Sir, – Few people will miss the current presidential campaign as it winds up today – that is of those that actually engaged with it. Tomorrow we have the option to vote for the next president. But what do you do if you feel neither candidate represents you?
Do you simply stay at home and let others decide? That is a valid option. But what if, like me, you have a strong interest in democracy and never miss voting whether in local or national elections or referendums? What do you do then?
For the first time in over 40 years I will be spoiling my vote and I would encourage other people who are dissatisfied with the choice of candidates on offer to do likewise.
Since I made this decision a couple of weeks ago I have listened very carefully to the arguments against spoiling your vote. The main one is that you have no say in the eventual outcome.
READ MORE
This is true. But what do you do if cannot embrace either candidate? I have heard people saying vote for the least worst option. I have never done this in voting before and frankly it’s quite sad if that is the way you choose your candidate.
In some countries there is an option on a ballot paper such as “none of the above” if you feel you cannot vote for any particular candidate but yet would like to exercise your franchise. This is right and proper because voting should be free and consensual and one should not feel pressured into voting a particular way. We do not have that system in Ireland.
A spoiled vote is a perfectly legitimate way under our current system to express your dissatisfaction with the list of candidates offered.
Spoiled votes are not simply discarded, they are counted and are a permanent record along with all the “valid” votes.
To spoil your vote is an exercise in democracy and is far preferable than staying at home which simply means you couldn’t care less. – Yours, etc,
TOMMY RODDY,
Ballybane,
Co Galway.
Sir, – There has been much debate in your newspaper about whether to spoil a vote, to vote for a phantom candidate, or to vote for a lesser evil (Opinion, Breda O’Brien, October 20th, and Letters, Fiona O’Connor, October 22nd).
We could perhaps take heed of what happened here in France in the 2002 presidential elections. In the final round, there were just two candidates, Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen, both highly divisive and objectionable in their own ways. The call went out to vote for Chirac as a lesser evil, and he won with an amazing 82 per cent of the vote.
But then the problem: the context was lost. For the historical record the figures are there, Chirac will forever be the most popular and beloved president France has ever known. Worse again, he himself believed it, and the corruption and self-entitlement continued.
A clear, massive, and coherent spoiled vote would have sent a better message. – Yours, etc,
CIARÁN Mac GUILL,
Clichy,
France.
Sir, – As the presidential election campaign draws to a close it is becoming even more dreary and the two remaining contenders less and less impressive.
The campaign may well be remembered for its descent into electoral apathy after worthy prospective candidates were unceremoniously sidelined by county councils. Party allegiance clearly took precedent over giving the electorate a meaningful choice. (I was one of those who unsuccessfully sought county council nominations).
Far from exercising their privilege to assess and, where appropriate, nominate those who would be an addition to the ballot, the party-whip system was used on councillors to ensure non-party candidates were excluded irrespective of their suitability for the office of president.
Fianna Fáil TDs, too, were found out to be mere yes-men, following their leader, unable to question or think for themselves.
This presidential election has revealed just how much our democracy has become paralysed, short-sighted and self-serving.
Ironically, a deliberate, assertive and principled spoil-the-vote campaign may be the first necessary step to focus our public representatives’ attention and so recover an authentic, functioning democracy. Yours, etc,
GEARÓID DUFFY,
Lee Road,
Cork.
Presidential candidates
Sir, – Presidential candidate Catherine Connolly advocates peace, yet many of her comments and associations in relation to peace confuse me.
Russia is a proven warmonger and many countries have quite sensibly increased defence and arms spending to help counter that threat and protect their citizens.
Yet Connolly compares German arms spending to Nazi rearmament policies. If for whatever reason Ireland were invaded, I would expect our president to call on our European friends for assistance and we would be grateful that such countries had increased defence spending.
She also says Hamas, which is a proscribed Islamic terrorist grouping, is part of the fabric of Palestinian life.
In accepting the support of Sinn Féin, which I believe is the political wing of the IRA, she must be aware that the IRA killed three times as many people as the British army during the Troubles.
