Whats the point in voting No in referendum?

flatbackfour · 30-10-2011 01:38PM #1

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

Manach · 30-10-2011 01:43PM

Perhaps the voters in Mr Howlin and Shatters districts did not understand the issues when these ministers were elected, so I think they need to vote again, in the interests of an informed democracy :rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss · 30-10-2011 02:04PM

I genuinely don't see the problem.

If you are still opposed to the Referendum, whether it be LisbonII, DivorceII, NiceII, AbortionIV, or a further Oireachtas Enquiries referendum, then you continue to vote No. No-one is forcing you to vote a particular way.

Then if you, and people in general are fed up with a government trying to get such a piece of legislation through, we get the opportunity to fcuk them out in a General Election every 4 years.

flatbackfour · 30-10-2011 02:25PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I genuinely don't see the problem.

If you are still opposed to the Referendum, whether it be LisbonII, DivorceII, NiceII, AbortionIV, or a further Oireachtas Enquiries referendum, then you continue to vote No. No-one is forcing you to vote a particular way.

Then if you, and people in general are fed up with a government trying to get such a piece of legislation through, we get the opportunity to fcuk them out in a General Election every 4 years.

By that rational we just continue to hold referendums until the government gets the decision it wants on any constitutional issues.

It's not legislation it's constitutional change.

What's the point in asking voters opinion if literally the next day we are told to vote again.

And you don't see the problem with that?

nesf · 30-10-2011 02:48PM

The core issue is, we're entitled to change our minds. Be it due to a few years gap or be due to not fully understanding the issue during the first poll.

e.g. I would have voted against the amendment on Oireachtas Inquiries because I didn't like the wording and I wanted an individual's opportunity to appeal to a court to be iron clad in the wording.

Change the wording a bit, tweak it to get clearer rights to individuals brought up by Inquiries and I might just Vote Yes.

With Lisbon I and Nice I, both times there was a strong No vote from people who felt they didn't understand the issues well enough (along with a fair few that had been scared by lies by the No side), for the next vote things were much clearer and the vote passed.

daithimacgroin · 30-10-2011 02:53PM

if there was a yes vote, u could be sure they would not hold another referendum a year later would they?

flatbackfour is dead right

nesf · 30-10-2011 02:57PM

daithimacgroin wrote: »

if there was a yes vote, u could be sure they would not hold another referendum a year later would they?

If we wanted we could very easily elect in a Government that would rehold the referendum.

I guarantee you if we ever pass any very liberal laws on abortion that conservative groups will run for Government/lobby/whatever for the reholding of the referendum with a view to removing the amendment.

The fact that we overwhelmingly vote for pro-EU parties says an awful lot about how little worried the people are about EU treaties and the power of the EU. Contrast with Britain where the anti-EU Conservatives always do pretty well at Elections.

flatbackfour · 30-10-2011 03:15PM

nesf wrote: »

daithimacgroin wrote: »

if there was a yes vote, u could be sure they would not hold another referendum a year later would they?

If we wanted we could very easily elect in a Government that would rehold the referendum.

I guarantee you if we ever pass any very liberal laws on abortion that conservative groups will run for Government/lobby/whatever for the reholding of the referendum with a view to removing the amendment.

The fact that we overwhelmingly vote for pro-EU parties says an awful lot about how little worried the people are about EU treaties and the power of the EU. Contrast with Britain where the anti-EU Conservatives always do pretty well at Elections.

The idea that we vote for a party that promises to re hold a referendum is absurd.

Re point abOut conservative groups; like what happened with the divorce referendum?

anymore · 30-10-2011 04:01PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

If we follow your logic, then what is the point of threads about voting no ?

flatbackfour · 30-10-2011 04:19PM

anymore wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

If we follow your logic, then what is the point of threads about voting no ?

It's a rhetorical question. As for following logic.........

nesf · 30-10-2011 11:05PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

The idea that we vote for a party that promises to re hold a referendum is absurd.

Re point abOut conservative groups; like what happened with the divorce referendum?

