<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12795142\x26blogName\x3dwhere\x27s+me+country?\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://progressiveireland.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_IE\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://progressiveireland.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-5238136315209133802', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

flickr

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Flickr tagged with exposure. Make your own badge here.

The Election Site

3.30.2006

Both Copernicus and Dick raised some issues about Irishelection.com over on a thread at backseatdrivers. While i dont want to get Irish Election sidetracked into a great deal of navelgazing on the front page, I think debate is healthy and will only make irishelection a better site in time for the event itself.

A few issues that are being talked about:

1) Is the site too loosely focussed on Irish politics and getting bogged down in posts about general news items?

2) Does the site need a set of criterion for articles to be cross posted and by extension and editor?

3)Is the current set up too opinionated? Ought it focus more on the hard facts and let the opinion come out in the comments?

Im sure readers and contributors have opinions on this-let me know.

Update: New Contributor Colm Bracken has a few ideas-"Ideally, it would be nice if contributors addressed election issues and not get sidetracked by peripherals. Let's talk health, Fianna Fail, white papers, manifestos, social housing and the like."

Bookmark this post to del.icio.us Digg this post! Bookmark this post to Yahoo! My Web Bookmark this post to Furl
  1. Blogger P O'Neill | 11:16 p.m. |  

    Cian

    I can see both sides of the focus argument. Clearly the posts have drifted away from a specific election focus and are often just general news. On the other hand, with no actual election yet (although I will foolhardily predict that it's coming in '06, not '07), the frequent posting is useful in keeping the site ticking over until we have some actual election issues to crunch.

    Also, it's hard to have a cross-posting policy with so many different bloggers now involved. Again, with an actual election this issue may solve itself since more people will be doing election postings in their own capacity anyway. As you'll have seen, I haven't cross-posted because I like having a specific outlet for Irish election-related posts, because there's more guarantee that an interested audience would see it on the election blog.

    By the way, I'm still thinking about your comments on the PR/STV post.

  2. Blogger Cian | 11:50 p.m. |  

    I think you have hit the point right there at the end. If we let the site drift too far out we cant guarantee that an interested audience would see it on the election blog.

    In which case it becomes a politics.ie board in the end. At this stage its not too hard to get folks refocussed. But doing so would cut further our output and profile. Ah the tension

    I too think we will se it in 06 rather than 07.
    Do you think we just leave it?

  3. Anonymous Adam | 12:00 a.m. |  

    Apologies Cian, posted this on the Election site by accident...

    I believe that the site should indeed steer clear of general political pieces… all posts should cover the Irish election in some way.

    The reason I say this is because that is the intention of the site as a whole, is it not? A general political blog for Ireland is a great idea, but this is not it. Posting ideology is not the problem, however, but using the site to put forward an ideal should not be abused to any extent.

    I’m not pointing any fingers at all, and frankly I don’t think it’s too much to ask. Given the current state of play in Irish politics, everything that happens, happens for an electoral reason. It is quite frankly a lazy poster who cannot find a tangible link between the actions of an elected (or wannabe elected) official and the election of 2007.

    At the same time, opinion should not be cut out, it's one of the things blogs allows over traditional media; it would be much harder to encourage a good debate if you didn't allow a few "I think" and "In my opinion" posts... RTE can deliver the facts, we can comment on them.

    P'O'N is right in the sense that no clear goal for election time makes it harder to focus, but it can be done, it just takes some reminding.

  4. Blogger Cian | 12:09 a.m. |  

    Just to clarify to what extent would the current content be cut down if we did implement stricter guidelines on content?
    Also p: well done on the mentions in WaPo and Firedoglake-big things beckon!!
    C

  5. Anonymous copernicus | 12:15 a.m. |  

    I think given the facts that the site was featured in the Irish Times and has been taken up by politicians themselves, it might be useful for posters to attempt to strike a reasonably sober tone and to stick to comment on electoral politics and issues in a relatively disinterested way. Note, relatively. Of course, personalities should be allowed to come through to an extent.

    There is definitely an issue for you guys of encouraging people to keep posting, but I think in general they boys have been behaving themselves. Most posts are pretty relevant and the rate of contribution seems high enough that perhaps a stylesheet could be applied without particularly limiting the level of cross-posting.

