Voters lie in survey - Nice Treaty

Victor

Attitudes to Nice not grounded in thorough understanding of issues

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2002/0128/4064643703HMSINNOT.html

Attitudes to the Nice Treaty as shown in the results of the Irish Times/MRBI poll and at the time of the last referendum are analysed by Richard Sinnott

The story underlying the outcome last June of the Nice Treaty referendum was that 65.7 per cent of the electorate failed to vote, that the No vote declined by a couple of percentage points relative to Amsterdam (down from 21 to 18.5 per cent of the electorate) and that the Yes vote collapsed (down from 34 to 15.8 per cent).

Given the massive abstention, the 18.5 per cent No to 15.8 per cent Yes converted into a referendum outcome of 54 per cent No to 46 per cent Yes.

A survey by Irish Marketing Surveys carried out for the European Commission Representation in Ireland showed that the main source of abstention was lack of understanding of the issues.

In approaching the problems arising from the people's rejection of the Nice Treaty, a government could take only some comfort from the Irish Times/MRBI poll.

The first point to note from the poll is how people recall their own behaviour in the Nice referendum. This recall is not very accurate.

Only 40 per cent of respondents acknowledge having abstained in the Nice referendum, whereas we know from the actual results that 65 per cent of the electorate abstained. Adding the 8 per cent Don't Knows to the retrospective estimate of abstention still leaves a 17 percentage point discrepancy.

Some of this is genuinely muddled memory. These are the people who intended to vote and who cannot remember that they didn't. Another slice of the discrepancy is due to people not being willing to admit that they didn't do what some might see as their civic duty.

The second inaccuracy in the recall evidence is that it shows Yes voters outnumbering No voters by a significant margin (see chart).

The interesting point is not what it tells us about inaccurate recall after a lapse of more than half a year (we know that inaccuracy in this regard is a common occurrence). The interesting implication relates to the underlying balance of opinion in the electorate.

It would be quite natural for those who mistakenly think they had voted last June to reconstruct their "behaviour" in accordance with their underlying preference.

Accordingly, the fact that the recall evidence now favours the Yes side confirms other evidence that there are more potential Yes voters out there than potential No voters and that abstention in June 2001 came disproportionately from the Yes side.

It also helps to clarify some evidence in the earlier ECR survey. It attempted to ascertain how those who abstained would have voted if they had turned out. This attempt was only partially successful - 21 per cent said they would have voted No, 10 per cent would have voted Yes, leaving the majority (69 per cent) still uncommitted.

The recall results in the present survey suggest that this majority included a disproportionate share of potential Yes voters.

The Irish Times/MRBI poll shows that attitudes in this area are volatile and that the volatility lies mainly in the Yes and Don't know zones. Support for the view that "Ireland should do all it can to protect its independence from the EU" is fairly stable, at about one-third of the electorate, rising to two-fifths (and overtaking pro-integration support) during the Nice referendum campaign last year.

In contrast, support for the view "Ireland should unite fully with the European Union" has gone from a high of 55 per cent in 1996 all the way down to 25 per cent in the post-Nice ECR survey in 2001 and back up to 51 per cent in this Irish Times/MRBI poll.

Note that the level of No opinion/Don't know has been highest immediately after the Amsterdam and Nice referendums, especially the latter, and that it was when non-committal responses went to 40 per cent that support for a fully integrationist policy plummeted to 25 per cent.

Now, with the referendum receding into the background, levels of uncertainty have fallen dramatically and pro-integration support is back up almost to the 1996 level.

The fundamental lesson here is that a majority of the electorate is inclined to support continuing European integration but that this attitude is not grounded in a thorough understanding of the issues. As a result, it is fragile and easily undermined by the confusion that can arise from all of the competing claims and counter-claims made during a referendum campaign.

As for voting intentions in the hypothetical situation of a second referendum on Nice being held in the morning, 40 per cent say they would vote Yes, 29 per cent would vote No, 9 per cent (only) say they would not vote and 21 per cent are undecided. Intention to vote Yes is significantly lower among farmers, people living in rural areas, people under 35 and women.

The health warning on these figures can hardly be overstated.

The last campaign turned rather similar figures into a 54 to 46 vote against (mainly, it has to be said, by inducing massive abstention). All will therefore depend on the old and new arguments that each side can put before the electorate.

Having to hold referendums on such complex issues poses a substantial challenge. However, it is also generally acknowledged that in recent referendums, the process itself has been unsatisfactory. The change in the role of the Referendum Commission may help to improve things but this will only happen if politicians and activists on all sides throw themselves into a vigorous and forthright debate.

