Wicklow Splitters

Printable View

27/02/2011, 12:20 PM
Lim till i die

Wicklow Splitters

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magicme

No that was the bad people of Cavan/Monaghan but in fairness, Caohin, or what ever the feck Kevin is in Irish, is a legend and was always gonna win. As for that young bint he had with him who could just about spell her own name, Ha! Lowest common denominator vote SF in the border areas coz they are too thick to do otherwise. Mensa members like me vote Labour so I think we qualify as the "good people" dont you?

Ya, you're the real intelligentsia. :p

People being smug because they voted for the Official IRA instead of the Provisional IRA. :bulgy:

"Labour" voters feeling superior for absolutely no reason. :bulgy:
28/02/2011, 9:52 AM
mypost

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodge

So how would splitting the constituency guarentee a smaller list of candidates. Its basically the average number of party candidates and a load of loopers. Which suggest the size of the constituency doesn't matter at all. It had something like 95,000 eligible to vote and about 70,000 did. Thats far form the highest. Louth had about the same and they finished early yesterday.

And again, the important thing isn't that the results are quick, but that they are right

No one constituency should have 24 candidates. If it's split into North/South, or West/East, that's (about) 12 each.* Having a smaller number of candidates, allows the voter to study their credentials closer (if any). On Count Day, smaller constituencies have smaller quotas, faster counts, lesser seats on the table, and seats won earlier. Without getting figures wrong.

*based on this year's figures for the constituency.
28/02/2011, 9:55 AM
pineapple stu

What if you split it into North and South Wicklow, and then North Wicklow gets 24 candidates? Bear mind you've shown no correlation whatsoever between constituency size and number of candidates. And also, I'm in the Wicklow constituency, and the 24 candidates thing didn't faze or bother me in the slightest.

Also, more constituencies means more money. More count venues, more returning officers, more counters, etc.
28/02/2011, 10:05 AM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

No one constituency should have 24 candidates. If it's split into North/South, or West/East, that's (about) 12 each.*

No, its not. In Wicklow this year there were 3 FG, 3 LAB, 2 FF, 1SF, 1 GP. Do you think SF will only only put 1 forward for 2 constituencies? There's 5 seats there now. Are you going to have a 3 seater adn a 2 seater?

The size of the constituency has NO bearing on the fact that 24 people put their name forward. As I said, Louth is bigger and they didn't have 24...
28/02/2011, 10:13 AM
mypost

Quote:

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

What if you split it into North and South Wicklow, and then North Wicklow gets 24 candidates?

If it is, it is. But I think we can say pretty safely that neither of them would get 24 on their own.

Quote:

Also, more constituencies means more money. More count venues, more returning officers, more counters, etc.

We have 43 constituencies. Financially, another couple more won't make a massive difference. Louth is the smallest county in Ireland. Wicklow is huge.
28/02/2011, 10:17 AM
pineapple stu

So for some unstated reason, we shouldn't have more than 24 candidates in a constituency, unless we do, in which case "if it is, it is"?

In the greater scheme of things, yeah, an extra couple of constituencies won't cost a massive amount of money. But you may have noticed that the country's broke. So any extra spend should be justified. You've not provided an iota of justification, bar a notion that people might be confused by the extra candidates (even though you didn't vote there, and I - who did vote there - can tell you it wasn't an issue for me)
28/02/2011, 10:19 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

No one constituency should have 24 candidates. If it's split into North/South, or West/East, that's (about) 12 each.* Having a smaller number of candidates, allows the voter to study their credentials closer (if any). On Count Day, smaller constituencies have smaller quotas, faster counts, lesser seats on the table, and seats won earlier. Without getting figures wrong.

*based on this year's figures for the constituency.

You'd be increasing the number of party representatives for a start, as has been pointed out. You'd be adding at least 1 each for FG, Labour, SF. So then we're up to 27. You're also assuming that there's an even distribution of the independents, which there isn't - either split you propose will put a lot of the independents on one of the new constituencies. By my recollection most of the independents would be in either South or East (and it would be a North South split due to Bray and Greystones). You also assume that no more independents would enter the field. And finally, to bang on about it, 3 seaters aren't bloody proportional!
28/02/2011, 10:23 AM
Dodge

Seriously, nearly 2 pages on mypost moaning about a Constituency that isn't even his?

Of all the electoral problems ...
28/02/2011, 10:36 AM
mypost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

You'd be increasing the number of party representatives for a start, as has been pointed out. You'd be adding at least 1 each for FG, Labour, SF. So then we're up to 27. You're also assuming that there's an even distribution of the independents, which there isn't - either split you propose will put a lot of the independents on one of the new constituencies. By my recollection most of the independents would be in either South or East (and it would be a North South split due to Bray and Greystones). You also assume that no more independents would enter the field. And finally, to bang on about it, 3 seaters aren't bloody proportional!

What vote system are we using again?

Maybe there would be 24-30 candidates. But the standard amount in a constituency is 10-12, 15 at a push. Most of them have done their work by now, while Wicklow with 24 candidates is lagging behind. In a tight national election, (e.g. last time) this length of a delay in a declaration in one or two constituencies, could affect 3-5-10 seats and stall coalition arrangements. And that's before we talk about recounts. It's unwieldy and avoidable.
28/02/2011, 10:38 AM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

And that's before we talk about recounts

Its not actually, as the delay is down to a recount. You miss that bit?
28/02/2011, 10:42 AM
pineapple stu

Surely the number of votes cast, and not the number of recounts, determines how long the count goes on? It can't take that much time to take 100 votes from the bottom independent and reallocate them, update the results and then set about reallocating independent 2's 120 votes and doing the same.
28/02/2011, 10:45 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

What vote system are we using again?

Two 3 seater's give a less proportional result than a 6 seater, or a 5 seater, would. Hence we have the positive seat bounce for the larger parties, and a negative seat bounce for smaller parties.
01/03/2011, 7:45 AM
Macy

Turns out for all the guff on here, Wicklow wasn't even last to declare, with another recount in Galway.
02/03/2011, 5:02 AM
mypost

The Galway one is a rarity (as county is split in two), the Wicklow one isn't.
02/03/2011, 8:42 AM
pineapple stu

Are you aware at all of the concept of cause and effect?
02/03/2011, 11:27 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by mypost

The Galway one is a rarity (as county is split in two), the Wicklow one isn't.

It's a 5 seater, so there can't be much difference in the electorate.
02/03/2011, 11:45 AM
centre mid

Its all Berties fault anyway for not listening to the Civil servants in the Dept of Finance, sure they told him and he ignored it. If he had of listened then there wouldnt have been a constuction bubble, the banks wouldnt have lent wrecklessly, fanny mae would be grand, the country wouldnt be fecked, the IMF wouldnt have shown up and only about 12 candidates would have run in Wicklow. Either that or its Pat Devlins fault.