Whats the point in voting No in referendum?

cyberhog · 31-10-2011 04:46AM

flatbackfour wrote: »

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

That's not the impression I got from the Taoiseach and Tánaiste.

Enda Kenny: "the Constitution is something that belongs to the people and we acknowledge and accept the people's democratic decision."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1029/referendum.html

The Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore has today rejected the notion that the Government did not explain the issue sufficiently

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1030/referendum.html

Howlin, on the other hand, seems like an arrogant condescending know-it-all.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 09:41AM

Victor wrote: »

[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.2012

Howlan said what he said the day after the referendum "literally". Not practically.

I'm happy with my use of the word, why don't you admit that in your attempt to undermine you misread.

Back to the point. Im getting the feeling that only the sophisticated part of the electorate understand the idea/merits of suggesting the holding referendum again straight after a no vote.

They understand the real politik of it. The neuance involved. Anyone who questions it as maybe a bit anti democratic is labled a euro skeptic or right wing Christian coservative or just plain thick

Maybe on this one you might be over rationalising, see it for what it is. government not trusting the people, it knowing better.

See the nature of democracy is that you are informed as well as you can be, you make your choice and then accept the consequences.

I trust the people to get it right in the long term.

ixtlan · 31-10-2011 11:27AM

Well let me offer my perspective as a reluctant no-voter....

I thought the campaign was very poorly run... I informed myself as best I could and taking into account the concerns of many groups and the possible consequences of future manevolent governments abusing the provisions in the ammendment I voted no.

However I would like to see Dail investigations. I just want to make sure they have some restrictions. The government claimed the protections were sufficient. I was unconvinced. Therefore I voted no, even though I want there to be Dail investigations.

So, am I annoyed to hear a minister say a re-run is possible? No, absolutely not. I agreed with the goal of the referendum, just not the implementation. It might be possible that further clarifications would convince me, but probably not, since I think that if the legal guys who will interpret challenges say they read it a certain way then that's the interpretation that will count. However if some concerns are taken into account, and the wording is tweaked so that some (you never get all) of the opposing groups are satisfied, then it's likely I will vote yes next time.

In fact I want to vote yes. I want to get given an option I can vote yes for. I'd like to be able to do that sooner than 10 years. A year seems reasonable to me.

With due respect I suggest the OP is treating me with contempt, by saying that I would not change my mind in the right circumstances, of my own volition. I am not a puppet, either to vote yes for the government, or to vote no forever. I'll make up my own mind on the occasion of each vote.

So, I, the no-voter, want to government to try again.

Ix.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 12:07PM

ixtlan wrote: »

Well let me offer my perspective as a reluctant no-voter....

I thought the campaign was very poorly run... I informed myself as best I could and taking into account the concerns of many groups and the possible consequences of future manevolent governments abusing the provisions in the ammendment I voted no.

However I would like to see Dail investigations. I just want to make sure they have some restrictions. The government claimed the protections were sufficient. I was unconvinced. Therefore I voted no, even though I want there to be Dail investigations.

So, am I annoyed to hear a minister say a re-run is possible? No, absolutely not. I agreed with the goal of the referendum, just not the implementation. It might be possible that further clarifications would convince me, but probably not, since I think that if the legal guys who will interpret challenges say they read it a certain way then that's the interpretation that will count. However if some concerns are taken into account, and the wording is tweaked so that some (you never get all) of the opposing groups are satisfied, then it's likely I will vote yes next time.

In fact I want to vote yes. I want to get given an option I can vote yes for. I'd like to be able to do that sooner than 10 years. A year seems reasonable to me.

With due respect I suggest the OP is treating me with contempt, by saying that I would not change my mind in the right circumstances, of my own volition. I am not a puppet, either to vote yes for the government, or to vote no forever. I'll make up my own mind on the occasion of each vote.

So, I, the no-voter, want to government to try again.

Ix.

all very reasonable. Two things however. If the government comes up with a different wording which has the necessary checks and balances then this is a different referendum. That is not the same as saying " the public did not understand the issue if it was explained better the outcome would have been different" that smackes of eletist arrogance to me.

Taken on it's own merits your point makes a lot of sense. However there is a pattern in relation to referendums that is disturbing. When the outcome is not what is required we are told we don't understand the issue to vote again when we do.

Sometimes in our quest for sophistication we fail to see the obvious.

ixtlan · 31-10-2011 12:33PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

all very reasonable. Two things however. If the government comes up with a different wording which has the necessary checks and balances then this is a different referendum. That is not the same as saying " the public did not understand the issue if it was explained better the outcome would have been different" that smackes of eletist arrogance to me.