    It is important to strike a balance though if the project is to be taken seriously as a new media component of the next election.

  6. Blogger Simon | 12:17 a.m. |  

    The ticking over is a big thing is it better to have not 100% connected content then no content. Also there is not that much election news really to blog about. Other then McDowell's outburst there is not much to deal with. Fine Gael, Labour , Greens have done little policy annoucment to praise/critise. I got a piece on the greens conferance which I thought was fairly even (this idea good that thing bad etc) but I was surprised that there wasn't a few more peoples views on the conferance.

    But I think once the election comes. People will have more to say. It is just a case of keeping the site ticking over and maintain the readership.

    Also I think some of the think piece might be good. Because all the papers can do comment but maybe we should be discussing idea's that will never be heard in the mainstream. Alternative ideas and all that.

    But I under stand the comment about the right wingness of the blog. But that is due to the people who post regulary rather then any policy. We are not trying to create a right-wing version of Indymedia but what can we do.What we need is more left rather then less right.


    But in what we should we refocus. Are we an oninion site or a fact checking site?

  7. Blogger Suzy | 12:38 a.m. |  

    Was thinking about what to saytothis and ye have all said it. No election means nothing to write about - ie. no manifesto's etc. It's one reason why I said I prefered to write original pieces for Irish Election and not just post stuff that I have written for my own blog - it helps me focus more - eg. parachuting candidates.

    As to an editor - well I have always thought that we needed someone to focus or guide more and also to step in from time to time - this is very unbloggy I think but might be needed - especially come the election.

    There are ard fheis/conferences happening so that should give us all more to chew on until the big day - I don't know if I agree that it will be 06 rather than 07 but maybe that is why the A&E crisis is getting a good kicking at the moment?

  8. Blogger Cian | 12:57 a.m. |  

    Colm reckons we need to stick to the bread and butter- I agree.
    A core part of the site is making the site a sounding posts for blog opinion on the next election.
    Those aspects make a core part of the site.
    Is the approach to these to be in the factual only or to be dealt with in an opinionated fashion or both?

  9. Blogger Cian | 1:01 a.m. |  

    I also see what Suzy et al mean about an editor but how does that work? Pre or Post editing? pull it after the event if its not relevant or ask all posts to be submitted to the politburo?

    I dont think there is an acute issue as yet but it will probably arrive.

  10. Anonymous Frank | 1:05 a.m. |  

    Copernicus,

    Is that a challenge you could rise to?

    General comment,

    I believe the contributors shoould use their judgement. As Adam said above, it is not difficult to find a tangible link to make a piece relevant. so I am arguing for a broad range of political theme discussion and seeing not each individual post in isolation but ideas in evolution, something one person writes sparks another idea for apost, and not forgetting the contributions of commenters.
    I think we can all agree tha Wulfbeorns piece the other day was a bit errant and daft, and not really what the site is about.

  11. Anonymous Damien Mulley | 1:07 a.m. |  

    I don't see the point of reading IrishElection.com when the posts on it are duplicates of what is posted on other blogs that I also read.

    I'd like to see original content and I think there are far too many contributors with their own unique agendas. Let editors set the topics and let commentators comment. Right now the site like is like a manual political blogs aggregator. I'd like to see it with the Slugger model where editors suggest discussion points while acting in a very independent way towards the subject matter itself.

  12. Blogger Cian | 1:28 a.m. |  

    i think that they raise an important and neglected point thus far. However I always looked at the site as a gateway to broader blogging opinion for people who dont read blogs or know what they are it is precisely an aggreagator for political/election related material. The question is is that a successful or viable idea?

  13. Anonymous copernicus | 1:30 a.m. |  

    Lads, I don't think there's any rush or need to place a moratorium on certain types of post all of a sudden (There won't be an election in '06 for a start) But ye could take a leaf out of Damien's book and organise a conference over the summer to give the project some shape - who knows, for a change it might not even have to be in Dublin.

    Ok, have it in Dublin.

    Still, rather than have an editor per se , you could put together an editorial board, perhaps balancing the left and right, FF/FG, PD/SF wings of the blog o'sphere - and cobble together posting guidelines, which balance the need the flavour of what blogging is about with credibility as far as the non-blogging population at large is concerned.

