This in my opinion is why the Seanad is being abolished ;

Reference of Bills to the People

Article 27

This Article applies to any Bill, other than a Bill expressed to be a Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution, which shall have been deemed, by virtue of Article 23 hereof, to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

1. A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.

This is what makes a whipped majority accountable to the Dail ! ; It is ultimately democratic !
VOTE NO ! The local elections will completely change the makeup of the next Seanad because the Partys have lost it for the Local elections !
That’s the way I see it
The above article is the ultimate safeguard !

I’m strongly no but I want to distance the No side from the Bill Tormeys of this world. Dr. Torment as he is called by those who try to reason with him.

In fairness there were lots of lads around ballymun and finglas who were off their trolleys back then so maybe he delivered on that..

I’m wondering how many IP addresses Reg “thumbs” from…

Dr. Bill could just as easily canvass for Yes vote if this was held in November, a lover of controversy and media attention.

whoops, I mean

We get to decide to allow the centralization of power to continue (abolish), or continue to spend 20 million from our yearly budget for pretty much no benefit(keep)

Vote No… as it stands the Seanad needs to be reformed… if we abolish it there is no chance of reform AND the power lies soley in the hands of the politicians with none holding them accountable! They would be able to pass whatever legislation they feel like! Also there is far less use of the political whip in the upper house, in the lower house if the back benchers don’t agree they will be kicked out.. so much for democracy… in other EU countries you are allowed to vote against your party if you disagree, here back benchers are cannon fodder!

The Senead as it stands is not working, but I would much rather reform and have it, then hand sole power to those politicians we all know and love so much!

Emily the Senate is made up of politicans too!! Ones who were not able to get into the Dail.

I’ve seen nothing to indicate that it would be reformed if we vote no, the same stale mess it is now will continue.

The whip is a GOOD system, look what you have without it in the US where the nationally elected leader can’t even get his own party to vote for his policy agenda, without the whip we’d have 166 Healy-Raes it would be a disaster.
They ALREADY pass whatever the feel like the Senate does not heavily ammend bills and it NEVER sends them back to the dail with totally new ideas.

I think many of you have this political science notion of what the senate does in theory which is totally divorced from how I’ve seen it work in practice up front and personal.

Have you noticed everyone says reform but nobody has any concrete reform suggestions?
Do you know how many constitutional reform proposals are sitting on the Taoiseachs office shelf with different senate reform plans, 9 and thats just from the last 20 years.

Stephen maybe you should do some actual research. You clearly have access to the internet. People only have themselves to blame for not informing themselves.

http://193.178.2.84/test/R/1928/en.toc.com.ORDERS_16051928_0.html

Look at that…12 reform plans and not ONE of them implemented.

Voting no will not = reform folks don’t fall for it you are being duped.

Every reform document published by senators has being held up by the Dail, so maybe we should get rid of the dail seeing as they are ones refusing reform

I totally agree with Emily, either abolish the whip system and the Seanad, or keep the Seanad and reform it, give it more teeth, allow it to hold politicians accountable in the lower house for wrong doing, and allow it to question legislation they do not agree with.

@Ryan, that’s a complete red herring and is the Government line you’re spouting. “Everyone says Reform but doesn’t have suggestions”, are you telling me that it would not be possible to improve the Seanad as it stands?

@Emily , I would have initially been in favour of retaining the Seanad as I thought it was good to have a watchdog for the Dail.
The more I have researched this the more disappointed I am in the Seanads poor performance.
I was surprised to learn that They have powers to refer Important bills to the people if supported by one third of the Dail and the President. Has anyone any recollection of this even being attempted?
Surely the sovereign Debt Issue would have been one of those let the people decide issues.
But the Seanad is populated by party stooges and Ex TD’s who are towing the same party line as the Dail TD’s. They will not reform by choice but they cant be made reform at all if its abolished.
As ususal we need to read the fine print, if the Seanad is abolished there are also articles in the constitution that will no longer exist like the right to have a Bill of national importance refered to the people.

Hey guys don’t just turn up your lip and vote no to my position…refute it, argue it, and if you find you can’t then maybe change your position.

It’s not been held up by the Dail, look at the records, the Senate was not eagerly passing constitutional ammendments and the big bold Dail rejecting them.