It's not absurd in the slightest. Quite a few people back Euro-sceptic parties, SF etc. Comes as standard in hard left parties and groups. Even our Euro-sceptic parties for the most part masquerade as being somewhat pro-EU. SF's rhetoric has changed from a straight No vote, to a "let's say No and negotiate a better one." It's not that the party would be single issue but that it would be a core position for the party.

If the public was more Eurosceptic then we'd have similar groups to the UKIP springing up and doing fairly well at local level at least, possibly even a few Dáil seats if the mood was sufficiently sceptical. It's a strong sign of the people's position that the three biggest parties are all pro-EU.

senordingdong · 30-10-2011 11:17PM

nesf wrote: »

It's a strong sign of the people's position that the three biggest parties are all pro-EU.

True, but doesn't it show how hollow the parties truely are if they can water down their beliefs to pull in the votes. meet the publics demand.

flatbackfour · 30-10-2011 11:24PM

nesf wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

The idea that we vote for a party that promises to re hold a referendum is absurd.

Re point abOut conservative groups; like what happened with the divorce referendum?

It's not absurd in the slightest. Quite a few people back Euro-sceptic parties, SF etc. Comes as standard in hard left parties and groups. Even our Euro-sceptic parties for the most part masquerade as being somewhat pro-EU. SF's rhetoric has changed from a straight No vote, to a "let's say No and negotiate a better one." It's not that the party would be single issue but that it would be a core position for the party.

If the public was more Eurosceptic then we'd have similar groups to the UKIP springing up and doing fairly well at local level at least, possibly even a few Dáil seats if the mood was sufficiently sceptical. It's a strong sign of the people's position that the three biggest parties are all pro-EU.

You are missing The point I am making .You can be pro Europe and reject A proposed constitutional amendment on a particular nuanced aspect of European integration for example.

It does not make you euro sceptic.

The point still remains; why go through the charade of referendums to ask the people there opinion when what is really meant is; agree with the proposal or we will do again.

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

30-10-2011 11:50PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

Ah yes, the good old classic anti-democratic tactic of asking the people what they want. The constitution changes when a majority of the electorate vote for it to be changed.

Are you advocating a return to pre-divorce days? After all, that was rejected before it was approved.

flatbackfour · 30-10-2011 11:55PM

28064212 wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

Characterising those who have reservations about the anti democratic nature of rerunning referendums as reactionary conservative or euroskeptic is convenient but again misses the point

Ah yes, the good old classic anti-democratic tactic of asking the people what they want. The constitution changes when a majority of the electorate vote for it to be changed.

Are you advocating a return to pre-divorce days? After all, that was rejected before it was approved.

Not sure I get your point?

Yes ask people what they want but when they tell you, accept it, that's all.

Or are you suggesting that you KEEP asking?

It makes a complete mockery of the constitution and treats people like morons.

Victor · 30-10-2011 11:57PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

What's the point in asking voters opinion if literally the next day we are told to vote again.

Do you understand the word "literally"?

dabestman1 · 31-10-2011 12:02AM

There won't be another referendum for a while as there needs to be something to accompany it, ie: local elections,etc. Otherwise there will be a very low turnout.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 12:08AM

Victor wrote: »

flatbackfour wrote: »

What's the point in asking voters opinion if literally the next day we are told to vote again.

Do you understand the word "literally"?[/Quote
Very good. That's very clever.

Yes I do. I heard Brendan howlan today. He said that if the proposed amendment was explained better it would have been passed. He also said that a rerun is on the cards.

To make that clear. Literally the next day Brendan told us to "vote again". Not that we have to vote the next day. Is that making it easy for you?

Really the substantive point is; is rerunning referendum when amendments are rejected anti democratic?

You must have used that literally gag a few times before in your 54000 posts. How many times literally?

celticcrash · 31-10-2011 12:36AM

Democrazy dont make me laugh. Where national media are bias in an presidental election. Where the voters are told that they got it wrong in a referendum. Where the goverment threaten the voters through fear to vote a certain way. Paint it what way you like, but our past and presant goverment treats its people with contempt. Yes a lack of respect of the peoples wishes.
Democrazy dont make me laugh.

