How Ireland’s Sherlock Beat the Mobster with the Bad Hair
We’re now mostly through the counting on Ireland’s General Election held on Friday. The two center-right parties that lead the current government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, have done well enough they’re almost certain to remain in government. They’ll be seeking a new coalition partner (likely either Labour or the Social Democrats) because their current partners, the Greens got absolutely hammered, returning just one TD (Teachta Dála, which is what we call members of Parliament).
The talk of the election is how Gerry Hutch — like Trump, a mobster with bad hair — almost won a seat in Dublin Center. In the same constituency as Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald (who took three rounds to get elected herself), crime boss Gerry Hutch got almost 10% of the first round vote.
He had gotten into the race just this month (remember, the election was only called weeks ago), possibly as part of a ploy to get out of jail in Spain on money laundering allegations. And — in part because he’s still in a gangland war with another organized crime group — Hutch did little traditional campaigning (in Ireland there’s still a lot of door-knocking).
Just a month ago, Hutch was sitting in Tahiche prison in Lanzarote, having been arrested in late October as part of a two-year investigation by Spain’s Guardia Civil into an alleged money-laundering scheme involving the Dublin criminal and eight associates.
His initial bail application was rejected but this was overturned by the Spanish High Court which released him on a €100,000 bond specifically to run in the Irish general election.
The truth is Hutch didn’t need to do much in-person campaigning. His posts on social media, particularly TikTok, received outsize attention from the media and general public.
Much of the social media campaigning was done by people who didn’t even know Hutch. Memes and Photoshopped images featuring the candidate, including a fake image of his election billboard outside the Regency Hotel, were shared far and wide.
Based on the same kind of buzz that Trump used (and that far right Romanian politician Călin Georgescu rode to success), all of a sudden he came in fourth for the four-seat constituency.
So all weekend long, everyone who remotely follows politics has been wondering, could he really win (and then only secondarily wondering, how did government fail so badly that a big chunk of Dublin’s voters came out to vote for him). As counting proceeded, he showed up to the counting center, setting off a media frenzy. Hutch was willing to answer questions about his race and imagined political future. But as soon as one of the crime reporters asked him about a Special Court judgment that he had been in control of weapons used in a 2016 gang murder, he ran away.
Not long after, the slow process of eliminating candidates and reassigning both their initial votes and the surplus of those who had picked up enough to win ended, with the Labour candidate Marie Sherlock, originally fifth in voting, going from 500 votes behind Hutch to beating him after every else was eliminated by 800 votes.
Sherlock found a way to do what his mobster rivals had never done, beating him.
And that is how Ireland’s PR-STV works, and is supposed to work. You get a ballot with everyone listed in alphabetical order (that’s the way it’s supposed to be, but Limerick fucked up the alpha order this year, putting the Q’s before the O’s, which was unfortunate because the last eliminated candidate has last name O’Donovan). And you can list however many or few preferences you have:
- This is the person I most want to win
- These are people I’d be happy to win
- These are mediocre people who are inoffensive
- These are people I don’t want to win
- These are people I really don’t want to win
- These are people I want to beat at all costs
And any time a candidate for whom you voted is eliminated, your ballot gets stamped with the round in which that happened, and reassigned to your next highest candidate still in the race.
I went to the counting center, out at the clubhouse for the horse racetrack, for just one round of the process (count 10) yesterday. The second Fine Gael candidate had just been eliminated, so her votes were stamped and then divvied up using wooden cubbyholes (like you’d see to store kids’ belongings in an elementary school classroom) with candidates’ names below each cubby hole. Staffers then pulled big stacks of the new votes for the main Fine Gael candidate, counting the reassigned individual ballots by hand, with those rubber things you put on your finger to be able to turn pages quickly — and after he got almost 2,000 of her first round votes, he was declared the winner of the second seat.
