Strange question asked to me before voting...

gavmcg92

I was in the polling station this morning to vote for the election and the two referendums. I might only be 19 years of age but I know how to vote and the way things work when it comes to voting. Everything seemed normal (going to my respective desk and showing my ID), however I was stunned when I was asked by the second official the following question:

"Are you voting in both the referendums or not?"

I felt like saying did I hear you say that?

I turned to her and said ... " Well of course I am... Why else am I here?"

Now am I wrong in saying that I should not have been asked this question when I went to vote? Surely when you go to a polling station you must be given all of the ballots involved and then it is up to you to decide whether you would like to spoil one or all of the votes.

Am I going over the top or was she right in asking this question?

fishy fishy

wow, that was odd

you should have said, I don't know - are YOU.

its none of their business

wow sierra

I thought you had to take all three papers but on the news a lot of polling clerks were saying that people were refusing to take the referendum ballot papers and only voted in Presidential election. So don't worry it was a legitimate question and nothing to do with your age.

The few people before you probably didn't take them so that was why you were asked.

The Cookie Monster

gavmcg92 wrote: »

I was in the polling station this morning to vote for the election and the two referendums. I might only be 19 years of age but I know how to vote and the way things work when it comes to voting. Everything seemed normal (going to my respective desk and showing my ID), however I was stunned when I was asked by the second official the following question:

"Are you voting in both the referendums or not?"

I felt like saying did I hear you say that?

I turned to her and said ... " Well of course I am... Why else am I here?"

Now am I wrong in saying that I should not have been asked this question when I went to vote? Surely when you go to a polling station you must be given all of the ballots involved and then it is up to you to decide whether you would like to spoil one or all of the votes.

Am I going over the top or was she right in asking this question?

Was asked the same myself, there is no point in her giving you the ballot papers if your not voting on them.

Focalbhach

I was asked the same. Thought it was a wee bit odd but I figured a lot of people probably weren't taking their referenda ballots. I wouldn't get too worked up about it

Sponge Bob

Lots of people refused the referendum ballots is why.

gavmcg92

wow sierra wrote: »

The few people before you probably didn't take them so that was why you were asked.

I was asked at 8am this morning before college and my dad said he was asked the same question tonight at 9pm... Wasn't just for me.

gavmcg92

The Cookie Monster wrote: »

there is no point in her giving you the ballot papers if your not voting on them.

That is besides the point... Those papers have to be burned if they aren't used, that's the law. It's up to you to do what you want with your papers.
This issue only becomes important when you have an individual who hasn't made their mind up and feel that they will decide when they get in there. If this person is asked if they want all of the papers or not at the desk then they might not even vote because they are asked the question.... That vote in the long run might be very important. If it isn't cast then the official is to blame.

Cicero

that is odd...very odd....could be argued that they were influencing the outcome of the vote by getting people to make a decision before having the ballot papers in their hand...i.e. if they gave them to all voters without question, maybe some of them who were thinking of not voting, may have ended up using their vote once they got their ballot paper..
It would be better to issue all ballot papers and let the voter decide what they want to do with them-

nommm

I don't see the problem. You'd be suprised by the number of people who only ask for one or the other. I got a lot of feedback today from people that said they didn't understand what the referendum was about and didn't really feel comfortable voting in that case.

Skid

nommm wrote: »

I don't see the problem. You'd be suprised by the number of people who only ask for one or the other. I got a lot of feedback today from people that said they didn't understand what the referendum was about and didn't really feel comfortable voting in that case.

The Polling Officer must assume that you are voting in all polls.

They are competely wrong to ask you which ballot papers you want.

If you don't want to take some of the papers it's up to you tell him/her, they should not prompt you to make the decision.

fishy fishy

not the point - they should have been given ALL the papers - it is their right to receive them. it is not up to some person to ask them if they are if they are not voting. if the answer had been that they wanted to spoil the vote, then what would ahve happened.

they should keep quiet and hand out the polling cards to people that present themsevles to vote, and mind their business otherwise.

gavmcg92

Cicero wrote: »

could be argued that they were influencing the outcome of the vote by getting people to make a decision before having the ballot papers in their hand..

+1

My point entirely.

glenkeo

Do they not have to match up the number of people who vote and ballot papers if you only took 1 or 2 out of the 3 papers do they have some way of keeping track

Victor

I think it was a wholly inappropriate question and a complaint should be made. While that complaint may not be upheld, it would still be useful to make.

