Electoral Reform

In an ideal world, I think I'd like it to operate something like this:

1. Directly-elected Seanad.
2. Mandatory voting.
3. Elections every year, in rotation: Dail, Seanad, Local, President, Europe.

Obviously there are issues with these, for example:

1. You need a stick to beat people with if they don't vote, but if they can fine people 25k for not filling in a census form, they can fine people the same for not voting.
2. You also probably have to make a new bank holiday for voting day, but feel free to repurpose one of the ridiculous religious ones.
3. If the Dail fails, we can't just to the polls because it would screw up the rotation. But then the Dail fails because of a lack of support, just hold a new parliamentary election. Still though, tricky. Upside: if we need a referendum, we don't have too long to wait.

Feel free to point out the other glaring errors. I'd also like to see representatives with skills in appropriate jobs, but I haven't worked out the details yet. :)

So, how would you like to see the electoral system reformed?

Well we can't vote Europe on tap, the chamber in Brussels has no government or opposition. So they sit for 5 years regardless of competence.

I think the Voting Age should be reduced to 16, and gets more voters. The current system where a 17 year old isn't considered mature enough to elect his/her representatives, but an 18-year old is deemed to know the A-Z of our political system and can therefore vote, is wrong.

Hold elections on weekends in line with most other countries, in order to get more people to vote. Hold overnight counts also, similiar to the UK and elsewhere. There's no valid reason these days why counts have to be delayed 12 hours after the people have spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

the chamber in Brussels has no government or opposition

---

There's a greater divide within the chamber than in most national parliaments. The opposition is within the chamber, just like every parliament

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

Hold overnight counts also, similiar to the UK and elsewhere. There's no valid reason these days why counts have to be delayed 12 hours after the people have spoken.

---

its ourt PR-STV system. The UK does it overnight because they can start at 10pm and be finished in 6 hours. Our system takes longer, so a 10pm start would see a continuos count througout the night until the following evening? HOw is this healthy for anyone. Is there really a material difference as to starting at 10pm or 9am the following day? If you can't wait for 10/12 hours for a result, then you need to calm down.

For the record in Malta (because they use very similar sytem to use), in France (because I studied it), and maybe others, thye start on the day after elections

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Mandatory voting.

---

I disagree with this BTW. I'd rather people make votes based on a bit of research, and the percentages of that happening increasing if the 40% who don't care enough to vote stay away. I hear some people say they could always vote 'none of the above' or spoil their vote but I don't see how this helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

You need a stick to beat people with if they don't vote, but if they can fine people 25k for not filling in a census form, they can fine people the same for not voting

---

Never been a fan of compulsory voting. Wouldn't it increase the number simply not registering?

Rumors over here that the current census will be the last of its kind, btw. The data can be gathered more effectively by other means, it seems. Facebook and the like may be a factor ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

I think the Voting Age should be reduced to 16, and gets more voters. The current system where a 17 year old isn't considered mature enough to elect his/her representatives, but an 18-year old is deemed to know the A-Z of our political system and can therefore vote, is wrong

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Hold elections on weekends in line with most other countries, in order to get more people to vote. Hold overnight counts also, similiar to the UK and elsewhere

---

Weekends make sense. Actually the referendum (and the simultaneous local election) in my area aren't being counted until the day after (Friday) this year.

You've got pretty much what I've have.

Why people are allowed not to vote in beyond me. I don't think people should be given an option of 'none of the above' either. If you don't like the candidates on offer, stand yourself. Tough.
Make everyone register to vote via their PPS number. If you pay tax or claim benefits, you details will b there.
It might also be an idea to make voting easier, like offering online voting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

[*]If the Dail fails, we can't just to the polls because it would screw up the rotation. But then the Dail fails because of a lack of support, just hold a new parliamentary election. Still though, tricky. Upside: if we need a referendum, we don't have too long to wait.[/LIST]

---

The President would still have the power to dissolve the Dail.

