# The mythical sophisticated Irish Electorate



## Evander73 (6 Oct 2013)

So, the sophisticated Irish Electorate (SIE), in it's wisdom, voted No, again!

Although the Seanad is a dysfunctional waste of money that adds nothing to the democratic process, the SIE voted to retain it. Although, it’s a retirement home/consolation prize for failed politicians, a crèche for aspiring politicians and/or chamber for rewarding political loyalty to the ruling party, the SIE still wants it, but why?? 

Enda hiding didn't help the optic of the Yes side, but it’s a side issue not relevant to the substantive issue as to the democratic validity of the Seanad.  Like most referendums, so many unrelated issues get thrown into the mix, and the actual thing we’re voting on gets lost in the fog.  

It’s the oppositions/president/judiciary’s job to keep the Dail honest, not some well paid talking shop for fat cat political cronies/elite of society.  Also, the SIE can vote out the current government at the next election, if they feel like it.

There have been 12 different Seanad reform proposals since the formation of the Seanad and none have been implemented.  The No side agree on reform, but when asked what this means, they either have no answer, or a multitude of different views which suggest the chances of any meaningful reform taking place is miniscule, and the status quo will continue.   If you give the seanad the power to veto dail bills, you have a bunch of unelected academics etc dictating to the elected dail (hence us) as to the laws of the land.  If you directly elect the Seanad, you end up with a competing house to the Dail which will impede legislate progress and slow down the whole political system by turning it into a battle ground between the two houses – just look at what’s happening in the US – stalemate. 

The SIE are angry, which means that a lot of them want to give the government a bloody nose at all costs, but that could mean their opinion on any referendum issue is jaundiced from the start. If there was a referendum to "feed hungry babies" in the morning, a cohort of the SIE would vote No, just because they are angry with the Government over some totally unrelated matter. This irrational voting pattern, borne out of anger, is damaging the political process and makes every referendum a battle ground between what is right, and anti government sentiment.

Michael Lowry, Mick Wallace, The Healy Rea and Flynn dynasties are all a product of the SIE, no wonder FF are riding high in the opinion polls again!!

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."


----------



## Sunny (6 Oct 2013)

Who are you to say what is right? Is your opinion more valid or correct than the people who voted no? I voted to abolish the Seanad but I respect the decision reached by the majority of people who were bothered to vote. 

Many of the same arguments against the Seanad could be made against the Dail. People vote for the politicians but they don't get a say in how the Dail is run. Not sitting for months during the summer. Poor attendance and empty chambers during debate. Inadequate leaders questions. An open bar and inappropiate behaviour during late night sittings. Large expenses. Some poor committees that have achieved nothing of note. 

Announcing the closure of the Seanad was a political stunt at the time by Enda Kenny. Even though I voted to abolish it, the yes campaign was extremely weak. The €20m figure didn't stand up and it was insulting to some decent people in the Seanad. TD's weren't really in a position to throw stones at the work of senators. 

You talk about the no side having no idea how to reform the Seanad but Enda Kenny talked about reforming the Dail when the Seanad was abolished but was light on detail. They should have reformed how committees work etc and then asked the people to abolish the Seanad..

I don't agree with the referendum result but I respect it. I will spare my abuse for the 60% who didn't vote rather than against the people who voted no.


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2013)

Good points Evander, I agree with everything you said.
The Seanad is an elitist body was set up as a copy of the House of Lords in order to keep the elite happy in the decade and a half after independence. That's why Trinity graduates get a vote but other graduates don't. Why is one of the Houses of Parliament of this state elected by 1% of the people? Why are a majority of the people of this country in favour of not having a vote? The Seanad symbolises everything a republic isn't. 

The problem with the politics in Ireland is not the quality of our politicians, they are a symptom of the problem. The root cause is the electorate. We have no respect for our own democracy. If we did we'd inform ourselves better and we'd bother to vote.


----------



## blueband (6 Oct 2013)

Sunny said:


> Who are you to say what is right? Is your opinion more valid or correct than the people who voted no? I voted to abolish the Seanad but I respect the decision reached by the majority of people who were bothered to vote.
> 
> Many of the same arguments against the Seanad could be made against the Dail. People vote for the politicians but they don't get a say in how the Dail is run. Not sitting for months during the summer. Poor attendance and empty chambers during debate. Inadequate leaders questions. An open bar and inappropiate behaviour during late night sittings. Large expenses. Some poor committees that have achieved nothing of note.
> 
> ...


+1..very good post


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2013)

The arguments put forward to abolish the Seanad were very weak. The only party who had a proper reasoned position was SF. Pearce Doherty articulated his party's position very well. I don't often agree with the Shinners, in fact this may be a first.


----------



## S.L.F (6 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> That's why Trinity graduates get a vote but other graduates don't.



*cough

U.C.D. graduates get to vote...


----------



## Evander73 (6 Oct 2013)

Sunny said:


> Who are you to say what is right? Is your opinion more valid or correct than the people who voted no? I voted to abolish the Seanad but I respect the decision reached by the majority of people who were bothered to vote.
> 
> Many of the same arguments against the Seanad could be made against the Dail. People vote for the politicians but they don't get a say in how the Dail is run. Not sitting for months during the summer. Poor attendance and empty chambers during debate. Inadequate leaders questions. An open bar and inappropiate behaviour during late night sittings. Large expenses. Some poor committees that have achieved nothing of note.
> 
> ...



Who am I to say what is right? This is a forum for expressing ones opinion, and that's what I did.  

Your arguments on the substantive issue emphasis exactly what I was trying to illustrate in my original post i.e. you don't address the substantive issue, but instead go off on many unrelated tangents.  In the context of deciding on the contribution and validity of the Seanad, it's irrelevant that it may have been political stunt.  If it was a political stunt to feed hungry babies, would that be a reason to vote against the proposal?  

