Improving Future Referenda

My name is URL

The run-up to this referendum highlighted all that's wrong with the process

Misleading posters, scare-mongering and character assassinations have probably been factors that have been discussed even more than the treaty itself

So how do you think that future referenda could be improved?

For me-

• ban poster campaigning outright, or at the very least set up a body to regulate the process and make sure that no misleading takes place
  
  
• a stop to the corporatist sponsorship for campaign groups, imo it's an unnecessary thing and detaches people from deciding on the issues at hand

any more steps you think could be taken?

ei.sdraob

Transparency in funding would be nice

cough cough

Rb

Scofflaw has a great idea regarding this.

It is basically to ban any campaigning by anyone apart from the Referendum Commission.

I think it's a fantastic idea.

meglome

Rb wrote: »

Scofflaw has a great idea regarding this.

It is basically to ban any campaigning by anyone apart from the Referendum Commission.

I think it's a fantastic idea.

Although given that many people on the No campaign were claiming the entire planet was biased against them I dunno how that'd work out. I'll be all for it though.

hatrickpatrick

Any posters which do not relate directly to the question being asked must be completely banned.

So no abortion posters, no minimum wage posters, no "Ireland needs europe" or "yes to recovery posters", no posters referencing the EU without referencing the specific treaty, no vague posters which can't be backed up by the text of the treaty (workers rights for example), etc.

We're voting on a specific treaty. Nothing more, nothing less.

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any posters which do not relate directly to the question being asked must be completely banned.

So no abortion posters, no minimum wage posters, no "Ireland needs europe" or "yes to recovery posters", no posters referencing the EU without referencing the specific treaty, no vague posters which can't be backed up by the text of the treaty (workers rights for example), etc.

We're voting on a specific treaty. Nothing more, nothing less.

were in agreement!

MikeC101

It really hasn't been a great campaign for debating the actual issues.

I thought the majority of Yes posters were fairly vague insipid "Yes means good things will happen" slogans, and though I'd agree it's certainly possible there could be knock on effects regarding investor confidence and so on, I don't think that they're as huge as portrayed. Similarly, the endorsements by businesses with vague allusions to jobs didn't really connect with me.

Then again, the Lisbon treaty doesn't really lend itself to exciting slogans - "Vote Yes so that National Parliaments of the Member States will have a direct role in framing EU legislation"...doesn't really work.

But, perhaps simply by virtue of having the extremely vocal Cóir / YD and Libertas on their side, the No side has appeared to have been a lot worse. I was shocked at the sheer amount of lies on posters from those groups, and all the other posters opposing it I saw were the usual SWP stuff that gets trundled out at every single protest or march. It's a shame there wasn't a more coherent, reasonable No representative, because I don't for one minute believe Libertas and Cóir represent the majority of No voters - there are people with genuine concerns and worries over the Lisbon treaty, and it doesn't seem like there was anyone to represent them effectively.

Had there been, we might have seen some rational debates, rather than the mud slinging and race to the bottom that ensued.

It makes me wonder how much actual support a group like Cóir has, other than financial (from abroad?), in Ireland, and if it's right that they can have such a huge influence.

Edit: I should clarify, my use of "posters" refers to the ones stuck up on poles, rather than the good folk of the politics forum!

BlitzKrieg

I agree strongely with the ban on posters, I would personnally ban them for any vote, including general elections. Honestly what benefit do they bring to the process?

Waste of space, time and money.

turgon

My name is URL wrote: »

a stop to the corporatist sponsorship for campaign groups, imo it's an unnecessary thing and detaches people from deciding on the issues at hand

Do you disagree with Ryanair and Intel advocating Yes, or is this in relation to the hedge fund that sponsored Libertas?

humanji

I think that's a great idea too, but you'll get plenty of people complaining that commision is biased. It's fairly inevitable. So the commision itself would have to be planned out in a way where complaints or concerns can be addressed in a transparent matter.

But most importantly of all:

My name is URL wrote:

ban poster campaigning outright, or at the very least set up a body to regulate the process and make sure that no misleading takes place

I'd be happy if just that happened.