Don't agree with forced voting to be honest, even if I believe everyone should vote. It could too easily add an element of randomness or plain old lazy conservatism to the vote.

I certainly would like to see far more flexibility so that you don't lose you vote just because you happen to be away or something, that's just ludicrous.

I also don't agree with compulsory voting. If someone's not bothered to vote of their own free will, they probably won't be bothered to find out about the relevant parties and issues. A major contributor to the recent political shambles in Ireland is uninformed voting, and I think that compulsory voting would only make that worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

its ourt PR-STV system. The UK does it overnight because they can start at 10pm and be finished in 6 hours. Our system takes longer, so a 10pm start would see a continuos count througout the night until the following evening? HOw is this healthy for anyone. Is there really a material difference as to starting at 10pm or 9am the following day? If you can't wait for 10/12 hours for a result, then you need to calm down.

For the record in Malta (because they use very similar sytem to use), in France (because I studied it), and maybe others, thye start on the day after elections

---

In France, I watched the last Presidential poll day they held. The polls closed at 9pm sharp. 10 seconds later, we knew who won. When they held their Lisbon vote, the result was declared within seconds. When we held it, it took 18 hours after the polls closed to declare the result. The results are the results and they don't change. Just get on with it, and save everyone time and money. That's a way of reforming the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brendy_éire

If you don't like the candidates on offer, stand yourself. Tough.

---

I don't think that's fair tbh. There are financial considerations to consider, and deadlines to put your name forward. If you haven't met them, or have any substantial policies, there's no point in standing yourself.

Quote:

---

It might also be an idea to make voting easier, like offering online voting.

---

Well they tried to make voting easier, by using machines. But they made a hames of it, so I think it'll be a long while before computers are used in our election process again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

In France, I watched the last Presidential poll day they held. The polls closed at 9pm sharp. 10 seconds later, we knew who won. When they held their Lisbon vote, the result was declared within seconds. When we held it, it took 18 hours after the polls closed to declare the result. The results are the results and they don't change. Just get on with it, and save everyone time and money. That's a way of reforming the system.

---

France went through several rounds of elections so the whole Presidential election actually took over a month. other elections may take londer...

Quote:

---

Well they tried to make voting easier, by using machines. But they made a hames of it, so I think it'll be a long while before computers are used in our election process again.

---

Spot on. Complete non runner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

Feel free to point out the other glaring errors. I'd also like to see representatives with skills in appropriate jobs, but I haven't worked out the details yet. :)

So, how would you like to see the electoral system reformed?

---

Would like to see one circular sent to each house with the policies etc of each candidate on the poll on it.
No posters or stupd Traffic signs at roundabouts.

In terms of having the skills for the particular jobs each TD should have to cover the basics and pass an exam on it.
This should be a prerequisite for holding ministerial office. Not degrees ,but just something showing they know the basics of government. For example nobody can work in my place until they have passed exam covering the basics of financial markets. Its pretty standard in a lot of industries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

In terms of having the skills for the particular jobs each TD should have to cover the basics and pass an exam on it.
This should be a prerequisite for holding ministerial office. Not degrees ,but just something showing they know the basics of government. For example nobody can work in my place until they have passed exam covering the basics of financial markets. Its pretty standard in a lot of industries.

---

Interesting idea.

Would you say that you'd need to pass this to even attempt to go for office? Have stages so that a TD's test is harder than a councillor's? Obviously could lead to accusations that its a closed shop, but sometimes I do wonder if some of them have even a basic grasp on things.

yeah think so. at least if they fail it well then they have no place being in office. The same principle is used in everything from car licence to joining civil service. Maybe some people might see it as elitist but in this context "elitist" would be no bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

In terms of having the skills for the particular jobs each TD should have to cover the basics and pass an exam on it.
This should be a prerequisite for holding ministerial office. Not degrees ,but just something showing they know the basics of government. For example nobody can work in my place until they have passed exam covering the basics of financial markets. Its pretty standard in a lot of industries.

---

The public service is not an "industry", so different rules apply.