    There's a lot of interesting stuff going on out there in constituencies, jostling for position etc. and tons of real issues to concentrate on without the need to ride individual hobby horses too much.

    The interviews which have been going on are a good example of the kind of material the site can produce very welln and what people might actually come here for.

  14. Anonymous copernicus | 1:36 a.m. |  

    I think it's growing beyond an aggregator Cian. It doesn't have that flavour, and people aren't really speaking about it in that way - like they would about irishblogs dot ie, f'rinstance.

    If it's an aggregator, then people will be cross referencing posts they would have written anyway.

    But what if posts are being written primarily with a view to placing them on the site? Surely that's the case with the interviews.

    An interesting conundrum.

  15. Blogger Cian | 1:43 a.m. |  

    And a happy one, since the unique content is as important to the site as the crossed posts. The unique content is a great addition and will be strengthened.
    I agree there is a great deal of selection issues taking place right now (like in Clare this afternoon).
    I think having posts for the site is up to the authors though and i love it when they do it. I was just suggesting that my initial premise was to be a specific site acting like a gateway between blog comment and non blog readers.
    Unique content only strengthens that relationship

  16. Blogger Simon | 1:46 a.m. |  

    Copernicus I under stand your constituency point but do people care. I wrote a piece on North Tipp how many actually read it. I mean I am not sure if I would read a piece on the goings on in Wexford.

    As for Damian's Slugger Point. I am not sure. Do we link to pieces we think are good and ask to discuss them? I am not sure how well Slugger model would work down south . People are not as willing to jump on an issue as readily here. For instance probably to most commented piece on Irish election was about Sinn Fein's recognition of the Irish Army. I am not sure people would be as emotive about agricultural policy. But maybe I am wrong. I would see Irish Election as more of a guardian Comment is free site rather then slugger.

    On the orginal content issue I know what you are saying but I agree with Cian that it gives non blogs people an entry point

    On the agenda's issue I guess the thinking is everyone has an agenda so you might as well have them all

  17. Anonymous copernicus | 2:01 a.m. |  

    I, for one, read your constituency piece Simon. The country is full of people who get pretty moist at the notion of grass roots politics and I am firmly of the belief that if something is written about interestingly and intelligently and made relevant to people (as in you justify placing it before them) people will read it.

    I think Dick's point re slugger (and I don't want to put words in his mouth) was that the tone is fairly disinterested. I don't think he was advocating a links fest. I think a policy is worth developing if you want the site to emulate slugger in the one way that counts.

    Massive traffic and a readership not confined to other bloggers.

  18. Blogger Simon | 2:07 a.m. |  

    Maybe a word limit on articles? Get your point across in around about 200 words or something?

    Thanks for reading my North Tipp piece BTW

  19. Anonymous copernicus | 2:29 a.m. |  

    Hey, I see the words Michael Lowry and I am all over a post like Frank Neary on a plate of magic mushrooms...

    oops.

  20. Anonymous copernicus | 2:35 a.m. |  

    *disclaimer - the above comment is a reference to a joke gone wrong over at Mr. Neary's blog.

    Mr. Neary is in no way to be construed as remotely hip enough to have indulged in illicit drug consumption.

  21. Blogger Simon | 2:49 a.m. |  

    Keep on Topic please. Franks choice of Fungai is not up for debate :)

  22. Anonymous Mark Waters | 10:02 a.m. |  

    Cian,

    I was halfway through writing you an e-mail on this.

    I think you should have some general guidelines but there's no need to go overboard. Having an editor is unfeasible and would probably kill the site. However, contributors should be encouraged to stay on topic. I think posts on local constituency issues are very interesting and something that the group blog format might be able to cover better than the national media. Ditto for the interviews with candidates. On the otherhand I'm not too keen on posts that focus on a genaral political issue and then round it off with the get out clause of 'I wonder how this will pan-out in the election'. I suppose sometimes it's a fine line. It's a judgement call that should be left in the hands of contributors though rather than an editorial board.

    As regards bias, I think it is important that people declare their affiliations, i.e. if you are a member of a political party you should say so. Mostly the biases are self-evident and readers can factor them in.

    Cross-posting is fine except that it can lead to fragmentary conversations going on in two places. I suppose that's the nature of the medium.