Whilst the Dail is ineffective and is in need of reform, overall it serves a definite and essential purpose, and therefore many of the same arguements against the Seanad cannot be applied to the Dail. Again , this argument is irrelevant to deciding on the validity of the Seanad - we definitely need the Dail, and the fact it is not a effective as it could be does not justify the existence of an irrelevant second chamber.

Certainly the Yes side was weak, and the money saving arguement may not have stood up to scrutiny, but again these are side issues.  

You give some suggestions on how the Dail should be reformed, but offer none to the same question on the Seanad.  As I said in my original post, allowing the Seanad a Veto or it to be directly elected causes fundamental problems for the operation of the legislature.  I did be interested in any suggestions you may have to overcome these obstacles, or indeed any other meaningful suggestions on how the Seanad could be reformed to justify it's existence. 

Lastly,  I didn't "abuse" anyone - play the ball and not the man.  You say you respect the decision of the majority of those who voted, as do I, in the sense that I accept it as a believer in democracy.  The fact I don't agree with the outcome and criticise it with logical arguement is not disrespecting the decision, it's open debate on the matter, in a forum set up for just that purpose.


----------



## Sunny (6 Oct 2013)

Evander73 said:


> Who am I to say what is right? This is a forum for expressing ones opinion, and that's what I did.
> 
> Your arguments on the substantive issue emphasis exactly what I was trying to illustrate in my original post i.e. you don't address the substantive issue, but instead go off on many unrelated tangents.  In the context of deciding on the contribution and validity of the Seanad, it's irrelevant that it may have been political stunt.  If it was a political stunt to feed hungry babies, would that be a reason to vote against the proposal?
> 
> ...



Look at the title of your thread. That's insulting to and disrespecting to the majority of people who voted to keep the Seanad. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean the electorate is unsophisticated. The problem with the Irish Electorate is not that they are stupid or unsophisticated, it is that people don't respect the right to vote that they have. A turnover of 40% is a is disgrace. 

If you want to have a thread about the Seanad, then title your thread better.


----------



## Knuttell (6 Oct 2013)

Sunny said:


> The problem with the Irish Electorate is not that they are stupid or unsophisticated,



Going from media reports I wonder how many of these "sophisticates" voted the wrong way simply because they couldn't understand the referendum as put to them on a ballot paper.

Excellent post Evander.


----------



## Evander73 (6 Oct 2013)

Sunny said:


> Look at the title of your thread. That's insulting to and disrespecting to the majority of people who voted to keep the Seanad. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean the electorate is unsophisticated. The problem with the Irish Electorate is not that they are stupid or unsophisticated, it is that people don't respect the right to vote that they have. A turnover of 40% is a is disgrace.
> 
> If you want to have a thread about the Seanad, then title your thread better.



The title of the thread is in reference to the continued use of this misnomer by some patronising politicians.  Unfortunatley, it's not specific to the Seanad referendum, as alluded to in my original post it continues to produce some unsophisticated result e.g. Ml Lowrys continued poll topping election in Tipperary - parish pump politics in action.

The myriad of reasons given for voting No to all kinds of questions suggests a lack of sophistication amongst the electorate in general - easily bought by cheap election promises, voting on the basis of anti government sentiment, or  based on the mantra "vote no if you don't know".  The answer to why you don't know often shows alot of people simply don't bother to inform themselves, and prefer to vote No in the comfort that they are sticking one to the Government because of the Haddington Road agreement/property tax  etc, etc. 

Obviously not everyone who voted No in this particular referendum did so on the basis of such spurious reasons.  Some will have given it careful consideration and voted accordingly, but imo, as politically incorrect as it is to say, the Irish electorate, taken as a whole, is not very sophisticated. 

I look forward to your counter argument to my specific view point in relation to the difficulties surrounding fundamental (not window dressing) Seanad reform.


----------



## Sunny (6 Oct 2013)

Knuttell said:


> Going from media reports I wonder how many of these "sophisticates" voted the wrong way simply because they couldn't understand the referendum as put to them on a ballot paper.
> 
> Excellent post Evander.



Not many I would imagine. There also doesn't seem to be an abnormal amount of spoilt votes either. Also, if we are to take your view, it means that there were more unsophisticated voters on the yes side who voted the wrong way. Not to mention that people who would have voted yes stayed away and didn't vote. So you can't blame the decision on the no voters being too unsophisticated to understand what they were voting for. You can blame the apathy of the majority of people who would have voted yes if they had bothered their ass to vote. 

Like I say, I think it should be abolished but I understand why the vote lost when you at how the campaign ran and the issue was handled.


----------



## Sunny (6 Oct 2013)

Evander73 said:


> The title of the thread is in reference to the continued use of this misnomer by some patronising politicians.  Unfortunatley, it's not specific to the Seanad referendum, as alluded to in my original post it continues to produce some unsophisticated result e.g. Ml Lowrys continued poll topping election in Tipperary - parish pump politics in action.
> 
> The myriad of reasons given for voting No to all kinds of questions suggests a lack of sophistication amongst the electorate in general - easily bought by cheap election promises, voting on the basis of anti government sentiment, or  based on the mantra "vote no if you don't know".  The answer to why you don't know often shows alot of people simply don't bother to inform themselves, and prefer to vote No in the comfort that they are sticking one to the Government because of the Haddington Road agreement/property tax  etc, etc.
> 
> ...



I have already said three times I voted for the Seanad to be abolished and not reformed. That doesn't mean I think that the people who voted no were stupid or did so for alternative reasons. Even Sinn Fein couldn't bring their supporters with them so it wasn't an anti government vote.


----------



## Evander73 (6 Oct 2013)

Sunny said:


> I have already said three times I voted for the Seanad to be abolished and not reformed. That doesn't mean I think that the people who voted no were stupid or did so for alternative reasons. Even Sinn Fein couldn't bring their supporters with them so it wasn't an anti government vote.



We'll have to agree to disagree, so. I'd suggest it's more likely SF supporters did not vote in large numbers, rather than they voted No, and it was the disaffected Labour/FG vote, combined with the FF support which won the day. 

