Single-transferable vote is an insanely good system for voters. I also have a confession after my 7th or 8th preference I rate the remainder of candidates on how good looking they are.
Posted Dec 9, 2019, 12:45 AM UTC
In 1959, DeValera tried to lock in Fianna Fáil's long term dominance by scrapping PR STV for For past the post - the same system as the UK. It was opposed by Labour and Fine Gael in the opposition and later rejected by the people in the referendum that same year. Nine years later, 1968, the exact same thing happened. This time Lynch tried to move to FPTP and it was opposed by FG and Labour and rejected by the people.
So twice, FF tried to essentially become a government for life but were knocked down, and by a frighteningly slim margin in the '59 referendum. Things could have been very different.
Our electoral pool is so small that we would likely have been degraded to a two party system. What a dystopian shitshow an FF/FG only country would have been.
ya thank god we've been allowed to have so many labour and sinn fein majorities since then
Still get smaller parties having an influence for the good or the bad.
Source? That's friggen mental. Jesus if Ireland was a country that voted via FPTP it would absolutely be a shithole without question. At least now it's questionable shithole.
And even FPTP is still a good way when you look at how the US do elections and pass it off as democracy. Watched Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 11/9 recently and the following stat blew my mind; in the 2016 democratic primary, all 55 counties in West Virgini voted for Bernie Sanders. Armed with that mandate a “super delegate” went to the DNC and voted for Hilary as the West Virginian nomination.
The difference is that at that stage, Bernie had already lost the primaries. If the West Virginia vote held the outcome of the primary, the decision would have been under much greater scrutiny.
That shouldn’t matter though should it? The people of WV made it quite clear who they would like to represent them and the “super delegate” which I imagine is one person completely ignored that.
But that's the party nomination. Something we don't get at all. Who chooses the FF candidature? Is it an open vote of all party members? (I really hope it isn't or I just shot myself in the foot)
There is genuine reason that the US uses that system. Due to the US being so big, results would be heavily dictated by people from metropolitan areas such as CA or New York which have totally different problems and obstacles to a farmer in wyoming. Almost every presidential election would be decided from these hubs if it was different is the theory. Its down to geography more than anything.
People vote not land, your vote shouldn't count more because you live on a farm in Wyoming and have different priorities to somebody from San Francisco
That was a much later explanation that was retroactively used to justify the terrible system. The electoral college exists because the US was initially a loose collection of states who could basically do what they wanted. The system is about 200 years too old, but they can't change it because the constitution is a holy text to them.
The "it's to help rural areas" argument is a new one and used to downplay the advantage the Republicans get, particularly in the senate.
If you are interested Costello's biography is well worth a read and deals with it in detail.
What does the PR stand for?
Proportional Representation
Thanks!
Yup. FPTP it's a disaster. Tory party on track to win a majority on the back of it
Yep, other systems are constantly written-off as "too difficult" and "too foreign".
Imagine thinking that being able to count is a concept that's "too difficult"
I'm personally not fond of how often it raises local issues to a national level and facilitates parish pump politics. I'd prefer a party list system for the Dáil and MEPs and stronger local government with prstv elections for that and president.
That said now that I'm facing down the barrel of having to vote in a UK General election I'd trade my right arm for some PRSTV
I disagree with that as it would kill independants.
That to me is a desirable outcome at the national level. They will have a more appropriate place in local governance or possibly a massively reformed Seanad.
It would also gives way to much power to Dublin. With the result of such a change likely bring that certain counties would have quite literally no representation as Dublin would be over represented as smaller parties and left wing parties would be more likely to select their main candidates as Dubliners.
That's why I suggested stronger local government. Local and regional issues should be handled at that level and they should be given the power and funds to do so. People who live and work in those areas know the issues they face and would hopefully be best placed to address them.
We shouldn't be having situations where government ministers are influencing where hospitals are to be upgraded or keeping open garda stations that were meant to be closed in order to shore up votes in their own constituency
If the mad independents couldn't get in the dáil they'd from their own party that might have more influence nationally
That would require them to come together and form a cohesive set of policies and principles that they could all stand behind and run on and agree a rank order in which they would be elected depending on the vote share. At which point they're not independents they're a legitimate party and are free to run on whatever platform they like regardless of how looney it might be.
Edit: The main point is that they can't just run on who fixed the roads or who their dad or granddad was or any of that shite.
As the other commenter said that is desirable at a national level. Look at Tony Gregory. He got a loads of money spent in his constituency by supporting Haughey in government. While the area might have been deserving of it, it doesn't make for great planning and should've been decided by the local council.
