Seanad Éireann

The Seanad needs to be given more power, not less, and for that reason direct elections are needed. As much as I dislike many aspects of US politics, IMHO the House and Senate model, despite it's flaws, is a good setup. We have an opportunity to refine it here....

...which of course we never do, the SORN motor tax debacle being a perfect example. A good system in the UK, which needed just a little refinement to be perfect, and we screw it up. Oh, and Leap/Oyster. "Sorry sir, if you want a refund of the 80c we overcharged you, you need to spend a multiple of that travelling to O'Connell Street to get it back". Talk about a con job.

Merging the general and reform threads, I think they're both really the same thing.

And putting the fada where it belongs. Tsk tsk.

Quote:

---

Seanad %C9ireann

---

Irish is a beautiful language. It really is.

1st reform I'd make - you can't run for the Dail or Senead, immediately after serving in the other house. i.e. a TD that fails to get reelected couldn't then run in Senead for that term, and someone couldn't come out of the Senead and then run for a TD. They'd have to take a term's break from either before changing house. That one decision would stop it being simply a retirement home/ training (or profile building) ground. Parties could implement that now!

I have to say that I am warming to the suggestion that direct elections be done on a panel basis rather than a geographic basis. Citizens would self declare for the relevant panel in which they want to vote (and one vote per person). There'd have to be a more open nomination process though than at present.

Any reform model that maintains the university constituencies will have nothing but my contempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Also I love old chestnuts. Hoary or not.

---

Well, Inda's now got some roasted ones to share. And quite a few other nuts in FG as well!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

Any reform model that maintains the university constituencies will have nothing but my contempt.

---

I wouldn't have a problem with retaining them, if everyone had a vote in one of the other panels, as I mentioned in my post. One vote per person, self designation (in advance) to what panel you wish to vote in Administrative Panel; Agricultural Panel; Cultural and Educational Panel; Industrial and Commercial Panel; Labour Panel; TCD Panel; NUI Panel.

If they want to show they're superior by voting for the likes of Mullen, let them off. I don't need them messing up the voting in which ever panel I pick!

I found this piece on the US situation quite interesting. Their system is so different to ours that direct comparison makes little sense, but there is always something to learn from such things: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24433182

The impact of the opening of candidature via primaries is interesting- we'd all like to see less of the whip system but it can also have unintended results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I wouldn't have a problem with retaining them, if everyone had a vote in one of the other panels, as I mentioned in my post. One vote per person, self designation (in advance) to what panel you wish to vote in Administrative Panel; Agricultural Panel; Cultural and Educational Panel; Industrial and Commercial Panel; Labour Panel; TCD Panel; NUI Panel.

If they want to show they're superior by voting for the likes of Mullen, let them off. I don't need them messing up the voting in which ever panel I pick!

---

Ditch the university panels, with all of their self-evident problems when it comes to a democratic legislature, and I'd be happy to go along with any employment based panels as an alternative to the basic geographical model (which would still be my preference, but you can't have everything). That at least is a vote for everyone, as opposed to a special vote for those somehow considered democratically superior due to perceived intelligence (and privilege in many cases).

Of course, that would require another referendum, which will never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

we'd all like to see less of the whip system but it can also have unintended results.

---

Would we? The only problem with the whip system is weak arse politicians who don't have the backbone to vote how they claim to want to vote, and hide behind it as an excuse.

The political class seem to have it as their "blame the system not the politicians" excuse of the moment - a TD is not obliged to take the whip, or obliged to vote with their party if they fundamentally disagree with a motion. It takes backbone, nothing else. Additionally, as an electorate, we could have a whipless system now if we wanted (it doesn't need any reform, or amendment) - we could vote entirely for independent candidates.

All third-level guarantees will be able to vote for the university seats, now the decision has been made to legislate for the 1979 referendum. Looking at the CSO website, it appears that amounts to 38% of the current population, so the question now is whether the political parties will seek to place their own candidates, evicting Crown, Norris and Quinn, to name but three? Either way, a token gesture on 10% of the seats will mean little set against the 43 panel members and the Taoiseach's XI.

I doubt it. They can play ball with any of the people you mention, and override them if it comes right down to it. Anyway, the turnout for Seanad elections tends to be abysmally low anyway, so that number can be divided by three.

Invoking a 33 year old referendum result will be spun as meaningful reform, but it is nothing of the sort. It's an expansion of an elitist travesty.

I agree that it's not a deeply meaningful reform, but it is the only way of extending the franchise that does not require another referendum. Unless we are guaranteed root and branch reform (which could be a long time coming...) it would enfranchise hundreds of thousands of people who have been unfairly denied a right to vote because politicians faffed around for three decades and never enacted the legislation they were constitutionally mandated to do. I think that the more people who feel that they have a voting interest in the Seanad, the greater the level of public scrutiny and the greater potential for real reform.

I think you're over-estimating the interest people will have the Seanad, regardless of how many new electors it gets. So few even bother going to the trouble of posting that vote back and the people they elect have no power.

Maybe, though most of my friends with Seanad votes take it seriously and do return their ballots. At the moment, though, there is no interest in the Seanad among graduates from the 'wrong' colleges because they have no self-interest in the house; if even the same percentage of those graduates were to vote as currently vote from among NUI and TCD graduates, that would result in an increased electorate. I can't see any merit in denying anybody the right to vote just because a large number of their peeer group won't vote. (Referendums and local authority elections next would be very vulnerable if we applied that criterion!) Anyway, I only want the graduates' franchise increased as a temporary measure until we can properly reform the Seanad. I think we agree on that much, NFB!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

It’s surprisingly difficult to come out on one side or the other when you don’t feel so strongly about abolition or reform. As I was voting yes I figured it would be best to throw the kitchen sink at it. 

I think that this result may be the only way that reform can happen as it seem a fait accompli that YES would win.

---

And if you didn't have an argument for or against the referendum, you should have left it alone.

When you throw the kitchen sink at things, you can still end up with egg on your face.