Prof Richard Sinnott is director of the Public Opinion and Political Behaviour Research Programme at the Institute for the Study of Social Change in UCD

Boston

i know thsi is slightly off topic, but i voted no, because i understood the issues exactly, i also got my whole family to vote no, because i understood the issues and they trusted that.

Meh

Originally posted by Boston
i know thsi is slightly off topic, but i voted no, because i understood the issues exactly, i also got my whole family to vote no, because i understood the issues and they trusted that.

This is precisely on-topic -- shows how the No voters were more motivated than the Yes side. The article makes the point that potential Yes voters didn't vote because they felt they didn't fully understand the treaty, and so couldn't make an informed decision. The government should concentrate on education and increasing the turnout, rather than changing people's opinions if they want to win the second round...

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
i know thsi is slightly off topic, but i voted no, because i understood the issues exactly,

I'm hoping I misunderstood your wording, but on my first reading, I took this to mean that anyone who voted yes doesnt understand the issues.

On reflection, I'm thinking you meant that you understood the issues which led you to vote no.

jc

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

A few weeks ago, the government passed a bill to relinquish their responsibility to fund an equal-sided information campaign in the run up to any election. The responsibility of the government to provide objective, correct, information has been eradicated in favour of uneven party driven 'information' campaigns and other disparate interest groups and research groups.

If people rejected Nice treaty out of sheer ignorance of the issue, then things are set to get worse. Much worse.

I voted 'No' exactly because I understood the Nice treaty; I read the White Paper and weighed up the pros and cons. I had to go out of my way to find out about it, rather than being informed by the government. It is the responsibility of the government, without exception, to inform the public of all the facts of the matter - in this day and age, no government should assume we know or want to know enough. No government should be able to play with the facts, exposing them or concealing them, for political advantage. When a government calls a referendum, the Referendum Commission (which should be totally separate from any political machinations) should automatically kick into gear and publish the information as clearly and consisely as possible so that every voter can understand the issues.

I, personally, was apalled by the outcome of the Nice referendum. Sure, I got the result I wanted but it was people's attitude to it and their reasons for rejecting it that disgusted me. Either it was centered around some mythical notion of neutrality (which has come to mean as much as Santa Claus) but also out of sheer selfishness alongside sheer ignorance.

The bill recently passed doesn't give me much hope for the next referendum. The government does not understand the issue first of all; if the government does not understand the country's wants, how are they to further negotiate an acceptable settlement? Answer: they haven't. What then is different between last year's referendum and the next one?

Sinnott (my lecturer, hee hee), has noticed something which will threaten both camps: the voter volatility of a proportion of the Yes and Don't knows will radically undercut any current predictions. This is where the battle is going to be fought by the politicians - they're going to be profiled and targeted by both camps for the Yes and the No vote.

So much for open, unbiased information.

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
I voted no as a protest vote. In fact most of the people who I know who voted no did so for this reason. I felt taken for granted by a government who decided they didn't have to campaign cos it would carry anyway. I always expected lots of people would change the second time because like me they just wanted to see Bertie & Co. squirm.

But they did offend a lot of people like me when after the no vote they basically said we were idiots for voting no

let me see if I understand this.

You voted no to make a politicians life a bit more difficult, wasting tax payers money, and delaying a rather important bill which you seem to believe should actually have received a yes vote.

Then you get offended when they call you an idiot?

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Then you get offended when they call you an idiot?

If we are treated like idiots, why should we act any differently?

Typedef

I find the concept of an elected government attempting to set aside a referendum result an anthema to democracy. I voted the way I voted because of a balanced view I came to and I cast my vote according to that view this is my right under the constitution and system of governance and sufferage within this Republic and I expect my duly elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and represent my views else discontinue being representatives. Does this government think itself so infallable, is it so instransgent, pompous and vain as to think itself the appropiate mechanism to attempt to tell me that I voted out of ignorance? Had I voted for Nice would I be told that I was intellectually inferior, that by the standards laid out by governmental versimiltude on the issue of Nice that any deviant though is to be crushed ad-hoc?

What really gets under my skin is that the government has the ability to use a veto for Nice and it hasn't done it, despite the treaty being rejected by the electorate of Ireland. How many politicians do you know who would set-aside an election victory and attempt to qualify it as 'low turnout' or 'the electorate is misinformed' in an election they had won? None that hold office.

