I really think it's quite incredible that the turnout last time was 40%...

hatrickpatrick · 30-09-2009 10:55pm #1

...and that many at the time said this was a "surprisingly high turnout" or something along those lines.

40%? Really? That's not even half the population! I'm not in any way criticising people who choose not to vote for whatever reason, but c'mon... That's a "high turnout"? How would they describe an "average turnout"?

I'm too young to remember, but when they say "high", what's that relative to? Just how low was it on previous treaties?

Rb · 30-09-2009 10:55pm

It's a disgrace. Those who don't vote shouldn't be listened to when they're moaning afterwards.

metrovelvet · 30-09-2009 10:57pm

I didnt vote the last time because I had no idea what the hell it was. And to a large extent I still dont. I must be the only person in the country who doesnt know who this Declan Ganley guy is.

But what I do know is this, Ireland cant keep having re votes. They did this with divorce and another one which I cant recall. It's like it;s now assumed a first vote is just a rehearsal so no one takes it seriously and doesnt show up.

I just dont get it.

squod · 30-09-2009 11:04pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...and that many at the time said this was a "surprisingly high turnout" or something along those lines.

40%? Really? That's not even half the population! I'm not in any way criticising people who choose not to vote for whatever reason, but c'mon... That's a "high turnout"? How would they describe an "average turnout"?

I'm too young to remember, but when they say "high", what's that relative to? Just how low was it on previous treaties?

TV3 said 53% earlier.

Scofflaw · 30-09-2009 11:06pm

squod wrote: »

TV3 said 53% earlier.

Which is correct. I'm not sure where the figure of 40% comes from - Nice 1 was 35%, but that really was regarded as a dress rehearsal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome · 30-09-2009 11:07pm

squod wrote: »

TV3 said 53% earlier.

That's correct. It's not 40%.

Mrmoe · 30-09-2009 11:09pm

40% is really pathetic alright but I would wonder really if it is a case of of people trying to preserve the status quo. If I had my way I would introduce some of these measures:

1. Mandatory voting (If not you do not vote you will not receive any state assistance or state services other than medical needs).

2. An extra option allowing for a Do not know/none of the above.

3. Polling to be carried out over a number of days not just on one.

4. More polling stations within a minimum mandatory distance of each person on the register or provision of transport for people in rural/isolated areas.

5. Automatic inclusion of people on the electoral register once they turn 16/17.

6. Allowance for a free paid half day from work that can be taken at any time (or payment in lieu of a half day) if they provide evidence/proof of voting to their employer.

sceptre · 30-09-2009 11:13pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I must be the only person in the country who doesnt know who this Declan Ganley guy is.

Oh, you haven't lived.

But what I do know is this, Ireland cant keep having re votes. They did this with divorce and another one which I cant recall.

Well, first we did it with the Treaty plebiscite, which was really a re-run of the 1918 election. So we were really founded on a re-run. Then we sort of did it again in 1937. We declared ourselves formally a republic pretty quietly 12 years later and since then we've had double referendums on abandoning PR-STV (in 1958 and 1968), bringing in divorce (1986 and 1995), Nice (2001 and 2002), Lisbon (2008 and 2009). And I left out the granddaddy of them all: abortion, where much of the same people now in Cóir forced through a nastily worded referendum in 1983 that has led to three more referendums in 1992 and one in 2002. That's five related to abortion in one way or another. Though if you include all the EEC/EC/EU votes we've had, this Friday will be our eighth (1972/1987/1992/1998/2001/2002/2008/2009). More times than we've won Eurovision, that.

Honestly, you've no idea who Declan Ganley is? Do you know who wouldn't be all that pleased about that? Declan Ganley. He contains 100% more Declan Ganley than other non-Declan Ganley former candidates and returned campaigners you know. But he'd never self-promote.

metrovelvet · 30-09-2009 11:15pm

So the first vote is really a rehearsal vote? Can I assume from now on the first one doesnt count and to just vote in the second and third ones? At what point do they decide not to have another one?

And no I have no idea who Ganley is. Havent heard him or seen him. Just see him referred to now and then.

Red Sleeping Beauty · 30-09-2009 11:24pm

metrovelvet, ifyou turn on TV3 now you can see what Gangley is like.

Turnout was 53% last time and I really hope it's equal or higher. Some family and friends have told me that people aren't going to bother voting and my da's thrown out his card as a symbolic gesture.

I think Denmark's Maastricht Treaty referendum in '92 had about 80%. I'd love if we had that kind of turnout.

hatrickpatrick · 30-09-2009 11:31pm

Apologies, I thought it was 40%... Maybe I'm confusing it with the local or EU elections this year?