Imagine a scenario. 100 people got to vote, everyone takes a presidential ballot paper, but only 90 take referendum ballot papers. 100 people are marked off the voting register. 85 people decide by themselves to not vote in the referendums and leave tehir ballot papers blank or spoil them. The polling staff now have 10 unaccounted for ballot papers for each referendum. While most staff will be scrupleous, some won't be.

Godofhellfire

I was asked the same but have no problem with it, in no way do I think they asked it to sway my voting in any way. I gave them my id and when they checked me off the list they asked would I like all 3 forms or just the presidential one.
I didn't even think about it until I read this topic.

By the way I did vote in all 3

gavmcg92

Godofhellfire wrote: »

I was asked the same but have no problem with it

Well then you had your mind made up already... Some people may not have known what way they were going to vote and thought that they should just go vote on instinct when they are in the booth. These kind of people could be easily swayed from even voting at all by the question in the OP.

Raging_Ninja

Orders in the book were to ask the question and record how many of each were used. Later on word came down on from our returning officers to just hand the ballot papers out.

We have to do what the book says, unless we receive instructions to the contrary.

And just so you know, there is no way to know who votes what and how. The polling cards that were sent out in the post are not required to vote, you are not compelled to hand them in, and no note is made in what order people vote.

We also had a few people who wanted to vote only on the presidential, or on one or neither of the referanda.

Plazaman

From talking to a Presiding Officer in my area, seemingly a lot of people today refused the referendum papers and just voted in the Presidential Election. Maybe your dude was getting the usual stick and grief.

gbee

As pointed out already, the three papers should have been given out ~ it's not like we are going to use them again or save money or get a refund on unused votes ... :rolleyes:

Focalbhach

gavmcg92 wrote: »

Well then you had your mind made up already... Some people may not have known what way they were going to vote and thought that they should just go vote on instinct when they are in the booth. These kind of people could be easily swayed from even voting at all by the question in the OP.

Not that this is an argument against giving people their ballot papers, but... the idea of people 'voting on instinct' at the last minute on constitutional referanda doesn't seem quite right.

gavmcg92

Focalbhach wrote: »

Not that this is an argument against giving people their ballot papers, but... the idea of people 'voting on instinct' at the last minute on constitutional referanda doesn't seem quite right.

Agreed, however that is their choice and they should not be unintentionally swayed from doing so...

Focalbhach

As I said:

Focalbhach wrote: »

Not that this is an argument against giving people their ballot papers

Raging_Ninja

Its their right to receive a ballot paper provided their eligible to vote. It is also their right to not want to vote in a particular thing. The reasoning in the book, before the countermand came down later on, was to ask the question as "some people would not want to vote on all the issues" (that's a near direct quote going from memory).

Personal judgement doesn't really come into it - if its stated in the book it has to be done.

gavmcg92

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Its their right to receive a ballot paper provided their eligible to vote. It is also their right to not want to vote in a particular thing. The reasoning in the book, before the countermand came down later on, was to ask the question as some people would not want to vote on some things.

Personal judgement doesn't really come into it - if its stated in the book it has to be done.

At what time were you told not to ask people if they wanted to vote in all 3?

I was asked at 8am and was horrified to hear that my father was asked the same thing when he went down at 9pm. Obviously my station didn't get the message.

Victor

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Its their right to receive a ballot paper provided their eligible to vote. It is also their right to not want to vote in a particular thing. The reasoning in the book, before the countermand came down later on, was to ask the question as "some people would not want to vote on all the issues" (that's a near direct quote going from memory).

Personal judgement doesn't really come into it - if its stated in the book it has to be done.

What city/county were you based in?

Raging_Ninja

gavmcg92 wrote: »

At what time were you told not to ask people if they wanted to vote in all 3?

I was asked at 8am and was horrified to hear that my father was asked the same thing when he went down at 9pm. Obviously my station didn't get the message.

We got the word at around 2-3pm or so.

Each constituency has a different returning officer, I can only say what ours did.

'Horrified' in this case strikes me as an overreaction. Being asked which ballot papers people want is nowhere close to telling people they can't or shouldn't exercise their right to vote.

PJ Maybe

Skid wrote: »

The Polling Officer must assume that you are voting in all polls.

They are competely wrong to ask you which ballot papers you want.

If you don't want to take some of the papers it's up to you tell him/her, they should not prompt you to make the decision.