So either the government have no respect for democracy and the electorate they are meant to represent via universal sufferage, or the government finds itself unable to use Ireland's veto regarding Nice. If the government only has a token veto then accusations of Ireland's soverignty being taken away by Europe and of Ireland's insignificance in Europe must be true.

If Sinn Fein sweep 15% of the vote will the government similarly 'set-aside' the result of an election, citing 'misinformation and confusion after all the electorate couldn't have meant to vote for Sinn Fein'? It begs the question, if the government will not accept the result of a referendum conducted by universal sufferage, will the same government accept an election conducted by the same?

Perhaps the government would feel more confortable if it passed a law that forced people to vote. The process of extracting the 'correct and informed' result from the electorate would be sped up. In fact we could simply outlaw all parties other than the Fianna Fial - Progressive Democrat axis and thus speed up the entire process of governance and the selection of appropiate governmental representatives exponentially.

I think this would be a 'healthy development' don't you?

Sand

The article tells us little that we didnt know or suspected. The referendum was marked by an extremely low turnout, that the vote amongst those who did vote was very close, and that a random sample of people may well return a slightly different result than a referendum. It currently indicates that a second referendum will get the treaty passed, or it may not given the size of the undecided and the volatility of the vote. The fact that Yes voters didnt vote because they didnt understand the issue is a bit weird to me - if they didnt understand how did they know they were Yes voters? I assume as many people voted no as voted yes without understanding the issues exactly.

Boston

thats right bonkey, ever since this think im being hearing that the reason it was rejected was people didnt understand the issues, but this is a half lie, they are persuming that if more people understood the issues they would have vote and voted yes, but the spin the press nut on it make it sound as if the no voters were idiots and all sinn feiner.

I voted no, mostly because i could tell the goverment was liying to us. they kept calling it an expantion treaty, well ive no problem with that, expect the fact that the new, cheap well educated labour force of the chech republic, with its better infastructure in many ways will show up just how the progressive govermetns have messed up and wasted eu money. but in principle ive no problem with that. I have however a serious problem with this RRF idea, which would be steam rolled by the treaty, without getting into sept 11th, it just an example, but i wouldnt want irish troops in afganistan. and that reason enough for me not to vote yes.

third i didnt like the way we werent being told anything, i mean they used every trick in the book, even the good auld "their english funded dogs bend on distroying ireland" triick, and it was no harm at all to shake up the goverment. i will keep a close eye on the next election

BTW please nobody take apart my arguements for voting no, i was asked why, this is why, its my take on the situation im not trying to convience others.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I find the concept of an elected government attempting to set aside a referendum result an anthema to democracy.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know what & when was the last proposed consitutional change which was turned down in a referendum and never voted on again???

I cant think of a single one.

jc

Boston

well they will have to have it agin , but i fear they will rig it in such away that they are nearly asured to get a yes vote. behapes the abortion and nice ones would be joined, to a sure a high turnout, and basically they believe that the majority of the voting public, if they got them to the polls would vote yes to nice

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
well they will have to have it agin , but i fear they will rig it in such away that they are nearly asured to get a yes vote. behapes the abortion and nice ones would be joined, to a sure a high turnout, and basically they believe that the majority of the voting public, if they got them to the polls would vote yes to nice

You make this sound like a bad thing. Why?

Give people an incentive to vote by including something they are passionate about (abortion) and you end up getting the result for Nice which the majority of the country would vote for if they got off their arses.

I think its a great idea. You are getting a much higher representation of the will of the people, and therefore a more accurate assessment. What is wrong with this? Its not like they're being enticed in any way which would affect their decision.

jc

Boston

it is a bad thing, its a hugely bad thing, two should never be on at the same time, there should be a single clear compain, theres only ever more then one when they are trying to rail road it past.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
As a matter of interest, does anyone know what & when was the last proposed consitutional change which was turned down in a referendum and never voted on again??? I cant think of a single one.

Only constitiutional ammendment referendums have taken place. There have been no ordinary referendums.

