Why such low turnout

_Bella_

I honestly cannot understand how there was such a low turnout for the referendum. This was a very important issue and will probably shape the Irish political landscape for the next few years. Why are people not bothered to inform themselves and actually take part in the running of the country? These are probably the same people who take every opportunity to blame the government for all their woes and yet when they have a chance to take a stand, they don't use it. Do people not vote because they are uninterested, disillusioned or just not bothered. How can only 2 in 5 people in this country take the time to voice their opinions, do more people not feel it is democratic duty?

shruikan2553

If they would let me vote anywhere with just ID I probably would have but being a student means I'm away from home during the week.

spank_inferno

If people registered to vote where they lived.... Like they are supposed to it would help.

Amirani

Most people don't really care unfortunately. Well, they don't care until it's an issue that's right in front of their noses and is affecting themselves directly.

Taxburden carrier

How about a three strikes rule.....fail to cast your vote three consecutive times and you lose it permanently. That might change the apathy. Democracy was hard won in the first place

desaparecidos

Couldn't bother me bollox.

Rascasse

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

How about a three strikes rule.....fail to cast your vote three consecutive times and you lose it permanently. That might change the apathy. Democracy was hard won in the first place

You either have compulsory voting (eg. Australia) or you don't. I think the current system is better as abstaining is a perfectly valid choice and I'd rather not be forced to travel to the polling booth just to spoil my ballot.

At the end of the day neither of these issues attract much interest amongst the public and the campaigns have been minimal (I've not seen any posters in my area). Plus with the recent history of being asked the question again if the politicians don't get the answer they want, I can understand why people wouldn't bother.

MagicMarker

Didn't even know there was a referendum until a day or two beforehand.

purplecow1977

I believe the Australian way of dealing with non voters should be implemented. Everyone SHOULD vote. I don't think anyone, if registered correctly, has very far to travel in order to vote so I think that's a bit of a cop out.

Even better if we could vote at any polling station with sufficient ID.

purplecow1977

MagicMarker wrote: »

Didn't even know there was a referendum until a day or two beforehand.

I find this quite unbelievable.

ppshay

Low turnouts in elections and referendums are an indication of apathy and hoplesness.

People have been lied to and taken advantage of for far too long, perhaps always have been, by those in charge. Not only by those in public office, though that area affects more of society. Health boards, county councils, social welfare, private places of work, have an ingrained, instinctive mentality of looking after number one, number one in this case being the immediate group, so that those immediately superior are pleased and will dispense the predetermined award, especailly validation.

This is human nature. Survial of the fittest. Don't hope, or think a vote for anything the elite of society propose, will change anything of any real consequence. There will never be such change. Ever.

It's like being asked to vote for Sudocrem or Vaseline for skin cancer. The system need surgery, radiotherapy, chemotheraby... or euthanised. And what would come after such change that was great enough to wipe the slate clean? More of the same, because that is what humans do. It defines us.

We concern ourselves with the minutiae because the minutiae is all we can hope to affect.

The turnout was low because it is becoming increasingly obviouse that voting for anything means nothing.

bizmark

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I believe the Australian way of dealing with non voters should be implemented. Everyone SHOULD vote. I don't think anyone, if registered correctly, has very far to travel in order to vote so I think that's a bit of a cop out.

Even better if we could vote at any polling station with sufficient ID.

Forceing people who dont care to vote seems silly you will just get a load of uninterested ill-informed people voteing on things they care nothing about.

mathepac

spank_inferno wrote: »

If people registered to vote where they lived.... Like they are supposed to it would help.

"I'm like so dis-enfranchised, man it's like so unfair".

"Did you register?"

"Register, man? Like, what does that even mean?"

QED - Quantifiable Educational Dichotomy

hmmm

ppshay wrote: »

The turnout was low because it is becoming increasingly obviouse that voting for anything means nothing.

Arrah I think that's nonsense. It's laziness pure and simple, people take what they have for granted and couldn't be bothered educating themselves.