This.

If you were eligible to vote today you had three votes, one in the presidential election and one in each of the two referendums. You didn't have to exercise your right in all three at the same time, so for example you could have decided to vote in the presidential at 10am and then come back at 6pm to vote in the referenda. If you declined one or more of the ballot papers they would have noted this on their registar so that when you came back you would still be issued with the ballot paper you were entitled too.

However, it would be up to you to say if you did not want a particular ballot paper so not sure why that question was asked. Your vote/your decision.

gbee

PJ Maybe wrote: »

ecided to vote in the presidential at 10am and then come back at 6pm to vote in the referenda.

In point of fact ~ no. You turn up to vote, you present ONE voting card and it's crossed off and your voting card is destroyed, there and then.

So I really think this statement is in error.

Teclo

he's young, poor chap, his post is most probably relating to a hang up over his spots

Gergiev

Reading this has really incensed me.

I gather from some of the replies above that we have one or two electoral officials contributing so I'll break cover and inform you all that I was also operating as a Presiding Officer in my area today which I have done now for a number of years.

Here are today's written instructions...

2. Voter presents polling card...

3. As there are 3 Polls, the Presiding Officer stamps each of the 3 Ballot Papers and hands each to the voter.

6. Presiding Officer hands ballot papers to voter.

As you can see I've skipped over some of the sections that don't pertain to this issue but suffice to say there is no provision to ask the intentions of the voter.

However, if the voter indicates to us that he doesn't wish to receive one or two (of the 3 today) ballot papers then that is his/her prerogative and they are issued with the ballots they request.

There is no provision whatsoever to inquire of the voter whether they wish to decline any of the ballots.

In my opinion, this is totally improper conduct that could have a bearing on the possibility of the voter participating in the relevant poll and thus significantly alter the turnout and perhaps the outcome of the poll.

The voter of course has the option then of either expressing their voting intention in the privacy of the booth or spoiling their vote by design or omission if they tender an unfilled ballot.

If my poll clerk asked a voter if they desired a ballot or not (which they did not) I would immediately intervene and instruct them not to do so.

If the voter declines a ballot then that is recorded on the electoral register with the abbreviation of the particular poll declined entered beside it.

So every single ballot is accounted for at the end of the night.

There is no advantage in "saving" the amount of ballots used as, of course, once the poll closes they are useless and destined for the shredder or recycling plant.

Someone mentioned that they got word around 2 or 3 pm from their returning officer to make inquiries about voters' intentions.

This shows up the inappropriateness of this instruction as if it was the correct procedure it would be there in print from the word go and not improvised "on the hoof".

(I can guarantee you that if RTE or Newstalk decided to run with this story there is no way any returning officer or official would go public to come on air and defend this decision - denial all round would be the order of the day).

In my station (turnout 50%) not one single person declined a ballot.

What they did in the privacy of the booth was entirely their own business and we'll (correctly) never know.

If I understand the logic of what I read above then voters were automatically handed the Presidential ballot and asked if they also desired one or both of the Referendum ballots?

Just stop a moment and consider that...who has the authority to decide which ballot takes precedence and issue instructions thereof.

Can anyone imagine or tell me that Referendum ballots were handed out and then inquiries made as to whether the voter also wished to vote in the Presidential election?

Ironic when you consider some of the allegations that have been thrown around about one or two of the candidates in the last few days that the process itself would be compromised in this way?

I suggest some of the writers above who were asked about their intentions regarding receiving ballots contact press or radio and see how this goes...

VG

gbee

Gergiev wrote: »

I suggest some of the writers above who were asked about their intentions regarding receiving ballots contact press or radio and see how this goes... VG

100% Roger Roger.

But I also suspect people, as in polling station staff, were doing as [they perceived] instructions and no other motive.

Today, myself and my wife approached the section we were shown to, I saw only ONE person that I recognised from my last visit to the Holy Cross, Cork.

My wife handed over the two cards ~ strictly not legal? and we were handed back our ballot papers, nothing was asked of us, no ID was requested but one of the boys may have known us, but as mentioned, we didn't know anyone, I thought has this place changed so much??

I'm not making a complaint, I'm 55, and voted since 18 with few if any exceptions.

We voted approximately 11.00am.

Jesus Wept

Yea, no ID asked for either, bit of a sham tbh.

JimsAlterEgo

The-Rigger wrote: »

Yea, no ID asked for either, bit of a sham tbh.

only random isn't it?