For the record, unsophisticated is not my euphemism for stupid - parochial & distracted by unrelated issues would be more appropriate.


----------



## so-crates (6 Oct 2013)

Leaving aside the slur on the nay-sayers (Evander73, acknowledging that perhaps some may have thought about it and decided to vote no is does not change the fact that the premise of the thread is that people have decided no and it must be due to foolishness), this mythical 1% has been bugging me. The numbers don't add up. the important number to identify and quantify the elite (rather than the pro-active) is the number of people entitled to a vote, not the number who do. 
Given that more than 30% of the population have a degree of some description. And at a rough guess perhaps half through NUI or TCD - but for arguments sake say 1/3. That rough underestimate gives a potential electorate for the 6 college seats at about 10% of the population. 
You have the various people  (ahem politicians) on the various vocational panels but as that does not comprise tens of thousands of individuals it is not going to have a substantive impact on the potential electorate.
Still nowhere near a universal suffrage but certainly not the 1% quoted widely.

On the whole, I agree that in referenda in Ireland, the no vote is made up of No and Don't Know and screw the government. As a rule I subscribe to the notion that if you are a Don't Know you should spoil your vote - the message then is far clearer. (If you are screw the government you should really wait until a general election) A mechanism whereby a certain percentage of spoilt votes invalidates a result would then allow for path to genuine re-engagement as opposed to the guess-work that currently goes into that favourite Irish institution, the re-referendum. In this case though, I suspect that the No vote was considerably clearer a No vote than those for some of the constitutional amendments to accommodate various EU treaties, so that leaves the other two sets. I suspect they were a minority cohort this time. Again, given the question asked was not as complex or arcane as those for the EU treaty referenda (though burrowing through the constitution to delete the Seanad is not as simple an exercise as saying yay or nay to its existence) it seems more likely to me that people answered the question asked rather than being motivated by confusion or the desire to give two fingers to the government.


----------



## Teatime (6 Oct 2013)

Sunny said:


> I voted to abolish the Seanad but I respect the decision reached by the majority of people who were bothered to vote.


 
I votes Yes and I don't respect the majority decision at all! I think the SIE got it very wrong and the Enda made a balls of it. There will be no substantive reform to either house now.

I also think that they have given FF some legitimacy again which sickens me.


----------



## Evander73 (6 Oct 2013)

so-crates said:


> Leaving aside the slur on the nay-sayers (Evander73, acknowledging that perhaps some may have thought about it and decided to vote no is does not change the fact that the premise of the thread is that people have decided no and it must be due to foolishness), this mythical 1% has been bugging me. The numbers don't add up. the important number to identify and quantify the elite (rather than the pro-active) is the number of people entitled to a vote, not the number who do.
> Given that more than 30% of the population have a degree of some description. And at a rough guess perhaps half through NUI or TCD - but for arguments sake say 1/3. That rough underestimate gives a potential electorate for the 6 college seats at about 10% of the population.
> You have the various people  (ahem politicians) on the various vocational panels but as that does not comprise tens of thousands of individuals it is not going to have a substantive impact on the potential electorate.
> Still nowhere near a universal suffrage but certainly not the 1% quoted widely.
> ...



The premise of the thread is not that the No vote was due to foolishness, as I said, IMO a sizable portion of the electorate, as you acknowledge above, vote to give the two fingers to the government.  Your logic seems reasonable in narrowing down the level of "don't know, so vote no's", but it doesn't follow that just because the question was not so complex as an EU treaty that the level of people wanting to screw the government should be less.  

Even if we take this logic to be true, and you suggest the 'screw the government' nay sayers were a minority cohort this time, this grouping could have been decisive, considering the referendum was only won by a relatively small percentage.  I think it is commonly accepted that any unpopular sitting government finds it hard to win the peoples votes, particularly one on the cusp of bring in yet another austerity budget.

So when looked at statistically, 48% of the electorate, who even felt the issue relevant enough to vote on, voted against the Seanad's continued existence, with this slim margin possibly down to the anti government voters - hardly a ringing endorsement of this institution.


----------



## Time (6 Oct 2013)

I think this vote seeks to send a message to Enda and our German overlords that we will not be dictated to.


----------



## so-crates (6 Oct 2013)

Evander73 said:


> The premise of the thread is not that the No vote was due to foolishness, as I said, IMO a sizable portion of the electorate, as you acknowledge above, vote to give the two fingers to the government.


 
Actually I did not state the a "sizeable" portion of the electorate ... swear-vote. In fact I would would be strongly of the opinion that that is usually a very small proportion, considerably smaller than the Don't Know. Perhaps I am more positive but based on any conversations I have had prior to this vote and others, it is rare the person who counts screw the government as a reason.



Evander73 said:


> Your logic seems reasonable in narrowing down the level of "don't know, so vote no's", but it doesn't follow that just because the question was not so complex as an EU treaty that the level of people wanting to screw the government should be less.


 
We will have to disagree on this one I think. The more a person understands a question, the more likely they are to answer the question put instead of responding with the voting equivalent of lashing out instinctively. A question which is difficult to understand is more likely to cause voter disengagement, voter discomfort and, if they vote, in a voting FU.



Evander73 said:


> Even if we take this logic to be true, and you suggest the 'screw the government' nay sayers were a minority cohort this time, this grouping could have been decisive, considering the referendum was only won by a relatively small percentage. I think it is commonly accepted that any unpopular sitting government finds it hard to win the peoples votes, particularly one on the cusp of bring in yet another austerity budget.
> 
> So when looked at statistically, 48% of the electorate, who even felt the issue relevant enough to vote on, voted against the Seanad's continued existence, with this slim margin possibly down to the anti government voters - hardly a ringing endorsement of this institution.