It’s simple politics 101, stop thinking with your idealistic poli-sci dreams and think how politics works in reality for a second how raw pragmatic politics works….referendum would be required for a reformed senate, and our system means the govt has to introduce referendums, and that is usually the same govt that has a geurenteed majority in said senate, whos loosers who failed to get into the Dail now have a well oiled staging post to make a second run for the Dail later, so why would such a govt party or parties want to get rid of the senate in most instances? It’s better for their partys success if they don’t.
So they don’t propose the bills cos it would screw Jimmy from CorkSouthEast (now a Senator) from his chance to have a staging post to try again to be the TD from CorkSouthEast.

That’s why, the second reason is all the reform plans contradict each other, some people want a stupid 30s style vocational system, some want a PR-List system, some what a half appointed house…

Regardless, as I argue in the other comments I’m not against the Senate on cost grounds or reform or not grounds I’m against it because it is fundamentally undemocratic and we don’t need a second chamber anyway.

If (and I cannot believe anyone is SERIOUSLY worried about this) you are worried about the govt passing too fast or progressive bills we don’t need a second chamber to stop that al we have to do is give the President wider veto powers and that’s taken care of.
I would personally suggest when we get rid of the senate we retain the provision that allows the President to put a bill to referendum, but allow them to do it after just consultation with the council of state not upon a petition by the Dail opposition.
There you have a great protector of democracy right there.

@Ryan , A very simple suggestion is we elect members to the Seanad at the same time as the Dail.
No Apointed members and everbody gets a vote,

PROVISIO: I know I type long posts sometimes but those of you I’m replying to please try to read um all since I’m having an honest debate with you, I don’t wanna see a TLDR lets me grown ups here.

@Keith giving it more teeth will just end in gridlock, no decent policy will get through.
reform it to what? HOW??? WILL PEOPLE PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT WITHOUT GIVING A SPECIFIC SUGGESTION!

Hold politicians accountable come on Keith you cannot possibly be that doughy-eye’d and nieve…why would politicians from the senate hold their own party colleagues to account in the lower house for wrong doing??? and how would that even work? What power do you want to give them? Give them power to fire TDs? They ALREADY have the power to question legislation they don’t agree with!!

1. They can send it back to the Dail up to 3 times with suggested AMMENDMENTS or outright REJECTING it.
2. They can team up with the Dail opposition and petition the President for a referendum.

They’ve never done either of those in our lifetimes.

…and as I said abolishing the whip gives you 166 Healey-Raes, every bill will EXPLODE in cost as we tag on roads and bypasses for every no voters local area to get him to flip it would be a nightmare.

As to reform suggestion the onus is on the people saying reform to suggest ideas, don’t expect me to come up with them when I just want to get rid of the thing. I used to be in favor of reform too, I had my own ideas for how it should be done. I wanted it to be a half appointed house where the President could, in the mould of the way the free state senate was done appoint ”people with special qualifications or attainments” or ”people who represent important aspects of the nations life”, in other words people who have something to say but are outside PARTY-politics.

Then I went into politics in my mid to late teens, I worked in campaigns, in my early 20s I ran campaigns, and got to know a lot of politicos and I saw up close how the system works and I’ve learned how the game of politics works and I’m telling you it will not be reformed.
Why would they go with say my plan? and get rid of all their friends who did not make it into the Dail? Why would they do that?
Even with my plan you just KNOW we’d end up with GAA players and ex journalists etc in the thing and really we can already hear what they have to say without them having a vote.

To those of you who want reform of the political system in Ireland that will

1. WORK IN REALITY
2. Stop the mistakes of the 2000′s from happening again I have one very specific reform suggestion you could champion that would do 1000000000000 times more for Irish democracy than a new Senate:

A constitutional amendment banning the legal concept of corporate person hood and allowing only 100% publically financed elections.

Ryan, the Seanad as it stands doesn’t function because the nominations process is easily manipulated to mirror the demographic of the lower house, by the virtue of 11 Taoiseach nominees and 43 from vocational panels, nominated by existing senators, TDs and councillors. The current Seanad has 30 members drawn from FG/lab, allowing domination of the chamber.
The Seanad is meant to act as a counter balance to the Dail, but dilution of its power by Dev and political cynicism have left it a stop gap for failed TDs which acts only as a rubber stamping committee.
How to reform it? Remove the taoiseachs nominees completely, expand the university panel and reflect the relative grad population of the colleges (tcd currently has the same number of nominees as the all 4 nui combined), reduced the vocational committee nominees and ban nomination of failed td candidates and divide up the remaining nominees between various charities, bodies, and institutes, perhaps allowing direct provision of a number of senators by provincial election. Representative, democratic but sufficiently different from Dail elections to ensure a different demographic.