And while the two parties that have done little to address Ireland’s housing crisis will be back in government (thanks in part to a bunch of taxes Ireland was forced to collect from Apple, which the government used for a bunch of giveaways right before calling the election), a lot of really offensive people won’t be. Though the far right had tried to band together to better compete in the election after having limited success in the EU Parliament election in June, every single fash-friendly candidate lost. Ireland’s two noted useful idiots for Russia lost (one in the same constituency where Sherlock beat Hutch).
The most annoying outcome from the election is that Aontú, an anti-abortion anti-immigrant party that dresses up nicer than the fascists, picked up a second Dáil seat.
And I have to say, even though Ireland is trying to achieve more gender balance with quotas, in the local election many of the transfers (including those of the leading Fianna Fail candidate not to his female running mate but to another, non-party candidate) went away from women. Though before the whole Hutch story broke out, the head of the Social Democrats had to miss voting in her own (more comfortable than expected) re-election because she was busy giving birth.
Update: Jeebus I called the Social Democrats Liberal Democrats. I was distracted, not that stupid.
Still plenty of praying biddies where I’m from. Blueshirt holdovers lol
“How Ireland’s Sherlock Beat the Mobster with the Bad Hair”
Elementary!
Just wondering if Ireland’s ranked choice voting would have helped more people to go to the polls in the US. And women. . .still struggling.
Candidate-centric systems have almost always struggled in getting women elected, regardless of the proportionality of the system. It is better in PR-STV than in our SMP-SNTV, though admittedly that is practically the lowest of bars to hop over. Closed-list PR is best, but people like having “their person”. I will say that Ireland’s system requires significant citizen trust. Being allowed to not select preferences is a choice, one that Australia, Brazil, and others who also redistribute votes have not agreed with, in part because filling out everything guarantees that modifications to ballots are obvious and mandates are clearer. It’s tough to imagine trying to run in the current US political climate a system that takes days, redistributes “lost” (and surplus, though that’s admittedly rarer) ballots, and allows varying number of preferences to be listed.
Still, I’m glad Irish voters appear to value what they have and wielded the power mostly effectively.
Thanks for the write-up. I’m looking forward to coverage of Germany’s upcoming election, since the closed list MMPR system is even more foreign to American voters. I wish vote reform campaigners would promote reforms that moved away from single member districts, just because gerrymandering will remain a problem. When I explain it to family members in the US, when they finally get it, they agree the system is better, but never see a path forward to implement it.
Überhangmandaten is possibly one of my favorite words. For what it’s worth, I think the German system is the best of a bunch of terrible options. And from my research as part of my work on that system (among others), it was evident that even within Germany, while most everyone feels comfortable filling out their ballots (though I did encounter a Bavarian or two who got mixed up on the CDU-CSU agreement) there is a lot of confusion around the calculations behind it. That, alongside all the other Constitutional hurdles, spells disaster for any attempt to bring it over to the US. Shame. Maybe I’ll see if München has any job openings…
FWIW, Google Translate renders Überhangmandaten as “overhang mandates” in English. If I didn’t have a real explanation of what it means, I certainly wouldn’t understand this translation at all…
Replying to Matt B: Maybe a more idiomatic rendering might be “hanging chad”? In choiring mimes want to no.
For john paul jones (and Matt___B)
I’m sure Tannenzäpfle could do the language better justice than I, but since it’s late over there, the short version is that mandat is better translated as “seat” in the sense of “seat in the legislature”. “overhang seats” is a perfectly good translation that still lacks context though. Short version: people vote for parties and for candidates. If a candidate wins in their district, they always join the legislature. But if more candidates for a party won then the percent of votes their party received overall, the legislature expands temporarily to hold them.
I’m sad I wasn’t at the racecourse for the surplus redistribution, basically of the two then-winning candidates right after I left. That’s the hocus pocus I’d like to understand.