 
The margin is narrow, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of either a yes or a no, but until we have to start voting the way we were told to write English essays (i.e. back up your answer) we are only speculating on motive. Railing against a result we don't like by resorting to the schoolyard tactic and saying the winning side is stupid is not exactly grown up.


----------



## DerKaiser (7 Oct 2013)

I'm quite proud that we voted no. This was a cynical populist stunt from the start and people largely saw through it. I'm sure some of the no vote was a protest, no more than much of the yes vote came from people who blindly believe the government will always act in the best interests of the people. In between, you would have have people with philosophical views on whether any role exists for an upper house.

The 'yes' side seemed to focus on cost savings and the elitist nature of the Seanad election process. I heard little in the way of debate from them on why, even if these issues were addressed, the upper house could still serve no function. 

In my innocence I do believe it to be an additional 'control' against the railroading through of inappropriate legislation by government and indeed against 'group think'. The massive government majority in the current dail highlights that situations can arise where power can end up concentrated in the hands of a small number who do not need to respect dissenting opinions.

I have to absolutely disagree with evander. We are all entitled to express our opinions, even on the dubiousness of the sophistication of others' opinions. For me, however, I don't believe the rationale behind the aggregate 'no' vote is less valid than the aggregate 'yes' vote.


----------



## Lex Foutish (7 Oct 2013)

S.L.F said:


> *cough
> 
> U.C.D. graduates get to vote...


 
Hoi! U.C.C. graduates can vote too, boy!!!


----------



## Lex Foutish (7 Oct 2013)

DerKaiser said:


> I'm quite proud that we voted no. This was a cynical populist stunt from the start and people largely saw through it. I'm sure some of the no vote was a protest, no more than much of the yes vote came from people who blindly believe the government will always act in the best interests of the people. In between, you would have have people with philosophical views on whether any role exists for an upper house.
> 
> The 'yes' side seemed to focus on cost savings and the elitist nature of the Seanad election process. I heard little in the way of debate from them on why, even if these issues were addressed, the upper house could still serve no function.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent post, DerKaiser!


----------



## S.L.F (7 Oct 2013)

Lex Foutish said:


> Hoi! U.C.C. graduates can vote too, boy!!!



I am so pleased that we live in an inclusive society where our less fortunate students are given these responsibilities.


----------



## The_Banker (7 Oct 2013)

If people wanted to vote against the government by retaining the Seanad "just to show the government who's the boss" then surely they would also have voted against the second amendment with regard to another layer of Irish courts??? 

I don't think that argument stands up.

I voted no/no and my reasons were extremely sophisticated indeed.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

S.L.F said:


> *cough
> 
> U.C.D. graduates get to vote...



3 seats for Trinity, 3 for all of the National University of Ireland (UCD, UCC, UCG etc). In 1937 that meant 3 for the protestant minor, 3 for everyone else. Now it just means more inequality in an already elitist and undemocratic institution.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

I don’t believe that those who voted no were, as a group, less sophisticated than those who voted yes. I think the level of political discourse in this country is of a very low standard. That includes the print media and, more particularly, the National broadcaster. TV3 are so bad they don’t count for the purposes of a discussion about the standard of current affairs broadcasting. I believe we have an unsophisticated electorate but that it is not confined to any particular party or position. Many of the politicians I respect most are in the Labour party but I have never voted for them as I disagree with their politics. The point is that they are in office/ the Dail because the people of Ireland, sophisticated and otherwise, elected them.

How many members of the Seanad would be elected if there was a universal franchise? If the answer is not “all of them” then the structure is an insult to the democratic rights of the people of Ireland.
Whether it exists of not is of no practical relevance to 99.9% of us as it does nothing and serves no real purpose but it’s existence symbolises a rotten past in which we tugged the forelock and knew our place. 

Therefore I do not understand why people want to retain the Seanad in its current form. It is elitist and represents everything a republic isn’t.
I do not understand why people want a reformed Seanad which would be a copy of the Dail and could easily produce a legislative stalemate.

Countries with a second house (“Upper House” if it’s filled with Lords) are either federal or feudal in nature. We are neither. Why is it there?


----------



## DerKaiser (7 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> Countries with a second house (“Upper House” if it’s filled with Lords) are either federal or feudal in nature. We are neither.


We are quite parochial though, and it tends to result in a lack of specialist expertise in the Dail. I see the Seanad as supplementing the Dail in this way, maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to have seen Enda address this point before abolishing the Seanad.


----------



## blueband (7 Oct 2013)

strange how enda never said anything about getting rid of the seanad during all his years in opposition, but as soon as he takes power it suddenly seems like a good idea!    makes you wonder..


----------



## dereko1969 (7 Oct 2013)

DerKaiser said:


> I'm quite proud that we voted no. This was a cynical populist stunt from the start and people largely saw through it. I'm sure some of the no vote was a protest, no more than much of the yes vote came from people who blindly believe the government will always act in the best interests of the people. In between, you would have have people with philosophical views on whether any role exists for an upper house.
> 
> The 'yes' side seemed to focus on cost savings and the elitist nature of the Seanad election process. I heard little in the way of debate from them on why, even if these issues were addressed, the upper house could still serve no function.
> 
> ...


 
In your case innocence equals ignorance of the role of the Seanad, the Dáil can ignore the Seanad if it wishes, hate to break it to you but the Government also enjoys a majority in the Seanad.



The_Banker said:


> If people wanted to vote against the government by retaining the Seanad "just to show the government who's the boss" then surely they would also have voted against the second amendment with regard to another layer of Irish courts???
> 
> I don't think that argument stands up.
> 
> *I voted no/no and my reasons were extremely sophisticated indeed*.


 
Care to share your sophisticated world-view?


----------



## so-crates (7 Oct 2013)

> strange how enda never said anything about getting rid of the seanad  during all his years in opposition, but as soon as he takes power it  suddenly seems like a good idea!    makes you wonder..