What I'd like is keep have an MMP system like Germany but with the local representative continuing to be elected by STV. My main hope with this is that people start thinking more along party lines, instead of "ah we'll vote for him, he fixed the road"
The good people of Ireland thought so in the past too hence why they rejected 2 referenda to replace it with first-past-the-post (FPTP) in 1959 and 1968.
However, it is rather insane how counts can take days while our European neighbours can have results in hours. 😄
When I explain it to my European friends, they are lost but they then understand it and would prefer it over their party-list system.
The slow release of results is one of the best parts of PR-STV. It's a spectacle that captivates the country's attention. It makes us so much more invested in the political process.
I genuinely think that it's an important part of our political culture.
It also gives us my favourite feature of Irish elections the tallymen.
Irish people do love a good count.
an important part of our political culture
Agreed. I love it too.
To me, that it takes days and everything is done on paper is a feature rather than a bug. :)
I think everyone would be suspicious if a computer spat out the result one minute after the polls closed. It would be much easier to hack that system than going after all the grannies counting bits of paper.
I agree with both points. 🤓
True but the flipside of that is that the electorate fucking murders the smaller party that had the disproportionate power in the coalition when they sour on the government, so yknow, what you gain on the swings, your party barely exists on the roundabouts.
I also have a confession after my 7th or 8th preference I rate the remainder of candidates on how good looking they are.
I KNEW there was a reason election posters here never give any information whatsoever about political stance or party programs, and just show the faces.
It's just a beauty contest, after all!
I think its insane how we have a voting system that allows us to support any party we want and every Irish government ever has been controlled by one of two ideologically identical parties
It's a product of the system. They want to seem amenable to as many people as possible so stay close to the centre
For all the giving out about our politicians that we do, the voting system is good. For all the merits of electronic voting, even forgetting about our particular experience with it, the counts we have are good and very entertaining, compared to having instant results without the drama of the counts. Electronic voting and results can be like going to a sports event and being given the final score when you first sit in your seat, without seeing any of the action.
[deleted]
Just to give them hope?
Apparently the average number of preferences given is only 3.5 or so.
The only issue with PR:STV has been the frequency of coalition governments and the knock on effects of disproportionate bargaining power given to Independents and rewarding the Parish Politics approach.
But I feel that's on us as voters as opposed to a flaw in the system itself.
Coalition governments are a good thing. It builds consensus and prevents polarisation.
Yeah apparently Malta who also use the system only elected 1 independent out of 65 seats in their last election.
Coming down from up north in County Down, every time I hear someone defend the fucking first past the post system the UK uses I just vomit. Talk about a system put in place by those in power to stay in power.
Yall are some lucky sumbitches.
Could someone please do a ELI5 of our system and First Past the Post and how they compare?
https://youtu.be/l8XOZJkozfI - STV
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo - FPTP
These videos do a pretty good job of explaining the two systems.
Dissenting voice; whilst PR is in theory a good system, it is in my mind responsible for a lot of the parish pump politics that poison the landscape. It enables the likes of the Healy Rae's and Michael Lowry to continually remain in office, often with disproportionate power due to coalition Governments needing their support.
I like to vote based on prefrence then go down the card making sure the people I dont want to get in are right at the bottom.
It allows established parties to form a clique and keep any upstarts out.
FF/FG in charge and a smaller party as mudguard
Its harder to do that in our system than in a FPTP system
PR-STV is such a fantastic system. It's a shame so few countries use it.
What fascinates me is the fact we've been doing it this way since the 1930s - a time in Irish politics not known for its progressive thinking.
Ah, so this is why Simon Coveney keeps winning reelection.
Arthur Griffith was one of the lads who proposed it, as he felt it would benefit the representation of minorities (ie Unionists) in a 32-county entity.
It's amazing how this attitude of accepting the protestant minority as full and equal members of society led to such a peaceful Ireland. It would have been so easy to paint them as invaders to be held to ransom for restitution (like you see in so many former colonies). Especially in the Bolshevik / fascist zeitgeist of the 20s and 30s.
Compare that to NI, where the Catholic minority were treated as second class citizens. Completely untenable - just a powder keg looking for a spark.
I'm not a fan of the hero-worship you see in other countries for their founders, but credit where it's due - ours did a bang-up job.
Irish nationalism from its inception has always considered protestants to be Irish. Indeed the concept of Irishness was constructed to include anglo-Irish protestants within it. The modern form of nationalism in Ireland replaced the older political identies of Gaelic, Old English and New English which traditionally struggled against each other for dominance in the centuries before the 1798 rebellion. Those older identities were replaced by a manafactured Irish identity that saw an English speaking Anglo-Irish protestant and an Irish speaking Catholic pesant as belonging to the same nation. Indeed this constructed identity which largely came to express itself through English even when the majority of the population remained Irish speaking and gaelic is part of the reason that Ireland became an English speaking country despite the cultural window dressing Irish nationalism adopted.
