Unelected "leaders"

**Angus** · 20/03/2011, 10:56 PM

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

**mypost** · 21/03/2011, 12:22 AM

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.

**Macy** · 21/03/2011, 10:24 AM

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.

**Gather round** · 21/03/2011, 11:12 AM

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.

**horton** · 21/03/2011, 12:58 PM

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. . .

**holidaysong** · 21/03/2011, 1:20 PM

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 F�in 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.

**Gather round** · 21/03/2011, 1:23 PM

Originally Posted by horton

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

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.

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'.

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.

**Macy** · 21/03/2011, 2:19 PM

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.

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.

**Gather round** · 21/03/2011, 2:41 PM

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.

**mypost** · 21/03/2011, 7:04 PM

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.

**Angus** · 22/03/2011, 7:46 AM

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

**Macy** · 22/03/2011, 9:19 AM

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.

**Dodge** · 22/03/2011, 10:32 AM

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...

**Macy** · 22/03/2011, 10:35 AM

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.

**Eminence Grise** · 22/03/2011, 10:51 AM

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.

**Dodge** · 22/03/2011, 10:51 AM

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

**dahamsta** · 22/03/2011, 11:00 AM

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.

**Red Army** · 22/03/2011, 11:39 AM

Military dictatorship is the way forward.

**peadar1987** · 22/03/2011, 1:00 PM

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.

**Macy** · 22/03/2011, 2:38 PM

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.