Do you think this is the best system? Just thinking our local guy got the 3rd highest first preference votes and yet he lost out getting elected in a four seater. Would it not be fairer to just go by all the first preferences only? After all is it not the person you give no.1 to that you want to get elected?
Is PR a fair voting system.
- Thread starter Ash 22
- Start date
S
S.L.F
Guest
Plus in Britain where there is no PR a party can have 25% of the votes but only have 5 or 6% of the seats.
I personally have an issue with how to be a TD you need a higher quota in Dublin as compared to down the country.
Are Dubliners votes worth less?
I personally have an issue with how to be a TD you need a higher quota in Dublin as compared to down the country.
Are Dubliners votes worth less?
Surely it's down to population spread....more people live in Dublin so more % of available votes required to be elected?
S
S.L.F
Guest
So for example if you have 15,000 people in an area (in Dublin say) and they have one TD and down the country they have 10,000 people and they have one TD that means the people down the country are better represented.
Basically I'm trying to say Dublin should have far more TD's
Exactly!! Quotas are calculated based on the number of seats and the number of registered voters in the constituency.
PR-STV (proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote) is designed to give results that are reflective of the diversity in our community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote gives some good explanations and reasoning for its use.
Personally I like the thought of making my vote work for me, I can vote for people by giving them a high preference or vote against someone by giving their rival a higher preference.
No, the election comission studies the constituency boundaries after each election and re-draws them if necessary to allow for population increases. http://www.constituency-commission.ie/docs/con2007.pdf explains the boundaries, the logic behind them and the representation levels after the 2007 election. And it shows that parts of Dublin are over-represented!
In general Dublin has as many TDs as the population merits proportionally
PR (STV) is very democratic but it gives us strong parliaments and weak governments which leads to a house full of TD's who behave like local councillors and makes a joke of the notion of the separation between the legislature and the government. This is at the heart of many of the problems with the Irish political system.
A good example was Dick Spring who, when minister for foreign affairs and leader of the Labour party (two jobs he did very well), nearly lost his seat because he was helping to lead the country and taking a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process instead of filling in hot holes and getting planning applications through in Kerry.
Unfortunately our system gives us the governments we deserve.
A good example was Dick Spring who, when minister for foreign affairs and leader of the Labour party (two jobs he did very well), nearly lost his seat because he was helping to lead the country and taking a key role in the Northern Ireland peace process instead of filling in hot holes and getting planning applications through in Kerry.
Unfortunately our system gives us the governments we deserve.
It's the number of seats and number of valid votes.
In the case of a by-election its 50% + 1 vote.
DublinTexas
can edit posts
- Messages
- 326
PR-STV however also leads to an incredible waste of money and time.
In my local council elections only 1 candidate had the required 20% + 1 vote in the 1st count and it took until the 10th count to get the other 4 elected. And surprise surprise the ones than elected were the 5 top vote scorers. So if we would have a simple system in which the top 5 would have been elected we would have had it in the 1st count and did not have to have another 9 counts to tell us the obvious.
When it comes to a vote for the glorified county council, sorry the Dáil Éireann than I think we should not use PR-STV but rather go down a combined direct/list election which process which will lead to fresh blood and a better representation.
I think we should go to something like MMP (Mixed member proportional representation), which would allow us to have 2 votes, one for a candidate we like and one for a party list. More here.
This way we can have local representation but we also respect the will of the majority of voters in the denser population areas (like Dublin).
In my local council elections only 1 candidate had the required 20% + 1 vote in the 1st count and it took until the 10th count to get the other 4 elected. And surprise surprise the ones than elected were the 5 top vote scorers. So if we would have a simple system in which the top 5 would have been elected we would have had it in the 1st count and did not have to have another 9 counts to tell us the obvious.
When it comes to a vote for the glorified county council, sorry the Dáil Éireann than I think we should not use PR-STV but rather go down a combined direct/list election which process which will lead to fresh blood and a better representation.
I think we should go to something like MMP (Mixed member proportional representation), which would allow us to have 2 votes, one for a candidate we like and one for a party list. More here.
This way we can have local representation but we also respect the will of the majority of voters in the denser population areas (like Dublin).