Democracy comes with a social contract - you have your rights, as long as you accept your responsibilities. If people don't fulfill their responsibilities, we'll end up with a society where an elite minority are in charge.

ebbsy

There was more posters up for the circus than for the vote in Monasterevin.

It was a half-hearted effort all round, hence the result.

mitosis

Apathy. People don't feel their vote makes a difference. What was the turnout last general election? Less than 50%. For the referendum I suspect a lot of people didn't even know the Seanad existed, much less cared what happened to it. In my opinion, a non vote should be a No vote anyway, whatever the issue. Things should only change by majority of the electorate, not by simple majority of those who voted.

JustAddWater

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I believe the Australian way of dealing with non voters should be implemented. Everyone SHOULD vote. I don't think anyone, if registered correctly, has very far to travel in order to vote so I think that's a bit of a cop out.

Even better if we could vote at any polling station with sufficient ID.

Link it to your PPS, otherwise you could spend the day voting in all sorts of polling stations

_Kaiser_

hmmm wrote: »

Arrah hogwash. It's laziness pure and simple, people take what they have for granted and couldn't be bothered educating themselves.

Democracy comes with a social contract - you have your rights, as long as you accept your responsibilities. If people don't fulfill their responsibilities, we'll end up with a society where an elite minority are in charge.

Umm.. isn't that what we have now?

People are jaded. They were promised change and reform and what they got were lies and spin and a continuance of the same failed policies of the government they voted to reject.

We've already seen that the vote of the public in a referendum only counts if it returns the "right" result. If it doesn't they are made to vote again like bold children handing up sloppy homework.

I've already seen talk of "confusion" around this latest result. Won't surprise me at all if a Senate Abolition 2 campaign is run (but strangely that won't be the case for the Appeals Court result I bet).

I personally think the Senate and it's costs were a distraction. €20 million is after all a pittance to the hundreds of millions pissed away in this country every year and I don't buy Enda wanting to put his friends and colleagues out of a job when he and his party/coalition have rowed back on every other commitment they made pre-election.

I believe the real objective was the removal of article 27, and it worries me what they know is coming that we don't. I think if we are indeed made to vote again that everyone should be asking why.

P_1

hmmm wrote: »

Arrah I think that's nonsense. It's laziness pure and simple, people take what they have for granted and couldn't be bothered educating themselves.

Democracy comes with a social contract - you have your rights, as long as you accept your responsibilities. If people don't fulfill their responsibilities, we'll end up with a society where an elite minority are in charge.

People's votes do seem to be counting for far less than they used to though, it is understandable that a degree of cynicism and a 'what's the point' attitude will creep in after time

locohobo

hmmm wrote: »

Arrah I think that's nonsense. It's laziness pure and simple, people take what they have for granted and couldn't be bothered educating themselves.

Democracy comes with a social contract - you have your rights, as long as you accept your responsibilities. If people don't fulfill their responsibilities, we'll end up with a society where an elite minority are in charge.

and BECAUSE so many refused to educate themselves on their responsibilities and perform their civic/democratic duties that situation was NARROWLY defeated today....

Lord TSC

Maybe a part of it is also the idea that if they don't vote the "right" way, they'll just be asked to vote again anyway, so why bother?

An Riabhach

We'll all be asked to do this again in about 2 years time-just like any other time the government lost out in previous referendums.

cerastes

ppshay wrote: »

Low turnouts in elections and referendums are an indication of apathy and hoplesness.

People have been lied to and taken advantage of for far too long, perhaps always have been, by those in charge. Not only by those in public office, though that area affects more of society. Health boards, county councils, social welfare, private places of work, have an ingrained, instinctive mentality of looking after number one, number one in this case being the immediate group, so that those immediately superior are pleased and will dispense the predetermined award, especailly validation.

This is human nature. Survial of the fittest. Don't hope, or think a vote for anything the elite of society propose, will change anything of any real consequence. There will never be such change. Ever.

It's like being asked to vote for Sudocrem or Vaseline for skin cancer. The system need surgery, radiotherapy, chemotheraby... or euthanised. And what would come after such change that was great enough to wipe the slate clean? More of the same, because that is what humans do. It defines us.

