People confused by English language

evolving_doors

Any opinions on peoples confusion about the ballot papers yesterday. Is it just me or were they fairly straightforward?

Agent Smith

The language was the same as every other Referendum i've voted in.

What ever side wins, they will claim its down to people being confused.

Fluorescence

If someone is such an imbecile that they can't decipher a straightforward ballot paper then they have no business voting.

I can't understand the confusion at all. It was very simple.

evolving_doors

Is it because people wanted to vote against a negative (i.e. Abolishing) for the seanad? Two negatives are a positive so maybe they thought they might be inadvertently voting for it by voting against it!

Poor folk, bet they've no problems in the bookies! Maybe if there was a lottery/money prize if you answered questions on the ballot paper!

martinr5232

Fluorescence wrote: »

If someone is such an imbecile that they can't decipher a straightforward ballot paper then they have no business voting.

I can't understand the confusion at all. It was very simple.

So what your saying is only educated people should be entitled to vote.

Its not like it would be the first time the people would be duped into voting way the government wanted them to vote.

Fluorescence

martinr5232 wrote: »

So what your saying is only educated people should be entitled to vote.

Its not like it would be the first time the people would be duped into voting way the government wanted them to vote.

Hardly - the language is pretty clear and straightforward in these things. "Do you agree with abolishing the Seanad - Yes or No?" Not exactly rocket science or the most baffling of legalese

evolving_doors

martinr5232 wrote: »

So what your saying is only educated people should be entitled to vote.

Its not like it would be the first time the people would be duped into voting way the government wanted them to vote.

He didn't mention anything about education..have another read..

evolving_doors

BOOM....and there it is folks..

FG' s Charlie Flanagan calls for referendum reform because people were confused!

Sorry Charlie, but the govt is going to be too busy reforming the Seanad now that they've been defeated..own goal there Enda

Fluorescence

Armelodie wrote: »

BOOM....and there it is folks..

FG' s Charlie Flanagan calls for referendum reform because people were confused!

Sorry Charlie, but the govt is going to be too busy reforming the Seanad now that they've been defeated..own goal there Enda

Too early to call it. The votes are very close in a lot of places. Only Dublin south so far has given a real majority No vote and that's not even finished yet afaik

hardCopy

Fluorescence wrote: »

Too early to call it. The votes are very close in a lot of places. Only Dublin south so far has given a real majority No vote and that's not even finished yet afaik

Sure that's where all the senators live

SpaceTime

The layout of the ballot paper is absolutely awful. If you're not able to see all that well (in dim light of your typical grotty polling station) or if you're dyslexic it would be very confusing.

The language is also too confusing and it shouldn't be in English and Irish together line by line. That makes it very hard to read in either language.

Then the whole way the question is phrased is so legalistic that it's difficult to follow.

The constitution doesn't prevent the ballot paper being laid out clearly and in plain English and plain Irish.

The need a user interface designer and a good graphic designer who knows how to desk with accessibility issues.

A ballot paper should take into account visual and cognitive issues that voters may have.

That paper was just use unfriendly no matter which way you were voting.

RayM

It would be a lot clearer and more straightforward without the Irish language. Also, headings in bold on top of the ballot papers, clearly indicating which referendum is which, would help too.

evolving_doors

SpaceTime wrote: »

The layout of the ballot paper is absolutely awful. If you're not able to see all that well (in dim light of your typical grotty polling station) or if you're dyslexic it would be very confusing.

The language is also too confusing and it shouldn't be in English and Irish together line by line. That makes it very hard to read in either language.

Then the whole way the question is phrased is so legalistic that it's difficult to follow.

The constitution doesn't prevent the ballot paper being laid out clearly and in plain English and plain Irish.

The need a user interface designer and a good graphic designer who knows how to desk with accessibility issues.

A ballot paper should take into account visual and cognitive issues that voters may have.


That paper was just use unfriendly no matter which way you were voting.

Meh! If you didn't know at this stage what a yes and no meant then perhaps you should just spoil your vote.

Yes I agree to abolish the seanad
No I dont agree..

No matter how you dress it up or dumb it down yes is for and no is against. Whats the confusion there?

dlouth15

Fluorescence wrote: »

Hardly - the language is pretty clear and straightforward in these things. "Do you agree with abolishing the Seanad - Yes or No?" Not exactly rocket science or the most baffling of legalese

I don't believe that is how it was phrased.

I think it was something like:

Amendment 32 of The Constitution Bill (2013) ("abolition of Seanad") and then the yes and no boxes.

This was down a bit into the page and intermixed with text in Irish. Very poor design. Yes, most people will figure it out correctly but if you want errors, this is the way to go about it.