Also somewhat reasonable.

I take your point. So your issue is not so much with the principal of another referendum on the same issue, but with a duplicate referendum with exactly the same wording. Therefore showing the contempt of the government for the previous vote of the electorate.

I do have sympathy for this viewpoint, but don't entirely agree with it. It is important to note that we have had many "repeat" (for want of a better word) referendums in Ireland. With the exception of the EU treaty referendums, these have always been different. The same wording (aside from EU treaties) has never been presented twice. So I would expect the same in this case. As I mentioned, it's possible I might be convinced with more time, but I too would not feel good having the same wording.

I suspect we would differ on the matter of EU referendums, but as a constant yes voter, I see that as somewhat different. Each one of those simply approved the treaty, so the issue there was the text of the treaty rather than the text of the ammendment. And I'm sure we would differ on the semantics of whether a protocol/declaration fundamentally changes the treaty in question, but nonetheless it is a change/clarification of some type which did in effect change the question, even if the wording in the constitution remained the same.

However, putting aside the EU, this is a separate issue. I would strongly expect the wording in this case to change.

Ix.

LostinBlanch · 31-10-2011 02:10PM

To me the principle of respecting the democratic will of the people as expressed in a referendum result should trump any hobby horse that the (political) establishment rides at any particular time. Failing to do so demeans democracy and increases the alienation that many feel towards politics and the democratic process. That is why I think there should be a moratorium of at least two years on any rerun of any referendum, either with similar or finessed wording.

When a vote doesn’t go the establishments way we tend to get the following:
Denial and disbelief followed by railing against the electorate and / or those who dared oppose the establishment. The fact that the electorate may have educated themselves, looked at the issues and decided to vote in what they perceive to be their own interests rather than those of the establishment is not even considered. Instead we get all the excuses: The weather was bad that day / the electorate has embarrassed us internationally by voting the wrong way / they were misled or “scared” into voting no by nefarious forces / they weren’t nuanced enough to see the big picture / there was a failure of communication on the establishments part / all of the above. Some establishment figures come out and apologise and say that yes of course we respect the will of the people. Just as Enda Kenny did yesterday, and Eamon Gilmore did after Lisbon I.

Then we get the surveys conducted by the government and / or think tanks with similar agendas which tell us that yes the electorate didn’t understand the substantive issues and if they did they would have voted the “correct” way. This is then used as an excuse for starting a campaign for a “new” referendum on the same substantive issue(s) but with a slightly finessed wording start. It may still look like a duck, may still walk like a duck, quack like a duck even but it’s not a duck. See? It’s a canard. Totally different entirely. The electorate is then “informed” of the consequences of voting the wrong way in this “new” referendum.

Rinse and repeat until you get the desired result, then of course the electorate is “mature and sophisticated”!

It’s not good for democracy when large sections of the people feel that their vote doesn’t matter and is going to be ignored until they vote the “right” way. It’ll only increase alienation from the political process and is going down a dangerous road, one that I think most right thinking people wouldn’t want to go down.

ixtlan · 31-10-2011 02:32PM

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This is then used as an excuse for starting a campaign for a “new” referendum on the same substantive issue(s) but with a slightly finessed wording start. It may still look like a duck, may still walk like a duck, quack like a duck even but it’s not a duck. See? It’s a canard. Totally different entirely. The electorate is then “informed” of the consequences of voting the wrong way in this “new” referendum.

Rinse and repeat until you get the desired result, then of course the electorate is “mature and sophisticated”!
.

You are treating the electorate in the same manner which you accuse the government of treating them. You are assuming that everyone who voted no did so because they were 100% against the proposal or anything like it, projecting your own feelings/beliefs/desires onto them.

I believe that on the contrary, many of the no voters were generally in favour of the idea of proper Dail investigations, but had legitimate concerns about the details of the ammendment wording. They knew it was a duck, they wanted a duck, but it was not walking quite right. The solution therefore is perhaps not to wait 10 years (2... maybe) and offer something completely different, but just to get the walk right.

ix.

ArmaniJeanss · 31-10-2011 02:56PM

FWIW I was also one of the No voters who didn't understand what was being asked.

If I was called in front of one these Inquiries, would I have right to my own counsel, pre-disclosure of evidence and what I would be questioned on, rights of cross examination and all the other things a 'defendant' gets in a judicial setting?

Because of either a) the absence of this information or possibly b) my failure to understand the information, I voted No, but could quite feasibly be a Yes voter if things were clarified.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 06:18PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

FWIW I was also one of the No voters who didn't understand what was being asked.

