Unelected "leaders"

Blood boiling earlier as I watched that Recount about the 2000 US election.

Bizarrely, our 2 closest spiritual neighbours - and ourselves - all had unelected leaders. How in the name of all that is holy do we put up with this ?

Is it because they numb our brains with X factor ?

Cowen - unelected. Brown - unelected. Bush - not even unelected; lost an election - but they all took power and didnt exactly set their respective worlds alight

....and we have the audacity to talk about democracy in the middle east.

Good night all

Van Rompuy - unelected. Ashton - unelected. Officially representing 500 million people. We put up with it, as we know no better alternative.

Van Rompuy relegates Mary McAleese to the role of a bill-signer at home and VIP tourist abroad, while Ashton represents Ireland and the rest of the EU in foreign affairs on the world stage. "Our" representative, looked more awestruck than authoritative at his press conference with Clinton the other day. Within 3 seconds of it starting, he'd taken a drink, albeit water. He couldn't wait.

Cowen and Brown were elected - niether us or the Brits have a direct election of the prime minister, they are elected by their respective parliaments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Cowen and Brown were elected - niether us or the Brits have a direct election of the prime minister, they are elected by their respective parliaments

---

Much of the criticism of the British Labour Party in 2007 was that they couldn't find a single other candidate to stand against Brown for the top job. Which made the almost immediate internal politicking against him look a bit silly.

Others say he should have called an election on principle, which he likely would have won in practice.

In fairness do we really live in a true democracy? Should there not be more referendums if the Govt was to really act in the interests in everyone? The Brits started a war despite alot of their people going out on demo's protesting about it. Similarly, Lib Dems got some of the student vote by saying they wouldn't raise fees, and then looked what happened(I'm only using it as an example before anyone jumps down my throat!). We elect them, but between elections how much influence do people really have over what decisions they make?
I was reading some financial article a while back about Irelands IMF loan. It made compelling arguments about why we should have just defaulted on our debts instead of taking the bail out. Considering the implications the whole fiasco had, shouldn't the voters have decided if we wanted the bail out or just default? It's us that are paying for it(well not me i'm in England) Just a thought. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horton

I was reading some financial article a while back about Irelands IMF loan. It made compelling arguments about why we should have just defaulted on our debts instead of taking the bail out. Considering the implications the whole fiasco had, shouldn't the voters have decided if we wanted the bail out or just default?

---

Parties such as Sinn Féin and the ULA and independents like Paul Sommerville did run on anti-bailout platforms but didn't get enough elected TDs to form the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horton

Should there not be more referendums if the Govt was to really act in the interests in everyone?

---

Quote:

---

We elect them, but between elections how much influence do people really have over what decisions they make?

---

Referendums don't really act any more in everyone's interest than other forms of government.

For one thing, they can be simplistic and often self-contradicting (people would vote for increased services and reduced taxes at the same time, say. Or to bring back hanging despite no political party arguing for it).

A better way of maintaining democratic control betwen elections might be to elect a proportion of our representatives every year- similar to the way local Councils ar elected over here.

Or you could have a system of recalling unpopular/ ineffective MPs.

Quote:

---

The Brits started a war despite alot of their people going out on demo's protesting about it

---

The crux there is that Parliament in Britain has often been bypassed in important decisions. Polling 60 million is difficut, 600 should be straightforward. And of course the PM of the day can avoid the need to do this by using the monarch's 'powers'.

Quote:

---

Similarly, Lib Dems got some of the student vote by saying they wouldn't raise fees, and then looked what happened(I'm only using it as an example before anyone jumps down my throat!)

---

It's a fair point. Only the really naive would have been surprised by the LibDems joining a Tory coalition, but I think most would have expected them to at least argue for their education policy.

Having not done so, in the next election(S) they're likely to be badly beaten in those parts of England where they've been the main opposition to Labour. But in more affluent/rural areas they'll continue to oppose the Tories on managerial/ competence grounds, not ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horton

In fairness do we really live in a true democracy? Should there not be more referendums if the Govt was to really act in the interests in everyone? The Brits started a war despite alot of their people going out on demo's protesting about it. Similarly, Lib Dems got some of the student vote by saying they wouldn't raise fees, and then looked what happened(I'm only using it as an example before anyone jumps down my throat!). We elect them, but between elections how much influence do people really have over what decisions they make?