Actually the constitution was hugely progressive at the time and the fact that much of it remains unchanged to this day is a testament of that. Let's not forget that it was written at a time when the rest of Europe was turning to fascism.
I do also appreciate that we all see the constitution as a malleable, working document that needs to keep with the times. Seeing it as some holy writ like they do in the states means they're beholden to 300 year old ideals
The way the US fawns over the founding fathers ideals is just plain stupid. They died 200 years ago, and lived in a time where women couldn’t vote and black people were slaves. I think the world has moved on since then
Don't take my fucking guns. Well armed militia. Rabble rabble.
The amendment process for the US Constitution is a little too difficult, I think. You need 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states. That is really not easy to get. The Irish constitution strikes the right balance I think - difficult enough so that the constitution is not changed willy-nilly, and requiring a popular mandate.
I think we could go for a little more nuance. Perhaps a straight majority shouldn't be enough, perhaps there should be a quorum of some kind. Perhaps certain more technical articles (local government and the structure of the courts say) should be amendable by a supermajority in the Dáil.
But the simplicity has a lot going for it too.
Frustratingly, America has such a central cultural influence that the Brits think that's how constitutions are supposed to be too. Tell them they need a constitution and they starting fretting about the issues the American constitution has. Ireland's constitution is perfect for setting out fundamental rules and protecting the people from sudden shifts in them or from tyrannical governments trying to change the rules to their advantage. The Brits would do well to learn from us.
Dr Anne Dolan in Trinity has a great talk she does about how we need to add some nuance to our perception of post-treaty, pre-Lemass Ireland as exclusively backward. Us and Czechoslovakia were the only new democracies not to fall to fascism and we never really came close
Exactly. When the Italian government banned the Blackshirts' march on Rome, Mussolini went ahead anyway and toppled the government.
When the Fianna Fáil led Irish government banned the Blueshirts' march on Dublin the Blueshirts respected the ban and that was the end of the story.
All Irish ideals are subservient to our not wanting to cause a fuss.
RemindMe! 3 Days
Czechoslovakia did fall to fascism, in fairness.
Joking aside, you're right that the new Free State was an oasis of liberal revolution in a Europe caught in the grips of populist authoritarianism. The protection of the protestant minority was an especially respectable move during that era. Still, compared with modern Ireland it was very socially conservative.
To be fair, almost everywhere was socially conservative compared to modern almost everywhere. Even Northern Ireland has moved forward a bit.
Is it available online anywhere?
Might well be. I'm in work atm but I'll have a look later
I think we used it since 1922, no?
Funnily enough I'm actually studying for a politics exam and currently revising the electoral system haha.
No it's from the 30s ...37 I think
It was explicitly specified in the 1937 constitution, but was used since the beginning of the Free State, and actually prior to it, at some levels. From the chapter I'm currently reading:
For me it's the best of both worlds.
One thing that perplexes me about STV is it's implantation in Malta. In their last election out of a parliament of 65 seats they only elected one independent representative. I think that's mad.
Maybe the independents there are just shit and nobody wants to vote for them there.
It is a great system but it can lead to rainbow collations in the wrong circumstances.
What's "wrong" with a rainbow coalition?
It makes for very unstable governments formed from very disparate groups which tend to collapse early and often so you end up having multiple general elections in a short period of time.
People get pretty sick of constant elections and very little gets done even while the coalition lasts as the areas everyone agrees in can be very limited.
Look at how the DUP limited the options of the Tories recently then imagine that except you have ten special interest groups to keep happy, some of which want opposite things.
Less coalitions could be achieved through FPTP, but that would still be a worse outcome IMO as it limits voter choice, and inevitably trends towards a two party system.
The 2015 UK election enabled "stable government" by awarding a slim majority of seats to the Conservatives from only 36.8% of the vote! Until that idiot May thought she could improve on that result in 2017...
That's true. Although rainbow coalitions tend to be very unstable - especially of the left-wing sort we get here - and in the event of a government collapse, the electorate would vote more tactically in the subsequent election.
what sort of left wing rainbow coalition have we had?
We've been using PR-STV since the founding of the Free State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Irish_local_elections#Background
Ironically Proportional voting was first imposed in Ireland by the British originally as a means of undermining the electoral success of Sinn Fein...
Interesting, I knew it had been used at local elections then, but not that the British had imposed it. Although, PR had been advocated for by British electoral reformers since the mid-nineteenth century, and had had become popular among a lot of nationalists in Ireland like Griffiths, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Irish_local_elections#Background
Ironically Proportional voting was first imposed in Ireland by the British originally as a means of undermining the electoral success of Sinn Fein...