Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

alaimacerc wrote: »

They don't? Sure, wasn't President Peter Casey inaugurated just the other day?

You're proving my point, I think.

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, but I didn't make reference to a single social justice issue, I was referring to a broader change in acceptable social norms among the majority of the population. I'd agree with Dick swiveller that greed (and fear) will likely trump taking the moral high ground at election time but politicians can do themselves considerable damage in the interim period by failing to read the sentiment of the people. (Renua anyone?). Be interesting to see how the likes of Peadar Tóibín do next time out having isolated himself from his party. As you say, people are fickle.

I know that you didn't, it was just a useful segue to address the broader topic at hand.

However, when you ask about the future of staunch political conservatism, we have to ask, which kind of conservatism. After all, fiscal conservatism may change in a manner completely unrelated to and uninfluenced by social conservatism.

As you say, those most likely to fail in elections are those who haven't read the sentiment of the people. My point is that, such sentiments are unlikely to revolve around a single issue as some other posters have intimated. Peadar Toibin may ultimately lose out in his political career on the basis of his pro-life views but it won't be the views themselves that will be off-putting but as you say, his political isolation.

alaimacerc

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But Renua were perceived to be a one-issue party: most of the anti-abortion Tds are parish pump merchants who have built up a strong local support base over the years. Pro-life is only a small part of their platform.

Renua weren't even "officially" an anti-abortion party when they lost all their Dáil seats: they switched from "freedom of conscience" to "keep it overseas and illegal" after the TDs had bolted.

Perception may of course have differed.

alaimacerc

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Hopefully by the time the next election comes 'round you'll have realised that boards.ie and twitter don't = the Country. I doubt it, though.

They don't? Sure, wasn't President Peter Casey inaugurated just the other day?

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

But to imagine that a group of people going to the polls whose only common factor is geography will vote on the basis of a single social justice issue seems a bit narrow minded.

Fair enough, but I didn't make reference to a single social justice issue, I was referring to a broader change in acceptable social norms among the majority of the population. I'd agree with Dick swiveller that greed (and fear) will likely trump taking the moral high ground at election time but politicians can do themselves considerable damage in the interim period by failing to read the sentiment of the people. (Renua anyone?). Be interesting to see how the likes of Peadar Tóibín do next time out having isolated himself from his party. As you say, people are fickle.

smacl wrote: »

One might reasonably speculate though how well the strategy of staunch political conservatism will work going forward?

Well, the question is what kind of political conservatism. You see, there has been a remarkably simplistic interpretation of voter intentions present in the last few pages, most notably the assumption that voters will not just be concerned with social justice issues but with a single social justice issue (i.e. abortion). Now, as I previously pointed out, out of the 25 TDs who voted against the POLDPA in 2013, 16 of them were re-elected in 2016 with 10 of those topping the poll in their respective constituencies. Now, if you were being overly simplistic you could interpret that as a ringing endorsement of these candidates pro-life views. However, given the 2:1 majority in repealing the 8th Amendment just 2 years after the general election, you would be on firmer ground to instead speculate that maybe something else is at work and that people's priorities at voting time extend beyond a single social justice issue.

The reality is that any number of factors could explain why a particular candidate gets elected. Some voters may be resistant towards independent candidates because they feel that TDs can ultimately exercise more power as part of a party. Some voters will, as Dick Swiveller pointed out, vote with their wallets, voting for candidates on issues which affect their economic situation. In fact, if the US presidential elections over the last half century have taught us anything it's that voters are amazingly fickle in this respect. But to imagine that a group of people going to the polls whose only common factor is geography will vote on the basis of a single social justice issue seems a bit narrow minded.

Bredabe wrote: »

I can support my statement, just not within the time frame you deem acceptable.

I'm not imposing any kind of time frame on you. I'm merely pointing out that ultimately you will either have to support or retract your claim. The new forum rules, however, might have something different to say on that score.

Bredabe wrote: »

I am quite open to possibly having incorrect stats, but in this case I would be bias towards the UK figures. but I'm not commenting further on this until I have all the variables and time to assess them as that kind of action would be outside of my nature.

