Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FOR OVER 90 YEARS Ireland has elected its TDs through its tried and trusted system of proportional representation – with multi-seat constituencies filled by giving each voter a single, transferable vote.
That could be about to change, however, with the Constitutional Convention asked to look into possible reforms of Ireland’s ‘PR-STV’ system.
At the first of two meetings on the topic last week, the convention agreed that electoral reform should not necessarily be limited to tinkering with the PR-STV system, but could include a more fundamental change in how TDs are elected.
They’ll meet again next month to look at some options in greater depth – but in advance of that, here’s a guide to the way each system would work, and a quick analysis of the pros and cons of each.
1. If it ain’t broke…
The PR-STV system has become a reliable – and almost beloved – trait of post-independence politics in Ireland, with the system used for elections at all levels throughout Irish democracy, from local councils right up to the Presidency.
Proponents of the current scheme argue that its results are broadly representative of the true motives of the electorate – a five-seat constituency may regularly return TDs from three or four parties, offering true variety for its electorate.
This argument gets a little thinner when the constituencies become smaller, however. A five-seat constituency allows for some variety but a three-seat constituency doesn’t give the same room for manoeuvre – and may regularly return one TD from each of three strong parties, or two from one and one for another.
It can therefore be almost impossible for a smaller party to gain a significant foothold in a constituency that elects a smaller number of TDs.
Among the possible tweaks that could be considered is therefore the idea of making current constituencies larger, allowing more than the current limit of five TDs per constituency (though the limit of five is set by the Oireachtas itself; the constitution allows up to seven).
This could mean larger constituencies, electing seven or eight TDs – enough to be broadly reflective of a multi-party system, and ensuring that members are not seen to be attached to a particularly small part of the country.
The alternative is to keep the PR-STV system but to make constituencies smaller - leaning towards single-seat constituencies like those in Westminster. This makes it nearly impossible for small parties to win, however – particularly if the PR-STV system is retained and allows voters to transfer preferences between larger parties.
At the ballot last weekend, 41 per cent of voters said electoral reform should only involve tweaks to PR-STV – so this may end up being the fruit of the convention’s endeavours.
However, 59 per cent said reform might be broader – opening up a whole palette of alternative options.
Northern Ireland offers a fairly unique picture of how this could work – as its Assembly constituencies each elect six MLAs, while its MPs in Westminster are from single-seat constituencies.
The Assembly is elected by PR-STV, just like the Dáil – and the difference between the profile of the Assembly and the Northern Irish MPs elected to London is a good illustration of the impact each system can have.
The 108 members in the current assembly include members from seven parties, plus an independent, while there are only four parties (and an independent) represented among the 18 MPs in Westminster.
The Westminster-style option – where each constituency is represented by one TD alone – is an option that could be adopted here (though one that was supported by only 3 per cent of the convention members last weekend).
That could mean that the whip system currently used in the Dáil would be a bit weaker – as kicking a TD out of party would mean that the party’s headquarters risk isolating the local branch. Whip systems in the US House and Australia, where similar systems are in place, are similarly weak.
As illustrated, though, it would mean there might only be a couple of parties represented in the Dáil at all – going on Ireland’s 2011 election, for example, Fine Gael and Labour would have topped the poll (and therefore been elected) in pretty much every constituency.
Fine Gael would therefore be in government alone, with Labour and a mere handful of Fianna Fáil and Independent TDs in opposition.
A sign outside a polling station in Italy shows the ‘party lists’ of candidates in the 2004 European elections.
One system used in many continental European countries, particularly Italy, is the ‘party list’ system – where people don’t vote for individual candidates at all, but rather vote for the party to which a candidate belongs.
29 per cent of the convention members said they would like to examine a “proportional list system” – keeping the single transferable vote but instead asking voters simply to rank parties in order of preference.
It is then the political party, and not the candidate, which holds a seat – with the party itself choosing who will take its seats in the parliament.
This has a couple of varieties:
The chances are that none of these systems would be rolled out on a national basis, where the entire country is treated as one constituency. Instead, there may be larger constituencies – similar, perhaps, to the ones used for European Parliament elections.
This would ensure that smaller parties with support concentrated in fixed areas would be able to gain some representation, by needing a smaller number of votes to take a seat.
The largest problem with these systems is that they tend to be very complicated and take a long time – not only to count the votes, but also to cast them. Imagine how long it may take you to vote if you have to choose not only your favourite parties, but your favourite TDs within each party.
This is the exact opposite to the PR-STV system we enjoy now, where voting is almost as simple as possible – where you simply rank the candidates in order of preference, using their party as merely one basis for your decision.
On the upside, however, it might mean that people are asked to think less about the candidate they might elect (whose status could be determined by, say, their record of community work) and more about the party and its policies.