I understand the need for a “whip” in political parties to maintain discipline, as applied in the UK, where 3 different levels of whip are applied. Expulsion can only follow if a 3-line whip is called for something extremely important, i.e. the future of the government.

• A single-line whip is a guide to what the party’s policy would indicate, and notification of when the vote is expected to take place; this is non-binding for attendance or voting.
• A two-line whip, is an instruction to attend and vote; partially binding for voting, attendance required unless prior permission given by the whip.
• A three-line whip is a strict instruction to attend and vote, breach of which would normally have serious consequences. The three-line whips are generally only issued on key issues, such as votes of confidence and supply.

In Ireland, the 3-line whip ALWAYS applies, no matter how trivial/important the vote. This, Fine Gael backbench TD Denis Naughten voted against the Government on the closing down of the A&E services at Roscommon Hospital, a matter dear to his heart but of no significance to the Govt. It is just raw bully tactics and is completely undemocratic.

@Joe there is nothing wrong with that idea per-say in itself.

The problem becomes it’s superfluous we would bascially have two elected houses. Only federal countries really have second houses and in those cases they are meant to represent regions as much as parties but in reality they don’t do that so in fact I think the likes of the US would be better getting rid of their senate too.

What would another elected chamber get us? What would that help? Let’s say they voted no to a Dail bill, if we allow them an absolute veto that if they don’t vote for it it won’t go through, like the US congress then if the senate is controlled by the opposition as I said they will just oppose everything the govt proposes or most things for their own sake as they do in the Dail, you won’t get honest legislating, you just won’t.
If we give it only the time limit veto like now, then the govt will just ignore it and ram whatever it wants through anyway. So pick your poison, gridlock or fast-tracked guillotined bills, but remember in the gridlock scenario some of those are going to be things you might like policy wise and they won’t happen.

One of the great things about our system that makes it so much better than the US IS the whip cos it means the party that wins it’s policies will get through, whereas in the US nearly everything Obama ran on in 2008 has died on the vine partly because the congress is controlled by the other party (PARTLY)

Everyone gets a vote for the Dail now..if you want to put more of a check on the Dail that can be done in other ways through the President or Dail reform, but I’m not sure what people mean when they say that…I mean Ireland did not pass things lik the US PATRIOT ACT or Military Commissions Act were not really in danger of tyranny taking over any minute…do you mean things lik the bailouts? Well we can as I have said elsewhere prevent that coming up again with some simple financial regulations and pushing for the same at EU level, and by trying to take the money out of politics.
Lets take the bailouts as an example. The opposition at the time could have joined with the Senate to demand the President send the bailout bill to referendum that would have showcased the REAL teeth of a second chamber and what it could do.

They did not do that but lets say a reformed senate would, lets play it all the way out and see what happens. So we have a referendum and we vote no. What happens then? We’d have either let the entire banking system collapse inc our savings and deposits that they had gambled with and lost, or the govt would have had to come up with another proposal…but would they? Look at what happens when we vote no to things the establishment REALLY wants…they just put the same thing through referendum all over again and beat us over the head with fear until we say yes, or they could have forced another bill slightly different through that would not have gotten the presidents referendum petition thing going.

The dream scenarios of a second chamber are just that. We can do far more with a reformed Dail and Presidency.

[If I was not on sick leave I'd be getting no feckin work done]
@Shane

See some of you misunderstand me, I’ll summarize my points without the rambling clearly …

1. A no vote won’t = reform because that’s not how politics works they won’t undermine their own possible success by kicking their mates out of the Senate
2. We don’t need a second chamber that is a clone of the Dail
3. We are not the United States of America, we are not a growing police state falling ever more into the dark cluthces of totalitarianism like our poor yankee cousins, even our rally draconian laws like the Offenses Against the State Act have not been abused and in any case give the cabinet power not the Dail
4. If you want a check on the Dail that can be done better with Dail reform, Presidency reform and wider constitutional reform.

