30th Amendment (Oireachtas Enquiries) Exit Poll

Eliot Rosewater

How did you vote in today referendum on giving the Oireachtas increased powers to hold enquiries?


See also:
Presidential election exit poll: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056433501#
29th Amendment exit poll: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056433512#

Bannasidhe

Absolute and resounding NO.

flyaway.

I voted no.

Riskymove

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolute and resounding NO.

you pressed down the pencil really hard??

Bannasidhe

Riskymove wrote: »

you pressed down the pencil really hard??

It snapped .

Bannasidhe

Note to those voting in Cork - encountered a problem with the voter identifying number on the polling cards being incorrect - while at the polling station 6 others were experiencing the same thing- apparently going by the number the only occupant at my address is a woman I've never heard of -I'm fairly sure I would have noticed her if she lived here, met her in the kitchen, queue for the loo/shower or something....

Lucky myself and my son had passports, driving licences etc with us so we could prove we were who we said we were and live where we say we live...

So anyone yet to vote in Cork - please bring ID and proof of address!!!

Red Silurian

I voted yes because I trust the people I voted into the oireachtas... Hence why I voted them in last feb

maggy_thatcher

colmtheperson wrote: »

I voted yes because I trust the people I voted into the oireachtas... Hence why I voted them in last feb

I hope you trust each and every other government from now until the end of time...as there's nothing to stop any future government from changing the rules if this amendment passes.

Bannasidhe

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I hope you trust each and every other government from now until the end of time...as there's nothing to stop any future government from changing the rules if this amendment passes.

Never thought I'd agree with Maggie Thatcher!;)

Min

I voted No.

FreudianSlippers

Another "NO" vote from me. Feeling good about boardsies at the moment looking at those numbers

ShooterSF

Voted No. Shame the level of discussion here wasn't had in the general public. First time in a long time myself and the folks argued about something so much. I fear this will pass.

Sunnyisland

Voted no.

Boulevardier

I voted Yes.

I voted no on judges pay, but that is a minor issue for me.

Colonel Sanders

Voted No

I Know boards.ie may not be a representative sample but the results in this one are promising...

Where To

Voted no although I may vote yes when it comes up next time.

damino

I was thorn between yes/no. My gut instinct said no, so I voted no.

Sunnyisland

If these two referendums are defeated can they bring them back to the electorate later on again untill there passed ?

MagicMarker

Voted no.

nice_guy80

Yes

anything to make enquiries cheaper and stop the legal profession sucking any more money out of the country

amacachi

realies wrote: »

If these two referendums are defeated can they bring them back to the electorate later on again untill there passed ?

Like the divorce referendums? Yes.

nkay1985

colmtheperson wrote: »

I voted yes because I trust the people I voted into the oireachtas... Hence why I voted them in last feb

I voted no because I don't trust the people you and everyone else voted in last February. Well that's not entirely true but there's no way I'm going to be happy with every government that's ever going to be in existence from now until I die.

If 8 former attorneys general think it's not a good amendment, who am I to argue.

nice_guy80

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Yes

anything to make enquiries cheaper and stop the legal profession sucking any more money out of the country

Congrats on being woefully misinformed.

A Yes vote would mean more work for the legal profession, not less. The Commissions of Inquiry Act 2004 put an end to the Tribunals and has replaced them with a much more efficient system.

If the 30th amendment is carried it would lead to a huge amount of legal work as person after person brought before the Committees would challenge everything they did in the High Court.

You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid that the Government were feeding you. That referendum was not designed to stop legal fees for tribunals, it was to secure greater power for the Government.

JackieChan

I was originally all on for this amendment but if our politicians have shown one thing it's that they can't be trusted-This would grant too much power to them...Another NO vote here.

colmtheperson

colmtheperson wrote: »

I voted yes because I trust the people I voted into the oireachtas... Hence why I voted them in last feb

Wow that's shortsighted. Wow.

Hunchback

Riskymove wrote: »

you pressed down the pencil really hard??