That the IRA and Sinn Féin are still connected is evidenced by the appearance of Sinn Féin politicians at the funerals of IRA members. Mary Lou McDonald and Pearse Doherty attended the funeral of Brendan “Bik” McFarlane, a senior IRA member who received a life sentence for his role in a pub bombing that killed five people.
Many of her beliefs are a mass of contradictions. – Yours, etc,
DONAL O’ SULLIVAN,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Perhaps Fine Gael feel they have nothing to lose by crying hypocrisy over the fact that Catherine Connolly worked as a barrister and represented banks in home repossession cases. On the face of it, this is not a good look for a human rights activists.
I do hope though that it backfires on Fine Gael. This level of disingenuousness is not acceptable and simply leads to further disenchantment with politics. Fine Gael are a party of multiple barristers and others working in the legal system. They know that barristers have to take on the case of their clients. They cannot pick and choose the “good” clients.
Ensuring everyone can access justice is central to trust in the rule of law. That Catherine Connolly turned her back on a potentially lucrative career as a barrister to being one of the foremost advocates in the Dáil for those in our society who are the most hard done by and disadvantaged is, to me, a further endorsement. – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY HANNON,
Dublin 24.
Sir, – Having watched the Prime Time debate on RTÉ television on Tuesday night, I was very disappointed with the performance of both participants.
My mind is now made up.
I am definitely voting number 1 for Jim Gavin – my only vote.
In the unlikely event that he wins, we would probably have a new election with hopefully better candidates. – Yours, etc.
DAVID R PIKE,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Now that the final debate has taken place, could we have a brief insight into the candidates’ partners who will also have a role in Áras An Uachtaráin? – Yours, etc,
PATRICIA DUFFY,
Waterfall,
Cork.
United Ireland and realities
Sir, – Of course many old realities should be up for negotiation in the event of a lead up to a united Ireland, should referendums North, South and west of the Border indicate that is the choice under the Good Friday agreement (“In a united Ireland, should everyone be given a choice of Irish, British or dual identity?” Paul Gosling, Opinion, October 22nd).
And that should be the start of an intensive dialogue involving all sections of society on this island. If this choice should be indicated in both jurisdictions then a process is necessary over a number of years to arrive at solutions.
But there should not be tentative assumptions made about what this would involve from the Northern angle.
Maybe there are indeed “perceived Northern preferences for Commonwealth and Nato memberships”, with the emphasis on “perceived”.
But are these accurate?
If a clear majority of citizens in the Republic support Irish neutrality, and oppose Nato, why should it be assumed a majority in Northern Ireland don’t take the same point of view when an increasing majority of those north of the Border are from a Catholic cultural background and at least “soft” nationalist?
Yes, many sacred cows should be closely examined in the Republic in this situation but the same goes north of the Border. – Yours, etc.
ROB FAIRMICHAEL,
Editor, Nonviolent News,
Coordinator, INNATE,
Ballynafeigh,
Belfast
Sir, – With reference to the article by Paul Gosling, it seems that one necessary concession would be to have a constitutional provision allowing residents of the North who have British but not Irish citizenship to be eligible for every public office, with the exception of the presidency, in the State.
In order to avoid inconvenience and practical problems, it would probably be necessary to extend such eligibility to all British citizens residing in all of Ireland, with a requirement for a minimum number of years residence.
It might be regarded as unusual to allow persons who do not hold the citizenship of a state to be eligible for public office, including membership of the government and the elected parliament, in that state. However, if there is a united Ireland, there may be a considerable number of people in the North who would have a deep-rooted objection to being Irish citizens.
It would be contrary to the spirit of a united Ireland to exclude those persons from public office. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK MOONEY,
Dublin 24
Maccabi Tel Aviv and behaviour
Sir, – There are several troubling aspects about how Mark Paul characterised the behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv’s fans in Amsterdam last year that warrant clarifying (London Letter, October 22nd).