It's up to the public to decide whether they're up to the job or not. If they do, they elect them.

We might all think that e.g. Lowry, is a crook and a gobshy, but his electorate want him in the Dail, so he's there. That's their right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billsthoughts

yeah think so. at least if they fail it well then they have no place being in office. The same principle is used in everything from car licence to joining civil service. Maybe some people might see it as elitist but in this context "elitist" would be no bad thing.

---

Obama was also accused of being elitist during his electoral campaign, which, as far as I can tell, was code for "not a mouth-breathing moron" and "articulate". I've yet to hear anyone explain why that was a bad thing in such a way that I agreed that they too were elitist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The public service is not an "industry", so different rules apply.

It's up to the public to decide whether they're up to the job or not. If they do, they elect them.

We might all think that e.g. Lowry, is a crook and a gobshy, but his electorate want him in the Dail, so he's there. That's their right.

---

thats why it would fall under the category of electoral reform.

I really don't get the obsession with immediate results/ counts - only way possible would be an electronic system, which as others have said is a generation away thanks to the mess FF/PD's made of it. I really don't see what difference a few days makes - you'd have to have some mental condition to get that worked up about something like that.

I wouldn't have a problem with a test for entry into public service - civil servants have to take one, but potentially any jackass can get elected to be their boss! I think some of those that you might think would fail, probably wouldn't.

I'd agree with directly elected senead. I would previously have been in favour of compulsory voting, but wouldn't be now. It'd be a charter for people voting as their family always, which has destroyed the state!

Not sure how voting every year would work, unless you had fixed terms for the dail, which I'm not sure is practical on a party based system where the executive are members of parliament. Could work for other levels though.

I'd definitely go with linking voting to pps number - it'd stop people getting 3 polling cards in 3 different constituencies, and make people make up their mind where they actually live (rather than where they are from).

Not sure whether Adam means just on a national basis, but I'd consider scrapping county councils to go to a more regionalised system with more decision making powers. I wouldn't even have it on County lines as, for example, the Dublin Conurbation and therefore the associated regional council could and should include parts of Wicklow, Meath and Kildare. I wouldn't necessarily just arbitrarily scrap city councils that also have a county/ regional council either. Town councils would be gone - area committee's should be enough. I'd probably just about come down on the side of directly elected Mayors for those assembles.

Quote:

---

I really don't get the obsession with immediate results/ counts - only way possible would be an electronic system, which as others have said is a generation away thanks to the mess FF/PD's made of it. I really don't see what difference a few days makes - you'd have to have some mental condition to get that worked up about something like that.

---

It's nothing to do with "mental condition"s. It's simply bringing us into line with the vast majority of our neighbours, and how they conduct their business. Lets face it, we're already in line with them in how we do most of our day-to-day business. Most of that, was due to political reform. So why can't we have electoral reform too?

We can have electoral reform without your zest for getting results 8 hours earlier (at a higher cost to the tax payer I'd guess BTW)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

...I'd consider scrapping county councils to go to a more regionalised system with more decision making powers. I wouldn't even have it on County lines as, for example, the Dublin Conurbation and therefore the associated regional council could and should include parts of Wicklow, Meath and Kildare.

---

Wouldn't agree with scrapping county councils. People would become even more alienated from their councils.
It happens in the north, where there's 26 councils based on no particular historial boundaries (barring Fermanagh Council). Belfast is split up into 3 (or 5, depending on how you define 'Belfast') councils. People may have no real association with a council that doesn't correspond to an area they already know. 'Dungannon & South Tyrone' is an example. It's even got a ridiculous name. Is Dungannon not in south Tyrone anyway?
The south would end up with likes of 'Sligo, Leitrim & south Donegal Council', or something similar. Are people really going to relate to that?

Do people need to relate to their council? As long as it gets the work done efficiently, I don't care what it's called.

Well there's already Fingal, Dun Laoighre-Rathdown, South and North Tipperary so its not like the stupid ones are confined to the North.