I think the notion of university panels is disgusting and snobby and I say that as a university graduate who likes the university senators. In any case there is no reason we could not have some non voting (or even voting though that would be soooo elitist and undemocratic) university TD’s in a reformed PR-LIST OR PRMMR DAIL.
Vocational panels is an idea from 1930s Fascist Italy that has no place in modern Europe.
As for your last suggestion I like the idea of non political people having a voice, the Free state senate as I said had that in mind, again, no reason we have to have a second chamber we could have a non voting panel of such TDs appointed by the President in a reformed Dail, or elected in some indirect way.

@Connaughtabu Dennis had a chance to argue against the centers of excellence policy (which is a far better policy for his constituents healthcare IMO) when the FG policy platform was being developed, he lost the argument, and when that happens you support party policy.
I sympathies with a scenario like the Labour TDs leaving because the party did a 180 U turn and broke it’s election promises, that I DO understand and would always support, but when it’s the party policies u ran on … it’s just the way it works…though you bring up an interesting point about the UK system, maybe ours could be more flexible I just don’t want us to end up like the US.

@Ryan

Sorry if i wasn’t being clear enough,
1) A no vote doesnt necessarily guarantee Seanad reform i agree with that, but the fact that once abolished it will be gone forever is undeniable, and along with it the chance to ever have a functioning upper house. Be it through constitutional convention or a citizens initiative, the potential to initiate reform exists provided the movement is strong enough.

2) No we do not need a mirror of the Dail, we need a chamber elected by different means, with expertise other than solicitors, publicans and teachers, without them being invested in party politics, to provide a different voice and perspective on legislation. Thats the whole point, because the Seanad now mirrors the dail, it has no teeth.

3) We are not currently a totalitarian state, the point behind division of power is to never allow that to happen. If you’re comfortable with the idea of one chamber, aided by internal committees to pass whatever laws they see fit with the only recourse being the president and council of state (largely made up of the same type of insiders) I’m happy for you, but I certainly amn’t.

4) For one who disparages reform you’ve alluded to alot of non descript reform with this point. Dail reform is a non runner, and still would not combat concentration of power in a single chamber. Presidency reform is interesting in a sense, but I don’t believe in concentrating over arcing power in a one man office, supported by a council made up of former politicians and a few judges (hardly the essense of the people’s voice). Constitutional reform is similarly hazy.

The idea of non-voting TDs is similarly pointless, the only power a TD had to exercise is the use of the vote and successive governments have little problem ignoring lone voices in the wilderness and alienating them as they see fit. I’m not necessarily in favour of Uni panels, but i am in favour of bring in senators via a number of different routes, elected by different strata of society in such a way as to vary the make up of the Seanad from that of the Dail.

article 27 quoted at top of page is relevant ot your argument perhaps !

It’s worth pointing out that other countries get by with only one house of Parliament so the idea that you need a second house somehow to protect democracy is not proven. However what you do need is more Dail reform along with the abolition.

The problem with making the Seanad more powerful is that you can end up with gridlock as happens under the US system which would be a disaster for Ireland. I am firmly of the belief that many people on the NO side are taking that position simply because they don’t like the current government and so it suits their agenda to have a second house that can block the current government. Ultimately you elect a government to govern and the idea that you would do that and then immediately elect a second house to block them from doing that just doesn’t make sense.

And the reality is that if you open up a Seanad to the general public you will just get the same parties dominating the Seanad as dominate the Dail. There’s no way you can limit or remove political influence from the Seanad.

@Jim

The reason the US system is gridlocked is because of the bipartisan nature of US politics. coupled with 2 very different political ideologies. Not unlike here, the opposition frequently disagree just for the sake of it.
A Seanad made up largely of non political people, with no special interest or party affiliation would in theory only voted based on their own morals and opinions.

My issue with Irish political life is the fact that the 2 largest parties have the same basic philosophy and outlook, engage in excessive use of the whip, and are unduly parochial by nature, not to mention have long histories of corruption.

The Seanad is politicised by taoiseach and vocational appointees, remove those, broaden the sources of senators and its perfectly possible to create a diverse, apolitical chamber.

I typed a long response to every one of your points Shane but it vanished into thin air when I hit submit and I don’t have the energy to do it again with what the bastards took out of me blood wise today (do they really need to take that much ffsake..) so don’t think I was ignoring you.

The dems and gop have the same ideology: MONEY, they have not had a significant difference since the 80s it’s all just theater and tribalism my tribe against your tribe and while ours co-operate more at committee level here there is a lot of tribalism here too and an opposition controlled reformed senate would = gridlock not honest legislating.