Table of verified ammendments (up to 1999) http://www.gov.ie/taoiseach/publication/constitution/english/contents.htm

There is a list of recent bills at http://www.gov.ie/bills28/bills/default.htm

There is a list of recent bills at http://www.gov.ie/bills28/acts/default.htm

More particular to referendums, refer to http://www.environ.ie/electindex.html -> "Referendums" -> "Click here for Referendum results in PDF format 1937-1999 Referendums in Ireland (463KB)" see in particular page 2

---

Re-used numbers are marked in round brackets ()

3rd(1) [voting system - abolition of PRSTV voting] ammendment was rejected 21:20 at referendum

3rd(2) [constituency boundaries] ammendment was rejected 3:2 at referendum

3rd(3) [European Communities] passed

4th(1) [voting system - abolition of PRSTV voting] ammendment was rejected 3:2 at referendum

10th(1) [dissolution of marriage] ammendment was rejected 2:1 at referendum

12th [abortion - Right to Life] ammendment was rejected 2:1 at referendum

22nd [judges] ammendment was rejected in the Dail

25th(1) [miltary alliances] ammendment was rejected in the Dail

25th(2) [abortion] ammendment is the current proposal

---

bonkey

Thanks Victor.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Boston
it is a bad thing, its a hugely bad thing, two should never be on at the same time, there should be a single clear compain, theres only ever more then one when they are trying to rail road it past.

Why is it bad to have multiple referendums on the same day? Seems to me that it can only increase turnout. The Irish electorate is fairly used to the democracy thing at this stage. Peoplewon't exactly be getting abortion confused with the Nice treaty...

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
it is a bad thing, its a hugely bad thing, two should never be on at the same time, there should be a single clear compain, theres only ever more then one when they are trying to rail road it past.

Living, as I do, in a country that has several referenda a year, each with multiple issues, I think that having multiple issues in one referendum is a great idea. It also reduces costs.

As meh pointed out, it has the net effect of increasing voter turnout. No-one forces you to vote on every issue.

At the end of the day, the government cant railroad something through. They can encourage more people to vote, but thats it. If a larger percentage vote, this typically gives a more accurate assessment of the wishes of the populace. If they vote in one direction, surely the end result is that a more statistically accurate end result has arisen?

You seem to be arguing that if people woudlnt vote for the issue as presented on its own, then they shouldnt be encouraged in any way to votem or that their votes are somehow bad. I fail to se this logic.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Boston
it is a bad thing, its a hugely bad thing, two should never be on at the same time, there should be a single clear compain, theres only ever more then one when they are trying to rail road it past.

It has happened quite often that several proposals are put together. However, I think the Government has learned that you can't (a) mix controversial with not-controversial debates (b) mix controversial debates. Of course, unfortunately, controversial is only defined when the counting is over.

I don't think there was any real risk of the Capital Punishment ammendments being defeated, although it is possible that Nice reduced the number of yes votes for it. Likewise Belfast and the ICC were guaranteed. I think the deference arises with regard to actual as opposed to technical changes.

I would like to see some referendums held every time there is a general or local authority election (it makes politicians campaign on policy, not personality). And if a referendum is to be held mid-term, by-elections should be cumpulsorily held at the same time.

Whatever about a single clear campaign, more importantly, there should be consultation with the people.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

MerRua

Originally posted by Typedef
I find the concept of an elected government attempting to set aside a referendum result an anthema to democracy. I voted the way I voted because of a balanced view I came to and I cast my vote according to that view this is my right under the constitution and system of governance and sufferage within this Republic and I expect my duly elected representatives to do what they were elected to do and represent my views else discontinue being representatives. Does this government think itself so infallable, is it so instransgent, pompous and vain as to think itself the appropiate mechanism to attempt to tell me that I voted out of ignorance? Had I voted for Nice would I be told that I was intellectually inferior, that by the standards laid out by governmental versimiltude on the issue of Nice that any deviant though is to be crushed ad-hoc?

What really gets under my skin is that the government has the ability to use a veto for Nice and it hasn't done it, despite the treaty being rejected by the electorate of Ireland. How many politicians do you know who would set-aside an election victory and attempt to qualify it as 'low turnout' or 'the electorate is misinformed' in an election they had won? None that hold office.

I agree. I also voted no.
The nice threaty was very hard to come across where i was, even those little infromation booklets were not at the local library till fairly near the election. The governments and europes reaction to the election result was very interesting.
My question is whether this has any legal implentations? does this set a precedence allowing the government to ignore other results?

Meh

Originally posted by MerRua
I agree. I also voted no.
The nice threaty was very hard to come across where i was, even those little infromation booklets were not at the local library till fairly near the election.

If you have access to the Internet, you have no excuse for not being familiar with the Nice Treaty. What did you expect, Bertie to come round to your house and read it to you?

My question is whether this has any legal implentations? does this set a precedence allowing the government to ignore other results?

The government isn't ignoring the result. If they were ignoring the result, we wouldn't be having another referendum -- they'd just go ahead with the treaty without bothering to ask us again.