Should have been a better quality paper and each voting slip should have, at the very least, been decently headed.

Very poor design.

kerry4sam

Fluorescence wrote: »

If someone is such an imbecile that they can't decipher a straightforward ballot paper then they have no business voting.

I can't understand the confusion at all. It was very simple.

It is very low to refer to someone as an imbecile, for anything. In a situation such as an election that could change our Constitution where people are nervous already (reform, any kind of change, can bring nerves to the fore for people); it is just downrite rude imo!

I walked into the polling station yesterday and looked at my ballot papers. I've a 1st class honours in Psychology and a history in youth politics and was prepared with how I was going to vote. I am well used to reading and deciphering, but this I had to read more than once.

It was not phrased in an easy to comprehend language for everyone. No it was not! It mentioned the articles of the Constitution in both Irish & English and I saw how that could throw people. I did not like the way it was phrased nor laid out on the ballot paper and no, I can assure you for some people it was not simple or straight-forward regardless of reading the info delivered by An Post, nor listening to nor speaking with your friends and neighbours at home or around town.

Shame for how this was delivered! Certainly not user-friendly!

SpaceTime wrote: »

The layout of the ballot paper is absolutely awful. If you're not able to see all that well (in dim light of your typical grotty polling station) or if you're dyslexic it would be very confusing.

The language is also too confusing and it shouldn't be in English and Irish together line by line. That makes it very hard to read in either language.

Then the whole way the question is phrased is so legalistic that it's difficult to follow.

The constitution doesn't prevent the ballot paper being laid out clearly and in plain English and plain Irish.

The need a user interface designer and a good graphic designer who knows how to desk with accessibility issues.

A ballot paper should take into account visual and cognitive issues that voters may have.

That paper was just use unfriendly no matter which way you were voting.

Correct! I did not think the ballot papers yesterday were as user-friendly as they could have been at all.
Maybe that's something else for reform

evolving_doors

dlouth15 wrote: »

I don't believe that is how it was phrased.

I think it was something like:

Amendment 32 of The Constitution Bill (2013) ("abolition of Seanad") and then the yes and no boxes.

This was down a bit into the page and intermixed with text in Irish. Very poor design. Yes, most people will figure it out correctly but if you want errors, this is the way to go about it.

Should have been a better quality paper and each voting slip should have, at the very least, been decently headed.

Very poor design.

Better quality paper!! Its just the bit of pencil that counts...yes or no box..simple as..to be honest i barely read it..I just looked for the yes no box and ticked accordingly..whats the big deal?

Red Kev

I worked as a Poll Clerk yesterday, very few people showed any kind of confusion as to whether to vote yes or no, maybe 5 out of 350, but if they hadn't informed themselves as to which way to vote after 3 months of it being in the paper and on the news every day then you can't really help that.

Many were, however confused as to which paper was which, it would have helped if they had written in much larger writing "Seanad" and "Courts" on each one. We gave this feedback to the inspector.

Fluorescence

It was straightforward though, speaking as someone without a degree or higher education. All you need on the paper is for it to say which referendum it's for (which it did - Abolition of Seanad) and whether you agree or disagree. The ballot papers fulfilled these requirements and most people claiming otherwise are looking for strawman arguments for why the result isn't what they wanted.

The point about having 2 languages on one paper is fair enough - perhaps in future they'll have fully Irish or English ballots and let people choose which one they want on the day.

Mint Sauce

Fluorescence wrote: »

Hardly - the language is pretty clear and straightforward in these things. "Do you agree with abolishing the Seanad - Yes or No?" Not exactly rocket science or the most baffling of legalese

I think it was the court of appeal one that wad not very clear. I had to read it 2-3 times as it did not directly ask of you wanted one created. Infact, if you thought a court of appeal already exsisted, some might think they were asking if you wanted it abolished as well.

Big Bottom

The war it was layedoyt was terrible and calling people imbeciles because they might have comprehention problems us bang out of order.

Surveyor11

In the adverts on the run up, the language used was very simplistic - on the day you will be asked to vote yes to abolish the seaned or no to keep it. In reality when faced with the ballot, yes means to amend the constitution to abolish the seaned, so can understand where this arose - some people thought voting no was to abolish it

Big Bottom

Personnaly I spoilt my vote on the day to let them know they need to make thing clearer and not just spring these things on us at the drop of a hat without proper debate.

Tin Foil Hat

Fluorescence wrote: »

If someone is such an imbecile that they can't decipher a straightforward ballot paper then they have no business voting.

I can't understand the confusion at all. It was very simple.