HellFireClub

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Lots of people refused the referendum ballots is why.

What an utterly rediculous thing to do. If you are unhappy with the fact that the government has not made a sufficient effort to explain the facts to you, then logically I'd think the right course of action is to leave things as they currently stand in the constitution by voting no to the amendment. Basically abstaining yourself and letting others make the decision for you, sounds a bit Irish to me...

Focalbhach

We'll see where it goes from here:

Irish Times wrote:

Voters from various parts of the State expressed surprise at being asked in their polling station if they wanted all three ballot papers.

A spokeswoman for the Dublin City local returning officer said there was no directive with regard to such a question. It could be seen as remiss of the officer at the polling station to assume the voter wanted all three ballot papers at once, or at all.

The number of stamped ballot papers handed out had to match the number recorded as taken from the ballot box when it was opened.

The spokeswoman said the question posed at some polling stations was “just a human response to a practical problem”.

Victor

gbee wrote: »

In point of fact ~ no. You turn up to vote, you present ONE voting card and it's crossed off and your voting card is destroyed, there and then.

So I really think this statement is in error.

Voting card doesn't need to be destroyed. I still have mine.

Victor

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Orders in the book were to ask the question and record how many of each were used. Later on word came down on from our returning officers to just hand the ballot papers out.

We have to do what the book says, unless we receive instructions to the contrary.

And just so you know, there is no way to know who votes what and how. The polling cards that were sent out in the post are not required to vote, you are not compelled to hand them in, and no note is made in what order people vote.

We also had a few people who wanted to vote only on the presidential, or on one or neither of the referanda.

Please talk to the Irish Times / other media: newsdesk (at) irishtimes.com

schemingbohemia

My mother was working at the polling stations yesterday, the reason why people may have been asked is that if the ballot is stamped and then the person says they don't want it, it will count as a spoiled vote. If they say before it's stamped it doesn't count as a spoiled vote. Probably trying to make life easier for the people at the count reducing the number of blank ballots.

Perhaps the people asking if they wanted the referenda ballots were fed up with handing out stamped ballots that were immediately refused.

I don't think it's really a biggie.

Victor

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Perhaps the people asking if they wanted the referenda ballots were fed up with handing out stamped ballots that were immediately refused.

They are paid to be 'fed up'.

Uriel.

HellFireClub wrote: »

What an utterly rediculous thing to do. If you are unhappy with the fact that the government has not made a sufficient effort to explain the facts to you, then logically I'd think the right course of action is to leave things as they currently stand in the constitution by voting no to the amendment. Basically abstaining yourself and letting others make the decision for you, sounds a bit Irish to me...

Couldn't agree more. I cannot understand this.

If you are not sure whether any proposed amendment to the Constitution is a good or bad thing then, maintain status quo. If an amendment fails to pass, it can always be revisited like Nice and Lisbon :rolleyes: with slightly amended text and/or better debate and understanding etc..

Doing nothing and potentially allowing a yes vote to go through means you won't really get the chance to get a clearer idea of the consequences of the change until the change is already made. Ridiculous :mad:

schemingbohemia

Victor wrote: »

They are paid to be 'fed up'.

They were also informed at the training session to expect people to refuse the referendum ballots.

I still think they shouldn't have asked but I can understand why they did, again I don't think it's that big of an issue.

Snakeblood

A weird thing happened to me. At least, it was against my expectation. I went to vote, and I asked for the 3 sheets. The woman said to dump them in the one box, which I thought was not correct, surely they were supposed to be separated into Referendum votes and Presidentail Votes?


This was at Jobstown.

PJ Maybe

gbee wrote: »

In point of fact ~ no. You turn up to vote, you present ONE voting card and it's crossed off and your voting card is destroyed, there and then.

So I really think this statement is in error.

I'm sorry you are incorrect. You don't even have to have a polling card in order to vote, your name just needs to be in the register.

Yesterday if you took less than the three ballot papers then the papers you took were marked in the register to allow you to exercise the vote you were entitled to later on in the day should you wish.

Question should still not have been asked though.

@Snakeblood - It depends on the district you were voting in, some had seperate boxes, others had only one with them being sorted this morning.

Snakeblood

PJ Maybe wrote: »

I'm sorry you are incorrect. You don't even have to have a polling card in order to vote, your name just needs to be in the register.