It’s exciting that they let you watch the process. And yeah, surplus vote redistribution always feels weird when it’s with individuals, at least the way Ireland does it. I think Finland and Brazil do a better job in smoothing over that weirdness through their almost-pure open PR system, where the surplus votes aren’t really going to someone in particular, they’re just helping fellow party mates by guaranteeing more seats. But that can (and has) lead to some funkiness where a candidate with almost no votes takes a seat based on those coattails, something that functionally can’t happen in Ireland. No perfect system I guess (but almost anything beats FPTP).
I cannot for the life of me understand the rules governing the distribution of surplus votes to the next ranked candidate. Is it that the surplus ballots up to the maximum quota of ballots are assigned to that remaining candidate winning a plurality of the next ranked vote?
As I understand it, the candidate with the fewest number of first-place votes is eliminated, and the votes on those ballots get moved up one place in the next round.
https://www.thehugoawards.org/the-voting-system/ – about halfway down the page
I do rather love the idea of a ballot on which I can say I don’t want this particular psychotic bastard to win at any price :-)
On the Hugo award ballots, it’s done by voting that nominee below “No Award”. (See here, 2015 and 2016: https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/ )
Yes, it’s ranked-choice voting, which has been used since about 1970. Computers are *very* useful for this.
I’m trying to respond to your response to my query above. I’m doing it here because for some odd reason there is no Reply button for your response above.
I understand what happens when there is no outright voter. My question is when the opposite happens and a candidate wins more than the preset quota of votes and the “surplus” votes are assigned.
Reply to Ramona Rosario
December 3, 2024 at 2:37 pm
Not certain why you didn’t see a Reply button as your comment is only the second. The site is currently configured to allow comments only four wide; a fifth reply-to-reply won’t see a Reply button.
You can use the approach I’ve employed on this comment if/when you don’t see a Reply button: indicate the commenter to whom you wish to address your remarks and the time of the comment in particular to which you’re referring.
‘Yes, it’s ranked-choice voting, which has been used since about 1970.’
Yes it is and it’s really good. We use it here in Scotland for our local elections* :-)
*But only since 2007, as my computer confirmed, and we call it the Single Transferable Vote. Computers are indeed *very* useful although I do rather miss the musty old books in my uni’s library.
I wish we had ranked voting in Canada but who would implement the change? Certainly not the winner (aka the government) who won on the current system.
I suppose if there were a groundswell of support for the change – but it’s never been topmost of mind in any election. Now PM Trudeau said in ’15 election that he’d maybe do the change.
When asked a year or two later why he wasn’t proposing it, said there is not enough interest – and he was right. It only seems to crop up from one or two parties that generally never win enough seats to govern.
In case no-one has mentionaed – rubber, steel, or silver – it’s a thimble.
Wow Marcy, that is very interesting thank you as always!
Peace Day
Happy Birthday to me
Happy birthday to me
Happy birth day dear Tina
Happy birthday to me!
and many more (as sung by my Mom)
Healthy Ones!!!
My Birthday Wish…
May every single being
take a trip to their soul’s center
and experience the pure love and beauty
of your creation Lord.
Bringing back more love, courage and peace
to this teetering experience.
I would like to thank John Lennon too,
for teaching me to use my mind well.
Imagine, indeed!
And Delores Cannon for giving me
a less fearful perspective!
Let us spark this party up
and raise the world’s vibration.
Thanks Lord and Lady of All,
Tina
Belated birthday wishes. Let’s hope it was a good one :-)
Teetering?
You ain’t seen nothing yet
B-b-b-baby, you just ain’t seen n-n-n-nothing yet!
Thank you Bachman Turner Overdrive :-)
We have a ranked choice system for (nonpartisan) local offices here in Oakland CA. It bewilders some, especially those who lose and happen to dislike RCV, such that they often loudly question the legitimacy of the results. The stated purpose of instituting it here was to avoid the primary/runoff system, which tends to favor wealthier candidates in our money-is-all system, by holding only a single determinative election. The recent recall of our mayor was promoted by disgruntled people who had supported the winner of the initial count (two years ago) but lost once the other candidates’ votes were allocated.