Irish Presidency Campaign

It is a waste of money to have a Presidential election is the message coming from the Irish political parties.

In fact the chances of the electorate actually being given a choice as to whom serves our country for the next 7 years are very slim indeed.

The Constitution requires 20 Oireachtas members or four County Councils to nominate a person to run for the Presidency.

The Irish political parties have decided they dont want an election so the people have no choice. Is this Democracy???

Eamonn Zaidan is a young eligible citizen you wishs to run for the presidency. His electoral Campaign is on www.eamonnzaidan.com

He wants to at least give the people of ireland a Presidential election that they deserve.

Humphrey.

I'm not sure I go along with this undemocratic line - isn't it just a case that no party particularly wants to nominate anyone when they'd more than likely just get slaughtered by Mary. She is a very popular President. It makes me wonder for Dana's sanity - the rest of the country knows she wouldn't stand a chance.
We don't need one (a Presidential election). It's not essential to our democracy really. She is not a policy maker. I see no harm in not wasting money on a foregone conclusion in this instance.

Re: Presidency

Surely the position,which is an elected post should therefore be filled via the electoral process, anything less is demeaning to our political process, regardless of the powers yielded by the president. Remember the president can in theory bring down the government.

Re: Presidency

It's not down to the public to decide whether or not there should be an election. As the original poster pointed out a potential candidate "requires 20 Oireachtas members or four County Councils to nominate". Therefore it's down to the parties to decide whether they want to nominate someone in the first place.
It's only an elected post if we actually have an election. If it's demeaning to our electoral process I'd suggest that it's been demeaning for quite some time.

justifying the cost

I've heard all the arguments about an election being a waste of time and money when a) we have a perfectly good president and b) none of the other contenders have a chance of winning.
But this is about a democratic process and allowing people to excercise the right to vote. So in my opinion it should be easier to be nominated and a cap on spending. This would stop those who can simply spend more sending out campaign literature and taking out media advertisements from winning. RTE is already obliged to allow each candidate equal time to make their case and we have a wealth of media coverage that is basically free. What this means is that those who are bothered to take an interest in the election can access the necessary information and those who aren't can just vote in the same way as they would anyway.
I found it disgusting the way that the government first in its timing of the announcement and then the opposition parties in explicitly banning their councillors from supporting any candidates attempted to deny a democratic right to the people of this country.
And for the record I would vote for Mary McAleese.

RE: Presidency

Yeah thanks for clarifying that Piggy , and having read the Presidential section of the constitution , it is outlined however Part 1 of the presidential constitution states

"The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people."

Surely this should be the very least that we as a democratic nation should aspire to. I think a constitution change should be made to stop the political parties from stopping the electoral process, by collusion and under handed agreements ...

Re: RE: Presidency

Yeah thanks for clarifying that Piggy

Oh I see, you just wanted to be smart and have a snipe at me.

If what you're saying is true then there is some unconstitutional behaviour going on. I don't think there is. But I haven't studied the constitution. I'm only going on what I'm being told is the constitutional requirement for this post, in the news etc.

I do however agree that perhaps a constitutional amendment might be a good idea to force an election no matter what. However, personally, I'd be happy if we didn't have to have one every seven years. How much does an election like this cost us? Bearing in mind that parties would have a vested interest in nominating someone if they thought they could win...ie, the current one was not up to scratch or not extremely popular. Otherwise, it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that a foregone conclusion is just a waste of our money.

Re: RE: Presidency

I think JSdoyle put it well in an article this morning. This is just a snippet.

"" It is also an issue of public money," said Mary Upton. "At this point in time to be indulging in an election - the outcome of which we know before we even start - doesn't seem right." To which the answer is: we'll be the judge of that, thanks. And who says the outcome of this presidential election (if there is one) is known before we even start? And what is so special about 'this point in time', that we should forgo an election to decide who is to hold the highest office for the next seven years? Are we too poor to have an election? Too rich? Too busy? Or do they think, as the popular phrase has it, that we couldn't be arsed to have an election? ""

Full Article:
www.unison.ie/irish_indep...e_id=11446

Re: Presidency

Sorry Piggy ... It may have come across as a snipe but was not intended to , I did overlook that section that you pointed out and it led me to reading the presidential section of the constitution ...

