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.

prinz

jhegarty wrote: »

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

I think what is meant is at least two thirds of the electorate actually turn out and vote. At least that's what I took from it... actually seeking a two thirds majority to pass anything.. that's not going to work :pac:

Robbo

jhegarty wrote: »

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

Agreed. Lest we forget that in 1996, the Divorce Referendum was only passed by a couple of thousand votes.

Sparks, to bring quorums into it, we'll have to look at some form of compulsory voting.

Sparks

No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...

evercloserunion

Sparks wrote: »

No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...

Ireland is not a company and should not be run like one. Just because that's how companies are run doesn't necessarily mean that's what the Irish Constitution should say.

Robbo

Sparks wrote: »

And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

If I'm allowed to buy out other sections of the electorate or petition to have the country wound up due to voter oppression, we can draw analogies with company law. Besides, if we lived in a world governed by company law, someone in Europe would have given us a 21 day notice for a Section 213 petition some months ago...

Until such a point is reached, I'd like to stick with the popular vote approach.

MikeC101

Sparks wrote: »

No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...

I'd imagine in a company, a big part is that the driving goal is usually the same for everyone: maximising profit and dividends (or other things that will lead to this)?

I don't think we'd get a 2/3 majority on anything here, regardless of the proposal.

Sparks

I love the way that winding us up under section 213 is thought of as a bad thing...

And as I said, a 2/3 majority requirement would get around the -- frankly ridiculous -- situation where 54% No means a rerun and 53% Yes (projected) carries no possibility of a rerun despite a smaller (projected) margin.

Sparks

evercloserunion wrote: »

Ireland is not a company and should not be run like one.

Are you sure? If we were a company, JO'D would have been sacked by now for diddling the company expense account...

namloc1980

Sparks wrote: »

No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...

In a referendum: 1 (wo)man = 1 vote.
In a company: 1 share = 1 vote.

You can't compare the 2. If a company has 1 milion shares issued and I own 800k of them...when I vote in favour of a company proposal it's automatically 80% in favour.

No amendment in a referendum would be likely to achieve 67% in favour unless it's clear cut like the death penealty one a few years ago.

evercloserunion

Sparks wrote: »

Are you sure? If we were a company, JO'D would have been sacked by now for diddling the company expense account...

And as a company exists to make profit, the government would only look after those who can afford to pay for its services...

Robbo

Sparks wrote: »

I love the way that winding us up under section 213 is thought of as a bad thing...

Personally, I love it. Nothing motivates payment in the same manner these days.

Sparks wrote: »

And as I said, a 2/3 majority requirement would get around the -- frankly ridiculous -- situation where 54% No means a rerun and 53% Yes (projected) carries no possibility of a rerun despite a smaller (projected) margin.

When there's political will, we can always bail out. Perhaps you could have the head start on lobbying and start now?

dvpower

A €5 charge for every poster (advertisement) going to the local authority - that'd put manners on them.

A factcheck.org equivilent in this country to rate the claims of each side

floydmoon1

Hey guys just after reading the last few pages and from both sides everyone seems to agree in regards posters should not be used.

Does anyone think we could go further with this and try to make a difference than just post about it.

What I propose is to start a petition for no posters to be used in any future elections/referenda.

We could surely get most of the boards community to sign,send emails to loads of people set up facebook/social network groups and have template letters to email post to your local TD.

If we did this while we still have Lisbon and the thoughts of all these crazy posters in the news and also with maybe an election coming up I think we could as an online community try to change something in this nation of ours.

Anyone interested or will we just keep moaning by posting and not putting actions to words.

Sparks

I seriously doubt petitions would achieve that goal.
About the only route by which this might come about which I can think of as being possible in this country, is if one of us is finally killed because of one of these posters being put up in such a way as to obstruct the vision of a driver; and that someone then bring legal action against the campaigning party who commissioned the poster.
And even that would be unlikely to succeed, though it might generate sufficient PR to effect some small measure of change.
Rather an unethical (if inevitable) price to pay though.

Aard

Robbo wrote: »

Sparks, to bring quorums into it, we'll have to look at some form of compulsory voting.

I'ld like to see compulsory voting happening.

P. Breathnach

Aard wrote: »

I'ld like to see compulsory voting happening.

I can't imagine any more effective way to ensure that every referendum fails. People who are uninterested, or who are not sure about their preference, would resent having to go to the polling station and would probably express that resentment by voting no.

PaulieD

Ban Coir. Please, for the love of god, ban Coir.

Agent J

You cant have complusory voting.

I know it seems like a good idea on paper but when practically applied it is pretty silly. I have a friend who was born in Belguim but has lived on here since he was 4 and still has to vote in every single election there. He postal spoils his vote every time.

The only thing complsory voting does is give more to the looney fringe parties as people resent being forced to vote.
And besides, we dont have a "None of the above option" so it would be pretty unfair on people.

If Democracy and all that Jazz is about freedom then they are also free to turn it down.

OldJay

My name is URL wrote: »

any more steps you think could be taken?

Every side must be allowed to to put their case forward.
It is up to the voter to not only bother their hynie voting but to be able to spot a lie when its touted and not a conveniently tribalistic point of view.
Any rules or laws imposed would prohibit this.

OldJay

Agent J wrote: »

You cant have complusory voting.

I know it seems like a good idea on paper but when practically applied it is pretty silly

It actually works in Australia