I can't believe you said that!! I was so forceful marking the no box that i broke the lead on the pencil. had to apologise to the lady!!!

Duke Leonal Felmet

colmtheperson wrote: »

I voted yes because I trust the people I voted into the oireachtas... Hence why I voted them in last feb

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

I hope you trust each and every other government from now until the end of time...as there's nothing to stop any future government from changing the rules if this amendment passes.

No response to this point, Colm? Or did you not think this through, at all?

nuac

Voted No. It is a blank cheque to Oireachtas without any significant restraints

Duke Leonal Felmet

Just saw on the news, there are reports of some people refusing to vote on amendments because they didnt know what they were about.

The silence on this issue has been unanimous across all parties. Shame on them.

goat2

i did not vote on referendum, i felt that it was not explained in detail, as this is so important, i decided to abstain,

MagicMarker

goat2 wrote: »

i did not vote on referendum, i felt that it was not explained in detail, as this is so important, i decided to abstain,

What detail were you looking for and why did you not find out for yourself what's involved?

goat2

MagicMarker wrote: »

What detail were you looking for and why did you not find out for yourself what's involved?

to me it was more important than electing presidental candidate, as it is going to effect many people, it would have been more important if there were a debate on the issues, rather than all the time listning to seven candidates who will not make a difference to mine or others lives as their job is just pr and without powers to change or do anything,
they were asking us to vote yes or no to something important, yet they did not take the time to have a debate on it, all they all wanted to do is get their own in the big white mansion, earning a fat wage,
instead of putting this referendum first.

MagicMarker

goat2 wrote: »

to me it was more important than electing presidental candidate, as it is going to effect many people, it would have been more important if there were a debate on the issues, rather than all the time listning to seven candidates who will not make a difference to mine or others lives as their job is just pr and without powers to change or do anything,
they were asking us to vote yes or no to something important, yet they did not take the time to have a debate on it, all they all wanted to do is get their own in the big white mansion, earning a fat wage,
instead of putting this referendum first.

If you felt it was more important then why didn't you seek out the necessary information that would have enabled you to vote?

That Handsome Devil

goat2 wrote: »

to me it was more important than electing presidental candidate, as it is going to effect many people, it would have been more important if there were a debate on the issues, rather than all the time listning to seven candidates who will not make a difference to mine or others lives as their job is just pr and without powers to change or do anything,
they were asking us to vote yes or no to something important, yet they did not take the time to have a debate on it, all they all wanted to do is get their own in the big white mansion, earning a fat wage,
instead of putting this referendum first.

I voted no, but it was a (i like to think :P ) informed no vote. If you think the media/politicians/whoever didnt do a good enough job explaining it or ignored it, you gotta look it up yourself. Boards was talking about it for a long time, and even the wording changes on their own can be found anywhere.

Still, if people aren't informed, they shouldn't vote. In a way, its better you did this than just go and vote yes anyway because the government said so.

goat2

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you felt it was more important then why didn't you seek out the necessary information that would have enabled you to vote?

i felt that i could have overlooked very important pieces, here is where a debate come in handy, when you have the for and against opening it up and making a person think, i agree with this or that, but all i heard all along was vote yes, i did not hear the no,s voice their openion strong enough, and i do not vote unless i fully understand

nkay1985

goat2 wrote: »

i did not vote on referendum, i felt that it was not explained in detail, as this is so important, i decided to abstain,

In that case you should have voted no. If you felt the proposed amendment was vague, you should have voted against it rather than not voting either way.

Hunchback

nkay1985 wrote: »

In that case you should have voted no. If you felt the proposed amendment was vague, you should have voted against it rather than not voting either way.

i could not agree more with this post. our constitution PROTECTS us. if you feel you are not sufficiently informed, then your 'default mode' should ALWAYS be to vote no. abstention is not an appropriate or adequate response. preserve the constitution as it stands if you dont know what you are voting on, which is understandable cuz god knows there has been enough misinformation, underhanded tactics, rushed legislation and lack of honesty

ShooterSF

*Awaits the pro-Lisbon supporters diving in against if you don't know...*

IngazZagni

I voted yes. I have always been of the opinion that the legal profession have too much power. Various different cases have been blocked and criminals have got off lightly because of "legal technicalities". I also feel if this amendment was made years ago we could have investigated top banking execs, find out how they were working the system and prevent it from happening elsewhere. Now of course that is a very minor example in a broad case but it can be used in a vast amount of cases.