---

Referendums are only as good as the wording of the proposal - we've had enough refereda where nutjobs have muddied the waters with nonsense that isn't even part of the thing (abortion and conscription for example) and where the real issues have been buried under the garbage. Re: the lib dems - the brits just have to get used to the compromise that is coalition Government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by horton

I was reading some financial article a while back about Irelands IMF loan. It made compelling arguments about why we should have just defaulted on our debts instead of taking the bail out. Considering the implications the whole fiasco had, shouldn't the voters have decided if we wanted the bail out or just default? It's us that are paying for it(well not me i'm in England) Just a thought. . .

---

That opinion has been out there for years, and there was enough parties/ candidates running on a "default" platform to have an overall majority. The voters could've decided on default.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Re: the lib dems - the brits just have to get used to the compromise that is coalition Government

---

Giving up what you claimed was your USP policy isn't really a compromise though. It's either a sell-out or a dishonesty. I think LibDem voters (not including me, I last chose them in the 90s) can reasonably feel aggrieved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Re: the lib dems - the brits just have to get used to the compromise that is coalition Government.

---

Correct. But they won't see it that way. Coalition was on the cards over there from very early on in their election campaign, and that's what the people voted for. They can't argue now that the reality of it is being implemented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Cowen and Brown were elected - niether us or the Brits have a direct election of the prime minister, they are elected by their respective parliaments.

---

Of course you are correct - but that is my point - it makes my blood boil. Before Enda, 4 out of our last 6 Taoisigh assumed office without winning an election. All legit - but contrary to any sense of democracy.

At least in the US there is complete clarity - you vote for a Pres and a VP - and there is aboslute precision who takes over

Unlike the mess here

Now the US system is great on paper but in practice is completely corrupt. Look at Florida and indeed every state the way they carve up districts etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Of course you are correct - but that is my point - it makes my blood boil. Before Enda, 4 out of our last 6 Taoisigh assumed office without winning an election. All legit - but contrary to any sense of democracy.

At least in the US there is complete clarity - you vote for a Pres and a VP - and there is aboslute precision who takes over

---

But the electorate have no control on the rest of their "cabinet" - no one voted for Clinton, for example.

imo the main democratic deficit of the last Government was the policies they were implementing, particularly the long term consequences of the decisions they were making for which they had no mandate, rather than who was leading them. Plus the obvious affront to democracy in not holding the byelections.

Bizarrely you had fruitcakes calling for MORE unelected positions and suggesting the giovernment should promote 'Succesful Businessmen' to cabonet positions.

FF even adopted that position in the election campaign. If it was in place 5 years ago Sean Fitzpatrick would've been a minister...

They could've done that anyway - FF decided to use their 11 in the senate to nominate the likes of Eoghan Harris, Ivor Callelly and Donie Cassidy instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

At least in the US there is complete clarity - you vote for a Pres and a VP - and there is aboslute precision who takes over

---

Actually, Americans vote for an electoral college of party representatives. The colleges pledge to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates who win the state popular vote, and do so in December, sealing their ballots at the state capitals. These ballots are then opened at a sitting of both houses of Congress on january 6, and the winner - which everybody has known for two months - is finally announced.

Oh I know that. I was just pointing out the folly of those who wanted non politicians in cabinet.

Ridiculous argument by some here that the country didn't vote for a Taoiseach. They vote for Parties, not one person

There's a lot to admire about the US electoral system, but there's probably more wrong with it than Ireland. On top of the flawed electoral methodologies, they also go too far in the other direction, electing sherrifs, judges, etc, etc.

IMHO if we're going to continue blindly following America in the way we run our country - which isn't to say I agree with it, at all - we should overtake them and actually run it like a business: shareholders, board, chairman, CEO, CFO, etc, etc. At least that way we could actually appoint people with skills to positions, rather than throw someone at a job because they've been good or naughty.

Military dictatorship is the way forward.

The effective two-party system in America is a huge barrier to accountability in the government. When all you have to do to win ~45% of the vote is simply not be the other party, regardless of your actual actions, something is terribly wrong!

I know PR isn't perfect, especially the way the Irish electorate like to implement it, but it's so much better than the FPTP system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

I know PR isn't perfect, especially the way the Irish electorate like to implement it, but it's so much better than the FPTP system.

---

I know I bang on about this, so I apologise in advance, but because of the number of 3 and 4 seaters you only need 40 something percent under our system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I know I bang on about this, so I apologise in advance, but because of the number of 3 and 4 seaters you only need 40 something percent under our system.

---

Yup, I agree. But no system is perfect. We have this problem in Ireland, as well as the whole "parish pump" thing, in the US there's next to no government accountability*, and in, say, Holland, with straight PR, there's the list system, which is open to abuse by parties.