One of my main points in the other reply that vanished was I think you can have non-partisan TD’s as well and they’d have more success arguing DIRECTLY to govt ministers whos only other job was a sec school teacher (and then they are in finance..jesus) rather than talking to each other in a seperate chamber, they could more easily hold them to account as non partisan TDs rather than non partisan senators.

@Shane – A Seanad largely made up of non-political people is not realistic. Everybody has a political leaning and will use that in their decision making process. People can claim to have no party affiliation until the cows come home but most of them do.

And how would this house be accountable to the people of the country. Who would decide who gets placed in this house.

@ Ryan Hope you’re not too weakened from your trials, never a pleasant experience!
I agree with you about the US to a point, 2 cheeks of the same arse after all, but not to the same degree as our 2 parties where the only difference is basically name. Truth be told, i doubt that an argument, no matter how rational, reasonable or well presented can sway the intellectual pygmies that we elect as TDs, hence my issue with non voting TDs. I’m not proposing an opposition led Seanad, rather one where individuals with no strict affiliation or whip, are free to vote based on the merits of what is before them. Optimistic perhaps, but something to aim towards.

@Jim
I think you underestimate the people. Politics in this country had always been about the same dynasties and names, supported by their party machine and party members, who in my experience regard the whole thing like a football match ie. we’re better then ye are. The number of people who define themselves by party is constantly diminishing, and will continue to do so. My father has been an FF member for life, I have voted a number of ways since I turned 18, I am neither left or right, but I do believe in the existence of a right and a wrong option, I don’t think I’m alone in that. Ideally, i believe the Seanad should be made up of people without party membership or strong affiliation, they might have political leanings in a philosophical sense but I believe that in the majority such people would vote with their heads rather than a given party line.
I’ve outlined previously how the house would be elected/accountable. Nominees coming from the universities, other 3rd level institutes, various bodies, institutes, guilds, unions, charities, etc, with a proportion directly elected on a provincial or national basis (to eliminate parish pump tendencies), so no more political manipulation by the Dail majority. The point is to not use the same PROTV system at the Dail, because that just creates a mirror of the lower house. I’m open to suggestions of course!

@Shane – No I don’t underestimate the people. They are the same people who have voted for short term interest in every election that has come up in the country time after time. There seems to be some idea out there that our politicians just appeared out of nowhere. But the reality is that we get the politicians we deserve because we are the people who elect them time and again. There is nothing to indicate that Irish people would suddenly vote differently in a Seanad election as they do in the Dail election.

I completly disagree with this idea of nominating people to the Seanad from various bodies or unions or any other method. If you are going to keep the Seanad then no person should have some sort of extra vote or say in who is there simply because of membership of an organisation.

Finally I just don’t see the need for a second house. 14 of the 27 EU countries manage to get along nicely with just one house in the parliamentary system. I don’t judge them as any less democratic than Ireland

@ Jim You misunderstand me, you have presumed that everyone has a political leaning and party affiliation, I strongly disagree, I believe that people vote based on policies and merit now more than ever before. True, we have gotten the governance that we deserve to this point, the nature of Irish politics and parochialism has seen to that. And yes, if a Seanad election was held using the same PRSTV system, with the same constituencies and same range of candidates you will end up with a homologue of the Dail.
Thats the point of deriving a Seanad by a different method, making it something which has nothing to do with a geographical area or a party base. You disagree with nominations coming from bodies, why is that exactly? By spreading nominations across a variety of institution and bodies, the vast majority of the population would contribute to the nomination process, but in such a way that the dominance of a given government would not be directly reflected.

Of course, you’re free to believe whatever you like. Leaving aside EU countries, who we share little with culturally, take the example of New Zealand who abolished their upper house in the 1950′s, a replacement chamber was recommended via constitutional convention yet NZ is still carrying on with single parliament because no incumbent wants to give up power that controlling the one house brings.

To be fair the Seanad have never held the dail accountable for anything. Useless bunch of egits! I didn’t vote for any of them and they do nothing only spend money.

