Originally Posted by simeongrimes

I think the representative democracy model is better but we should reform the version we have to reduce the number of parliamentarians and give them more power to hold the executive to account. It is the rows if mute useless backbenchers that make our system so ineffective.

Backbenchers are merely voting fodder in a whip system! They also act as pseudo councillors and passport agents! Our system is actually wonderful.

• We look after the most vulnerable (who become so thanks to lousy governance).
• We have a dreadful health service (thanks to a bloated HSE and some keen budgeting by the government).
• We have a world class educational system (preparing the young one for export).
• We have probably the finest transport system on the No. 41 route to the Airport.
• We have two airlines - the best and the worst in Europe apparently.
• We have undividing loyalty to Fine Gael until they become even worse than their predecessors.
• We have the Labour Party.
• We had the PDs and Greens.

Never, ever change a winning team.

Originally Posted by simeongrimes

I think the representative democracy model is better but we should reform the version we have to reduce the number of parliamentarians and give them more power to hold the executive to account. It is the rows if mute useless backbenchers that make our system so ineffective.

Actually, why do we? I had supported it up until now, but there is no rational reason to reduce the amount of TDs, as far as I can see. It's just popularism really.

Originally Posted by Toman13

Actually, why do we? I had supported it up until now, but there is no rational reason to reduce the amount of TDs, as far as I can see. It's just popularism really.

No it's not. As per the above - backbenchers are merely voting fodder in a whip system and also act as passport agents...

It's quantity rather than quality.

Originally Posted by greengoose2

No it's not. As per the above - backbenchers are merely voting fodder in a whip system and also act as passport agents...

It's quantity rather than quality.

The passport thing died over a year ago. The staff in the passport office no longer accommodate TDs.

Saying that they are simply voting fodder in a whip system ignores the internal party debates and the need for the leadership in each party to keep their own backbenchers on board.

The system could do with some serious reform but the blanket 100% negative criticism is not accurate either.

Originally Posted by greengoose2

No it's not. As per the above - backbenchers are merely voting fodder in a whip system and also act as passport agents...

It's quantity rather than quality.

Is there any proof though, that decreasing the quantity has any effect on the quality? The only difference that I can see is that it makes it easier for the Government to whip the TD's, making them easier to use as voting fodder. It's structure reform that should take the priority. That, and maybe expenses occurred from TD's wages, but a pay cut would saved just as much as a decrease of TDs.

Numbers, and the amount of TDs we need, are somewhat subjective. I believe that there should be a set amount of TDs rather than increasing them with the population, though. I'm not against cutting TDs per say, but I do think that it's far down the list of reforms that are needed.

Originally Posted by Cato

The passport thing died over a year ago. The staff in the passport office no longer accommodate TDs.

Saying that they are simply voting fodder in a whip system ignores the internal party debates and the need for the leadership in each party to keep their own backbenchers on board.

The system could do with some serious reform but the blanket 100% negative criticism is not accurate either.

I would seriously like to believe that! Sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating, like on this issue...

Originally Posted by greengoose2

I would seriously like to believe that! Sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating, like on this issue...

I think that a Presidential system is better - the Government is separate from the Dail and they have to pass legislation through persuasion rather than threatening the whip.

I'd be afraid that there would be citizens initiative against money bills where the people veto budget cuts and tax increases resulting in massive deficits.

Originally Posted by Toman13

O.K, you are right, I'll be abandoning the idea now.

Good on you for being willing to change your position many posters (and I am perhaps guilty of it) pick a position and stick it even when their losing.

Originally Posted by Toman13

I think that a Presidential system is better - the Government is separate from the Dail and they have to pass legislation through persuasion rather than threatening the whip.

Yeah, but you have to stick with a President for four years. At least (in theory) its much easier to remove a executive in a parliamentary system. Also you could run the risk of a government shutdown if the executive and legislature can't agree on a money bill, but if the legislature and executive can't agree in a parliamentary system a general election is called (usually).