If I was called in front of one these Inquiries, would I have right to my own counsel, pre-disclosure of evidence and what I would be questioned on, rights of cross examination and all the other things a 'defendant' gets in a judicial setting?

Because of either a) the absence of this information or possibly b) my failure to understand the information, I voted No, but could quite feasibly be a Yes voter if things were clarified.

Taken this referendum in isolation you have a point. However a pattern, so brilliantly highlighted by lostinblanch exposes something very dangerous about how the political establishment view the electorate.

That's the main point here.

flatbackfour · 31-10-2011 06:26PM

ixtlan wrote: »

LostinBlanch wrote: »

This is then used as an excuse for starting a campaign for a “new” referendum on the same substantive issue(s) but with a slightly finessed wording start. It may still look like a duck, may still walk like a duck, quack like a duck even but it’s not a duck. See? It’s a canard. Totally different entirely. The electorate is then “informed” of the consequences of voting the wrong way in this “new” referendum.

Rinse and repeat until you get the desired result, then of course the electorate is “mature and sophisticated”!
.

You are treating the electorate in the same manner which you accuse the government of treating them. You are assuming that everyone who voted no did so because they were 100% against the proposal or anything like it, projecting your own feelings/beliefs/desires on

I believe that on the contrary, many of the no voters were generally in favour of the idea of proper Dail investigations, but had legitimate concerns about the details of the ammendment wording. They knew it was a duck, they wanted a duck, but it was not walking quite right. The solution therefore is perhaps not to wait 10 years (2... maybe) and offer something completely different, but just to get the walk right.

ix.

Whats not important is what you believe or what anyone else believes about why people voted yes or no.

It about the fact democratic decisions are undermined in the manner suggested by lost in blanch.

By the way absolutely brilliant post by lostinblanch.

ixtlan · 31-10-2011 08:12PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Whats not important is what you believe or what anyone else believes about why people voted yes or no.

Indeed. Quite true. To quote "A few Good Men", it doesn't matter what I believe it only matters what I can prove. However it absolutely is important to find out in whatever ways possible why people voted yes or no, and to act on that information appropriately.

flatbackfour wrote: »

It about the fact democratic decisions are undermined in the manner suggested by lost in blanch.

Again I say that I understand the argument and I have some sympathy with it, but if the only way to satisfy those with this viewpoint was a 10-year moritorium on referendums on a similar issue then I believe that would cause even more issues (note there were only 7 years between Nice 2 and Lisbon 1). I would have perhaps been forced to vote yes in this case and hope that my fears would not come to pass.

Ix.

nesf · 31-10-2011 08:25PM

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

There is absolutely nothing anti-democratic about rerunning a referendum. It's a normal part of the democratic process in that the public are entitled to change their minds (it's why we have limited terms for TDs not TDs being voted in for life). I guarantee you that we'll see another abortion referendum at some point over the medium term.

And, it is especially relevant to rerun a referendum where the first time around large amounts of the public said they didn't understand the issue (i.e. Nice I and Lisbon I).

blahfckingblah · 31-10-2011 08:41PM

nesf wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing anti-democratic about rerunning a referendum. It's a normal part of the democratic process in that the public are entitled to change their minds (it's why we have limited terms for TDs not TDs being voted in for life). I guarantee you that we'll see another abortion referendum at some point over the medium term.

And, it is especially relevant to rerun a referendum where the first time around large amounts of the public said they didn't understand the issue (i.e. Nice I and Lisbon I).

yea but i have yet to see the public getting the choice to vote again on a issue when it has been passed, I'm not saying that its a viable thing to do I'm just pointing out a flaw. TBH A lot of people still don't understand lisbon and nice :cool:

nesf · 31-10-2011 08:53PM

blahfckingblah wrote: »

yea but i have yet to see the public getting the choice to vote again on a issue when it has been passed, I'm not saying that its a viable thing to do I'm just pointing out a flaw. TBH A lot of people still don't understand lisbon and nice :cool:

Some things are almost impossible to reverse (EU treaties especially) but many things like abortion or divorce amendments can be easily overturned.

xoxyx · 31-10-2011 09:16PM

nesf wrote: »

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.

I would bet you any kind of money that, were a referendum passed with a "yes" vote regarding abortion, it would not be repelled, irrespective of what government groups may come into power in the future.