If anything though I'd like to see more powers being given to local authorities, and I've no problem seeing Councillors doing more of the current TD's work. Not against the idea of merging certain councils though. Would a Laois/Offaly Council really be a downgrade in service from the current County Council set up? I don't think so. PLenty of other natural enough fits there too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brendy_éire

The south would end up with likes of 'Sligo, Leitrim & south Donegal Council', or something similar. Are people really going to relate to that?

---

Do people relate to their council now? And in some cases, which council do they relate to of the two they have - the town council or county council?

I'd be thinking that they'd have more powers, so that would be where the interest and connection would come from - make them more relevant. Less power for county managers, more power to politicians, therefore more power to the people. It could be argued that the people of rural east Wicklow have more in common with Wexford than those of Bray for example - transport connections, jobs etc a more of a similar issue for south wicklow and wexford than it is for what is effectively a south Dublin surburb and south wicklow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

at a higher cost to the tax payer I'd guess BTW

---

You can either have electoral reform or leave things as they are. If you leave things be, there's no extra costs involved. If you want to change the system, then that will cost more money.

There was a proposal earlier in the thread, for elections every year. How much more to the taxpayer will that cost, in running campaigns, polling equipment/facilities, extra man hours, and more counts more often? You want more powers for local authorities and county councillors? How much more will that cost in higher salaries and operating office costs? There are proposals in the current programme for Government, for extra Dail sitting days. If the Dail sits longer, so will the Seanad, and Committees. How much more will that cost in "expenses"? Etc, etc.

As I said, whatever you do, there are costs involved. The country is broke, and will be broke for decades to come. Soon enough, the state will default as it can't pay it's way, getting into even deeper brown stuff at home and abroad. However, that doesn't stop us reforming, or attempting to reform, the electoral system.

The reform proposals I put forward are relatively moderate, but makes more people eligible to decide their future, sooner counts to bring us into line with our neighbours' electoral systems, and at least attempts to reform our current system in some form. Now you can reject the proposals if you want, but you can either save the extra costs by sticking with the status quo, or put the "costs" issue to one side, when looking to reform the current system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

You can either have electoral reform or leave things as they are. If you leave things be, there's no extra costs involved. If you want to change the system, then that will cost more money.

There was a proposal earlier in the thread, for elections every year. How much more to the taxpayer will that cost, in running campaigns, polling equipment/facilities, extra man hours, and more counts more often? You want more powers for local authorities and county councillors? How much more will that cost in higher salaries and operating office costs? There are proposals in the current programme for Government, for extra Dail sitting days. If the Dail sits longer, so will the Seanad, and Committees. How much more will that cost in "expenses"? Etc, etc.

As I said, whatever you do, there are costs involved. The country is broke, and will be broke for decades to come. Soon enough, the state will default as it can't pay it's way, getting into even deeper brown stuff at home and abroad. However, that doesn't stop us reforming, or attempting to reform, the electoral system.

The reform proposals I put forward are relatively moderate, but makes more people eligible to decide their future, sooner counts to bring us into line with our neighbours' electoral systems, and at least attempts to reform our current system in some form. Now you can reject the proposals if you want, but you can either save the extra costs by sticking with the status quo, or put the "costs" issue to one side, when looking to reform the current system.

---

My girlfriend is Dutch, and voted in the Dutch general election last June. They didn't actually form a government until October. I don't see how, with a 4 month wait to form a coalition, an extra day counting the votes would have made any practical difference. Of course it would be nice to know a a little sooner who has how many votes, but it's not something that should be at the top of the list when we're talking about electoral reform.

Sorry mypost, my fault for even mentioning the cost. You're right, that change costs money. However I feel this change is completely unneccessary. If the best you can do is say "bring is line with our neighbours" while at the same time ignoring the vast differences in our election systems, then you're not going to convince me that there's any benefit whatsoever to moving the count forward 10-12 hours.