It was. But, for far to many years, there has been a trend by the establishment to discredit referendums. Any time we have the audacity to vote No to a referendum there has to be some reason why we were wrong to do so:- We couldn't read the paper, we were registering disapproval of the government, it was about abortion, the government failed to get it message across, etc etc blah blah blah.
The very concept that we were offered a change in our constitution that we disagreed with is alien to them. Our motives or our reading ability is never questioned when we do as we are told and vote YES. Never.
Even on days when we vote on more than one question on the same day and return different results, as it looks like we have just done, they continue on with this patronisng, insulting bullsh!t. It makes me puke, to be perfectly honest. I'm sick of it.

Fluorescence

Honestly the way some people are going on you'd swear the ballot paper was rife with triple and quadruple negatives, impossible-to-understand legalese and not at all indicative of what Yes and No actually entailed. It wasn't.

Here are the ballot papers:



The pic is kinda small, but what it says is, "Do you agree with the proposed changes? - [In box: 32nd amendment (Abolition of Seanad) / 33rd ammendment (Court of Appeal) ] "

What is so difficult there? Please, enlighten me, because it looks bloody simple to me and dumbing it down further would be an insult to the intelligence of the average voter.

SpaceTime

I spoke to one elderly guy who cited Yes *for* the Seanad and is now fuming because he didn't intended to vote for its abolition!

Another person I spoke to had no idea what the other paper was about so didn't cast a vote on that one and put that paper into the bin!

She thought it had something to do with abolishing the Court of Appeal to ensure criminals couldn't be getting off...

A very large % of people aren't very well informed about this referendum. Again the communication has been poor, especially on the Court of Appeal issue.

Probably, the biggest problem is that BAI rules require extreme levels of balance for referendum coverage and broadcasters couldn't find anyone to argue against the Court of Appeal establishment! So producers avoided the topic entirely!

On a lot of these issues there won't necessarily be a strong augment against, especially for rather sensible technical amendments like the Court of Appeal one. They're just not very controversial.

LordSutch

X YES I approve of the abolition of the Seanad - correct?

X NO I don't approve of the abolition of the Seanad - correct?

SpaceTime

Correct.

LordSutch

Then maybe they should have printed the questions as I have printed above^ therby eliminating any margin for error or misunderstanding.

The ballot papers as shown do not have the full question opposite the box, which has obviously confused some people according to the OP.

Crystal clear clarity is what's needed.

noooodles

Separating bilingual from english-only ballot papers should be considered. Give people an option.
Im as pro Irish language as anyone, but forcing people to read a language they dont understand is confusing.

LordSutch

Agreed, I think the bilingual nature of the ballot paper doesn't help.

Frank Lee Midere

Utter bollocks. The people who voted no wanted to vote no. Any "confusion" would balance out.

Horrid Henry

Armelodie wrote: »

Any opinions on peoples confusion about the ballot papers yesterday. Is it just me or were they fairly straightforward?

They were very difficult to follow...if you're blind and retarded.

I thought that "ABOLITION OF SEANAD...YES OR NO" was especially confusing on the ballot paper.

Horrid Henry

Sorry but if you watch the news, read the papers or bothered your hole to read the booklet that we all got, you wouldn't be confused.

An ignorant vote is a dangerous one.

Amirani

Is in not generally the case that a NO vote is always to maintain the status quo, and YES is to accept some proposed change?

That said, the ballot paper was hardly difficult to understand.

LordSutch

Horrid Henry wrote: »

They were very difficult to follow...if you're blind and retarded.

I'm not sure about being blind and retarded, but certainly [older people and slower people] might have to look at the ballot paper twice, and a little longer to be 100% certain that they were putting the X in the correct box.

I still say that a 'crystal clear' question could have been put as per post #26

ebbsy

Anybody who bothered to get up off their ass and go out and vote knew exactly what they
were doing, lets give them a little bit of credit.

YellowFeather

Mint Sauce wrote: »

I think it was the court of appeal one that wad not very clear. I had to read it 2-3 times as it did not directly ask of you wanted one created. Infact, if you thought a court of appeal already exsisted, some might think they were asking if you wanted it abolished as well.

I agree. I was speaking to my elderly neighbour before she went to vote, and I told her that the questions would be on the abolition of the Seanad and the creation of a new court of appeal. The Seanad paper was clear enough once read, but "Thirty Third Amendment of the Constitution (Court of Appeal) Bill 2013" is somewhat ambiguous. Would it have been so much effort to add the word "Establishment" in there somewhere? What if the Seanad paper had been phrased "Seanad" instead of "Abolition of Seanad"?