A no vote is powerful in its way in situations such as Lisbon / abortion / Oireachtas inquiries - in that, in voting no, the proposed legislation, wording, or whatever, is brought back to the table so as to make it more palatable to the voting public. This is where the voter holds some amount of cards on the table. However, once something is passed through a majority of "yes" votes, there is little that we can do with it.

flatbackfour wrote: »

Or are you suggesting that you KEEP asking?

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

As times change, sometimes people need to be asked the same question. The answer may be different to what it was a few years ago.

Look at divorce. In 1986, a referendum to allow divorce was defeated. The question was asked again, and in 1994, it was passed. Sometimes you have to ask the same question again and again, because peoples' views change with time.

ArmaniJeanss · 31-10-2011 09:34PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Taken this referendum in isolation you have a point. However a pattern, so brilliantly highlighted by lostinblanch exposes something very dangerous about how the political establishment view the electorate.

That's the main point here.

I voted No. If there was zero chance of a re-vote I would have voted Yes as I like the basic idea of the parliamentary inquiry (but would like issues clarified).

The governent will now spend some time ascertaining whether there is enough of the 54% No voters who feel the same as me and if so they can bring a modified/clarified referendum to the people.

I'm baffled as to how you see this as some major trampling over of democracy.

nesf · 01-11-2011 12:03AM

xoxyx wrote: »

I would bet you any kind of money that, were a referendum passed with a "yes" vote regarding abortion, it would not be repelled, irrespective of what government groups may come into power in the future.

I agree with you on the power of a No vote, or even the perceived power of a No vote in the inital shaping of any amendment or treaty.

I do honestly think though that you would be seeing a campaign for a rerun of a Yes vote on abortion. Maybe it might not happen but you'd definitely have lobby groups along with the more conservative wings of FF and FG backing such a rerun.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 11:10AM

xoxyx wrote: »

IAs times change, sometimes people need to be asked the same question. The answer may be different to what it was a few years ago.
Look at divorce. In 1986, a referendum to allow divorce was defeated. The question was asked again, and in 1994, it was passed. Sometimes you have to ask the same question again and again, because peoples' views change with time.

Thats fine in principal of course people views change. However a year after the first referendum? Peoples views change that much in a year? A day after the referendum we are told we did not understand the issues and if we did we would have voted yes?

If this referendum is held again in a year or so with the childrens referendum?

Its the pattern emerging rather than an individual case that is undemocratic.

Lostinblanch summed the issue up brilliantly.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 11:14AM

nesf wrote: »

I do honestly think though that you would be seeing a campaign for a rerun of a Yes vote on abortion. Maybe it might not happen but you'd definitely have lobby groups along with the more conservative wings of FF and FG backing such a rerun.

Not a chance, the conservative wing of those parties would be sidelined and marginalised in the same way as Dana was in the election, as backward catholic conservatives.

You have lobby groups for nearly every issue, would have no chance of getting a rerum of a abortion referednum if it was passed. And quite right too. The people would have spoken. They would have been trusted to undertstand the complexity of the issue and that would be that.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 11:36AM

nesf wrote: »

Some things are almost impossible to reverse (EU treaties especially).

Even if that was the direct wish of the people and their views had changed over a period of time?

Even if people did not understand the issue the first time when they voted yes?

And all the correct survays and focus groups had been done to find out about the change in the national mood?

nesf · 01-11-2011 02:38PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Not a chance, the conservative wing of those parties would be sidelined and marginalised in the same way as Dana was in the election, as backward catholic conservatives.

You have lobby groups for nearly every issue, would have no chance of getting a rerum of a abortion referednum if it was passed. And quite right too. The people would have spoken. They would have been trusted to undertstand the complexity of the issue and that would be that.

Never predict the future too far ahead in Politics. There is no guarantee that Conservatives will remain marginalised. I sincerely hope that they are but there's no way of knowing for sure.

nesf · 01-11-2011 02:39PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Even if that was the direct wish of the people and their views had changed over a period of time?

Well what we could do is drop out of the EU or we can accept the deal on the table. It's not much of a choice really but it what happens when you've so many nation states negotiating a Treaty. A bilateral treaty on the other hand we could possibly change after a Yes vote.

ríomhaire · 01-11-2011 05:09PM

flatbackfour wrote: »

Government by surveys. Brillaint idea.

Hold on hold on hold on. Unless my sarcasm detector is misfiring here you're trying to imply that the government checking to see what the people's opinions and reasonings are is a bad idea?

Manach · 01-11-2011 05:50PM

ríomhaire wrote: »

Hold on hold on hold on. Unless my sarcasm detector is misfiring here you're trying to imply that the government checking to see what the people's opinions and reasonings are is a bad idea?