MikeC101

Rb wrote: »

Scofflaw has a great idea regarding this.

It is basically to ban any campaigning by anyone apart from the Referendum Commission.

I think it's a fantastic idea.

It's an interesting idea.

If we could be assured of impartiality, I'd be all in favour of it (not saying the Referendum Commission is biased, but perhaps if it's going to be the sole arbitrator on referenda we might need something more to it - an impartial judge, allowing people to make complaints....well something like the courts I suppose.)

prinz

Rb wrote: »

Scofflaw has a great idea regarding this.
It is basically to ban any campaigning by anyone apart from the Referendum Commission.
I think it's a fantastic idea.

Depends on what constitutes campaigning though surely? Does that mean no political party can publicly endorse any particular outcome? I'd prefer knowing where the various parties and politicians stood tbh. I mean a party saying we are pro-whatever/anti-whatever could effectively be accused fo campaigning by association.

My name is URL

So how would people go about trying to press the Referendum Commission to bring in changes?

turgon

Well I suppose it can be done through the media.

Ive no problem any corporation that takes a position because as someone said they are "corporate citizens" and their fate depends on it too. However it could be done in the papers, not on posters etc.

I passed a large Intel billboard today. "Keeping the EU strong is essential to Ireland's future" in big front and then a small "Intel Supporting Lisbon" in the corner. I thought it was a pretty effective add, certainly the best Yes side poster as there was really was no **** about it.

turgon

My name is URL wrote: »

So how would people go about trying to press the Referendum Commission to bring in changes?

TD? Set up a campaign group. Id be fully in support of such a group if you set it up, btw.

Mad_Max

I stayed out of the debate on Boards for one reason, every debate was dragged down the sewer and rolled around a few times (by both sides at times). The exact same can be said for the national debate in my opinion.

Watching Ganley and O'Leary call each other names. Watching Miriam O'Callaghan calling O'Leary a bully for talking over Ganley. Listening to Joe higgins drool on about workers right and just generally having to listen to any member of Government at all. All of these done nothing for either side for me.

I thought about the referendum commision idea myself but to be honest I fear that amount of power being in the hands of any one group. If Ireland's history shows anything it shows power corrupts and corrupt people shouldn't be allowed to influence the opinions of the masses without challenge.

I don't think much can be done for a real improvement. Posters being banned would be of some help but you'll just get them spouting more lies in papers/TV shows etc.

Tony EH

My name is URL wrote: »

The run-up to this referendum highlighted all that's wrong with the process

Misleading posters, scare-mongering and character assassinations have probably been factors that have been discussed even more than the treaty itself

So how do you think that future referenda could be improved?

For me-

• ban poster campaigning outright, or at the very least set up a body to regulate the process and make sure that no misleading takes place
• a stop to the corporatist sponsorship for campaign groups, imo it's an unnecessary thing and detaches people from deciding on the issues at hand

any more steps you think could be taken?

Accepting the public's answer would be a good start.

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Accepting the public's answer would be a good start.

Yeah, it was pretty annoying the way they ratified the Lisbon treaty after the "no" vote last time.

namloc1980

Rb wrote: »

Scofflaw has a great idea regarding this.

It is basically to ban any campaigning by anyone apart from the Referendum Commission.

I think it's a fantastic idea.

Excellent idea....it would cut out all the rubbish and BS spouted by both sides

Tony EH

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, it was pretty annoying the way they ratified the Lisbon treaty after the "no" vote last time.

Hmmm...you probably would have been happy with that.

evercloserunion

We shouldn't have referenda on complex legal treaties full stop. Lenihan was right, it's an embarassing process.

Failing that though, I would support laws against dishonesty in public debate.

dny123456

We should vote for the party that puts up the _least_ posters.... that'd be the green party I guess?

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, it was pretty annoying the way they ratified the Lisbon treaty after the "no" vote last time.

It's ironic that by this time tomorrow your statement probably won't be the least bit sarcastic

Daftendirekt

The campaign posters have to go.