The most egregious example of this is stating that it was “a reasonable conclusion” that the Maccabi fans were attacked “simply because they were Israeli, with anger at the war in Gaza the excuse”.
In his defence, Paul does include that “some groups” of Maccabi fans engaged in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian chanting, while “a handful” ripped down a Palestinian flag from a window in Amsterdam.
Without necessarily realising it, Paul is reproducing an Israeli government narrative that painted a picture of innocent visiting football fans being targeted by bigoted, mostly Muslim, Dutch youths.
This is a trap that the Dutch authorities fell into at the time. Amsterdam’s mayor initially described attacks on Maccabi fans as akin to a “pogrom”, only to later regret using the term, which she acknowledged played into Israeli “propaganda” and was used to discriminate against Muslim residents in Amsterdam.
Of course, no amount of provocation justifies violence, but it is worth clarifying some of the worst aspects of the behaviour of the Maccabi fans last year that were not included in this week’s London Letter.
These include randomly attacking people that “looked” Muslim on the streets of Amsterdam, spitting at women in headscarves, ripping down many (not just one) Palestinian flags from private homes displaying them, and hundreds engaging in chants such as “f**k the Arabs”, “we will rape their daughters” and “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left in Gaza”.
All of the above is a matter of public record. Much of it was discussed in the UK Houses of Parliament this week. – Yours, etc,
JOHN HOGAN,
Assistant Professor of International Relations,
Vrije Universiteit,
Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Mullally and MetroLink
Sir, – Una Mullally quotes from Frank McDonald’s submission to the Metrolink oral hearing that St Stephen’s Green as a national monument has the same status as Newgrange or Rock of Cashel.
I would suggest that this is a stretch of the Imagination. Yes, St Stephen’s Green is a beautiful amenity and haven of peace, but to temporarily disturb the east side during Metrolink construction could not be described as undermining its architectural integrity.
Mullally makes a very valid argument to terminate MetroLink at Tara Street, and is a fan of this project and states that it will lessen the chore for many when it comes to getting to and from Dublin Airport.
Nobody seems to be addressing the colossal projected cost of this project just to lessen a chore, to the exclusion of transport projects in our provincial cities.
Why are other options not being considered such as an elevated light rail line to Dublin Airport?
This could be built at a fraction of MetroLink cost and be built in around half the time.
Are we heading blindfold into another National Children’s Hospital fiasco? – Yours, etc,
VINCENT CARROLL,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 14.
Going for gold
Sir, – Gold is at historically record price levels and given the Louvre’s lax security it’s hoped our museums have state-of-the-art security systems.
The National Museum of Ireland in Kildare Street has a fantastic gold collection that has survived Vikings, Normans, and austerity – let’s not let it fall to a good sprinter with a crowbar. – Yours, etc,
LIAM O’SULLIVAN,
Ballsbridge,
Dublin 4.
More hyperbole suggestions
Sir, – A few more to add to Frank McNally’s list of 100 Irish hyperboles (An Irishman’s Diary, October 21st):
1. Just the one
2. It will be grand
3. Ní bheidh a leithéid ann arís
4. In a couple of minutes
5. I’m fine thanks.
6. One, two . . . ninety-nine, a hundred
7. You could trot a mouse on it
8. Sound as a pound
9. We all follow Jackie’s army, we’re all off to Italy
10. A pint of plain is your only man. –Yours, etc,
JAMES STAPLETON,
Balbriggan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I know you will be inundated with a plethora of lists, but I couldn’t resist adding my own:
1. I’m grand
2. I will arise and go now
3. Soft day
4. Did you ever see such rain in all your life?
5. Thundering disgrace
6. It’s a beautiful day
That’s enough for now. – Yours, etc,
MARGARET O’NEILL,
New Ross,
Co Wexford.
Sir, – Further to Frank McNally’s hyperbole list, surely the egregiously redundant “bye . . . bye . . . bye . . . bye . . .” fade out in telephone calls merits inclusion? – Yours, etc,
JOHN MAGAN,
Brussels,
Belgium.