OK, but here's the problem facing you. Right now, the evidence we do have suggests that under 25s were significantly underrrepresented among voters in the presidential election and blasphemy referendum. In order to substantiate your claim you not only have to present statistics which support your view but simultaneously you have to explain why the evidence which conflicts with your view should be ignored.

You see, if you produce a poll similar to RTE's which shows the opposite demographic then we have two conflicting sets of data. So, the honest way to deal with that situation is to examine both datasets and their analyses to see if any flaws are apparent. If no flaws are apparent and both datasets seem legitimate then the only honest option is to render the demographic question indeterminate and say that we don't know how well represented under 25s were.

smacl wrote: »

One might reasonably speculate though how well the strategy of staunch political conservatism will work going forward? The younger generation seem far quicker to drop previously accepted norms than their predecessors and I wouldn't be surprised to some of these candidates struggling to replace older supporters with younger. There's a world of a difference between using statistics to analyse what happened in the recent past and attempting to extrapolate what might happen a few years hence. There does seem to be a dramatic change in attitudes in this country over the last couple of decades.

People generally vote with their wallet in mind at election time. I don't think there will be much change in the coming years.

smacl

oldrnwisr wrote: »

If there's any common thread in the winners and losers among those pro-life candidates it is that those who lost did so because they abandoned the political identity which got them elected in the first place.

One might reasonably speculate though how well the strategy of staunch political conservatism will work going forward? The younger generation seem far quicker to drop previously accepted norms than their predecessors and I wouldn't be surprised to some of these candidates struggling to replace older supporters with younger. There's a world of a difference between using statistics to analyse what happened in the recent past and attempting to extrapolate what might happen a few years hence. There does seem to be a dramatic change in attitudes in this country over the last couple of decades.

smacl

Bredabe wrote: »

I can support my statement, just not within the time frame you deem acceptable. I am quite open to possibly having incorrect stats, but in this case I would be bias towards the UK figures. but I'm not commenting further on this until I have all the variables and time to assess them as that kind of action would be outside of my nature.

Can you at least state what source you're using for your own assertions? I assume these are official on the basis that of your 'distrust of statistics in general and esp those from non official sources'. Also, by official, which office specifically? While the government was responsible for counting the vote, it had no responsibility for analysis beyond that, and I'm not aware of any other official analyses.

Bredabe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Well, here's the thing. There were two exit polls referenced in the media following the election, RTE's exit poll conducted by Red C and The Irish Times poll conducted by Ipsos/MRBI. From the first few pages of Google results, the various media outlets referenced or quoted the exit polls as follows:

Irish Examiner - Both
Joe.ie - RTE
Leinster Express - RTE
The Journal - Both
The Irish Sun - Both
The Irish Mirror - Both
Irish Independent - RTE

Now, while RTE presented the full details of their exit poll including the methodology, the Irish Times merely provided extended analysis of theirs. So, we don't have a demographic breakdown of the Irish Times Poll and, so far, no evidence of any other properly conducted poll. However, what we do have are references to the consistency of the results of the two exit polls in other media outlets. The Irish Examiner quotes that "The consistency of the two exit polls is remarkable and the result is crystal clear." while The Journal notes "An RTÉ exit poll also released after the polls closed has predicted very similar results."

So, it is not unreasonable to surmise that the demographics of the Irish Times poll agrees with the figures presented by RTE given the consistency in the results they predicted. Which brings us back to the original argument between you and Dick Swiveller. You claimed that "lots" of under 25s voted in the presidential election and blasphemy referendum but haven't been able to provide anything to substantiate such a view other than anecdote and vague speculation. On the other hand, Dick Swiveller's counter that the number was tiny does appear to be mostly borne out by the available evidence.

So, it would seem that you could either retract your original claim about the number of under 25s who voted, or present some actual evidence to support your assertions.

I can support my statement, just not within the time frame you deem acceptable. I am quite open to possibly having incorrect stats, but in this case I would be bias towards the UK figures. but I'm not commenting further on this until I have all the variables and time to assess them as that kind of action would be outside of my nature.