Because TDs in the Dáil would therefore not officially represent their home areas, they could feel free to concentrate on national issues and leave local matters in the hands of the new county council structure.
The option preferred by the convention last weekend – with 69 per cent of members expressing an interest in it – was the ‘mixed’ system, which is basically a combination of the party list model and the direct constituency model we already have.
This typically involves setting aside a certain number of seats which are elected through the party list system, while the remainder are elected in the more traditional model of direct voting for a candidate.
For example, in a Dáil of 150 seats, 100 TDs might be elected in the traditional way while 50 more seats are filled by parties based on the support they get in a separate parallel election.
Again, there are a couple of varieties. The method mentioned above is the same as the one in Germany‘s Bundestag, where half of the seats are filled on a Westminster-style ‘first past the post’ system and half are filled through party list elections, administered separately within each of the 16 federal states.
In New Zealand, the system is tweaked a bit – and there isn’t actually an election held to fill the party seats. Instead, these are automatically awarded to parties so that their numbers in parliament reflect their share of the national vote.
There, 70 out of the parliament’s 120 seats are elected in a more traditional way, while the other 51 are set aside.
So if a party happens to win 20 per cent of the vote nationally but ends up only taking 10 seats (when its share of the vote perhaps should mean it got 14), it gets compensated by taking extra seats of the other 50.
At the end of the day, the party will have 20 per cent of the total seats (24 out of 120), made up of 10 directly-elected MPs and 14 drawn from a party list. (As it happens, this means that candidates who lose in the ‘traditional’ election often end up being appointed as MPs through the list system.)
This strikes a bit of a balance – by making sure that a party’s overall presence reflects the share of the votes it gets, whilst also making sure that local people are still able to point to a politician and say, ‘That person is my local representative.’
Which model do you think might work best for Ireland? Let us know in the comments.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
More useful would be a realistic way to eject the TDs that are there, something the population could use rather than the current situation where the government just brazens it out until the next election.
Wonder how they were put into power in the first place. Oh that’s right, the Irish public voted…
I agree in a certain way. I think that parties must be accountable for election promises with fines, and possible expulsions from parliament as penalties. This would have to be handled by a (possibly elected) third party of course, as allowing a howling mob to be in control would destroy the country’s ability for any kind of long term thinking.
You want another elected paid group to police promises made in elections? Do you understand the system of coalition? We would never get another govt other than one with an overall majority which is rare. Unworkable unrealistic suggestion.
Recalling elected representatives isn’t complicated, the yanks can do it for feck sake. Set a percentage of the electorate, say for example two quotas from the previous election, get that many signatures on a recall petition and have a recall election for that constituency.
Politicians should be elected on a National basis, just as the president was voted for.(it can be done) Candidates would then have to lay out National politics with national debate and not the parish pump nonsense we have suffered for years. If our TDs were elected by the “all the people” and they wanted to stay in power they would have to look after the Nations interests rather than getting the local potholes filled in and jobs organised for the neighbours cousins, uncles, brothers friend. It is time for a Minister for Health, Education etc who has all our interests at heart rather than his/her own re-election area. The system we have is not broken, it never worked.
You’d still have local canvassing, constituencies would still exist de facto as candidates would know how many votes they need. Local promises would continue.
We need national elections aimed at electing national politicians whose job would be to run the country. They should have no power over local issues which would be left to local government to run.
I like the idea of exploring alternative options to our current system – however, the idea of parties able to elect people themselves to “represent us” screams of cronyism.
The plan where you can vote for a party but also vote for the order of candidates does interests me however – anything that would move TDs from obsessing with local issues, is something we need to explore.
System changes will improve nothing however until we as a society change. Our representatives will do whatever it takes to get elected – and in Ireland, that means fixing potholes, calling the passport office etc.
This low level cronyism will attract a certain type of person.
Never voting again after the strokes the labor party pulled after the last election… Waste of time when they say a manifesto is only a passive document
If you don’t vote Linda then your opinion doesn’t matter. Your letting others make the decisions for you.
Then protest Linda…. apathy is exactly what these crooks are looking to foster among the electorate
The pr/stv system is not a bad system and much better than a first past the post system, had we used that system Brian lenihan not Mary Robinson would have been president. I’m interested in getting more information about the mixed system. Certainly a move away from 3/4 seat constituencies is a must. Local politicians such as councillors should be dealing with more local and personal issues rather than people having to go to a td to get things done, often things that if civil servants were more helpful we could deal with ourselves. Many great ideas and points were raised at the first convention on this and I would encourage people to watch it online particularly the next one on June 8/9. The convention is a great idea with the majority of people involved being ordinary citizens giving us a real say in shaping the future of irish politics. Some of the other points that came up at the last one were the education of children in politics beyond the junior cert and the lowering of the voting age to get them voting. The appointment of non dail members to cabinet. Doing away with by elections. Less td’s. roll of party whips, changes to the voting slip and much more
PR-STV is hands down the best system.