They contribute nothing to the debate, other than creating uncertainty and confusion, whether it be attempting to convince people that the referendum is a vote on economic recovery or a vote on abortion.

Here's a catchphrase everyone can get behind:

No to stupid slogans!

oscarBravo

Tony EH wrote: »

Hmmm...you probably would have been happy with that.

I would have been absolutely furious. Why would you think otherwise?

My name is URL wrote: »

It's ironic that by this time tomorrow your statement probably won't be the least bit sarcastic

If the vote is "yes", I will have no problem with the government ratifying Lisbon. If the vote is "yes", I'll be pissed if they don't ratify it.

Basically I'm hoping they'll do as the referendum result permits. Like last time.

Hydrosylator

You're on the right track there.
My idea would be:

Ban

1. Posters
2. Door-to-door canvassing
3. Leafletting
4. Political ads

I don't condemn any organisation simply for practising the above, as it makes sense to try and counter-act it. In practice however, I think it all becomes noise.

I think it would be good to have a centralised information source, with equal representation of all groups. So everybody gets the same space to have their say. Parties or groups should be able to flag bull**** statements where they're posted (a la [citation needed]).

A body like the Referendum Commission could referee the site, and decide what's allowed stay up and what's not. All removals could be recorded, publicised and justified in an appendix.

Shortly before the referendum, a booklet could be sent to every home with a registered voter in residence, consisting of the fully vetted, scrutinised content of the website, with all groups being given the same space.

National newspapers could run the content in a similar layout, but they would be allowed print all or nothing. they'd still get to write articles saying whatever they like of course.

The trickiest part is deciding what constitutes a group.
Who should be allowed have a say?
Campaigning political parties would be fine by me.
Any group with more than x members, where x is a number of people who aren't members of political parties already given space, and which has been determined by a non-partisan body, which the Referendum Commission officially is.

I think if that ideas could work and was implemented effectively, and we'd had it this time, voter turnout would be higher.

I think voter fatigue can be a big problem.

My name is URL

turgon wrote: »

Do you disagree with Ryanair and Intel advocating Yes, or is this in relation to the hedge fund that sponsored Libertas?

I don't agree with any private corporations capital being used to fund a one-sided campaign.. there'll always be those in favor of the donating party or their agenda, and thus there'll always be those that support one side for ulterior reasons.

jhegarty

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any posters which do not relate directly to the question being asked must be completely banned.

So no abortion posters, no minimum wage posters, no "Ireland needs europe" or "yes to recovery posters", no posters referencing the EU without referencing the specific treaty, no vague posters which can't be backed up by the text of the treaty (workers rights for example), etc.

We're voting on a specific treaty. Nothing more, nothing less.

+1

I can't think of single poster on either side that would have passed the test.

Sparks

Bring some corporate law into it.
No referendum may pass unless turnout is sufficiently high that you can say the vote was "quorate" and no referendum may pass without a two-thirds majority. I mean, if you can't modify a company's articles without those two, why a constitution?

And it'd save us from a situation where 54% No means a rerun of a referendum but 54% Yes is hailed as a great step forward and a mandate for the government to continue in office and pass NAMA and various other fun things until the next general election...

prinz

Sparks wrote: »

Bring some corporate law into it.
No referendum may pass unless turnout is sufficiently high that you can say the vote was "quorate" and no referendum may pass without a two-thirds majority. I mean, if you can't modify a company's articles without those two, why a constitution?

+1

Absolutely. Unfortunately this being Ireland I could see us never deciding on anything because we'd never get the required amount of voters out. Turn out in this country is a farce.

jhegarty

Sparks wrote: »

Bring some corporate law into it.
No referendum may pass unless turnout is sufficiently high that you can say the vote was "quorate" and no referendum may pass without a two-thirds majority. I mean, if you can't modify a company's articles without those two, why a constitution?

And it'd save us from a situation where 54% No means a rerun of a referendum but 54% Yes is hailed as a great step forward and a mandate for the government to continue in office and pass NAMA and various other fun things until the next general election...

Unless the vote is on abolishing death and taxes your not going to get 2/3 majority.