    I wouldn't get too hungup about the whole thing. I think over time a general style will evolve and people will get a sense of what is acceptable and what level of quality is expected. I think the best approach is to lead by example. If individual contributors focus on producing good quality content then other contributors will up their game.

  23. Anonymous Mark Waters | 10:50 a.m. |  

    Slightly OT...
    Frank:

    I think we can all agree tha Wulfbeorns piece the other day was a bit errant and daft, and not really what the site is about.

    I don't agree. It was on the topic of voting rights which is very relevant. It provoked an excellent response from Frank McGahon which raised very interesting ideas about what motivates voters. Both posts definitely got me thinking. Far more interesting than a pot versus kettle catfight between TDs.

    I guess that's an example of the difficulty an editor would have.

  24. Blogger Cian | 11:08 a.m. |  

    I was in two minds about Wulfs post, i think the issue of who votes is at the core of elections themselves. There has got to be room for think pieces no matter how much we disagree with them. Think pieces make it fresher and more unique.
    Thanks for that Mark, I agree its best not to get too hung up but with the number of contributors growing all the time its good to get the ideas out ther now and get a feel for the site.
    C

  25. Anonymous copernicus | 11:52 a.m. |  

    The issue of voting rights was settled about a hundred years ago and it's not going to arise before this or any election ever again. In fact, the only way the issue might arise would be in the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds or immigrants. The issue of who is entitled to vote might well be at the core of the democratic process, but it's not an electoral issue unlike, for example, the facilitation of voting which is a relevant issue as is the encouragement or discouragement of turnout, what you might call the constructive disenfranchisement of the disabled and of students as we see at every election.

    It's a good example, because it might well be provokative but it doesn't qualify as an Irish election "think" piece, even if such posting beasts are to be encouraged. It was more like blogging as usual and the interesting debate it prompted was a typical inter-blog one.

    I acknowledge that there is support for encouraging think pieces, I just think if the site is to be interesting to people outside the blogosphere, guidelines should be there for people to test their ideas against. The disenfranchisement debate might have been more interesing to Mark than a fight between TDs, but it seems ironic in saying that to imply that the former is more relevant to an Irish Election blog than the latter. TDs are surely what the site is all about.

    The editorial board idea was that the people on it could put together those guidelines rather than vet posts. If someone was a repeat offender against them, while his or her posts might be allowed up, a consensus might form to remind him or her of the existence of the guidelines is a gentle fashion.

  26. Anonymous Mark Waters | 12:48 p.m. |  

    The issue of voting rights was settled about a hundred years ago and it's not going to arise before this or any election ever again. In fact, the only way the issue might arise would be in the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds or immigrants. The issue of who is entitled to vote might well be at the core of the democratic process, but it's not an electoral issue unlike, for example, the facilitation of voting which is a relevant issue as is the encouragement or discouragement of turnout, what you might call the constructive disenfranchisement of the disabled and of students as we see at every election.

    This is off topic. Take it to the relevant post.


    It's a good example, because it might well be provokative but it doesn't qualify as an Irish election "think" piece, even if such posting beasts are to be encouraged. It was more like blogging as usual and the interesting debate it prompted was a typical inter-blog one.

    That's just your opinion which is coloured by your attitude to the piece. I don't want to get bogged down in arguing the merits of an indivdual post but it's certainly relevant to the election since it touches upon how various demographic groups are targeted or ignored by political parties. There are relevant issues in there, for example the issue of how civil servants vote and how parties attempt to woo that vote. No offence to other posters intended but its more relevant than any of the posts of March 30th.

    The disenfranchisement debate might have been more interesing to Mark than a fight between TDs, but it seems ironic in saying that to imply that the former is more relevant to an Irish Election blog than the latter.

    I didn't say that it was more relevant. Read what I wrote.

    The editorial board idea was that the people on it could put together those guidelines rather than vet posts. If someone was a repeat offender against them, while his or her posts might be allowed up, a consensus might form to remind him or her of the existence of the guidelines is a gentle fashion.

    I can agree with that.