*I know it's the same here, but it's easier to hold a party to account at the ballot box when all of the opposition hasn't been starved to death by the FPTP system. If we had had the US system in Ireland, there would most likely only be three parties in the Dáil, FF, FG, and Labour, and the recent deserved decimation of FF might never have happened

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Ridiculous argument by some here that the country didn't vote for a Taoiseach. They vote for Parties, not one person

---

They vote for candidates in local constituencies. The leader of the party with the most candidates elected, becomes Taoiseach. So the idea that people don't vote for a Taoiseach is wrong. The vote for the post is a technical process in the Dail, not a competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

They vote for candidates in local constituencies. The leader of the party with the most candidates elected, becomes Taoiseach. So the idea that people don't vote for a Taoiseach is wrong. The vote for the post is a technical process in the Dail, not a competition.

---

How many times on this forum must it be explained that the general electorate DO NOT vote for the Taoiseach. We never have and never will. We vote for parliament members who then in turn vote for the leader of the Government. Our votes by their nature influence how this vote is likely to go but they are not votes per se for the Taoiseach.

Also the Taoiseach is not the leader of the largest party in the Dáil.
The Taoiseach is the person elected by the Dáil as leader of the government.
Any member of the Dáil can be nominated as candidate for Taoiseach.
After the 2007 election Enda Kenny and Bertie Ahern were candidates for Taoiseach after the Dáil sat after the GE.

In 1948 the Taoiseach was John A Costello (FG). Richard Mulcahy was leader of FG at the time and remained as nominal leader throughout the 13th Dáil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_g...election,_1948

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

We vote for parliament members who then in turn vote for the leader of the Government. Our votes by their nature influence how this vote is likely to go but they are not votes per se for the Taoiseach.

---

And that's the key issue.

Quote:

---

Any member of the Dáil can be nominated as candidate for Taoiseach. After the 2007 election Enda Kenny and Bertie Ahern were candidates for Taoiseach after the Dáil sat after the GE.

---

Enda Kenny was nominated, but the question put for the vote was "That Dáil Éireann nominates Bertie Ahern for appointment by the President to be Taoiseach", which he inevitably won.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I know I bang on about this, so I apologise in advance, but because of the number of 3 and 4 seaters you only need 40 something percent under our system

---

Why don't you move to all five-seaters (or even six, like at Stormont)? Genuine question, sorry I'm not up to speed on the arguments against.

Sigh - lads with all respect to everyone who has posted on the nature of our system and that the Dail votes for the taoiseach - I respectully submit to you that I already know that !!

My point is that that system is utterly and completely unsatisfactory and I hate it. For us to have proper representation it has to change. I am not saying Cowen was appointed illegitimately - I am saying that it drives around the bloody twist that 4 out of our last 6 Taoisigh assumed office without us voting.

I know what our system is - I am submitting to you that it is unacceptable that our system is what it is - so respectfully, please do not respond with "the dail votes for Taoiseach" - we know that - my point is that system is a fraud and completely undemocratic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Sigh - lads with all respect to everyone who has posted on the nature of our system and that the Dail votes for the taoiseach - I respectully submit to you that I already know that !!

My point is that that system is utterly and completely unsatisfactory and I hate it. For us to have proper representation it has to change. I am not saying Cowen was appointed illegitimately - I am saying that it drives around the bloody twist that 4 out of our last 6 Taoisigh assumed office without us voting.

I know what our system is - I am submitting to you that it is unacceptable that our system is what it is - so respectfully, please do not respond with "the dail votes for Taoiseach" - we know that - my point is that system is a fraud and completely undemocratic

---

But it is not undemocratic. We vote in a GE to elect TD's. they sit in a big room and vote on who they want to lead the house. The winner then goes to the president who we directly vote in to give him or her the seal of office.
if you don't like it, set up a petition, get signatories for a referenda on the issue and an amendment to the constitiution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Why don't you move to all five-seaters (or even six, like at Stormont)? Genuine question, sorry I'm not up to speed on the arguments against.

---

It was essentially a gerrymander by FF, but FG benefitted enough not to kick up too much. When the pundits talk of a "seat bonus", it's basically because 3 and 4 seaters. Ironically (and very funnily), FF turned out to be on the wrong side of it in the last election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Sigh - lads with all respect to everyone who has posted on the nature of our system and that the Dail votes for the taoiseach - I respectully submit to you that I already know that !!

My point is that that system is utterly and completely unsatisfactory and I hate it. For us to have proper representation it has to change. I am not saying Cowen was appointed illegitimately - I am saying that it drives around the bloody twist that 4 out of our last 6 Taoisigh assumed office without us voting.