The presence or absence of the Seanad as it is currently constituted  would have little material impact on whomever is Taoiseach. And given  that the Taoiseach has the exclusive constitutional right to appoint 11  members of the Seanad I doubt being in government is an incentive to get  rid of the Seanad.

Two things I think are probably more of  relevance to Enda's stance, firstly it was a stated policy objective put  forward in the general election literature and secondly, the East-West  divide, the Seanad has an Eastern bias (driven partly by the higher  profile of university candidates as the only ones who are elected by a  voting public and the larger size of Trinity and UCD).

The more  important question now is how to answer the question of reform which now  hangs over us, what can be done within the constitution, what cannot. 

The basic potential reforms would be
1) Size (given almost half those voted felt we didn't need the Seanad, do we need 60 senators?)
2) Constitution and election (i.e. how the Seanad is formed)
3) Function (what it can do)
4) Conduct (how it goes about that)

Reducing  the number of representatives from 60 requires a constitutional change,  removing the Taoiseach's right to appoint 11 senators requires a  constitutional change. Size is probably not one we can tackle easily.

But there are things that can be changed,  extending the universities franchise to other third level institutions  is allowable under the seventh amendment (though I don't think you can  increase the number of seats from six). Changing the "panels" system.  This is the primary reason that the Seanad ends up as a home for failed  Dáil candidates, they are ostensibly elected for their expertise or  wisdom in a particular area - in truth it is no more than lip service  and is entirely tied up with the political parties and has minimal  public oversight. A Seanad where you have to renounce party membership  and perhaps be obliged to sit with your panel colleagues rather than  your (former) party colleagues would be one thing that I think can be  done to discourage the cosy cartel. The panels are the candidates to  choose from, is there a constitutional bar on the choice being by a  universal vote? I don't believe so, though the requirement it be a  postal vote would perhaps be a barrier. Using perhaps the European constituency boundaries an dividing the number of representatives per panel by those constituencies might be a possibility and would sufficiently distinguish it from the Dáil election.

In terms of function, that is probably the most difficult one in some respects. If the panels consisted of people who actually had relevant knowledge and understanding of their area the quality of contribution to debate may improve. Making better use of the Senators in terms of introduction of new bills, debating and testing them may flow on from that. Extending their remit is constrained by the constitution and as another poster has pointed out, who wants a US-style war of houses.

In terms of conduct, they sit two days a week, is that sufficient? What of their engagement with committees?

Can anyone think of anything  else?


----------



## Latrade (7 Oct 2013)

blueband said:


> strange how enda never said anything about getting rid of the seanad during all his years in opposition, but as soon as he takes power it suddenly seems like a good idea! makes you wonder..


 
Apart from page 8 of their [broken link removed] in 2011 before they were elected.


----------



## TarfHead (7 Oct 2013)

so-crates said:


> Can anyone think of anything else?


 
Remove the salary & pension.

I am thinking of one person who is, in effect, a professional politician, despite having never being elected to the Dáil. This is a young person (age less than 40) so the life experience they bring to the Seanad is, in general, little different to contemporaries in the Dáil. Ditto for professional experience.

IMHO, this person has no business being in the Seanad. Their position as a Senator allows them to draw down a salary and clock up pensionable service for being a professional politician. This is not what I believe the Seanad was created for.

Having said that, this person is a visible and energetic presence in Irish politics. They should do well in the Dáil, which is probably their intention.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

DerKaiser said:


> We are quite parochial though, and it tends to result in a lack of specialist expertise in the Dail. I see the Seanad as supplementing the Dail in this way, maybe I'm wrong. I'd like to have seen Enda address this point before abolishing the Seanad.



The Seanad is a talking shop which produces not much more than bombast and bluster. 
I think electoral reform of how the Dail is elected would serve us better than a sticking-plaster type elitist second house. This was also an item in the FG manifesto before the last election but was ignored in favour of the softer option of abolishing just the Seanad. There was talk of partial list systems etc but they stuck with our multi-seat constituencies with the single transferrable vote. That is the root cause of our parish-pump political focus. We have a great method for electing local councillors but we use it to elect our Parliament. 
If all politics is local then none of it is national.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

TarfHead said:


> Remove the salary & pension.



Make it even more elitist so that only "gentlemen of independent means" would be able to ramble up to the city for a few days a week to make sure the great unwashed weren't wrecking the place?


----------



## so-crates (7 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> Make it even more elitist so that only "gentlemen of independent means" would be able to ramble up to the city for a few days a week to make sure the great unwashed weren't wrecking the place?



+1 
Removing recompense will not make it more egalitarian and will worsen the East-West divide.


----------



## TarfHead (7 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> Make it even more elitist so that only "gentlemen of independent means" would be able to ramble up to the city for a few days a week to make sure the great unwashed weren't wrecking the place?


 
Maybe, maybe not.

Removing the salary could remove some of the current set, those who look to politics as their livelihood. Without the income, it would be possible for those who have a career to take secondment (e.g. college lecturers, trade union officials, retired business persons). Having independent means could be one aspect of the job, getting elected would always be required.


----------



## orka (7 Oct 2013)

More important than why we have two houses, why are there two ongoing threads debating the exact same thing?


----------



## orka (7 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> Make it even more elitist


Why is elite a dirty word? I would be quite happy if our country was run by clever, well-educated, experienced politicans rather than some of the parochial gombeens we have at the moment. Democracy is great but when you look at the quality of some of what's elected, you do have to wonder about our election/voting system. 





Purple said:


> How many members of the Seanad would be elected if there was a universal franchise? If the answer is not “all of them” then the structure is an insult to the democratic rights of the people of Ireland.


There are many high-quality candidates who may not have doorstep appeal but who are/would be better politicians than popular 'I'll fix yer pothole for you' candidates. Not every aspiring politician can stomach the rubber-chicken circuit and local hoop-jumping involved in getting elected as a TD which is a loss to the country. If some of the best candidates get appointed as senators (or voted in by the colleges), I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

There are 60 members of Seanad Eíreann.
11 are appointed by the Taoiseach.
43 are elected from the Vocational Panels by TD’s, sitting Senators and local councillors (about 1000 people in total). The vocational panels can only nominate, not elect. In practice these are the failed and aspiring TD’s and just about all of them are active members of political parties. 
That’s 1000 people electing or appointing 90% of the Seanad. 
Is anyone really going to say that is democratic?