If we want to give power to the people its easy. Bring in a bill where if the people sign a petition of 40% of the electorate they can stop any bill in parliament. This mean they are not acting in the people interest of who the represent. If they still want the bill hold a referendum, easy. This is the swiss model

It ‘s better to have the two houses to prevent what I feel is a dictatorship given we vote them in. We cannot do anything to stop them making legislation or changes to everyone’s lifestyles once their in. The upcoming anniversary of the lockouts however sadly i feel our citizens don’t or would not support each other if such a dramatic event was to happen today. I make this submission based on the lack of public support to the various groups protesting over the last few years. Our golden years citizen’s put our younger citizens to shame. So a no vote is the right direct in this instance. The second referendum I think there should be a court of appeal. This I don’t understand why so maybe someone will let me know as there is little or no debate about this.

The dream many of you have of people from outside politics holding the political leaders to account does not require a second chamber. Unions, lobby groups etc all have that power now, today

The idea that a future reformed senate will stop bad or rushed policy is flawed.

1. We won’t get a reformed senate a no vote will signal to the establishment (mark my words I know them so well I can already hear them..) that you approve of the status quo.
2. If you get a reformed senate, it will be one of the following scenarios:

A] A second elected chamber, which by it’s very nature if it’s elected at the same time will be same makup as Dail so it would be in agreement with the dail, if it was elected mid term like the locals then …

B] An opposition controlled senate which will just spitefully block any major policy to handicap the other party out of tribalistic spite or fear that a measure they pass might help them get re-elected (say if FGLabour passed unviersal healthcare and restored free education a lot of people would think more favourably of them and FF controlled senate would try to block that cos they dont want to hand them that victory they wanna do that stuff when THEY are in so THEY get the thanks.

C] A non partisan senate , the ultimate wet dream of the reformers, it will NEVER happen but lets say it did.
Again who is to say non partisan people would disagree with the establishments bad ideas…this is the FATAL flaw in all your arguments, the bad policy in the celtic tiger era was cheerled by the economists, the journalists etc there was very little opposition outside politics so where you all get this notion of the brave commentators spreaking up I don’t know

Ryan ; the senate is a potential loose cannon to the banks , a merchant banker is ,according to John Drennan the architect of this proposal. The next senate will in a large part be formed from Independent Councillors ; this Ireland’s best chance of Democracy since the Foundation of the State !
The financial argument does not stack up when the H.S.E. can run an overspend of over 300 million !
Do you trust the current Government , do you trust bankers ?

Dermot I think your idealism is just adorable…it’s funny people in politics laugh at me for being so idealistic and even I think that is painfully naive.
I can see how it COULD be a loose cannot IN THEORY…but that is the whole problem with this debate is it not? It’s all theory, all these giddy enthusiastic reforms are stuck in their political science books and not in the real world of how politics actually works. …in theory if we vote no we get reform in theory this in theory that…

Meanwhile over in reality the Senate has NEVER used that clause, they have never even ATTEMPTED to use that clause and the last time they sent a bill back to the Dail it was by accident…seriously…by accident…

Why do all of you find it so hard to accept my word, as someone who has been inside politics for years, that your reform plans are never going to happen, how can you look at the cynical horrible decisions made here over the last few years an expect an ambitious reform plan from the political class that crashed us into a ditch without even realizing the car was out of control untill water started coming in the windows??

The HSE runs and overspend because the budgets in a deficit, contrary to what many say thats not THAT big a deal, it depends how big and for how long but a deficits normal in a recession.
There is nothing a second chamber would have done to stop us getting into this mess the entire political class was for the bad policy that got us here and as to the experts you want to put in the senate only a minority of economists called it right it was a total circle jerk of conventional wisdom just like it is now with austeiry

Your point about indo councilors is an UTTER pipe dream, jesus people think MY proposals belong as one sarcastic &&k told me ”with the David Palmer presidential campaign not in the real world” and even I think thats mad.
Indo councilors are a tiny TINY minority and most of them are actually tied to parties anyway..

I’m having UTTER deja vu here, to the first campaign I worked on, it was a local election campaign in Dublin. My guy was one of the parties but an Indo was leading way out ahead, and the locals told me they loved him cos he was independent, and ”the only one who was not corrupt”….this debate is like a replay of that for me…because in fact the indo councilor was over his head in corruption and was secretly tied to one of the parties and later joined…I knew all this back then and tried desperately to convince the locals he wasn’t independent or clean (and that the notion that he could get a special garda station for their little patch was horse s–t) but he still topped the poll and later they had egg on their faces.

I don’t want to see that happen to the entire country this time please people think clearly…