Gav Reilly

the thoughts of a journalist, web designer and musician, thinking out loud

E-Mail 'The Upper House really does rule' To A Friend

with 7 comments

Email a copy of 'The Upper House really does rule' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

Written by Gav

July 9th, 2010 at 11:05 pm

Posted in Politics

Tagged with , , , , , ,

7 Responses to 'The Upper House really does rule'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'The Upper House really does rule'. Comments are Gravatar enabled.

  1. There’s a different way to reform how the Seanad is elected.

    First, get rid of the idea that there’s any democracy behind allowing more graduates to elect senators. Adding DUI and Limerick to Trinity and the NUI doesn’t increase democratic input, it just expands the elite.

    Instead, we could go back to the future. In 1925, the Seanad was directly elected by all the people. But instead of each senator representing a constitency, there was a single nationwide constituency. So imagine a single constituency covering the 26 counties. And since emigration is starting up again, many emigrants should have a vote too. That electorate votes for all 60 senators. The count would take a while, but that’s hardly a logistical problem beyond our ability. We manage large counts for the European elections, after all, and watching the count is a popular political bloodsport in this country.

    Second, while you argue for Dáil and Seanad elections on the same day, I’d decouple them completely. Give the Seanad a fixed term, and elect our senators on the same day we choose our local and European representatives. Would people be so angry that the current FF/Green coalition clings to power in the face our public disapproval if they’d had the opportunity to elect a Seanad with opposing views, restoring balance to political debate here?

    Because senators don’t represent specific constituencies, but are elected in a national poll, decoupling reduces the importance of local politics in their decision-making, and ensures a greater chance of senators with a national outlook. Sure, Kerry voters might still club together and send in a Jackie Healy Rae, but it would also allow interest groups too dispersed to elect a politician from an existing constituency to elect voices to put forward their views.

    Gerard Cunningham

    10 Jul 10 at 12:19 pm

  2. Gerard – first of all, thanks for the comment.

    Perhaps I wasn’t quite articulate enough when I was talking about graduate reform – I absolutely agree that making the graduate panel to a national one is a piecemeal change but my point is that it’s one that’s easily enacted, doesn’t require any referendum to do so, and immediately enfranchises hundreds of thousands of young people who will instantly have their curiosity piqued as the role of the upper chamber. Ideally there wouldn’t be a graduate panel at all but to get the consensus together to bring a referendum would require an appetite that isn’t there in enough quantity at the moment. Graduate reform is an easy way to get something done and manufacture public interest and appetite for greater reform at the same time.

    I can see the merit in your argument about a fixed term and holding elections alongside the Seanad but I think this presents practical problems – not in terms of the mechanics of the count, which I agree could be managed, but in the sheer volume of candidates running. Personally I’d have problems envisaging a nationwide, single-constituency, 60-seat constituency in the first place: in 2007 there were 156 candidates for the 60 seats. Having a nationwide constituency with that number of candidates is simply impractical, and couldn’t be helped by a party list system given the significant number of independents who would be keen on running. Throwing it on top of the Local and European elections would – I feel, at least – simply confuse voters and overwhelm them with the sheer volume of people looking for their attention. The profile would be great, but the process could ultimately cause more harm than good.

    It might be no harm for perception of the Dáil – given that we all admit we demand too much of our TDs when our local councillors should be tasked with the bulk of their work – to make voters elect pure legislators at the same time.

    And I think that holding the two elections separately would only serve to encourage Dáil losers to run for the Seanad as a silver medal when there are more than enough people without Dáil aspirations – just look at David Norris, a pure legislator with no interest in the misplaced burden of constituency work – who’d like to have a go. Look at Ivor Callely – lost his Dáil seat in 2007, got to run for the Seanad, still lost, and then got a Taoiseach’s appointment! What kind of joke is that? The Seanad should be a prize in itself, not one that people want because they weren’t popular enough for the ‘bigger’ job.

    I do completely agree with the fact that a Senator’s decoupling from a geographical constituency needs to be exploited.

    Gav

    10 Jul 10 at 12:44 pm

  3. [...] posted as a reply to Gav Reilly's thoughts on Seanad reform</em>] Share and [...]

