Electoral Reform

[Dodge]

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

[Macy]

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.

[mypost]

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.

[peadar1987]

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.

[Dodge]

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

[mypost]

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.

[Macy]

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.

[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. 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.

[Dodge]

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

[pineapple stu]

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.

not suitable for the present day

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.

[Macy]

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!

[mypost]

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.

[pineapple stu]

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.