The mythical sophisticated Irish Electorate


Excellent post, DerKaiser!
 
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.
 
S.L.F said:
*cough

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

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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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..
 

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.


Care to share your sophisticated world-view?
 
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..
Click to expand...
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?
 
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..
Click to expand...

Apart from page 8 of their [broken link removed] in 2011 before they were elected.
 
so-crates said:
Can anyone think of anything else?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TarfHead said:
Remove the salary & pension.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
More important than why we have two houses, why are there two ongoing threads debating the exact same thing?
 
Purple said:
Make it even more elitist
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 

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).
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register