53% still seems quite low to be described as "surprisingly high" though...

F-Stop · 30-09-2009 11:34pm

1. Mandatory voting (If not you do not vote you will not receive any state assistance or state services other than medical needs).

That's an interesting take on Democracy.

anonymous_joe · 30-09-2009 11:39pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

I didnt vote the last time because I had no idea what the hell it was. And to a large extent I still dont. I must be the only person in the country who doesnt know who this Declan Ganley guy is.

But what I do know is this, Ireland cant keep having re votes. They did this with divorce and another one which I cant recall. It's like it;s now assumed a first vote is just a rehearsal so no one takes it seriously and doesnt show up.

I just dont get it.

Because the divorce referendum was a bad thing? ^^

Scope out Ganley on TV 3 right now.

Fantastic debator, if a bit dodgy.

K-9 · 01-10-2009 1:18am

sceptre wrote: »

Oh, you haven't lived.

Well, first we did it with the Treaty plebiscite, which was really a re-run of the 1918 election. So we were really founded on a re-run. Then we sort of did it again in 1937. We declared ourselves formally a republic pretty quietly 12 years later and since then we've had double referendums on abandoning PR-STV (in 1958 and 1968), bringing in divorce (1986 and 1995), Nice (2001 and 2002), Lisbon (2008 and 2009). And I left out the granddaddy of them all: abortion, where much of the same people now in Cóir forced through a nastily worded referendum in 1983 that has led to three more referendums in 1992 and one in 2002. That's five related to abortion in one way or another. Though if you include all the EEC/EC/EU votes we've had, this Friday will be our eighth (1972/1987/1992/1998/2001/2002/2008/2009). More times than we've won Eurovision, that.

Honestly, you've no idea who Declan Ganley is? Do you know who wouldn't be all that pleased about that? Declan Ganley. He contains 100% more Declan Ganley than other non-Declan Ganley former candidates and returned campaigners you know. But he'd never self-promote.

You missed the one (two?) where NO meant NO, on first past the post General Elections.

So, in that case, NO meant NO.

rebelmind · 01-10-2009 1:24am

Rb wrote: »

It's a disgrace. Those who don't vote shouldn't be listened to when they're moaning afterwards.

RB, can't believe we actually agree on something.
You will find, of course, that working & lower middle class were, as usual, the highest turnout in Lisbon 1 & is'nt it amazing how the wooly middle classes, having lost loadsamoney in the crash of last September now, all of a sudden, feel disenfranchised by the last Lisbon Ref & want their little say.

Adamisconfused · 01-10-2009 1:29am

The yes campaign last time was quite pathetic in terms of size and determination. This time every effort has been made and if it is a yes victory on essentially the same treaty with a few guarantees added on, then it goes to show that the last attempt to secure a yes was way off the mark.
Throw a ban on holding the same referendum twice within three years and force each side to bring out the big guns on the first go. There’s no point in blaming each other afterwards for not doing enough to secure your aims.
I'd rather not see money wasted and I want the government to concentrate on fixing the economic woes in the country. Whether they're able to fix them or not is another story. I just don't want my tax money going to waste.

rebelmind · 01-10-2009 1:38am

Adamisconfused wrote: »

The yes campaign last time was quite pathetic in terms of size and determination. This time every effort has been made and if it is a yes victory on essentially the same treaty with a few guarantees added on, then it goes to show that the last attempt to secure a yes was way off the mark.
Throw a ban on holding the same referendum twice within three years and force each side to bring out the big guns on the first go. There’s no point in blaming each other afterwards for not doing enough to secure your aims.
I'd rather not see money wasted and I want the government to concentrate on fixing the economic woes in the country. Whether they're able to fix them or not is another story. I just don't want my tax money going to waste.

Your tax money has been spent with wanton abandon on trying to deceive you into voting yes, this time, since they made such a cock-up of it last time.
Quite pathetic is'nt it?
We, tax payers, have to pay for -
The cock-up FF/Greens made of Lisbon 1
Pay-offs to Fas Bosses
Bail-outs to bankers
Cuts in health & education

& they still want a yes vote?
Who are they kidding?

starbelgrade · 01-10-2009 1:43am

rebelmind wrote: »

& they still want a yes vote?
Who are they kidding?

The general public, who in no doubt will show up in "record levels" on Friday to vote "yes".

It will only futher concrete my opinion that people, in general, are idiots & democracy is fuelled by crooks who know how to influnce fools.

K-9 · 01-10-2009 1:47am

starbelgrade wrote: »

The general public, who in no doubt will show up in "record levels" on Friday to vote "yes".

It will only futher concrete my opinion that people, in general, are idiots & democracy is fuelled by crooks who know how to influnce fools.