  27. Anonymous copernicus | 1:17 p.m. |  

    I don't see how your references to the post are on topic and might aren't. Unless you're suggesting that because you think it belongs on Irish Election, you're on topic, and that somehow because I don't, I'm off. That you are to be allowed to support your reasoning, but I'm not seem arbitrary and unfair, and as such I'd rather you didn't address my points with the curt dismissal above.

    I didn't say you explicitly wrote something - I argued that to suggest what you did was to imply something else. Fine, if you disagree, certainly plenty of room for that, but I did read what you said and I understood the point you were trying to make. I just think you're increasing the brief too wide to accommodate this type of posting - My point is that whether or not a post is interesting is irrelevant to the argument as to whether or not it should be on the blog. The blogosphere is full of interesting posts after all.

    As everything I wrote was in support of that point, none of it was off topic.

    I've been very careful to make sure that my points have not been coloured by my attitude to the piece (and aren't you being off topic here and weren't you the one who discussed its individual merits, not me). I expressly stated in the original comments on backseatdrivers that my points were disinterested and were not being made in light of the fact that I didn't see eye to eye with the most prolific posters on the blog so far.

    It's a bit much of you to come on here and suggest that I'm using the thread as an excuse to go off topic and express "coloured" attitudes.

    I suggest you reread my comments with an open mind and try to forget that I disagree with the post in question and, more importantly, that you.

  28. Anonymous copernicus | 1:19 p.m. |  

    ...think it's interesting.

  29. Anonymous Mark Waters | 1:31 p.m. |  

    Sorry that I was curt but you were arguing the issue raised in Wulfbeorn's post and not whether the post was on topic or not. I did my best to try and argue the relevancy of the post without arguing about the issues it raises. Tricky I know, you're running into the same problems as me I think.

    Anyway it's probably not useful to argue the relevancy of this particular post but it might be a good example to use when we come up with posting guidelines.

    My opinion is that in the vast majority of cases it should be easy to tell if a post is off-topic. In that case, a word in the ear of an errant poster would be the way to go.

    However, I think in the cases of posts like Wulfbeorn's where there is a genuine difference of opinion as to the relevancy then it should be up to the poster to use their discretion as to whether to post or not.

    I get the feeling that as the amount of content increases the blog will start to develop its own style or voice adn contributors will tend to graviate towards it.

  30. Anonymous Mark Waters | 2:34 p.m. |  

    copernicus:

    It's a bit much of you to come on here and suggest that I'm using the thread as an excuse to go off topic and express "coloured" attitudes.

    copernicus:

    Hey, I see the words Michael Lowry and I am all over a post like Frank Neary on a plate of magic mushrooms...

    :)

  31. Blogger Simon | 2:40 p.m. |  

    Anyway back to the topic at hand.

    How do we work the Irish election site.

    Like Slugger
    or
    like Guardian comment is free.?

  32. Anonymous Mark Waters | 4:15 p.m. |  

    It'll probably be a bit of both. No harm in that.

    I think the issue is whether we need guidelines for contributors. Here's a few suggestions:

    General
    - Favour guidelines over rules
    - Favour author responsibility over editorial control
    - Favour quality over quantity.
    - Be reasonable. Give the benefit of the doubt. Someday you will need it back.

    Specific
    - The subject matter is Irish Elections. Try to remain on topic. If in doubt leave it out, ask for a second opinion, or just post to your own blog. Author's judgement of relevance of a post is final i.e. once it's posted it stays posted.
    - No personal attacks. That includes politicians. No name calling. Play the ball not the man and no sliding tackles (i.e. taking out ball and man).
    - Declare any political affiliations

    That's all I can think of right now. I'd suggest that contributors should be made aware of this thread. If you read the whole thread you get a good sense of what is expected in a way that's not so easy to some up in a list of bullet points.

  33. Blogger Cian | 6:20 p.m. |  

    I think comment is free, its what the irish sphere is good at and what the site will get most out of.