Dinner · 31-10-2011 12:49AM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Yes I do. I heard Brendan howlan today. He said that if the proposed amendment was explained better it would have been passed. He also said that a rerun is on the cards.

It's entirely possible that if the issue was explained better then it would have passed. I fail to see how this is undemocratic.

If I ask you a question and you either misunderstand the question or misinterpret the question, should I never be allowed to ask you that question again?

Whats the extent of your logic, should Divorce be repealed because the first time round it was rejected? Or is that ok because a significant time had passed between votes. Should that matter? After all, NO means NO.

And if it is ok to rehold a referendum after a significant time period has passed, is it not reasonable to suggest that there could be other criteria for reholding a vote? Say for example, people not being sure on what they are voting for. It is very bad form for a government to not explain an issue correctly, but should that really lock us out from changing our minds?

You mentioned Lisbon 2 in your opening post lets look at that.
We rejected Lisbon the first time round.
The government decides to ask us why.
The data returned from the surveys carried out indicate that a significant number of people voted no due to issues that had nothing to do with the treaty and came about due to a misunderstanding of the contents or rumours spread by anti Lisbon campaigners.
So, with this in mind, the government decides to rehold the vote. This time they more clearly explain what is and is not in the treaty, with the help of some legally binding guarantees from the EU to help ease voters worries.

I have absolutley no idea how this can be construed as undemocratic and us just being told to 'vote again until we get the right answer'.

Perhaps you can highlight the exact point in my summation of the Lisbon 1 aftermath that makes it undemocratic because, to me, changing my mind is one very important aspect of democracy that I very much want to keep hold of.

Carlos Orange · 31-10-2011 12:49AM

Victor wrote: »

Do you understand the word "literally"?

I am reminded of the Canadian guy I used to work with who thought a rhetorical question was a question you were supposed to answer.

HivemindXX · 31-10-2011 01:02AM

flatbackfour wrote: »

You must have used that literally gag a few times before in your 54000 posts. How many times literally?

You seem upset at being found out. You tried to say something that wasn't true and when it was pointed out you moved the goalposts. Now you are getting petty.

Here's my perspective on Lisbon. The No To Lisbon faction lied their asses off in the run up to the first vote (figuratively of course, I'm not an idiot). The government organised a number of documents stating that a lot of the claims from the No side were untrue. We voted again and this time the referendum was passed.

For some reason we are supposed to believe that people that voted No the first time around were somehow forced to vote Yes the second time. There is no explanation from people like you how this was achieved.

There were plenty of completely farcical lies told by the No campaign, delineating what terrible things would happen if we voted Yes, but somehow these haven't come true. Ironically the things that have crippled the country might not have happened if the EU had the sort of total control over our economy the No campaign said they would. Somehow the No campaign still have the brass neck to keep lying. Presumably they feel that people have a short memory and if you say something often enough it sticks with some people.

This idea that voting twice is undemocratic is another such lie. If the government does decide to rerun these referenda, in the absence of any new information I'll vote exactly the same way I did before. If they ran it 100 times I would still vote the same way. That is democracy. If they changed the constitution anyway, despite a no vote then that would be undemocratic. You should probably examine the difference.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 01:09AM

Dinner wrote: »

It's entirely possible that if the issue was explained better then it would have passed. I fail to see how this is undemocratic.

Thats a fair point. Bu is it also not possible that it was explained, people understood that explanation and decided to reject it on those merits?

Dinner wrote: »

If I ask you a question and you either misunderstand the question or misinterpret the question, should I never be allowed to ask you that question again?.

Again your assuming people misunderstanding.

Dinner wrote: »

Whats the extent of your logic, should Divorce be repealed because the first time round it was rejected? Or is that ok because a significant time had passed between votes. Should that matter? After all, NO means NO..

There was ten years between those referendum, thats a fair enough length of time for change to occur.

Dinner wrote: »

And if it is ok to rehold a referendum after a significant time period has passed, is it not reasonable to suggest that there could be other criteria for regolding a vote??..

