NUI panel for the Seanad. Who's voting for who?

R

RoyRover

Guest
Got my voting card through today for the Senate elections.

The candidates election materials contained all the usual guff about "creating a fairer society", "being a voice for the voiceless", etc etc

There is an overview of the candidates' political leanings here:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99163

My own sense is that the Seanad shoud be shut ASAP, and TD numbers cut by half.

Are there any candidates arguing for the elimination of this outmoded elite institution? Or would that be like asking do turkeys vote for Christmas?

Anyway - curious as to which way AAM contributors are voting, and why...
 
I dont have a vote for the Seanad either and if I had I would spoil it as we were promised that that supernumery institution is to be abolished.

The quicker it goes, the sooner that we can start screaming about reduction in Dail seats and perhaps start saving some decent money for the state.
 
It's an absolute joke that, in 2011, a body that can, in theory at least, have a huge affect on legislation, is elected by a small percentage of the electorate.

Having said that, I find that there is high quality debate there, at times, and I always enjoy the Seanad coverage in RTE's Oireachtas Report.
 
I have a vote in the Seanad - in TCD constituency.

Seanad has been made meaningless by the way the non-university candidates are appointed - gives us a bunch of cronies. However, it has to be said that the university candidates are among the best parliamentarians we have and are a very diverse bunch. Being Independent and free from the constituency clinic et al. seems to be a good thing. We would be better having a Seanad full of university candidates than having no Seanad at all.

I would rather see a Seanad with more power, where people earn votes in various constituencies by meritocratic means. The university constituencies are meritocratic and all third level institutes should be included. However they only cover academic achievement. Meritocratic votes could be given to people from to all walks of life - there must be other ways in which people can earn votes in various 'constituencies' by doing something worthwhile and beneficial for society.
 
A few years ago I was conferred with an NUI qualification. At that time I received a pack (forms etc.) for registering to vote in the Seanad elections. I chose not to do so. There are (at least) two issues. First of all we may not really need a second house. Plenty of countries have just one assembly of parliamentarians and get on just fine (but see my comment below). Secondly, the Seanad is a deeply undemocratic institution. There would be more uproar over its existence and operation except for the fact that it is relatively powerless. I think any person who takes money from the public purse via their membership of this organisation has to have some of their ethical viewpoints questioned.

In addition, it is an almost invisible body. The only high-profile members I can think of are Eoghan Harris, Ivana Bacik, David Norris, and Shane Ross. (I would add Ronan Mullen to a second tier in terms of profile and occassional sightings in the news.)

The first four have made their contributions to society (whether you agree with their views or not) outside of the Seanad. I think it reflects badly on them that they were a part of this elitist group.

The only fair way to have a second house would be to have members elected based on a system of universal suffrage. There is room for a second body drawn from panels not associated with established political parties. If we had people like Morgan Kelly, John Crown, or Peter McVerry (for example) taking time to critique legislation that might be ok with me. But having some gobdaw who failed to convince his own constituency to elect him to Dail Eireann following the whip system does nobody any good.

Imperator
 
Some of the candidates in the TCD constituency seem to be making big mistakes re: their election literature. Most of the candidates are not well known people - most voters would only know a handful of the 18 (I think) candidates. To address this, all candidates are allowed send 1 letter by post, free of charge, to all voters.

A lot of the candidates use this effectively - sending out 4-6 page leaflets outlining their views on various issues, their background & experience etc. etc. - enough information to allow a voter to decide whether or not to vote for them. However, there are 4 or 5 candidates who just send soemthing with their photo and some obscure slogan or key words. Impossible to say who they are and what they stand for. How do these people expect to get elected if nobody knows anything about them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register