Bredabe wrote: »

This is why I was asking, I heard different figures from local media at home in London, I asked you if there were figures from a different source to see if I could figure out where the difference was.
I have enough experience to have a distrust of statistics in general and esp those from non official sources.

I have in the past seen figures broken down post GE on govt www's, but I'm not sure if these would be available with other factors at play.
I cant at the top of my head tell you what radio station I heard stats from, if you want to wait till I'm not rowing with O/H, I'll find out what station I was likely to have been subjected to at the time and happily pass it along.

Well, here's the thing. There were two exit polls referenced in the media following the election, RTE's exit poll conducted by Red C and The Irish Times poll conducted by Ipsos/MRBI. From the first few pages of Google results, the various media outlets referenced or quoted the exit polls as follows:

Irish Examiner - Both
Joe.ie - RTE
Leinster Express - RTE
The Journal - Both
The Irish Sun - Both
The Irish Mirror - Both
Irish Independent - RTE

Now, while RTE presented the full details of their exit poll including the methodology, the Irish Times merely provided extended analysis of theirs. So, we don't have a demographic breakdown of the Irish Times Poll and, so far, no evidence of any other properly conducted poll. However, what we do have are references to the consistency of the results of the two exit polls in other media outlets. The Irish Examiner quotes that "The consistency of the two exit polls is remarkable and the result is crystal clear." while The Journal notes "An RTÉ exit poll also released after the polls closed has predicted very similar results."

So, it is not unreasonable to surmise that the demographics of the Irish Times poll agrees with the figures presented by RTE given the consistency in the results they predicted. Which brings us back to the original argument between you and Dick Swiveller. You claimed that "lots" of under 25s voted in the presidential election and blasphemy referendum but haven't been able to provide anything to substantiate such a view other than anecdote and vague speculation. On the other hand, Dick Swiveller's counter that the number was tiny does appear to be mostly borne out by the available evidence.

So, it would seem that you could either retract your original claim about the number of under 25s who voted, or present some actual evidence to support your assertions.

Bredabe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I've provided the link to the RTE Exit Poll. If you've got a poll with a larger sample size than the RTE then by all means, let's see it.

Exactly what do you mean by official source? An official source for RTE's figures? I've provided the link to the report from RTE's own website. What other verified source do you want? It's a secret ballot, remember. The only method for gauging demographic data is exit polls.

You were the one who originally claimed that lots of under 25s voted in the presidential election. Where are the sources which back up your claims? Evidence please.

This is why I was asking, I heard different figures from local media at home in London, I asked you if there were figures from a different source to see if I could figure out where the difference was.
I have enough experience to have a distrust of statistics in general and esp those from non official sources.

I have in the past seen figures broken down post GE on govt www's, but I'm not sure if these would be available with other factors at play.
I cant at the top of my head tell you what radio station I heard stats from, if you want to wait till I'm not rowing with O/H, I'll find out what station I was likely to have been subjected to at the time and happily pass it along.

Bredabe wrote: »

Would you please give an official source for these stats? I can see you quoted RedC and RTE, I prefer to see verified sources given the difference in figures mentioned here.

I've provided the link to the RTE Exit Poll. If you've got a poll with a larger sample size than the RTE then by all means, let's see it.

Exactly what do you mean by official source? An official source for RTE's figures? I've provided the link to the report from RTE's own website. What other verified source do you want? It's a secret ballot, remember. The only method for gauging demographic data is exit polls.

You were the one who originally claimed that lots of under 25s voted in the presidential election. Where are the sources which back up your claims? Evidence please.