Yes thats reasonable

Dinner wrote: »

Say for example, people not being sure on what they are voting for. It is very bad form for a government to not explain an issue correctly, but should that really lock us out from changing our minds?..

Again you are assuming that people just did not get it the first time.

Dinner wrote: »

You mentioned Lisbon 2 in your opening post lets look at that.
We rejected Lisbon the first time round.
The government decides to ask us why.
The data returned from the surveys .

Government by surveys. Brillaint idea.

Dinner wrote: »

So, with this in mind, the government decides to rehold the vote. This time they more clearly explain what is and is not in the treaty, with the help of some legally binding guarantees from the EU to help ease voters worries..

What you call clearly explaining others would call scaremongering
about what would happen to us if we voted no again.

I have absolutley no idea how this can be construed as undemocratic and us just being told to 'vote again until we get the right answer'.

Thats what worries me.

Perhaps you can highlight the exact point in my summation of the Lisbon 1 aftermath that makes it undemocratic because, to me, changing my mind is one very important aspect of democracy that I very much want to keep hold of

see above

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 01:14AM

HivemindXX wrote: »

You seem upset at being found out. You tried to say something that wasn't true and when it was pointed out you moved the goalposts. Now you are getting petty.

I am being petty? However the first contribution from that poster to this thread was to obviously ridicule.

Found out?

I said that Brendan Howlan, the day after the referendum, talked about rerunning the referendum. He "literally" said that.

Now even taking the logic that I used "literally" in the wrong context that has nothing to do with the substantive point I am trying to make. Highlighting it was an attempt to be petty and to undermine.

Lets get back to the point.

Manach · 31-10-2011 01:15AM

A referendum costs money to run. Re-running one on the same substantive issue without any change in mandate (say a new election of the Dail) would seem to an burden which the taxpayer unfairly pays.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 01:19AM

psinno wrote: »

I am reminded of the Canadian guy I used to work with who thought a rhetorical question was a question you were supposed to answer.

Is that guy from Springfield?

Dinner · 31-10-2011 01:38AM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Thats a fair point. Bu is it also not possible that it was explained, people understood that explanation and decided to reject it on those merits?

Yes that is possible. I voted no on the Oireachtas amendment and I feel that I understood it well enough and did not like what it attempted to do. If the government feel that it was not understood then let them try and explain it better. If I still disagree with it, then I will vote no again. I have no doubt that you would too. Many people of the same thinking as yourself have said that they voted no to Lisbon 1 and 2 because they are strong willed and won't be 'bullied' into changing their vote and then go on to say that Lisbon 2 passed because other people did buckle and change their vote because they were 'told to vote again'. Yet I have never found one of these people who buckle so easily under pressure but I have spoken to people who voted no to Lisbon 1 and yes to Lisbon 2 because they understood it better.

If it should turn out that we vote on the Oireachtas bill again, and it does not change, and the government does not explain it any differently, I will be just as outraged as you. But by dragging in Lisbon when there are clear differences will only make your arguements look weak.

If however, the government explain it differently and I think "Oh thats what they're trying to do. Yeah I'll still vote no". Then that is fine, because even though my decision has not changed other people may change their mind.

flatbackfour wrote: »

There was ten years between those referendum, thats a fair enough length of time for change to occur.

Excellent, so we can agree that under some circumstances a vote can be reheld, such as a lot of time passing or people misunderstanding what they are voting on.

So the sheer act of reholding a vote is not undemocratic. (I'm sure it's somewhat ironic to claim that holding a vote is undemocratic but anyway). The only debate is if there is reason enough to rehold a vote.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Government by surveys. Brillaint idea. Like a government would not bias those survays/ focus groups etc to elicit the kind of issues it felt were the reasons people voted no.

Is there a better way to find out what the public are thinking? Referendums are binary. I can put an X in the yes box, or the no box. There is no box for reasons why I chose that answer. Surveys, however, can tell us the resons why. Someone more versed in statistics can probably demonstrate how these surveys are an accurate representations of public thinking.