Could this system be abused. I think it could be, but we elect these investigators of sorts. If we feel that they have abused the system for personal gain, then we can vote them out. We can't vote out the legal profession who also have the potential to make bad decisions and do things for self gain.

Eliot Rosewater

I find goats2's attitude admirable, particularly in the context of two referenda that will probably pass because uninformed people (as many are due to the lack of coverage) tick "yes" by default. goat2 made the most informed decision possible in the circumstances simply because voting either way without knowledge is the definition of uninformed.

Still, their case raises the troubling issue about the lack of information and debate. I agree with Duke Leonal Felmet: shame on all parties - Labour, FF, FG, Sinn Fein- for keeping silent on an issue that, on the basis of their Dail records, those parties supported. It is the height of condescension and arrogance to refuse to publicise a measure, like this, that you support.

Looking forward, I think the best way to prevent this happening again would be to stipulate in our constitution that referenda votes be a minimum of one month either side of an election. That way it would be impossible for parliamentarians to get an amendment in "on the sly" when media focus is elsewhere.

Finally, trawling through the Dail records I saw that the debate about the 30th amendment was held just after speeches celebrating International Democracy Day. I doubt any of our yes voting parliamentarians saw the irony.

Manach

No this time. And no again if the same wording next time around.

LostinBlanch

Well I think it's disgusting that people hand to hand back their ballot papers due to not knowing which was for which referendum. Or for not getting the appropriate information from the referendum commission.

I read Martina Devlin's article in the indo today and she said that she didn't get any information. I wonder how many people were in the same boat? For such an important issue, the behaviour of the government has been absolutely disgraceful. Look at the rushed amendments, the lack of debate - ony 5 hours in the Dail before it was guillotined, then the complete failure of the Referendum Commission to do it's job. My God, if FF tried to do the same everyone on here would be up in arms, and rightly so.

Podge_irl

CKonetheonlyone wrote: »

if you feel you are not sufficiently informed, then your 'default mode' should ALWAYS be to vote no.

I would have said your default mode should be to find the information. It's not like it's hidden.

The amendments were written out in full on the polling cards. While that's not necessarily enough information for people, it is essentially all the most important information.

Anyway, I voted no.

Scofflaw

ShooterSF wrote: »

*Awaits the pro-Lisbon supporters diving in against if you don't know...*

Oh alright...at Lisbon 1 you'd had a couple of months to inform yourself (the text of the Treaty was available in early April), by Lisbon 2 you'd had nearly 2 years. In that light "if you don't know, you should be ashamed of yourself" would have been a more reasonable slogan.

This one, on the other hand - 2 weeks, maybe, even for the politics hounds like ourselves? And during probably the most excitingly nasty Presidential election for decades? How much airtime did the referendums get?

I'd say on this one that if you didn't know, it was hardly surprising, and voting No because you had no idea what was happening was perfectly reasonable, because not having much idea what was happening was in itself reasonable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

sdanseo

No, no and triple NO.

Oasis_Dublin

I voted no.

cheesemaker

Big fat NO to both.

Only an eejit would do otherwise, have they not heard about our politicians

Wibbs

No from me.

Tin Foil Hat

Based on (very) preliminary tallies, this is not going to pass.
Nice one.:)

Sir Oxman

An absolute NO.
I've just heard on Newstalk that this referendum apparently looks like it will be defeated (even though officail counting does not start till Saturday)

If this is true, I'm very proud of the electorate in this matter

The wording is very sneaky and the debate non-existant for a reason.

CiaranC

Voted no. Why would you give those clowns in Leinster house even more power, they do enough damage as it is. Imagine Sinn Fein running amok, jesus.