1/ It would be nice if the government actually responsed to people's emails on opinions. I've contacted them on three matters to three depts- none exactly earthshaking or contentious - and had one response (Kudos to Mr. Gilmore's dept. for that)
2/ Based on news reports of Mr. Shatter/Howlin's immediate reaction to the referendum No vote, a survey is not needed as they already laid the blame on lack of information put before the voter. <that's sarcasm>

seamus · 01-11-2011 06:12PM

ríomhaire wrote: »

Hold on hold on hold on. Unless my sarcasm detector is misfiring here you're trying to imply that the government checking to see what the people's opinions and reasonings are is a bad idea?

Excessive amounts of referendums aren't always a good thing.

Public opinion can swing wildly depending on outlying factors. If the Oireachtas or Judges' referendum was held in 2005, the former would have been annihilated, the latter might have scraped through. Public opinion has shifted since then such that we got the results we did.

We saw how quickly public perception of the presidential candidates changed over time; Gallagher effectively lost it in 3 days.

This is why making long-term changes based on referendums needs a good run-in time and reasoned debate. You can't have referendums being taken at the last minute or interested parties lobbing in hand grenades 36 hours before the polls open.

Long-term the issue with multiple referendums is that people will get jaded. Your average punter will stop bothering to vote, but the more fringe elements will tend to vote, so you risk non-popular viewpoints defeating or winning proposals simply because they're the only ones who could be bothered.

I think it's a bit flawed to think that the government will pull another Nice or Lisbon on this one. Nice and Lisbon were time-dependent, and as pointed out people largely voted No the first time because they didn't have enough information.
Other amendments have been put to the population twice (e.g. the proposal to strengthen the ban on abortion) but with very long intervening periods against them.

If they were to try put the Enquires one to the people again within the next 24 months I think you'll find a lot of people switch sides (as we saw in Lisbon) and voting "No" just because they think the Government are wrong to ask twice so quickly.

I personally believe, contrary to Howlin's comments, that the lack of information supplied about this referendum was key to it's almost success. A proper national debate on it, and without any other votes on the same day would see it destroyed at the polls IMHO.

ríomhaire · 01-11-2011 06:52PM

seamus wrote: »

Excessive amounts of referendums aren't always a good thing.

Public opinion can swing wildly depending on outlying factors. If the Oireachtas or Judges' referendum was held in 2005, the former would have been annihilated, the latter might have scraped through. Public opinion has shifted since then such that we got the results we did.

I'm not talking about constantly giving everyone in the country questionnaires and basing legislation entirely around those results, but surely the government getting surveys of people's thoughts (and in particular the reasons behind those thoughts) on key issues from time to time is not a bad thing.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 07:05PM

ríomhaire wrote: »

I'm not talking about constantly giving everyone in the country questionnaires and basing legislation entirely around those results, but surely the government getting surveys of people's thoughts (and in particular the reasons behind those thoughts) on key issues from time to time is not a bad thing.

They have already do survays on peoples thoughts. They are called referendum.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 07:10PM

seamus wrote: »

.

I personally believe, contrary to Howlin's comments, that the lack of information supplied about this referendum was key to it's almost success. A proper national debate on it, and without any other votes on the same day would see it destroyed at the polls IMHO.

Absolutely right. Do you think we would have a rerun in another year of there was a narrow yes vote?

Would have there been any talk in the aftermath about a rerun in the event of a narrow passing?

Purely on discussion with collegues etc it was clear that those voting no actually had a good grasp of the issue, while the few who were voting yes were not very informed at all.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 07:20PM

seamus wrote: »

If they were to try put the Enquires one to the people again within the next 24 months I think you'll find a lot of people switch sides (as we saw in Lisbon) and voting "No" just because they think the Government are wrong to ask twice so quickly.

Why so? According to some people on here only the peasant classes would find anything wrong with holding a new referendum so soon after one is rejected. See, they are not politically sophisticated. They are not aware of the real politique of these issues. Democratic ideals are for the innocent the naive, and the loonly left.

flatbackfour · 01-11-2011 07:23PM

nesf wrote: »

Well what we could do is drop out of the EU or we can accept the deal on the table. It's not much of a choice really but it what happens when you've so many nation states negotiating a Treaty. A bilateral treaty on the other hand we could possibly change after a Yes vote.

So the idea of all countries agreeing before moving forward is actually meaningless, its a fop to the masses, but when it comes to the cruch we just have to dfo what we are told.

Are you following the implication of this kind of thinking for democracy?

Whats the point in voting No in referendum?

Comments