We concern ourselves with the minutiae because the minutiae is all we can hope to affect.

The turnout was low because it is becoming increasingly obviouse that voting for anything means nothing.

I tend to agree with this, I used to complain about those that didnt vote or made it clear they couldn't be bothered, I have voted consistently and according to my conscience, I was tempted to spoil my votes.
Really I wanted the Seanad to exist but see it as a talking shop of little consequence, for the unelectable. Had the option been to reform the Seanad, I definitely would have voted that way, and I'm dissapointed only after it seems it has been called up to this point (so closely) to hear Senator Norris say it should have been a vote to reform.
It seems more and more that I was naively hopeful in the past, believing we actually had some kind of say in what happens, more and more it does seem like we are voting for different sides of the same coin and that the outcome is practically predetermined, to not notice this and persist with the same approach (voting) seems foolish.
I also think we should be allowed to vote anywhere, in this country or in an Embassy or by postal vote or some system online, with proof of ID, PPSN or pre registration, and then cast a secret vote. I still have two voting cards after repeatedly trying to cancel my second vote! Ive heard the same thing a number of times and I wonder how many times this could be used with intention, the system (ie this country) is dysfunctional, even voting for it is like saying you are hopeful and agree you have a say, I dont think I do anymore and I think thats what a lot op people are saying by not turning up.
I would like an option for spoiling your vote other than it being identified as a being accidentally screwing putting the X in the box. Then people could represent their apathy by intentionally spoiling their votes, I think that would represent something more than not turning up, people turning up in their droves to spoil their vote to show their lack of belief in our "leaders"

markbld65

spank_inferno wrote: »

If people registered to vote where they lived.... Like they are supposed to it would help.

i was denied my vote and so was one of my son's

strange i hold a irish passport and irish licence i reqistered and have voted every time since i returned to ireland in 1995, although i was born in a different country i was raised and educated here until i emigrated when i was 19 and recieved my full irish citizenship/passport in 1989

both my son's where born abroad however both hold irish passports and have grown up here

yet yesterday evening myself and one son where told sorry you cant vote but could not tell me why although the other son could vote

so it looks like i'm down as a non national although i never held any other passport then a irish one

hmmm

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Maybe a part of it is

People can make any excuses they want for their laziness and apathy. The fact is that about 18% of the Irish electorate voted for the abolition of the Seanad. Which means that 82% of the electorate are happy for the current status quo, and another small percentage believe in some happy clappy reform idea that will never happen.

We should stop making excuses for those who want the benefits of this society but who refuse to participate in the decision making process.

losthorizon

P_1 wrote: »

People's votes do seem to be counting for far less than they used to though, it is understandable that a degree of cynicism and a 'what's the point' attitude will creep in after time

Surely not in a referendum to get rid of the Senead though. If it was voted through its gone - most likely for ever.

AlanS181824

Most of my family didn't vote, the general feeling is that most people don't seem to care either way.

hmmm

AlanS181824 wrote: »

Most of my family didn't vote, the general feeling is that most people don't seem to care either way.

Yet they'll be giving out about us having "too many politicians" or "dis terrible austeridee".

Rather than mandatory voting, I think the list of people who actually voted should be published. At least then we can point to anyone who didn't vote and tell them to stop moaning.

P_1

hmmm wrote: »

Yet they'll be giving out about us having "too many politicians" or "dis terrible austeridee".

Rather than mandatory voting, I think the list of people who actually voted should be published. At least then we can point to anyone who didn't vote and tell them to stop moaning.

The trouble is that the democratic process isn't all that, well democratic.

For referendums we are only given a black and white choice of two options that our supposed 'betters' have deemed that it's ok for the rest of us plebs to pick.

For elections, we are generally only given the choice between people who those same 'betters' have deemed to be ok for the rest of us plebs to pick.

It's hard to criticise people for not wanting to be part of such a sham

hmmm

P_1 wrote: »

For referendums we are only given a black and white choice of two options that our supposed 'betters' have deemed that it's ok for the rest of us plebs to pick.