The reason its rare is because parties hate the system because it gives the electorate a lot of control. It is no wonder FF tried to get rid of STV twice through referenda in the past. Indeed STV was voted in in British Columbia by over 50% of the electorate, but, because they could, the parties were able to reject the overwhelming mandate to introduce it.
STV is also really really important in terms of avoiding extremist parties. The transferable vote acts in such a way that collectively, people also decide who NOT to vote for, rather than just who to vote for. Bar Ireland, all European PR systems are infused with extremist parties who often hold the balance of power. The cynic might think this is worthwhile, but overall it is very negative.
The STV system is also open to whomever wants to run. It is very rare to have independent candidates. In other systems representatives are constrained by their leaders and are incentivised to do whatever they can to get on the list. The closed list systems like that of Germany ensure that it is Merkel’s chums that get top billing. This is pure cronyism and in our country it would be a disaster.
There are plenty of other avenues to achieve real reform. Opening up opportunities through local government would be one. In the UK there are annual local government elections where people interested in their local communities and in politics generally get to cut their proverbial teeth. In Ireland, we only have local elections every 5 years, which, is frankly ridiculous by international standards. As such access to the political system is left to those that have long-standing ties to politics, usually through their family..
We’re still going to end up with clowns no matter what we do….
That’s the kind of attitude that will lead to a ff resurgence. If you don’t vote your opinion doesn’t matter.
This is a democracy. We will get what we vote for.
This is a democracy but sometimes you gotta vote twice.
A simple draw from the Electoral Register.
If your name comes up you can accept or reject a seat in parliament.
At least every five years the people have a say in who they want to represent them. The list system deprives them of that option. It’s undemocratic!!!
One of the big failings in our system is that TD’s spend a lot of their time dealing with local issues to get re-elected. This is not their job. A list system would fix this. And as you vote for the party it’s democratic. If you don’t like names on list don’t vote for them.
Our system has a party whip which is never broken. We need to force ourselves away from parish politics and realise that parties are the political entities in Ireland, not individuals.
Without the whip system nothing would get done. TD’s would be under constant pressure from interest groups and not take tough decisions as opponents could single them out.
The sheer volume of TD’s should be the starting point. The article states 120 in New Zealand , a country of similar size to here. With all the ancillary staff each TD necessitates this is where the focus should be rather than messing around with voting systems.
Do you suggest more or less?
Not everybody lives in cork or Dublin.people in rural towns need representation in government.
Why can’t we just elect based on ability? E.g. Representatives should apply to be a TD for a particular health ministry as they would any job, therefore need to have the correct skills & experience for the job too – this can be party or non-party relevant
Is there anything to be said for a little bit of dictatorship?
If you don’t make it in on the first count, then your not wanted. One way to get rid of a load of overpaid waste of space T.D’s.
I find the people who think that ”First Past The Post” is a good idea while also moaning about the current government funny.
If GE 2011 would’ve been fought as FPTP this is how the seats would currently be distributed:
Fine Gael: 114
Labour: 32
Independents: 11
Sinn Fein: 6
Fianna Fail: 3
An excellent video explaining the discrepancies with the PR system.
I don’t know whether the system is wrong or do we need changing.
The whip system, seems a rigid as it was when the Irish parliamentarians used it is Westminster to get home rule bills passed.
Another change that would make a difference would be bringing back minority governments. This would mean legislation not introduced by the government could be passed.
PR-STV as a system was supposed to allow for smaller parties and it has mild success in this
First past the post, muted by the convention but mentioned in the comments, favours bigger parties and wouldn’t change much albeit the bigger parties would simply get majorities rather than joining with smaller parties
As for list systems I have an feeling that a closed party list system exists already. Candidates are chosen by their respective parties and then put to the people. The list system would make this more transparent perhaps.
The party list system is the worse of all possible methods. It places loyalty to party above all else and suppresses healthy debate within parties.
The voter cannot cross the gender/party/sectarian divide if the electoral system is not preferential. We should therefore keep PR-STV, reforming it perhaps by having larger constituencies – all 5-seaters, or all 6-seaters – and perhaps by a regional or national top-up; that or we go for the even better preferential system, the Quota Borda System, QBS, which hapoens to be much easier to count. It’s all on http://www.deborda.org
For the record, the constitution does NOT set an upper limit of 7 TDs per constituency – nor any other upper limit.
have your say