6 are elected by graduated of Irish universities; 3 from Trinity and 3 from the National University of Ireland (UCD, UCC, NUI Galway, Maynooth, RCSI, NCAD, Milltown Institute, Shannon College of Hotel Management and the Institute of Public Administration). These are the only 6 members that are really elected. So 10% of the Seanad is elected by graduates of some universities but not others (for example UL graduates don’t have a vote but graduates of Shannon College of Hotel Management do).  I’m not sure if Graduates of Botlon Street get a vote since their degree is issued by Trinity. I’m also not sure if graduates of RCSI Bahrain get a vote as their degree is issues by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.   
The National University of Ireland was created in 1918 and used to elect MP for Westminster.  Basically the electoral system didn’t change at all from what was in place pre-independence. They used to elect members to the Dail but that was changed in 1937 with the new constitution and they then send their elected representatives to the Seanad.
Is anyone really going to say that is democratic?


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

orka said:


> Why is elite a dirty word? I would be quite happy if our country was run by clever, well-educated, experienced politicans rather than some of the parochial gombeens we have at the moment. Democracy is great but when you look at the quality of some of what's elected, you do have to wonder about our election/voting system. There are many high-quality candidates who may not have doorstep appeal but who are/would be better politicians than popular 'I'll fix yer pothole for you' candidates. Not every aspiring politician can stomach the rubber-chicken circuit and local hoop-jumping involved in getting elected as a TD which is a loss to the country. If some of the best candidates get appointed as senators (or voted in by the colleges), I don't have a problem with that.



Was it Parnell that said if you had a legislature full of red haired men from Leitrim they would legislate for red haired men from Leitrim?
There's a reason we have a universal franchise for electing the Dail.
I'm not in favour of a latter day Praetorian Guard deciding how the country is run (though that's a good description of what Social Partnership was).


----------



## Sunny (7 Oct 2013)

I don't think anyone is claiming the current Seanad is democratic. Even the sitting senators aren't. The Seanad in its current guise is irrevelant. But so is the concept of Junior Ministers. So is the concept of 'committees'. I could probably count on one hand, the number of committees I have heard come up with something useful. The whole political system including the use of the whip needs to be looked at. Simply saying that abolishing the Seanad isn't going to solve that. Having said that, I don't see how it can be reformed and that's why I voted for it go. If Enda asked me would I get rid of lots if things in the Dail, I would have said the same.


----------



## Evander73 (7 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> The Seanad is a talking shop which produces not much more than bombast and bluster.
> I think electoral reform of how the Dail is elected would serve us better than a sticking-plaster type elitist second house. This was also an item in the FG manifesto before the last election but was ignored in favour of the softer option of abolishing just the Seanad. There was talk of partial list systems etc but they stuck with our multi-seat constituencies with the single transferrable vote. That is the root cause of our parish-pump political focus. We have a great method for electing local councillors but we use it to elect our Parliament.
> If all politics is local then none of it is national.



Spot on, Purple, re the glaring inadequacy of our electoral system to the Dail. This is at the heart of what's wrong with politics in Ireland.  The Government runs the county in the general national interest, and the remainder of the backbenchers concern themselves with local issues, which in fairness to them in the current system they have to, if they are to have any hope of getting re-elected.  

If 100 experts proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it would be in the best interest for everyone to close some local facility, and one gombeen got up to say, "no way will you close our local facility", you could bet you last euro that our local hero would top the polls at the next election. There has to be something wrong with a system that can produce such a result, but then again if our average voter was sophisticated enough, he wouldn't vote for the local gombeen!! You reap what you sow.


----------



## Purple (7 Oct 2013)

I'm not sure the government even does that. Ministers are selected as much based on whether they can boost the party in their constituency as on their ability or suitability for the post. This is particularly the case in the more junior roles.


----------



## T McGibney (7 Oct 2013)

> Michael Lowry, Mick Wallace, The Healy Rea and Flynn dynasties are all a product of the SIE


OP
Rather unfortunate that you include the Healy Raes (who have never been implicated in any way in a tax or financial scandal) in the above list of shame.


----------



## dam099 (8 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> There are 60 members of Seanad Eíreann.
> 11 are appointed by the Taoiseach.
> 43 are elected from the Vocational Panels by TD’s, sitting Senators and local councillors (about 1000 people in total). The vocational panels can only nominate, not elect. In practice these are the failed and aspiring TD’s and just about all of them are active members of political parties.
> That’s 1000 people electing or appointing 90% of the Seanad.
> Is anyone really going to say that is democratic?



I believe the Seanad is flawed and I voted yes to abolishing it but it's not quite as un-democratic as you suggest, most of those 1000 people are elected by the electorate in the local or general elections. The university panels are my biggest annoyance.


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2013)

dam099 said:


> I believe the Seanad is flawed and I voted yes to abolishing it but it's not quite as un-democratic as you suggest, most of those 1000 people are elected by the electorate in the local or general elections. The university panels are my biggest annoyance.



Those 1000 people are not some US style electoral college. They are politicians elected to perform a job at a local and, supposedly, a national level.
I don’t think anyone chooses who to vote for based on how they will then vote in the Seanad elections. If they did they are foolish as every one of them votes along party lines, following the instructions of their party. In effect the party leaders appoint members of the Seanad in proportion to their party’s size. The notion that there are 1000 people freely casting their vote in accordance with what they believe is in the best interest of the people of Ireland is nonsense.


----------



## Time (8 Oct 2013)

The voting is done in secret even for these seanad elections.


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2013)

Time said:


> The voting is done in secret even for these seanad elections.



