• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Mixed Member Proportional Representation


LgCastell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
689
In light of the recent Constitutional Convention I was looking over MMP and its merits/demerits. I didn't see a thread on it but if there is already please merge... I think there are some merits in changing to this system as was recently done in New Zealand.

The premise of this system is that in a 166 seat Dail half the seats would be elected through a constituency as is the case now while the other half would be apportioned based on the percentage of national vote a party receives. A voter would cast a vote for a constituency representative and a vote for a party

I was thinking if we merged our two systems you could get over the pitfalls of MMP namely that it disadvantages smaller parties and independent members. I'll throw out my thoughts and please let me know what you think:

Lets look at the constituency representatives usually half of a parliament is comprised of these. There would be 83 seats up for grabs. One could either go 83 individual constituencies however I would prefer 14 six seater semi-regional constituencies across the country (which brings the number up to 84) where we maintain the PR-STV system which works very well. This would have a number of advantages. First it would maintain the current PRSTV system which is much more representative that 1st past the post. Large six seat constituencies would allow smaller parties/indos a chance and the semi regional constituencies may break the localism we get from small single seaters. The biggest issue is that a party may be able to vote manage and therefore get say three seats in a six seater even if the share of the vote does not reflect this however this may be correct by overhang seats apportioned through the list system

The list system would then attribute the remaining 82 seats based on the national support for each party which is given through the voters second ballot paper. I think the threshold should be 3% as it encourages and ensures a diversity of parties and opinions which 5% may exclude. I think the biggest issue with the list is the issue of dual candidacy and whether a person should be allowed to run as a constituency candidate and a list candidate ... personally i think they shouldn't as there is something odd about being refused by the people is a constituency of 6 but being promoted by the party therefore I would be against dual candidacy and the list should be fully disclosed before the election.

The issue of overhang seats mentioned above is based on the idea that a party shouldnt have more seats than their vote allows. There are a number of ways to deal with it: one can allow the overhang meaning that the party has a bonus. Treat the overhang seats as contributing to the overall number of list seats or compensate for the overhang by apportioning more seats to the other parties proportionately meaning a larger legislature in certain cases. My favoured option would be the middle one.

Anyway that is my opinion on reform. I think keeping the PR_STV for the elected reps would be favourable but over semi-regional constituencies as well as the list system would be a plus. While not relevant here I look forward to the Convention's discussion on non-TD ministers and cabinet/parliament separation.
 
Last edited:

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
16,887
The list system gives the insiders in political parties the power to decide who represents us.

As such it is anti-democratic and would cause even more problems with political insiders than we have at the moment.

NO NO NO.
 

LgCastell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
689
The list system gives the insiders in political parties the power to decide who represents us.

As such it is anti-democratic and would cause even more problems with political insiders than we have at the moment.

NO NO NO.
The benefit of the list is that it could be used to get people into politics who would not otherwise run plus there democratic validation as a list would be published before the election ... the electorate can study it and see who is running and then cast their votes in favour of the list/party concerned. It would be up to each party how the list is compiled whether through member nominations etc.

Parties nominate people to run in an elections and the people vote on them ... its the same here ... if you dont like the people on the list dont vote for the list they're on
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
16,887
The imposition of the favourites of the party headquarters is not to be encouraged.

Remember it was the insiders in the party hqs that bankrupt the country not the people round the parish pump in the regions.
 

FloatingVoterTralee

Well-known member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
997
The system seems to be working fairly effectively in the Scottish Parliament - certainly, they just vote according to their usual party preference, so voters don't appear to be unduly concerned about the list system.
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
The problem with any list system is that the people cannot choose not to elect someone. In essence, the party grandees of any party will be named at the top of their party's list and are bullet proof.


I favour a system where the "top up" comes from those candidates who did not get directly elected for the party, but who have the highest percentages of a quota.

A " fastest loser" if you will.

That way, the party share of the vote can be kept proportional, and everyone is elected, not appointed.