Not our "betters", politicians we have elected.

It's hard to criticise people for not wanting to be part of such a sham

As I say, people can make any excuse they want for their laziness.

P_1

hmmm wrote: »

Not our "betters", politicians we have elected.

As I say, people can make any excuse they want for their laziness.

There's a massive difference between laziness and cynicism. And the only reason those politicians are there in the first place is because people of unfair influence put them there in the first place

hmmm

P_1 wrote: »

people of unfair influence put them there in the first place

The perfect world hasn't been invented. More excuses. In particular there's a generation in their 20s who have been told all through school that "everyone is a winner" and "you can change the world" and they're suddenly being introduced to the real world where life just isn't so rosy and fair.

P_1

hmmm wrote: »

The perfect world hasn't been invented. More excuses. In particular there's a generation in their 20s who have been told all through school that "everyone is a winner" and "you can change the world" and they're suddenly being introduced to the real world where life just isn't so rosy and fair.

well you can't blame them for wanting no part in such a system if that's the case

TBoneMan

Complete disenchanted with government... whether it was abolished or not all jobs where kept through redeployment so no savings in reality ... every voter/citizen has a PPS no. meaning all voting could technically be done online through the revenue data base. .. Do what Australia does and fine those who don't vote

Both issues on the ballot today were never going to create more efficient systems and thats what realy needs to be done

1 TD represents 27000....in Germany 1 represents 124000 ... this is what needs reforming

beertons

My wife went to vote, and was told she wasn't registered. However, she voted in the presidential and general election before. Maybe this happened alot of people?

echo beach

P_1 wrote: »

For elections, we are generally only given the choice between people who those same 'betters' have deemed to be ok for the rest of us plebs to pick.

Our 'betters' don't get to choose who we can pick. Anybody can stand for election. If you don't like the choice on offer put yourself forward or persuade somebody you do like to stand.

P_1

echo beach wrote: »

Our 'betters' don't get to choose who we can pick. Anybody can stand for election. If you don't like the choice on offer put yourself forward or persuade somebody you do like to stand.

Yes anybody can stand in theory but in practice you have to kiss the golden rings of the higher ups in the parties to let them put you forward. You could run independently I guess but you'd be as useful as a chocolate teapot in the Dail

I couldn't care less

echo beach

P_1 wrote: »

Yes anybody can stand in theory but in practice you have to kiss the golden rings of the higher ups in the parties to let them put you forward. You could run independently I guess but you'd be as useful as a chocolate teapot in the Dail

An independent has as much or as little power as a backbench party TD.
Democracy can only work if people participate by voting and by standing for election. Every person who chooses not to vote is allowing other people to make the choices for them.

TheDoc

A strong feeling of people my age question really, what is the point. I question constantly decisions made by politicians in power who have been elected to represent the people, their interests and to essentially be their voice. Not become their overlord and speak "at" them in terms of " we know whats best".
Alot of implementations and decisions made by this coalition have been completely ad-hoc and have had no consultation process with the people.

The most latest example if Dr.Reilly wanting to make Ireland smoke free by 2025, while next week the budget will have some pretty harsh measures to make up for a couple of hundred million he went over budget this term, again. And for people like me I query why a man is trying to implement policy 20 years down the line, while completely failing his current mandate. The reason being wanting to be remembered by the history books.

I think people of my age, we see the political system broken, and we read through the **** and lies. We understand every election there is a soundbite from parties to make you support them, we don't find a red tie powering, and we know all the tricks of the trade. We are a smarter nation now, we see through rubbish and PR spin.
We see Kenny's completely sheltered leadership, with no interviews, debate and refusing recordings of himself, as a sign of weakness and uncertainty.

Alot of people simply ask whats the point? We will tell you what we want and feel, and the party in power will do what they want anyway.

There is no "winner" from this referendum when you look at the numbers that turn out. It's simply a massive loss for a mature democracy. And especially this one. I don't know about anyone else, but I made my vote, and then completely did not give a **** on the outcome. I'm more concerned with the absolute lashing I'll probably get in the budget next week.
And I can't wait for the spin on now that the Seanad is to remain, how 20m in savings were lost, and that gets slumped onto us

SpaceTime

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If they would let me vote anywhere with just ID I probably would have but being a student means I'm away from home during the week.

