elected on the first count. Their surplus increases everytime you reduce the quota. In fairness, you would then have to distribute another element of their surplus every single count.

It wouldn't work.

By doing that, you disenfranchise some of those who voted for a candidate elected on the first count. That wouldn't stand up.

Yes, it is worse, because nobody is disenfranchised in your situation. If someone chooses not to go down the list, they choose not to go down the list, so they are not disenfranchised.

Personally I think you should be declared elected when it is beyond all maths doubt, but not the way the system works.

That's exactly what happens when candidate(s) (sometimes more than one) are elected without reaching the quota.

Until that happens, it's still mathematically possible for someone else to win a seat.

No that's wrong. The votes already transferred are irrelevant in this regard. They stop counting when there are no more candidates who could overtake the leading unelected candidate(s) based on the votes yet to be transferred. They don't keep counting for the LOLs (although they will keep counting if some of the unelectable candidates might win their expenses back)

Great, good to hear it has a name anyway, and that some 1960s prof saw it was logically sound. I was beginning to doubt myself.

6 or 7 seat constituencies would be geographically very large, in rural situations.

I think we should have 5, 6 or 7 seaters everywhere, and let the size work from there (i.e. have 5-seaters in large rural areas, 7 seaters in the cities).

3 seaters should be abolished as soon as is practicable.

Existing rural 5s are too. We cope with it

My inner politics nerd is far more tickled by this than I should admit 😂

Keogan is absolutely bonkers and won't be able to avoid connection to her bonkers statements during a campaign. She won't get in, or get reelected to the seanad.

Harris is safe. No green anywhere is.

Aontu could take O'Gorman's seat, they got three councillors in Dublin West in the locals.

5 seats in Dublin West. Leo stepping down.

Donnelly (SF), Chambers (FF), Currie (FG), with the last two seats between Walsh (Labour), Coppinger (Ind?), Aontu (don't think they have selected yet), O'Gorman (Greens) and possibly a second FF or SF candidate.

As for McEntee, you need 25% first preferences to get elected in a three-seater. In the locals, FG got 22% in Ashbourne LED, 31% in Kells LED, 27.4% in Laytown/Bettystown, 22.1% in Ratoath. Not sure which of those in Meath East, but should be enough, so long as she is the only candidate.

Edit: Meath East has gone to a four-seater, so hard to see McEntee losing out, they may run a sweeper candidate.

Agree about Harris.

it’s a wonder that independant programme makers such as Sin-a- Wil have not done a programme on how exactly the counting system works and explaining the specific details as it progresses through the counting system used. The ‘ raw material’ for such a programme is handed to the prog maker on a plate in that it could use any actual constituency to make it . Or , to keep it simple it could start off with smaller /round/fictitious number of votes

He was popular enough in the south of the county and a decent skin when you meet him,their vote though down here was do ya know terrible in the CoCo's compared to expectations,1 councillor ellected in the Wicklow part of the new WicWex constuency and last ,without reaching the quota

You mean like the one they opened in Ballsbridge?

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2024/01/04/mixed-reaction-in-ballsbridge-as-locals-give-cautious-welcome-to-asylum-seeker-centre/

As the above poster noted - the issue is more down to where there are available vacant buildings that can converted. They tend to be in less well-off areas, as vacant sites in well-off areas tend to be snapped up by property developers.

In Sligo they converted the old Cregg House care centre to refugee accommodation. That's in Rosses Point, the wealthiest part of Sligo - with Cregg House within a few hundred metres of Shane Filan's mansion.

In the news today, Dundrum House Hotel in Tipperary - a golf resort - taken over as refugee accommodation.

It's more a case of desparation in trying to find anywhere that they can lodge and feed people, as opposed to targetting certain areas.