There are plenty of examples of negotiations taking longer than a day. The Belgians voted in June last year and still don't have a government

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peadar1987

My girlfriend is Dutch, and voted in the Dutch general election last June. They didn't actually form a government until October. I don't see how, with a 4 month wait to form a coalition, an extra day counting the votes would have made any practical difference. Of course it would be nice to know a a little sooner who has how many votes, but it's not something that should be at the top of the list when we're talking about electoral reform.

---

It doesn't have to be top of the list, but it is something that can be reformed. How long it takes to form a government/coalition from election results is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

You can either have electoral reform or leave things as they are. If you leave things be, there's no extra costs involved. If you want to change the system, then that will cost more money.

---

The speed of the count isn't a reform of itself. It's doing the current system, faster (for no real benefit imo). Your other proposals were lower the age, and weekend ballots, both of which would increase the number of votes and actually slow the counts further. We won't have quicker counts without a different electoral system.

And the difference with the increased costs of overnight counts compared to some of the other proposals which may be cost increasing, is that the overnight counts is simply to get a quicker result, not as part of a larger reform. As such, it just doesn't make sense. It'd probably increase the number of recounts anyway, as tired people make mistakes. FPTP counts are one count only, not a multiple count system as our own, which is what makes the bloody difference.

You don't need just FPTP to have a fast count, there are several systems used. In one of the biggest elections in the world, the USA, counting begins immediately after the polls close. They have hundreds of millions of votes to count and you (usually) know the result of all 3 elections next morning. That's the kind of thing I would like to see here, and it's possible if the will is there to reform the system. We already have overnight counts here, (TD's are elected at 3-6am in certain constituencies) just not on the night of the poll. The current system is too slow imo, and not suitable for the present day.

I think most people would be in favour of lowering the voting age, and encouraging more people to take part in the democratic process rather than encouraging apathy from younger voters. Weekend voting provides for more people not based in their constituency during the week to travel back to vote, and again falls into line with most other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

You don't need just FPTP to have a fast count, there are several systems used. In one of the biggest elections in the world, the USA, counting begins immediately after the polls close. They have hundreds of millions of votes to count and you (usually) know the result of all 3 elections next morning

---

Not ture in all states. Some do, but some start the following day. Don't forget that US Tv companies make projections immediately after polls close.

Not to mention that, of course, the US is most definitely FPTP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

I think most people would be in favour of lowering the voting age

---

What do you base that on?

Would 16-year-olds be informed enough that they should have a say in important national affairs? (And I'm aware that many of the current electorate hardly qualify on that basis...)

I've no interest in maximising the amount of people involved in the democratic process; I'd be more interested in ensuring that involvement in the democratic process pre-supposes an ability to understand the issues. Two very different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

not suitable for the present day

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

falls into line with most other countries

---

These are two of the worst/laziest arguments it's possible to make, in my opinion. They can be paraphrased as "We must use technology cos it's modern" and "I have no ideas as to why this is better, but others do it, so it must work".

If you're going to suggest a change, say what's wrong with the status quo and why the change would improve it (and you have tried to do this for the second point in fairness). The lines quoted above are lazy, tabloid-y soundbytes with no real meaning.

The US is first past the post, and for most presidential elections it's only a two person run off! I never said I was against lowering the voting age or weekend voting, mypost, I just pointed out that an increased vote would slow the count further!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

What do you base that on?

Would 16-year-olds be informed enough that they should have a say in important national affairs? (And I'm aware that many of the current electorate hardly qualify on that basis...)

I've no interest in maximising the amount of people involved in the democratic process; I'd be more interested in ensuring that involvement in the democratic process pre-supposes an ability to understand the issues. Two very different things

---

The last election turnout was very high, people who until 2008 didn't know a Dail from a Seanad, suddenly became interested in politics, and wanted to vote when given the opportunity. There are 76 brand new TD's in the current Dail. As the coming years are likely to be as tough as now, more people should be encouraged to have their say. Lowering the age, and holding the polls on a weekend increases that possibility.

I don't think that answers my queries though. It doesn't indicate of itself that most people want to lower the age limit for voting. And at this stage, what the country needs is informed voters, not more voters.