---

I think what people are getting at is that it is satisfactory and democratic. Just because it drives you around the twist, and you want some presidential model with a directly elected Taoiseach doesn't mean the rest of us agree. Two of them "elected" (using your logic) were Haughey and Ahern - those worked out great, didn't they?

Isn't it actually 3 out 6 anyway? Kenny, Haughey, Ahern were leaders of their party pre-election, Reynolds (who was taoiseach after the following election anyway, so not sure how he'd be counted), Bruton and Cowen weren't leaders of their party in the previous election. Going from before Kenny, brings you to Fitzgerald, who was also leader of his party going into the election. Before that you're going back to Dev passing on to Lemass, and then Lemass to Lynch. It's hardly common enough to change the entire system? imo, only Bruton is the dodgy one, and even then if he hadn't been so stubborn regarding Democratic Left he'd have been in anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

I think what people are getting at is that it is satisfactory and democratic. Just because it drives you around the twist, and you want some presidential model with a directly elected Taoiseach doesn't mean the rest of us agree. Two of them "elected" (using your logic) were Haughey and Ahern - those worked out great, didn't they?

Isn't it actually 3 out 6 anyway? Kenny, Haughey, Ahern were leaders of their party pre-election, Reynolds (who was taoiseach after the following election anyway, so not sure how he'd be counted), Bruton and Cowen weren't leaders of their party in the previous election. Going from before Kenny, brings you to Fitzgerald, who was also leader of his party going into the election. Before that you're going back to Dev passing on to Lemass, and then Lemass to Lynch. It's hardly common enough to change the entire system? imo, only Bruton is the dodgy one, and even then if he hadn't been so stubborn regarding Democratic Left he'd have been in anyway.

---

The difference here is that some posters are sticking to the technicalities of Dail votes, versus other arguments that the electorate, through voting for constituency candidates, decide how the Dail vote will eventually be. Technically, every bill and every piece of legislation (including the Taoiseach motion) is voted by just 165 people. But we live in a representative democracy, and the electorate have the final say on all issues, by electing candidates with the party policies they want approved in the Dail, and implemented.

Haughey to my mind was not elected to the office of Taoiseach - he was appointed by the FF parliamentary party, Lynch having resigned. Bizarrely, constitutionally, our Taoiseach on paper is a stronger constitutional office thatn the US President, who can pretty much do nothing without Congressional support.

Our Taoiseach is better paid !! And what I am saying is that while legitimate, I find it bloody annoying that a load of these guys were not elected to that position by us - they were accidental appointments of a small club based on arbitary short term arithmetic

Bertie in retrospect was a disaster - but he won 3 elections fair and square so no-one can begrudge his entitlement to have had the office - similiarly with Kenny.

In response to mypost who said that the electorate have the final say - yes we do - but that final say is so blunted and ineffective that it is almost meaningless. When we tip up every 4 or 5 years we are voting on a combination of performance on a whole range of issues and also future plans on a whole range of issues - all fine and well, but because our local government and Seanaid is an utter waste of time, by the time a GE comes around, we tick the box having regard to 200 different issues - national and local

I accept what everyone is saying - and yes the fact we get to vote makes it a democracy (or a republic at least) but I don't find it democratic

To be honest, I don't think the Taoiseach has that much real power. Sure, he technically selects the cabinet, but I doubt it's him who has most of the say. It'll all be decided by senior party members, regardless of which one is chosen to be the face of power.

Irish politics all comes down to who's got what on whom. That's why Haughey didn't go to jail, Bertie hasn't been caught yet, Cowen isn't pig farming, Martin Cullen isn't flipping burgers, and Lowry hasn't been arrested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Haughey to my mind was not elected to the office of Taoiseach - he was appointed by the FF parliamentary party, Lynch having resigned.

---

He was subsequently "elected" though. As was Reynolds.

The leader in Ukraine is in a bit of a quandary atm. Having "won" a rigged election 9 years ago, then lost the real one, he subsequently won later elections.

Now, he has 2 options, neither pleasant. Sign the latest EU deal on the table and he will lose his gas supply. Don't sign it and he has baying crowds protesting on his doorstep looking to remove him without an election.

Ukraine is a rather interesting geopolitical crossroads, with the Western half largely Ukrainian Catholics and the Eastern section predominantly Russian Orthodox, as exemplified by the current protests and the Dynamo/Shakhtar dynamic. Khrushchev (Ukrainian himself) Russified the region by transferring Crimea from Russia in the Soviet era, and the current pro-European area was once governed by Austria-Hungary, so ultimately a partition may be necessary for each population to follow their own political paths.