Are you actually hinting that the government tampered with the survey results? It's more than just them. One of the main surveys was carried out by Millward Brown who carry out a lot of those types of surveys. I'm fairly sure they stake their reputation on accurate results and for them to become involved in a government scam to tamper the results is frankly rediculous. And I have not yet seen any proof of this suggestion despite it being made several times over the past couple of years. So unless you have some shocking revelations that the Irish government forced Millward Brown to fix their survey results then I'm going to go ahead and say that it probably did not happen.

Regardless, these surveys did show that people did not fully understand what they were voting on. And who can blame them? It was awfully presented. And certain organisations on the no side took advantage of this to spread rumours about what Lisbon could do.

flatbackfour wrote: »

What you call clearly explaining others would call scaremongering
about what would happen to us if we voted no again.

See here's the thing, what people called government scaremongering was pretty much speculation. (Although someone may prove me wrong here). They said stuff like another no vote would unsettle the markets. thats something that cannot be definitively proven by looking at the text. However the no side scaremongering could almost always be disproven by looking at the text or the guarantees. So from that situation, 1 side can clearly be proven wrong, and the other side may be proven wrong. In a sense the no side messed it up for themselves by dragging non issues in to it.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Thats what worries me.

I don't see why. We have already agreed that it is ok to rehold a referendum if people have misunderstood what they are voting on. The data from surveys and from my own personal experience from speaking to people seems to indicate that this was the case. Where is the scandal?

HicksLennon · 31-10-2011 01:42AM

flatbackfour wrote: »

When the decision is ignored, we are told we dont understand the issues and to vote again until we get it right.

Those pro Lisbon 2 can you see the pattern yet?

Totally agree with you. We will all be asked to vote again on this issue even though we voted no. The population will be coerced into voting yes next time!

Manach · 31-10-2011 01:51AM

Dinner wrote: »

I don't see why. We have already agreed that it is ok to rehold a referendum if people have misunderstood what they are voting on. The data from surveys and from my own personal experience from speaking to people seems to indicate that this was the case. Where is the scandal?

In this case, the Ministers have already stated that part of the reason why this referendum failed was due to the "misunderstood" nature of the issue. This has not been backed up by any current survey (BTW I've never been ever asked for any survey, I've been snubbed

) , so by explaining in this way would they seem to skew future surveys by muddying the waters?

Dinner · 31-10-2011 01:55AM

Manach wrote: »

In this case, the Ministers have already stated that part of the reason why this referendum failed was due to the "misunderstood" nature of the issue. This has not been backed up by any current survey (BTW I've never been ever asked for any survey, I've been snubbed ) , so by explaining in this way would they seem to skew future surveys by muddying the waters?

I'm not too sure to be honest. I'd like to think that people wouldn't be influenced by that. after all, either you understood it or you didnt. So for me that answer would be the same regardless of whether its 1 day or 1 year after the vote. Anyone that I have spoken too about that referendum seemed to have a good idea what its about (unless we're all mistaken!). So another vote here could be a bit more dodgy unless they alter it.

And I know what you mean on the surveys. the only one I got called for was about exercise habits...

Victor · 31-10-2011 02:49AM

flatbackfour wrote: »

I am being petty? However the first contribution from that poster to this thread was to obviously ridicule.

My intention was to point out exaggeration, not to ridicule as such. Although there was a tiny bit of Schadenfreude, but that was mine, not for sharing.

I said that Brendan Howlan, the day after the referendum, talked about rerunning the referendum. He "literally" said that.

He talked about it, he individually doesn't have the power to call a referendum. Neither has there been another referendum in the several days since the last one. His statement of possible intention is just that, his intention, not something the government is actively persuing.

Now even taking the logic that I used "literally" in the wrong context that has nothing to do with the substantive point I am trying to make. Highlighting it was an attempt to be petty and to undermine.

Possibly, but you set yourself up as a target.

If you had said something along the lines of accusing the government of planning another referendum* straight away or 'practically' doing that the next day, then that would have been fair comment. If we take the literal (:)) meaning of what you said, you would be wrong.

* Other, separate referendums are planned for Spring 2012

Whats the point in voting No in referendum?

Comments