D
 

jackryan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
3,693
The imposition of the favourites of the party headquarters is not to be encouraged.

Remember it was the insiders in the party hqs that bankrupt the country not the people round the parish pump in the regions.
None better at the parish pump than Bertie & Cowen
 

jackryan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
3,693
One problem I have with a mixed system is that the TDs voted in by list will have no Parish Pumpery to do while the others will have it will become a two tier system everyone should be elected by the same equal system!
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
16,887
None better at the parish pump than Bertie & Cowen
No. They were around the most powerful table in the country - the cabinet table. The members of the bank boards were the next most powerful group. All were meeting within a few hundred yards of each other in the centre of power in the capital.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,032
The imposition of the favourites of the party headquarters is not to be encouraged.

Remember it was the insiders in the party hqs that bankrupt the country not the people round the parish pump in the regions.
Not true. It is the something for everyone in the audience that got us into trouble. It is not a coincidence that the more successful countries in Europe have some sort of list system.
 

DuineEile

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
14,939
One problem I have with a mixed system is that the TDs voted in by list will have no Parish Pumpery to do while the others will have it will become a two tier system everyone should be elected by the same equal system!
See post #6



D
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,032
No. They were around the most powerful table in the country - the cabinet table. The members of the bank boards were the next most powerful group. All were meeting within a few hundred yards of each other in the centre of power in the capital.
All the cabinet are elected in constituencies.
 

shiel

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
16,887
All the cabinet are elected in constituencies.
All 166 TDs are elected in constituencies. But the ones in control of decisions on the expenditure of taxpayer's and borrowed money are around the cabinet table.

A small number of people on the boards of financial institutions make decisions about saver's and borrower's money.

A small number of insiders decide. Paddy Joe and Patricia Josephine put up with the consequences.

Giving the insiders more control with a list system, which allows them to decide who represents all of us, will make things worse.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,240
The imposition of the favourites of the party headquarters is not to be encouraged.

Remember it was the insiders in the party hqs that bankrupt the country not the people round the parish pump in the regions.
Ehhhh, no it wasn't. Even by the standards of p.ie, that's an astonishing bit of fact-free analysis.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
You can elect them whatever way you want but the whip system makes sure that your vote is largely meaningless, and with any sort of list, the control of party central is only even more buttressed. One remedy is to vote independent, but since half the seats would not be off limits to independents and anyone who is not an insider, the efficacy of that system halved.
 

electoralshock

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
410
One problem that has emerged in the Scottish Parliament is that the list MP comes a shadow MP for the Constituency they fought. So they represent the interests of their local Constituency not the whole region as they elected to.

As this is Ireland this would happen here too!
 

LgCastell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
689
If you prohibit dual candidacy whereby candidates can run as a list and constituency candidate that might solve that problem
 

ManOfReason

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,328
One seat per constituency, with a PR system to pick the winner is the only way. Then at least if a crook or loon gets elected at least half of the electorate will have had to give them some kind of approval. As for the list candidates - you only have to look at those 'elected' via the panel system in the Seanad in order to see what kind of party hacks would get the seats. How often would a 'big name' be on these lists step down and be replaced by some gobsh1te whose only achievement was to never miss a cumann meeting in ten years?
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,335
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
The list system gives the insiders in political parties the power to decide who represents us.

As such it is anti-democratic and would cause even more problems with political insiders than we have at the moment.

NO NO NO.
Oh dear, I find myself in agreement with this poster on something. I must lie down.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,335
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
My submission on the topic is here.

This submission includes some commentary on our current electoral process, the dangers of change for the sake of change, a number of practical changes are suggested and a worked example of a possible future electoral system that retains the inherent strengths of PR-STV while applying transparent and voter friendly modifications to reduce the influence of clientelism and increase choice at election time. There is also a short appendix with some less considered difficulties that the present system can pose the ordinary person.

https://www.constitution.ie/SubmissionDetails.aspx?sid=acfb0ae9-a0b9-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
 
Top