Bredabe

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Let's just clear this up real quick. Dick Swiveller is correct when he says the number of people under 25 who voted in the presidential election and blasphemy reference was tiny. Or to be more accurate, significantly underrepresented. The RTE Exit Poll, conducted by Red C, interviewed a random sample of 3474 peopl leaving polling stations. This poll found that the demographics broke down as follows:

Presidential Election

18-24 - 202 (5.9%)

25-34 - 402 (11.7%)

35-44 - 707 (20.5%)

45-54 - 767 (22.3%)

55-64 - 676 (19.6%)

65+ - 689 (20.0%)

Blasphemy Referendum

18-24 - 197 (5.9%)

25-34 - 395 (11.8%)

35-44 - 690 (20.6%)

45-54 - 752 (22.4%)

55-64 - 661 (19.7%)

65+ - 661 (19.7%)

So, not only is the 18-24 group the smallest it's also half the size of the next smallest group. In fact the combined 18-34 demographic is still smaller than any of the other demographics.

RTE Presidential Election & Blasphemy Referendum Exit Poll

Actually it doesn't tell us that at all. You shouldn't let one or two high profile casualties like Lucinda Creighton or Fidelma Healy-Eames blind you to the reality of the full dataset.

For example, Fidelma Healy Eames saw her vote collapse, going from 5046 first preference votes or 8.32% share in 2011 to 1394 first preference votes or 2.17% share in 2016.

However, Michael Healy Rae saw his vote share massively increase from 6670 first preference votes or 15.03% in 2011 to 20378 votes or 25.71% share in 2016 in a constituency that actually got bigger. Similarly MarcMcSharry who received 4633 first preference votes or 10.43% in 2011, not getting elected but increased his vote to 8856 first preferences or 14.21% in 2016. Mattie McGrath also managed to hold his own in a growing constituency achieving 6074 votes or 14.69% in Tipperary South in 2011 and 11237 votes or 14.42% in the larger Tipperary constituency in 2016.

In total, 25 TDs voted against POLDPA in 2013. Of those 25, 16 were re-elected in 2016. Of those 16, 10 of them topped the poll in their respective constituencies. Of the 9 TDs who weren't re-elected, four did not contest the election either on age or health grounds (Michael Kitt, Brian Walsh, Seamus Kirk, John Browne). Of the 5 TDs who contested the election and lost, 4 of the TDs were part of the Reform Alliance which formed in the wake of the POLDPA vote (Terence Flanagan, Peter Matthews, Lucinda Creighton, Billy Timmins). The last remaining TD to lose his vote was Colm Keaveney who lost the Labour Party whip in 2012 for voting against the government over respite grant cuts. Keaveney joined Fianna Fail in 2013 and failed to get re-elected as a Fianna Fail candidate in 2016.

If there's any common thread in the winners and losers among those pro-life candidates it is that those who lost did so because they abandoned the political identity which got them elected in the first place. In fact the only TD to buck the trend and get elected despite the obvious bad smell emanating from the Reform Alliance was Denis Naughten.

Would you please give an official source for these stats? I can see you quoted RedC and RTE, I prefer to see verified sources given the difference in figures mentioned here.

Bredabe wrote: »

Lots if you go by the presidential and blas refs. So many young ppl are returning to live here and are used to this kind of healthcare.

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

The number of people under 25 who voted in the Presidential election was tiny.

Bredabe wrote: »

Nope, the amount of anyone voting in the pres was tiny.

Bredabe wrote: »

Yes lots in terms of the small no's of that turned out at all.

Let's just clear this up real quick. Dick Swiveller is correct when he says the number of people under 25 who voted in the presidential election and blasphemy reference was tiny. Or to be more accurate, significantly underrepresented. The RTE Exit Poll, conducted by Red C, interviewed a random sample of 3474 peopl leaving polling stations. This poll found that the demographics broke down as follows:

Presidential Election

18-24 - 202 (5.9%)

25-34 - 402 (11.7%)

35-44 - 707 (20.5%)

45-54 - 767 (22.3%)

55-64 - 676 (19.6%)

65+ - 689 (20.0%)

Blasphemy Referendum

18-24 - 197 (5.9%)

25-34 - 395 (11.8%)

35-44 - 690 (20.6%)

45-54 - 752 (22.4%)

55-64 - 661 (19.7%)

65+ - 661 (19.7%)

So, not only is the 18-24 group the smallest it's also half the size of the next smallest group. In fact the combined 18-34 demographic is still smaller than any of the other demographics.