Yea, that's why the composition of the Seanad members reflect the voting blocks of the political parties. 
As if the voting system wasn't undemocratic enough the selection panels are completely undemocratic.


----------



## Evander73 (8 Oct 2013)

so-crates said:


> Actually I did not state the a "sizeable" portion of the electorate ... swear-vote. In fact I would would be strongly of the opinion that that is usually a very small proportion, considerably smaller than the Don't Know. Perhaps I am more positive but based on any conversations I have had prior to this vote and others, it is rare the person who counts screw the government as a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Maybe I don’t hang around with as positive, fair-minded and politically engaging people as you do, but unfortunately it is my experience that a significant proportion of the Irish electorate are swayed by a whole myriad of unrelated issues when it comes to voting on referenda.  In this particular referendum on the Seanad, it is exactly the fact that people think the Seanad is irrelevant that allowed them to use their vote to kick the government.  If it had been a referendum on a moral issue e.g. abortion, people are far more likely to vote on the ‘actual’ issue.  

 To suggest that the small difference in the outcome of the referendum could not have been swayed by these anti government sentiment votes just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, as a look at the voting pattern shows a direct correlation between areas where there has been a loss of government support (particularly labour voters), and the percentage of no votes, in the referendum.   Leinster, and more decisively Dublin (due to the weight of numbers) voted no, whereas the biggest yes vote just happened to be in the Taoiseach’s County – party political politics in action, on a non party political issue. 

Misrepresenting what someone says is “not exactly grown up” either – I never said those who voted No were ‘stupid’.  I said the Irish electorate is generally unsophisticated, which is not a euphemism for stupid.  Some of my peers, who I freely acknowledge are intellectually superior to me, voted no, on the basis of several unrelated issues – that doesn’t make them stupid, but it does call into question their motivation for voting no.  You seem to be operating on the naïve assumption that the vast vast majority of people who voted no, did so on the basis of some deep thinking ideology – I would content it’s far more visceral than that.


----------



## Evander73 (8 Oct 2013)

T McGibney said:


> OP
> Rather unfortunate that you include the Healy Raes (who have never been implicated in any way in a tax or financial scandal) in the above list of shame.


 
For the sake of clarification, I wasn't inferring the Healy Raes are in any way corrupt.  I included them in the list to illustrate the parochial nature of Irish politics.  The Healy Rae's and the people who elect them are concerned with what happens in Kerry and not the national interest. 

I don't know what the people of Wexford were thinking when they voted in a tax dodging bankrupt developer top of the poll - after all that has happened, it's just mind boggling what some of the unsophisticated Irish electorate will vote for.


----------



## Time (8 Oct 2013)

It is the gombeen nature of Irish politics outside the pale.

You could elect a murderer if you pinned a FF badge on it.


----------



## Deiseblue (8 Oct 2013)

Time said:


> It is the gombeen nature of Irish politics outside the pale.
> 
> You could elect a murderer if you pinned a FF badge on it.



Ah Jayz , let's not exempt the " Pale " from gombeenism.

After all Bertie Ahern , Rambo Burke & the late Liam Lawlor would be mortally offended at being omitted from that list


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2013)

Time said:


> It is the gombeen nature of Irish politics outside the pale.
> 
> You could elect a murderer if you pinned a FF badge on it.



I don't think that's fair; Bertie Ahearn was elected and re-elected in North Dublin. Shane Ross was elected in South Dublin and, despite showing himself to be a total opportunist and populist he will be re-elected next time.

When parties can swing from over 20% support to 6% support, as has happened with Labour, it shows that sound-bites and wishful thinking garners votes and reality and hard facts lose votes. There's no way Labour deserve to have lost so much support as their ministers have done quite well (with the notable exception of Brendan Howlan).


----------



## MrMan (8 Oct 2013)

Evander, I'm sure that there was plenty of No votes put forward to stick it to Enda, but there would have been plenty of yes votes given just to support him and FG. The only thing that we do know for sure is that Ireland has voted No through the democratic process, everything else is redundant.


----------



## T McGibney (8 Oct 2013)

Evander73 said:


> The Healy Rae's and the people who elect them are concerned with what happens in Kerry and not the national interest.



Oddly enough, Michael Healy Rae is regularly on radio talking about national & general societal issues. The same can't be said of the majority of party backbenchers, urban and rural.


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2013)

T McGibney said:


> Oddly enough, Michael Healy Rae is regularly on radio talking about national & general societal issues. The same can't be said of the majority of party backbenchers, urban and rural.



I agree. Despite the local rhetoric he comes out with he does hold very detailed views on national issues and is very well able to articulate them.


----------



## ontour (8 Oct 2013)

Personally i see a place in politics for the likes of Fergal Quinn, Prof. Crown, Ivana Bacik etc. who can debate issues and propose bills/ legislation.  The Seanad has the opportunity to represent a range of views that are not based on the individual's ability to sort out a planning application, a student grant, a medical card or a local dispute.

It has the ability to represent groups of society that will never be represented by local geographic based constituencies.  

The reasons that people voted Yes or No do not fit well in to media soundbites as many in the Yes camp represent fundamentally opposing political views, the same being true for the No side.  Some people voted Yes to give politicians a kicking, others voted No to give the government a kicking.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Oct 2013)

Evander73 said:


> You seem to be operating on the naïve assumption that the vast vast majority of people who voted no, did so on the basis of some deep thinking ideology – I would content it’s far more visceral than that.


You're only looking at one side of the equation. Did those voting 'yes' all do so on ideological grounds? 

I could make an educated guess and emphatically state that those voting yes were largely swayed by cost savings, a disdain for the fact they don't actually have a vote and cynicism towards politics in general as opposed to an ideological belief that an upper house has no role in a democracy such as ours. I could complain that such reasons were not a valid way of deciding on what way to vote.

I don't believe that I have any business in telling people how they should think though. I certainly don't believe in labelling them in a condescending way.