  34. Anonymous Adam | 7:06 p.m. |  

    An editor would be unworkable and would, as Cian said, kill the site.
    A board would probably be unworkable too.
    Having a Slugger model would probably involve dropping many posters and cutting back to a small committed handful, which I assume isn't the intention of Cian and Co.
    Guidelines should be put forward to tighten up the posting; posting a general piece with an election reference at the end isn't good enough, but IMO any action of any party at this point can easily be seen or debated as part of electioneering, do you think Harney is putting out all these great Health suggestions now because she suddenly realised there's a job to be done? God no.
    Declaring party membership is an important factor, otherwise the site risks being over-run by shills from different sides intent on taking control for their own electoral success.
    Cross posting is also something that should be cut back on; it's something I've begun to stop doing (Although my postcount is pretty small tbh).
    There's no harm in having a meeting to discuss the site and its future, especially before things really get going, but it should be made clear what the agenda of the meeting is, otherwise nothing will be done.

  35. Blogger Simon | 8:23 p.m. |  

    I would like to read some ones opinion on the health service. I personnally don't know enough about it to comment.

    I think the current model is good. If we could get a few more people of different leanings.

    The only job an editor should have on the site is spell checking and making sure the Continue reading link is used to split posts.

  36. Anonymous Adam | 8:50 p.m. |  

    I was going to do a piece on the health service but have put it off due to lack of info too.
    A friend of mine who is involved in Medicine (not a medical doctor, he's a doctor in some kind of chemical capacity I think), has told me that he thinks that Harney has been doing a good job so far, which was the first time someone has ever said that to me and probably one of the best people I know to get an opinion from on the subject.

    I agree that any editor should be for spelling and bad grammer at the very, very most.

  37. Anonymous copernicus | 9:20 p.m. |  

    Just in case Frank comes on here an thinks I'm hoist by my own petard, the comment Mark quotes was an aside to Simon and did not relate to the substantive issue of the thread.

    I acknowledge the "gotcha", but my credibility is hardly undermined.

  38. Blogger Cian | 10:21 a.m. |  

    I had a look through the site and through the comments and thus far im quite happy with the way the whole project is going.
    I do want it to be opinionated and populated with both sides of any deabte and so far i think we have achieved that.
    Its around 14 months out from an electioon and many contribs are bedding down issues that they think will play a role in the forthcoming election. in light of that i dont think there is an urgent need to alter the setup
    however in light of
    1)Increased volume or
    2) Closer proximity to the election,
    we may consider it time to tighten up the content and focus more clearly.
    If that is the case it will be a quick email to posters who seem to be headin a bit OT.
    Right now we need to keep the site ticking over and volume is key to that.
    Its a fudge yes, but one that i think is in the best interests of the site.
    C

  39. Blogger Why Palestinians Usually Get It Wrong | 5:17 a.m. |  

    Come and check out my collection of Rachel Corrie jokes. http://whypalestiniansgetitwrong.blogspot.com/2006/04/rachel-corrie-jokes-come-and-get-em-i_01.html

  40. Blogger Omaniblog | 11:02 p.m. |  

    I posted a piece about access to countryside and wondered whether this would be seen as a legitimate topic for discussion. I wasn't sure myself because I could see the point of sticking to pure election issues, like: (1)who's getting selected as candidate?
    (2) what are the groundrules on election expenses?
    (3) who's the best tactician?
    (4) detailed analysis of the latest pre-election conference, and so on.

    However, I think it would be worthwhile to have some detailed analysis on key topics that most voters will consider: health, the economy, public safety and so on.

  41. Blogger Editor | 1:05 a.m. |  

    I was thinking about the Irish Election blog, and then thought you might be interested in my musings.

    I'm currently running at 0 contributions. This may make me a bad person, but it might also illuminate something that could be worked on to attract more, and more varied, contributions.
    Firstly, I don't have any first-hand information to share.

    Secondly, I have mostly mild political opinions while current regular posters have strongly held ideological views, strongly expressed. It doesn't seem to me that my middle-of-the-road thoughts would sit well amongst them. Though I think it is safe to say that more of the voting public are wishy washy sorts like me than are dyed in the wool committeds of any stripe.

    Thirdly the blog seems to lack cohesion. I thought maybe a tiny bit of collective endevour might create some extra value for everyone. The advantage Irishelection.com has over any newspaper is the geographical spread and number of its writers. To harness that, what about a distributed local survey? Every blogger goes out and knocks on 100 doors, say. They all have the same set of questions. Then they come back and plug that info in- mapping it onto Google, perhaps, in an impressivly technical manner I have no idea about.

  42. Blogger Cian | 12:18 a.m. |  

    test commetn

Leave your response