RTE Presidential Election & Blasphemy Referendum Exit Poll

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It tells us that TDs who were elected at the previous election all lost their seats because they opposed POLDPA.

Actually it doesn't tell us that at all. You shouldn't let one or two high profile casualties like Lucinda Creighton or Fidelma Healy-Eames blind you to the reality of the full dataset.

For example, Fidelma Healy Eames saw her vote collapse, going from 5046 first preference votes or 8.32% share in 2011 to 1394 first preference votes or 2.17% share in 2016.

However, Michael Healy Rae saw his vote share massively increase from 6670 first preference votes or 15.03% in 2011 to 20378 votes or 25.71% share in 2016 in a constituency that actually got bigger. Similarly MarcMcSharry who received 4633 first preference votes or 10.43% in 2011, not getting elected but increased his vote to 8856 first preferences or 14.21% in 2016. Mattie McGrath also managed to hold his own in a growing constituency achieving 6074 votes or 14.69% in Tipperary South in 2011 and 11237 votes or 14.42% in the larger Tipperary constituency in 2016.

In total, 25 TDs voted against POLDPA in 2013. Of those 25, 16 were re-elected in 2016. Of those 16, 10 of them topped the poll in their respective constituencies. Of the 9 TDs who weren't re-elected, four did not contest the election either on age or health grounds (Michael Kitt, Brian Walsh, Seamus Kirk, John Browne). Of the 5 TDs who contested the election and lost, 4 of the TDs were part of the Reform Alliance which formed in the wake of the POLDPA vote (Terence Flanagan, Peter Matthews, Lucinda Creighton, Billy Timmins). The last remaining TD to lose his vote was Colm Keaveney who lost the Labour Party whip in 2012 for voting against the government over respite grant cuts. Keaveney joined Fianna Fail in 2013 and failed to get re-elected as a Fianna Fail candidate in 2016.

If there's any common thread in the winners and losers among those pro-life candidates it is that those who lost did so because they abandoned the political identity which got them elected in the first place. In fact the only TD to buck the trend and get elected despite the obvious bad smell emanating from the Reform Alliance was Denis Naughten.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

That is not a substantiation of your claim. Either substantiate it or withdraw it. that is the forum rule.

My claim was that voter turnout among under 25s was low. If you think hard about it, the fact that only 43 per cent voted, coupled with the fact that older people are more likely to vote, tells you that there wasn't a youth wave - as such.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Your denial of reality is noted.

I'm looking forward to your complete embarrassment when your claim that "The Fianna Fáil TDs who were opposed to abortion will be comfortably re-elected" falls flat on its arse, but you'll probably have closed account and re-regged yet again by then, like a coward.

I note your ignorance on the issues that people generally vote on at election time, and your ignorance as to the nature of political tribalism outside of Dublin 4.

Hopefully by the time the next election comes 'round you'll have realised that boards.ie and twitter don't = the Country. I doubt it, though.

ohnonotgmail

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

The national turnout was 43.37. They don't give statistics for age range. The fact that the national figure was 43.37 would suggest the young folks weren't arsed this time around.

That is not a substantiation of your claim. Either substantiate it or withdraw it. that is the forum rule.

Hotblack Desiato

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

It doesn't tell us that at all. I'm amazed that you can make that ridiculous claim.

Your denial of reality is noted.

I'm looking forward to your complete embarrassment when your claim that "The Fianna Fáil TDs who were opposed to abortion will be comfortably re-elected" falls flat on its arse, but you'll probably have closed account and re-regged yet again by then, like a coward.

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm afraid to say you appearing to be living in a bubble. Most of the people who voted for repeal (My mam and sister among others) are not as passionate about the issue as a few posters on Boards who appear to be obsessed with it. It will not be to the foremost of the vast majority of voters' minds. I can guarantee you this.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you plan on substantiating your claim?

The national turnout was 43.37. They don't give statistics for age range. The fact that the national figure was 43.37 would suggest the young folks weren't arsed this time around.