I studied the 1992,1997 & 2002 elections for a college assignment on voting systems and it does not necessarily transpire that the top vote-getters take the seat. Dublin Central in 2007 proved that again when Berties transfers (thousands of them) elected his running mate who had less than 1,000 first preferences!
"Unfortunately our system gives us the governments we deserve."
I very slightly quibble. Yes, a different system would give different results. But it is not "the system" which gives us the governments we deserve. It is an electorate which takes a self-centred parochial view and a body politic which panders to this.
I very slightly quibble. Yes, a different system would give different results. But it is not "the system" which gives us the governments we deserve. It is an electorate which takes a self-centred parochial view and a body politic which panders to this.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
The objective is to get a balance between "fair" (i.e. proportional representation) and workable government.
The most representative system would be to have the country as one single constituency and elect the 186 TDs by PR STV. I think this is the Israeli model. Problem is you will tend always to have a shaky coalition. The least representative is where the country is divided into single constituencies. This is the UK model and has the great virtue of almost always producing a stable one party government.
Our system is in fact much closer to the UK system than the Israeli one, with our use of small 3-4-5 constituencies i.e. it is only "slightly" PR. For example if a party had 19% popular vote uniformally across the country they could get zero representation. In the UK the same would be true of a 49% uniform share.
The most representative system would be to have the country as one single constituency and elect the 186 TDs by PR STV. I think this is the Israeli model. Problem is you will tend always to have a shaky coalition. The least representative is where the country is divided into single constituencies. This is the UK model and has the great virtue of almost always producing a stable one party government.
Our system is in fact much closer to the UK system than the Israeli one, with our use of small 3-4-5 constituencies i.e. it is only "slightly" PR. For example if a party had 19% popular vote uniformally across the country they could get zero representation. In the UK the same would be true of a 49% uniform share.
I believe it is a fair system for multi-seat constituencies. I am less convinced for single seat ones, specifically the Presidential election.
When Mary Robinson was elected, she was not the leading candidate after the first count. She was pushed ahead of Brian Lenihan (Snr) after the transfers from Austin Currie. I believe that such elections, and bye-elections, should use first past the post.
When Mary Robinson was elected, she was not the leading candidate after the first count. She was pushed ahead of Brian Lenihan (Snr) after the transfers from Austin Currie. I believe that such elections, and bye-elections, should use first past the post.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Tarf, that is a slightly different point. A presidential election is the antithesis of PR, how can one winner be proportionately representative?
But you are questioning the use of STV. Certainly the US presidential election is FPTP (sort of) but FPTP has the potential to be less democratic. Imagine a 10 runner race with all around 10% share then the winner could be some looney tune with only 11% popular appeal.
What STV achieves is that it elects the person who would have beaten any other candidate in a straight contest, the "least worst" option if you like. Taking your example, if BL was elected on FPTP we would have a situation that the majority of the population would have preferred MR.
But you are questioning the use of STV. Certainly the US presidential election is FPTP (sort of) but FPTP has the potential to be less democratic. Imagine a 10 runner race with all around 10% share then the winner could be some looney tune with only 11% popular appeal.
What STV achieves is that it elects the person who would have beaten any other candidate in a straight contest, the "least worst" option if you like. Taking your example, if BL was elected on FPTP we would have a situation that the majority of the population would have preferred MR.
Yeah, but no
.On first preferences, Lenihan was ahead by 82K votes. Robinson won the election on the second preferences of people who had not give her their first preferences.
I accept that more people wanted her in office than wanted him, yet I remain to be convinced that PR/STV is an appropriate method for determining single-seat elections.
I agree but a different system could minimise this. It is the multi party constituency system that means TD's have to pander to those who don't understand what their TD is supposed to do and vote based on local, small minded parochial issues. The Dick Spring example epitomises this. As long as seats are gained and lost on tiny numbers of votes the extremists, the single issue voters and the ill informed will always be pandered to.
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
This is a huge issue in the local elections too. In Dublin, you need about 2,000 to 2,500 votes to get a council seat. In Carrick-on-Shannon, the last seat needed 400 votes.
If the seats were genuinely in proportion to the population, the national balance of the parties would be dramatically different.