Yesterday if you took less than the three ballot papers then the papers you took were marked in the register to allow you to exercise the vote you were entitled to later on in the day should you wish.

Question should still not have been asked though.

@Snakeblood - It depends on the district you were voting in, some had seperate boxes, others had only one with them being sorted this morning.

Cool, I just heard it on the radio the day before, they were explaining the polling system and seemed specific about the way things were being done.

HellFireClub

Uriel. wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. I cannot understand this.

If you are not sure whether any proposed amendment to the Constitution is a good or bad thing then, maintain status quo. If an amendment fails to pass, it can always be revisited like Nice and Lisbon :rolleyes: with slightly amended text and/or better debate and understanding etc..

Doing nothing and potentially allowing a yes vote to go through means you won't really get the chance to get a clearer idea of the consequences of the change until the change is already made. Ridiculous :mad:

I voted no to both proposed ammendments. The more inspiring or stronger factors motivating me on my part for doing this was because I don't see a big issue with judges pay. If you were appointed a judge in the morning, you would not be starting on the same salary as a judge who was appointed back in the hay day of the Celtic Tiger. Many currently sitting judges have already taken a voluntary pay cut. So we have a few judges still sitting who we need to pass through the system, this hardly warrants ammending the constitution I think, especially where the current provision has served us well until now. As for the other proposed ammendment, not a chance I was voting for that and I wouldn't insult anyone by elaborating upon that decision.

One of the lesser reasons why I also voted no, was because I don't believe the government made any effort whatsoever to properly prepare the proposed ammendments in the first place and then to communicate the meaning and the affect of the ammendments if they were carried, to the people of Ireland, so I also factored that into my decision to vote no on both proposed ammendments.

I am at a loss to understand why any person would feel sufficiently isolated or confused, to just surrender their ability to defend the constitution as it currently stands, before they even think about changing it. If you don't like the look of something that someone is trying to sell you, then to my mind the smart thing to do is to stand with what you already have, not hand the whole problem of your decision to your neighbour.

Focalbhach

As a side issue to the question of people refusing/not taking ballot papers, and general confusion over the referenda: is there a minimum quota that needs to be reached for a referendum to be passed? Or is it possible for a low turnout coupled with low uptake of voting to lead to an 'invalid' referendum?

HellFireClub

Focalbhach wrote: »

As a side issue to the question of people refusing/not taking ballot papers, and general confusion over the referenda: is there a minimum quota that needs to be reached for a referendum to be passed? Or is it possible for a low turnout coupled with low uptake of voting to lead to an 'invalid' referendum?

No I don't think a quota has to be reached in order for the poll to be valid, it's 50% plus one of whoever votes, regardless of how few vote.

bigdaddyliamo

PJ Maybe wrote: »

I'm sorry you are incorrect. You don't even have to have a polling card in order to vote, your name just needs to be in the register.

Yesterday if you took less than the three ballot papers then the papers you took were marked in the register to allow you to exercise the vote you were entitled to later on in the day should you wish.

Question should still not have been asked though.

@Snakeblood - It depends on the district you were voting in, some had seperate boxes, others had only one with them being sorted this morning.

The Poling card is personal property and should be handed back whereever possible. Any that are left to the Presiding officer should be collected and returned to the sheriff at the end of play as instructed at the training day.

Just to add, a poling card is not needed if, 1.your name is on the regiter and 2. you have a valid ID

In relation to the register: A person is fully entitled to exercise their franchise in all ballots. To assist in this the Presiding officer was instructed to mark a voter as follows: Mark the register with PR if Presidential ballot only taken, REF 1 if 29th Amendment taken and REF 2 if 30th amendment taken. Any combination of two of the above could be marked together or if all taken a good old line would suffice. I hope that clarifies that issue!;)

gbee

Victor wrote: »

Voting card doesn't need to be destroyed. I still have mine.

Funny you say that, on 96FM's morning radio programmes the host described the procedure which at his own polling station and there too the cards were destroyed before he left the table with his ballot papers.

Did you ask for the card back?

gavmcg92

Snakeblood wrote: »

A weird thing happened to me. At least, it was against my expectation. I went to vote, and I asked for the 3 sheets. The woman said to dump them in the one box, which I thought was not correct, surely they were supposed to be separated into Referendum votes and Presidentail Votes?


This was at Jobstown.

She was correct... Each area has one box which takes all votes made on that day by people in that area.

When the boxes are opened at the count centers, then the specific papers are seperated.