I just think it'll be better to elect a president , rather than just appoint one.

Re: Presidency

Sorry Piggy ... It may have come across as a snipe but was not intended to

No worries. Thanks. I must be a bit tetchy today or something

?

today?

Re: ?

While I like Mary Mc and would vote for her I do think that having an election is good for democracy and the fact that no opposition party is willing or able to field a candidate that would come within an asses roar of beating th incumbent is shameful and shows their motives to be cynical and selfish and a million miles away from the highly principled social democratic position that they claim to come from.

democracy

With the greatest respect to those who hold different views. What a load of b****x!
If any of the parties thought they had even the slimmest of chances of beating McAleese they'd be in there like flynn. You just know they would. They all know it's a one horse race...cos it is. Cos no one is gonna come within a mile of McAleese.
All this high moral talk about democracy is a joke. Do me a favour. This country has more important things to worry about. Far more important things. Let's see if we can get more than 10 people to vote in the next general election and see if we can't shift FF out of there. I (and most people) couldn't give two f*cks if we have an election on this or not. We're all gonna vote for McAleese anyway!!!!!!!!!!!! Or should we just waste millions of euros (or is it only thousands) on this charade?

Re: democracy

We're all gonna vote for McAleese anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

I'm not. And I'd have gladly voted for Michael D., warts & all. Or Ryan, pothead past & all.

I would have drawn the line at wee Dana, though..! Better a Fianna Fáil pressie than a loo-la...

Re: Democracy

In reply to: "Let's see if we can get more than 10 people to vote in the next general election "

That is the problem with this country, and instead of sitting back, I am at the very least trying to do something about it as I have stated.

The more complacent or couldn't be bothered to vote attitudes toward elections, the more we ourselves let democracy slip by.

I personally would like to see an election and not just for the sake of one, but we deserve one. At the very least, if it ended up between Dana and McAleese, at least we decide and not the politcal parties. I'm sure anybody here resented the fact when your parents told you to be back home at a certain time when you were out playing with your friends? A simple analogy yes, but since when did FF and FG become my parents?

Regards,

Eamonn

Re: Democracy

I'd like to pose a question here?
If we want to force an election every seven years (and I have no problem with anyone who wishes that) what do we do about nominations? Do we just let anyone who wants to run for it?
That could be funny...Mary vs Dana vs Dustin!

Do parties not have the right not to want to put forward a candidate or are we talking about each party being forced to do so?

democracy

We're not talking about parties having the right to put forward candidate or not. The presidential election isn't party political but its become so, the idea is that any citizen with sufficient support can be put forward. The way things have gone is that if the political parties don't want an election they can now stop it by refusing to support another candidate and by instructing their councillors to do the same. The reason councils were given the ability to nominate a candidate was to prevent the elections from becoming political elections.
A solution would be (as is the case for general and council elections) to allow whoever wants to run to do so provided they can show enough financial backing. I don't care that this would allow all sorts of people to run. In fact having them run and then seeing what kind of support would give a good picture of what kind of people we've become. A limit should be put on campaign financing at a low enough level so that those who can afford the most exposure aren't the ones who'll win. Using this process the winner will probably be the person who is viewed most favourably throughout the country and as such will actually be representative of the nation. If nutcases want to put themselves forward and then loose their deposit fair enough I've no objection to them making contributions to state coffers while at the same time limiting their future ability to promote their agenda.
As it is, if McAleese goes unopposed she doesn't even have to communicate to the people where she sees the presidency going or what her plans for the future are.
No election means that we don't think enough of the office and in that case we should just scrap it altogether.

Re: democracy

Walter,

You've made some really good points there. So good that you might actually be changing my viewpoint on it. I sound like purple now

eventual agreement

Well piggy historically on AAM you and I usually end up/start off at the same position. However unlike you I change names so as not to attract people ranting/trolling just because its you rather than actually reading what you've said.

Re: eventual agreement

Well piggy historically on AAM you and I usually end up/start off at the same position.

I gathered that from your recent postings alright.

However unlike you I change names so as not to attract people ranting/trolling just because its you rather than actually reading what you've said.

Yeah...that's a bit of a hazard alright!