Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Improving Future Referenda

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jhegarty wrote: »
    Unless the vote is on abolishing death and taxes your not going to get 2/3 majority.

    I think what is meant is at least two thirds of the electorate actually turn out and vote. At least that's what I took from it... actually seeking a two thirds majority to pass anything.. that's not going to work :pac:


  • Options
    #33
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    jhegarty wrote: »
    Unless the vote is on abolishing death and taxes your not going to get 2/3 majority.
    Agreed. Lest we forget that in 1996, the Divorce Referendum was only passed by a couple of thousand votes.

    Sparks, to bring quorums into it, we'll have to look at some form of compulsory voting.


  • Options
    #34
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

    And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

    And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...


  • Options
    #35
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

    And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

    And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...
    Ireland is not a company and should not be run like one. Just because that's how companies are run doesn't necessarily mean that's what the Irish Constitution should say.


  • Options
    #36
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Sparks wrote: »
    And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?
    If I'm allowed to buy out other sections of the electorate or petition to have the country wound up due to voter oppression, we can draw analogies with company law. Besides, if we lived in a world governed by company law, someone in Europe would have given us a 21 day notice for a Section 213 petition some months ago...

    Until such a point is reached, I'd like to stick with the popular vote approach.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    MikeC101
    Registered Users Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

    And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

    And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...

    I'd imagine in a company, a big part is that the driving goal is usually the same for everyone: maximising profit and dividends (or other things that will lead to this)?

    I don't think we'd get a 2/3 majority on anything here, regardless of the proposal.


  • Options
    #38
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    I love the way that winding us up under section 213 is thought of as a bad thing...

    And as I said, a 2/3 majority requirement would get around the -- frankly ridiculous -- situation where 54% No means a rerun and 53% Yes (projected) carries no possibility of a rerun despite a smaller (projected) margin.


  • Options
    #39
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    evercloserunion wrote: »
    Ireland is not a company and should not be run like one.
    Are you sure? If we were a company, JO'D would have been sacked by now for diddling the company expense account...


  • Options
    #40
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,275 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Sparks wrote: »
    No, I mean we have minimum standards for turnout and also require a two thirds majority for a referendum to pass.

    And to those who say it can't work, how do companies manage to survive with such a handicap to their efforts?

    And if you really can't get a 2/3 majority, not looking for it is solving the wrong problem...

    In a referendum: 1 (wo)man = 1 vote.
    In a company: 1 share = 1 vote.

    You can't compare the 2. If a company has 1 milion shares issued and I own 800k of them...when I vote in favour of a company proposal it's automatically 80% in favour.

    No amendment in a referendum would be likely to achieve 67% in favour unless it's clear cut like the death penealty one a few years ago.


  • Options
    #41
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    Sparks wrote: »
    Are you sure? If we were a company, JO'D would have been sacked by now for diddling the company expense account...
    And as a company exists to make profit, the government would only look after those who can afford to pay for its services...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,563 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Sparks wrote: »
    I love the way that winding us up under section 213 is thought of as a bad thing...
    Personally, I love it. Nothing motivates payment in the same manner these days.
    Sparks wrote: »
    And as I said, a 2/3 majority requirement would get around the -- frankly ridiculous -- situation where 54% No means a rerun and 53% Yes (projected) carries no possibility of a rerun despite a smaller (projected) margin.
    When there's political will, we can always bail out. Perhaps you could have the head start on lobbying and start now?


  • Options
    #43
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    A €5 charge for every poster (advertisement) going to the local authority - that'd put manners on them.

    A factcheck.org equivilent in this country to rate the claims of each side


  • Options
    #44
    floydmoon1
    Registered Users Posts: 772 ✭✭✭floydmoon1


    Hey guys just after reading the last few pages and from both sides everyone seems to agree in regards posters should not be used.

    Does anyone think we could go further with this and try to make a difference than just post about it.

    What I propose is to start a petition for no posters to be used in any future elections/referenda.

    We could surely get most of the boards community to sign,send emails to loads of people set up facebook/social network groups and have template letters to email post to your local TD.

    If we did this while we still have Lisbon and the thoughts of all these crazy posters in the news and also with maybe an election coming up I think we could as an online community try to change something in this nation of ours.

    Anyone interested or will we just keep moaning by posting and not putting actions to words.


  • Options
    #45
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    I seriously doubt petitions would achieve that goal.
    About the only route by which this might come about which I can think of as being possible in this country, is if one of us is finally killed because of one of these posters being put up in such a way as to obstruct the vision of a driver; and that someone then bring legal action against the campaigning party who commissioned the poster.
    And even that would be unlikely to succeed, though it might generate sufficient PR to effect some small measure of change.
    Rather an unethical (if inevitable) price to pay though.


  • Options
    #46
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Robbo wrote: »
    Sparks, to bring quorums into it, we'll have to look at some form of compulsory voting.
    I'ld like to see compulsory voting happening.


  • Options
    #47
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Aard wrote: »
    I'ld like to see compulsory voting happening.