You can register for a postal vote if you're a full time student living away from home. Very straight forward. Google it

SpaceTime

TBoneMan wrote: »

1 TD represents 27000....in Germany 1 represents 124000 ... this is what needs reforming

We do have slightly too many TDs but you do need about 100 for a house that would actually function and have an opposition.

The German ratio is fine for a huge country. It would give us about 33 TDs which would effectively make the parliament unworkable.

166 is too many though.

However you can't really compare on a population ratio like that as there an optimal number required to make a parliament work. Big countries have the other problem where parliaments can become so late that they become unworkable. The European Parliament for example is heading that way, yet if they cut the ratios further some smaller countries would end up totally underrepresented.

I'd say maybe 100-110 TDs and maybe 30 senators.

However, wage and allowance cuts for all of them.

Costs need to be reduced while maintaining high levels of representation. It's bang for buck we need. At present we aren't getting value for money from our parliamentary system.

We need to look at cutting costs not removing services which in this case would be seats.

Bob Z

Taxburden carrier wrote: »

How about a three strikes rule.....fail to cast your vote three consecutive times and you lose it permanently. That might change the apathy. Democracy was hard won in the first place

i think they wouldnt care about that other

SpaceTime

How about each time you don't vote they double your chances of jury duty

And jury duty should be selected from a draw of PPS numbers not from the electoral register. I think it's actually putting some people off registering.

If you don't vote or aren't registered your pps number goes in twice...

cerastes

SpaceTime wrote: »

How about each time you don't vote they double your chances of jury duty

And jury duty should be selected from a draw of PPS numbers not from the electoral register. I think it's actually putting some people off registering.

If you don't vote or aren't registered your pps number goes in twice...

So you want to put people who dont care about voting in with more of a chance of sending someone down,

GUILTY, F it, just fry him, I need to get home for corry

Cookie_Monster

cerastes wrote: »

So you want to put people who dont care about voting in with more of a chance of sending someone down,

GUILTY, F it, just fry him, I need to get home for corry

Exactly, if you don't care about voting why would you about jury duty? Half day paid from work to turn up, shows the courts / lawyer you don't give a **** and not get picked.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

ppshay wrote: »

Low turnouts in elections and referendums are an indication of apathy and hoplesness.

People have been lied to and taken advantage of for far too long, perhaps always have been, by those in charge. Not only by those in public office, though that area affects more of society. Health boards, county councils, social welfare, private places of work, have an ingrained, instinctive mentality of looking after number one, number one in this case being the immediate group, so that those immediately superior are pleased and will dispense the predetermined award, especailly validation.

This is human nature. Survial of the fittest. Don't hope, or think a vote for anything the elite of society propose, will change anything of any real consequence. There will never be such change. Ever.

It's like being asked to vote for Sudocrem or Vaseline for skin cancer. The system need surgery, radiotherapy, chemotheraby... or euthanised. And what would come after such change that was great enough to wipe the slate clean? More of the same, because that is what humans do. It defines us.

We concern ourselves with the minutiae because the minutiae is all we can hope to affect.

The turnout was low because it is becoming increasingly obviouse that voting for anything means nothing.

Well that brought down the mood of my cheery Tuesday morning.

keeponhurling

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Maybe a part of it is also the idea that if they don't vote the "right" way, they'll just be asked to vote again anyway, so why bother?

I don't think so.
I don't believe any politician, Enda included, really wants less politicians' jobs. Would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
The Seanad is great for him, a way to thank people who helped him by giving them cushy numbers.

He only held it as he made the promise before the last General Election as it was what people wanted to here, made people think he wanted to change the failed old establishment.

This referendum result gives him a way out.

Bob Z

SpaceTime wrote: »

How about each time you don't vote they double your chances of jury duty

And jury duty should be selected from a draw of PPS numbers not from the electoral register. I think it's actually putting some people off registering.