Amirani

I'm sure there may be a legal issue if the question was phrased purely as "Do you want to abolish the Seanad?"

Would the Government then be entitled to implement the other measures in the proposed bill without leaving themselves open to some court challenge?

dlouth15

The could have quoted from the bill itself:

to amend the Constitution for the purpose of establishing a court to be called the Court of Appeal

YellowFeather

NiallSparky wrote: »

I'm sure there may be a legal issue if the question was phrased purely as "Do you want to abolish the Seanad?"

Would the Government then be entitled to implement the other measures in the proposed bill without leaving themselves open to some court challenge?

But the Seanad paper was entitled "Abolition of Seanad", whereas the Court of Appeal paper was simply entitled "Court of Appeal".

dlouth15 wrote: »

The could have quoted from the bill itself:

to amend the Constitution for the purpose of establishing a court to be called the Court of Appeal

Exactly. I'm not seeing any conspiracy here, but it was pure bad administration not to do so.

nodnod

A query on voting cards yesterday in Scoil Tomais National School Laurel Lodge Castleknock D15

I have a major query on the voting card received today in the above school that would lead to major confusion for voters

When I picked up my ballot papers green and white


All it said was

do you want to change Article 32

do you want to change Article 33

On either sheet none mention Seanad or Court Of Appeal


I believe there will be numerous problem votes at this school and it should be monitored ?

especially if you are voting yes, no or no, yes

if you are voting yes , yes or no, no should be ok


I think this should be checked with the Presiding Officer and be explained to the public.

I voted early in the day and I noticed this issue,
My wife voted at 7pm at night in the same place and she to had the same issue.

We did not speak about this until we both met afterwards.

I spoke to other family members and they said in the schools they voted in mentioned senate on the cards and court on the cards. I believe what they say.

I am only querying the ballot papers in the above school

Is there more than one type of ballot papers out for each referendum ?
( I saw the image of ballot papers in the thread earlier on) I know i did not get this ballot paper)

I also met a man this morning he had the same issue as i had?

So any members of public had a similar issue ?

recipio

Anybody literate enough to post here will have no problems interpreting the ballot paper.
The trouble is ballot papers should be crystal clear and cater for anybody with language and reading disabilities. Mixing Irish and English, asking to vote on a negative and legalistic jargon are the hallmarks of people who sit too long around mahogany tables dreaming up what is good for us.

Red Kev

nodnod wrote: »

A query on voting cards yesterday in Scoil Tomais National School Laurel Lodge Castleknock D15

I have a major query on the voting card received today in the above school that would lead to major confusion for voters

When I picked up my ballot papers green and white


All it said was

do you want to change Article 32

do you want to change Article 33

On either sheet none mention Seanad or Court Of Appeal

.

If you received a ballot paper different from the rest of the country you should contact the returning officer for the constituency in which you voted. They will be able to answer any questions.

cloudatlas

I must admit I had to do a double take just to make sure of the statement on the ballet. The writing was tiny, I don't know how someone with a sight impairment would cope. My uncle spent a minute trying to decipher the Irish.

nodnod

I have already done this I have written to Referendum Commision, I will await a reply , they probably cannot answer until vote is fully counted in all areas

dlouth15

ebbsy wrote: »

Anybody who bothered to get up off their ass and go out and vote knew exactly what they
were doing, lets give them a little bit of credit.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone was confused. The most that could be said is that poor design may have caused errors among a small minority. These errors would have been on both sides and would cancel out. Nevertheless it was still very poor information design and this needs to be highlighted.

nodnod

Just sent email of to returning officer, I wonder will i get a reply.

purplecow1977

Question, considering there are over 14,000 spoiled votes, that seems quite a lot. My brother just realised he put a tick in the box instead of the X. Is his vote spoiled?

Rascasse

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Question, considering there are over 14,000 spoiled votes, that seems quite a lot. My brother just realised he put a tick in the box instead of the X. Is his vote spoiled?

That is OK.

RTE say they even accepted 2 ballots in Dun Laoghaire where no had been ticked and "reform" written on the ballot - to me they should be counted as spoiled.

purplecow1977

Rascasse wrote: »

That is OK.

RTE say they even accepted 2 ballots in Dun Laoghaire where no had been ticked and "reform" written on the ballot - to me they should be counted as spoiled.

Are you sure that's okay? I'm even questioning myself now what I did!

davetherave

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Question, considering there are over 14,000 spoiled votes, that seems quite a lot. My brother just realised he put a tick in the box instead of the X. Is his vote spoiled?

I'd say it should be fine once a clear intent is visible. If there were no other marks in the other boxes then there is no reason why it shouldn't count.