    200 Words » Archives » Creating a national interest

    10 Jul 10 at 12:51 pm

  4. First off, there’s no need for a referendum to make a start on a directly elected Seanad. County councillors choose who goes to the upper house because the Oireactas says so. The Oireachtas could change that to the entire country in the morning, through legislation. Likewise, we could expand the university panels in the morning. If we did both, we’re left with a sticky problem: graduates get two votes. but we could legislate to either give graduates a choice of a national or university vote, or just make the choice for them. That still leaves us with the problem of the almost-always guaranteed government majority, thanks to the taoiseach’s nominees, but it’s a start.

    The point is, there aren’t huge constitutional difficulties in making the Seanad more democratic. There are logistical problems, but we’re capable of handling them. And frankly, I have faith the the ability of the voters to decide who to vote for, so I don’t see that as an issue either. We trust them with something as incomprehensible as the Lisbon treaty, after all.

    And what harm if Dáil losers want a go at the Seanad? I’m sure there as many people out there who would vote for Norris as for Healy Rae. and if there aren’t, well, democracy is like that sometimes. You can’t use the fact that people might run for office as an argument against allowing them to run for office.

    Gerard Cunningham

    10 Jul 10 at 1:04 pm

  5. Apologies – I had understood that the Constitution outlined the manner in which the panels were elected, and not just outline the panels themselves. Having checked it out, I accept that we don’t necessarily need a referendum to introduce a public franchise, which I agree would be no harm.

    But I stand by my point that the Seanad suffers in most people’s eyes because they see it, and rightfully so, as being either a stepping stone for people preparing for a Dáil career or as a retirement home for those tired of the lower house. Why would a Dáil candidate want to run for the Seanad anyway? The Dáil is a chamber for people who want to be public reps at the highest level (whether rightfully or not). The Seanad is a chamber for people who just want to legislate. Someone who wants to be in the Dáil ought not to want a Seanad job – and if they do, they should pick which one they want to run for when the elections are held concurrently. I’m not saying that losers don’t deserve second chances but they should have to bide their time and wait for the next time around, like we do in any other setting. We shouldn’t have an entire house of parliament where the majority of the members see their job as a consolation prize – to have it in that way only serves to demoralise both the members themselves and the public they serve.

    Gav

    10 Jul 10 at 1:28 pm

  6. A directly elected Seanad would be a Seanad whose members have had to answer precisely that question: “Why do you want to run for the Seanad?” Maybe some feel they still have something to contribute although no longer in the Dáil. Maybe some want to represent specific interest groups. Maybe some just feel they have a voice that should be heard. Maybe some want to make sure a bog road is resurfaced in Donegal. It doesn’t matter what their reasons are, so long as the voters get to hear their reasons and choose. And when the voters choose, the Seanad’s status as a steeping stone/retirement home will change, because it will be a directly elected house, not the plaything of councillors and graduates. It’s only a consolation prize because that’s how its (limited) electorate treats it. Widen the voter base, and let the people choose.

    And again, there’s no reason why a former TD shouldn’t want a Seanad seat, any more than a senator shouldn’t run for a Dáil seat. And there’s no reason why we couldn’t legislate so that a candidate has to surrender existing seats before running. Any senator who wants a shot at the Dáil has to resign for the Seanad before being nominated, and vice versa. for that matter, we’d probably take MEPs more seriously if we imposed the same rule on them too.

    Gerard Cunningham

    10 Jul 10 at 2:10 pm

  7. I agree with pretty much everything you just said – so why not have the two houses elected together, thus stopping unsuccessful Dáil candidates from seeking a silver medal? I totally agree that a former TD could want a Seanad seat, or vice versa – anyone’s opinions or desires can change. But any system where the Seanad is elected after the Dáil is – as it is now, or as it would be if it was tied to the local and European elections – leaves the door open for a beaten Dáil candidate to use the Seanad as a stepping stone to the lower house. Put the two elections together, and get rid of that option.

    (Of course, if there was public franchise, this would be all entirely moot – but again, given that the Constitution merely demands a Seanad election to be held within 90 days of the Dáil being dissolved, I’m merely making the suggestion because it’s an easy one to enact, just like graduate reform. It’s a piecemeal change, but an easy one.)

    Gav

    10 Jul 10 at 2:20 pm

Leave a Reply