If you don't vote or aren't registered your pps number goes in twice...

i dont think jury service although inconvenient for people should be seen as punishment

SpaceTime

I know a lot of people who don't register to vote because they don't want to gon on jury duty! It's quite a huge disincentive for some folks.
Perhaps link jury duty to the PPS database rather than electoral register?

There should be some disadvantage to not voting though.

There should be a possibility of registering your abstention though like an "ABSTAIN" box on a referendum or election.

How about this system then:

Let's say you vote and the returning officer gives you a stamped / punched voucher back.
The state wouldn't do anything, but private companies would be encouraged to offer people freebees ?
Like you could maybe turn up at a pub and get a half-price pint ..

I'm sure there would be some businesses out there who would see it as a patriotic thing / corporate social responsibility project for them to do..

You could have Supermarket X gives 100 club card vouchers to voters!

The vouchers handed out could be 100% anonymous .. just a generic voucher not in anyway linked to your voting record, but just given to people who take a polling card in the polling station.

All they'd be doing is handing out an "I voted'" ticket when you turned up.

It would cost the state little or nothing to do and it might encourage a bit of a 'buzz' around it.

cerastes

SpaceTime wrote: »

I know a lot of people who don't register to vote because they don't want to gon on jury duty! It's quite a huge disincentive for some folks.
Perhaps link jury duty to the PPS database rather than electoral register?

There should be some disadvantage to not voting though.

There should be a possibility of registering your abstention though like an "ABSTAIN" box on a referendum or election.
.

Jury duty was an aside, but I agree, Jury duty should be connected to PPSN rather than electoral register as people could avoid registering to vote for that reason or just not bother registering.

I think registering for voting and jury duty should be compulsary, maybe under one banner of civic responsibility.
Although connecting voting to PPSN might be open to suggestions of removing the right to ballot in secret?, even if it weren't correct or intended.
But I'm sure there would be some way to have people registered while maintaining anonymity in the records, e.g.encryption?
I do think you shouldnt necessarily have to arrive with a voting card and that PPSN and ID, in date driving licence or passport should be suitable.
You could be crossed off the list and still make an anoymous vote.

Id suggest that your place of habitual residence, which is presumably or should be connected with your PPSN, via employment record (or social welfare receipt), should be connected to the electoral area your voting card is authorised for use, but which would not still restrict you voting in any area for your own electoral area.

A number of places I have rented in the past or where I have known people have rented, I wouldn't consider secure for mail, I would not want mail arriving as it would be possible for it to be intercepted or lost, so I'd suggest that you could have a postal address (that you know is secure) other than your habitual residence address and that in this day and age it be possible for you to have an email/mobile set up in an account, merely for being registered that could tell you when a card has been sent and what the relevant details are ( an alpha-numeric code of some description), along with the appropriate ID you should be able to use this in any voting station for your area.

I still think you should be allowed to vote for any electoral area in any voting station, in the event you are not able to attend your electoral area, due to work or other commitments, I dont know if there are stations/ballot boxes in hospitals, but I think there should be.
Even in the current system, it wouldnt be unreasonable to be able to have a postal vote at the least, so that you could vote on the day if not in your own electoral area, or even in advance if you were to be out of the country, with your vote only opened at the same time as every other vote.
You should have a receipt with your postal vote too(or any form of method for voting), so that in conjunction with an online system, that you can check your vote was added to the system.

While I'm in favour of some form of online system for casting your vote with advance registration, I dont know anything about IT systems, while I suspect it could be made close to 100% secure (banks/credit card companies have secure access), I dont think anything can be made 100% secure, and I'd be concerned it could end up costing money/open to abuse from even unconnected elements.

I do think that significant proof should be demanded when registering, that a person should be registered at their place of habitual residence, not where they grew up so they can alter the vote back home (in another county when they reside in some other place) and that no one else ( as was suggested earlier, by politicians in one area) can add anyone to any electoral area as a voter.

edit, between carrot and stick, At the moment, Id suggest its a carrot used to incentivise people to vote rather than a penalty for not.