And how does this square with a No last time?

rebelmind · 01-10-2009 1:48am

starbelgrade wrote: »

The general public, who in no doubt will show up in "record levels" on Friday to vote "yes".

It will only futher concrete my opinion that people, in general, are idiots & democracy is fuelled by crooks who know how to influnce fools.

Your cynicism is well founded, but such is the world as it is, always has been.
I doubt the record levels you predict, but I could be wrong.

jhegarty · 01-10-2009 1:49am

What is the expected turn out this time ?

Red Sleeping Beauty · 01-10-2009 1:57am

starbelgrade wrote: »

The general public, who in no doubt will show up in "record levels" on Friday to vote "yes".

It will only futher concrete my opinion that people, in general, are idiots & democracy is fuelled by crooks who know how to influnce fools.

I don't know if we'll see record levels whatever record levels would be, maybe in the region of +60% of the electorate ?

It's been pointed out here that Germany and Italy don't have referenda because they were used by facists in the past. Referenda on things like this can get a bit muddy so there's the argument there that they're a bad idea. There's the risk (or rather the likelihood) that whatever the outcome of this referendum (as with the last one) the result could have been influenced by nothing to do with the text(s) - "yes to recovery" from Ireland for Europe or "vote no to get the govt. out of office" from Gangley.

starbelgrade · 01-10-2009 2:00am

K-9 wrote: »

And how does this square with a No last time?

Most of the idiots didn't show up.

starbelgrade · 01-10-2009 2:01am

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I don't know if we'll see record levels whatever record levels would be, maybe in the region of +60% of the electorate ?

Probably in the region of 50-60%. That will be record levels, at least when the media put their spin on it.

K-9 · 01-10-2009 2:07am

starbelgrade wrote: »

Most of the idiots didn't show up.

Ah, I could reply, but! :P

K-9 · 01-10-2009 2:10am

starbelgrade wrote: »

Probably in the region of 50-60%. That will be record levels, at least when the media put their spin on it.

53% odd was considered high for EU Referenda the last time, not sure of the average. Anything above 60% would be great, regardless of result.

Anything less, doesn't say a lot for all of us!

starbelgrade · 01-10-2009 2:12am

K-9 wrote: »

53% odd was considered high for EU Referenda the last time, not sure of the average. Anything above 60% would be great, regardless of result.

Anything less, doesn't say a lot for all of us!

Personally, I'd prefer a 30% turnout with a "No" vote. But like I said, the idiots are involved this time.

K-9 · 01-10-2009 2:17am

starbelgrade wrote: »

Personally, I'd prefer a 30% turnout with a "No" vote. But like I said, the idiots are involved this time.

So, to clarify, who are you calling idiots?

sceptre · 01-10-2009 3:56am

Half the idiots on each side appear to be calling the other side idiots. Those people are idiots.

Now we're done with the idiot thing, can we all move on with the thread as non-idiots?

Pfft, idio.... never mind:)

Elba101 · 02-10-2009 3:07pm

sceptre wrote: »

Honestly, you've no idea who Declan Ganley is? Do you know who wouldn't be all that pleased about that? Declan Ganley. He contains 100% more Declan Ganley than other non-Declan Ganley former candidates and returned campaigners you know. But he'd never self-promote.

Thanks for making me laugh!!!

And for explaining why Irish people have come to be so indecisive (and yes, i am Irish

)

rubadub · 02-10-2009 3:36pm

Mrmoe wrote: »

40% is really pathetic alright but I would wonder really if it is a case of of people trying to preserve the status quo. If I had my way I would introduce some of these measures:

1. Mandatory voting (If not you do not vote you will not receive any state assistance or state services other than medical needs).

2. An extra option allowing for a Do not know/none of the above.

3. Polling to be carried out over a number of days not just on one.

4. More polling stations within a minimum mandatory distance of each person on the register or provision of transport for people in rural/isolated areas.

5. Automatic inclusion of people on the electoral register once they turn 16/17

6. Allowance for a free paid half day from work that can be taken at any time (or payment in lieu of a half day) if they provide evidence/proof of voting to their employer.

I like some of those ideas, but as for the "none of the above" I would think people not turning up is voting for that by default, many would not bother to travel just to do what they see as a pointless spoiled vote.

But it would make people turn up, I did not vote last time, I would have voted yes if forced to go, but I did not know a lot about it and was not strongly interested enough to make time to go. I also thought it would have been a yes vote so thought my vote was not essential (bring on the flames!). But that is a point, the No side voters would turn out in force, sort of supporting the underdog, while the potential yes voters might think its all in the bag and think they do not need to bother turning up.

I really think it's quite incredible that the turnout last time was 40%...

Comments