----------



## Purple (9 Oct 2013)

ontour said:


> Personally i see a place in politics for the likes of Fergal Quinn, Prof. Crown, Ivana Bacik etc. who can debate issues and propose bills/ legislation.



I agree. We should therefore reform the way we elect TD's so that such people have a chance of being members of the Dail. The solution is not to have then in an upper house with no democratic mandate from the people.


----------



## TarfHead (9 Oct 2013)

Listening to some podcasts of post-referendum analysis, one suggestion appealed to me.

Before an election, candidates should declare for either the Dáil or the Seanad. Unelected Dáil candidates could not then be a candidate for election to the Seanad. It could address the creche / retirement home criticism.


----------



## Time (9 Oct 2013)

But it would not stop the Taoiseach of the day from appointing failed Dáil candidates as part of his 11 appointees.


----------



## DB74 (9 Oct 2013)

Time said:


> But it would not stop the Taoiseach of the day from appointing failed Dáil candidates as part of his 11 appointees.



Well obviously you can ban that as well. If you run for Dail then you cannot be appointed to the Seanad, either by running or by direct appointment.


----------



## Evander73 (9 Oct 2013)

DerKaiser said:


> You're only looking at one side of the equation. Did those voting 'yes' all do so on ideological grounds?
> 
> I could make an educated guess and emphatically state that those voting yes were largely swayed by cost savings, a disdain for the fact they don't actually have a vote and cynicism towards politics in general as opposed to an ideological belief that an upper house has no role in a democracy such as ours. I could complain that such reasons were not a valid way of deciding on what way to vote.
> 
> I don't believe that I have any business in telling people how they should think though. I certainly don't believe in labelling them in a condescending way.



I accept the validity of your arguments to a certain extent.
I'm not sure how  expressing an opinion has been interpreted as telling people how they should think. I can see how my labelling of the Irish electorate as generally unsophisticated could be seen as condescending, and apologise if I've offended any individual. However it's one of the most benign terms I can think of to describe the mindset of the electorate who vote for the likes of Lowry, Flynn & Wallace, et al, or who are purely motivated by the desire to give the government of the day a bloody nose regardless of the issue concerned. I believe a bit of counterbalance to the patronising spin by certain quarters is no harm at all. Here's hoping I'm proved wrong,  and that the Seanad will/can be reformed into a meaningful relevant institution, however I live more in hope than expectation on this matter!


----------



## ontour (12 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> I agree. We should therefore reform the way we elect TD's so that such people have a chance of being members of the Dail. The solution is not to have then in an upper house with no democratic mandate from the people.



The Dail is based on local constituencies, party politics and a single transferable vote.  There is very little chance that this structure would ever evolve to supporting a useful contribution from an independent mind.  George Lee, Peter Matthews and their like might have found a more useful input in a second house that is not based on party politics.

I think democracy is over-rated, look at the collection of skilled individuals it gives us in the Dail.  I like the structure of the university Seanad votes but not that the grouping is certain universities.  The Seanad should be elected by the public based on a national list system for a range of categories that could include agriculture, arts & entertainment, business, youth, education, minority groups etc.


----------



## so-crates (13 Oct 2013)

Evander73 said:


> I'm not sure how  expressing an opinion has been interpreted as telling people how they should think.


Because you express disdain for them and the choice they made instead of disagreeing with the result. It was an opinion about the voters rather than the vote.


Evander73 said:


> I believe a bit of counterbalance to the patronising spin by certain quarters is no harm at all.


(Am tempted to point out the tone of your original post  )



Evander73 said:


> Here's hoping I'm proved wrong,  and that the Seanad will/can be reformed into a meaningful relevant institution, however I live more in hope than expectation on this matter!


It can be reformed, how much within the bounds of the current constitution we will see over the next year. A small start has been indicated by the Taoiseach, hopefully there will be more to follow. Crossing my fingers too.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2013)

ontour said:


> like the structure of the university Seanad votes



Are you a graduate?
Many white people in South Africa like apartheid. Some even said it was democratic. It was more democratic than how we elect our Seanad so they did have a point.


----------



## ontour (13 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> Are you a graduate?


I have graduated..many times!

My point was promoting the retention of a university panel, it was promoting the structure of vested interest panels.


----------



## Purple (14 Oct 2013)

ontour said:


> I have graduated..many times!
> 
> My point was promoting the retention of a university panel, it was promoting the structure of vested interest panels.



A university panel is a vested interest panel. It represents the interests of a group whose interests are vested in those universities. Any other system than a universal franchise will be a system based on vested interests.


----------



## ontour (14 Oct 2013)

Purple said:


> A university panel is a vested interest panel. It represents the interests of a group whose interests are vested in those universities. Any other system than universal a franchise will be a system based on vested interests.



And I support people who have a vested interest in our society having that perspective represented.  Thousands of people give of their time freely to charities, the perspective of charities should be represented in the Seanad, the same is true for sports.  Education should be represented but not as a the current panel, it should include teachers, researchers, adult literacy, people on boards of management of the primary school.


----------



## Purple (14 Oct 2013)

ontour said:


> And I support people who have a vested interest in our society having that perspective represented.  Thousands of people give of their time freely to charities, the perspective of charities should be represented in the Seanad, the same is true for sports.  Education should be represented but not as a the current panel, it should include teachers, researchers, adult literacy, people on boards of management of the primary school.



All of the above do get a voice in a universal franchise, just like everyone else.
Why should anyone get more of a voice than anyone else in a democracy? 
“One person one vote” Anything else isn’t democracy.
Should only property owners get to vote in local elections since only they pay local property taxes?
Should only income tax payers get to vote in general elections?

Charities are funded by the public. The public should get to elect the people who channel state funding into charitable bodies.
As a rule the people act in their own interest therefore if educators get to decide how the education system is run it will be run for the benefit of those educators, not for the benefit of those being educated. The same applies to health services and any other sector/industry/business/service.


----------