    I can't imagine any more effective way to ensure that every referendum fails. People who are uninterested, or who are not sure about their preference, would resent having to go to the polling station and would probably express that resentment by voting no.


  • Options
    #48
    PaulieD
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 932 ✭✭✭PaulieD


    Ban Coir. Please, for the love of god, ban Coir.


  • Options
    #49
    Agent J
    Registered Users Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    You cant have complusory voting.

    I know it seems like a good idea on paper but when practically applied it is pretty silly. I have a friend who was born in Belguim but has lived on here since he was 4 and still has to vote in every single election there. He postal spoils his vote every time.

    The only thing complsory voting does is give more to the looney fringe parties as people resent being forced to vote.
    And besides, we dont have a "None of the above option" so it would be pretty unfair on people.

    If Democracy and all that Jazz is about freedom then they are also free to turn it down.


  • Options
    #50
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    My name is URL wrote: »
    any more steps you think could be taken?

    Every side must be allowed to to put their case forward.
    It is up to the voter to not only bother their hynie voting but to be able to spot a lie when its touted and not a conveniently tribalistic point of view.
    Any rules or laws imposed would prohibit this.


  • Options
    #51
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Agent J wrote: »
    You cant have complusory voting.

    I know it seems like a good idea on paper but when practically applied it is pretty silly
    It actually works in Australia


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Agent J
    Registered Users Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    Justind wrote: »
    It actually works in Australia

    Do they have a none of the above option or some such?

    If that was allowed then it wouldnt be as bad.


  • Options
    #53
    KetchupKid
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭KetchupKid


    Rb wrote: »
    Scofflaw has a great idea regarding this.

    It is basically to ban any campaigning by anyone apart from the Referendum Commission.

    I think it's a fantastic idea.


    The problem with that is the Referendum Commission was clearly biased and they also lied in their ads.

    This whole referendum was a disgrace with lies and character assassinations on both sides.

    I think a 40% No vote is brilliant considering the economic state of the country, the scare-mongering and the fact that RTE and every major newspaper, media outlet and every major political party was for the Yes. With that behind it, this should have been a no-brainer for the Yes side and it should have been at least 90% Yes.


  • Options
    #54
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Agent J wrote: »
    Do they have a none of the above option or some such?
    No.
    If you want to spoil a vote, you spoil a vote.


  • Options
    #55
    Agent J
    Registered Users Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    Justind wrote: »
    No.
    If you want to spoil a vote, you spoil a vote.

    There is a world of difference between picking a "None of the Above option" or "Re open Nominations" and spoiled vote.


  • Options
    #56
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,275 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    KetchupKid wrote: »
    The problem with that is the Referendum Commission was clearly biased and they also lied in their ads.

    This whole referendum was a disgrace with lies and character assassinations on both sides.

    I think a 40% No vote is brilliant considering the economic state of the country, the scare-mongering and the fact that RTE and every major newspaper, media outlet and every major political party was for the Yes. With that behind it, this should have been a no-brainer for the Yes side and it should have been at least 90% Yes.

    Where were the 'RefCom' clearly biased and where did they lie?


  • Options
    #57
    KetchupKid
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭KetchupKid


    The Referendum Commission had an ad on the radio that said we had now secured a representative in Brussels and a Yes vote would ensure that, but with a No vote we would have no representation in Europe. It more or less implied that with a No vote we'd still be in the same position in the EU, but would be punished and not allowed an Irish representative in Europe. If you read any of the Referendum Commission pamphlets they were clearly pushing the Yes agenda as if that would fix all.


  • Options
    #58
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    KetchupKid wrote: »
    The problem with that is the Referendum Commission was clearly biased and they also lied in their ads.

    This whole referendum was a disgrace with lies and character assassinations on both sides.

    I think a 40% No vote is brilliant considering the economic state of the country, the scare-mongering and the fact that RTE and every major newspaper, media outlet and every major political party was for the Yes. With that behind it, this should have been a no-brainer for the Yes side and it should have been at least 90% Yes.
    Where did the RefCom lie?


  • Options
    #59
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,275 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    KetchupKid wrote: »
    The Referendum Commission had an ad on the radio that said we had now secured a representative in Brussels and a Yes vote would ensure that, but with a No vote we would have no representation in Europe. It more or less implied that with a No vote we'd still be in the same position in the EU, but would be punished and not allowed an Irish representative in Europe. If you read any of the Referendum Commission pamphlets they were clearly pushing the Yes agenda as if that would fix all.

    Oh God not this again. Unless you quote the actual piece of literature which says 'we will have no representation' forget it.

    Anyway I presume what you are talking about is European Commission represention. The current Nice Treaty calls for a reduction in the number of commissioners this year to a number less than 27, whereas after a decision the European Council has decided that if Lisbon is ratified all countires will continue to nominate a Commissioner. I don't think the Refcom said Ireland will be punished and lose representation. In fact I have exactly what they said about the Commission here. Please tell me where they lied?

    Does anyone find it scary that we still have to debunk the same old myths over and over and over and over and over


  • Options
    #60
    OldJay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 943 ✭✭✭OldJay


    Agent J wrote: »
    There is a world of difference between picking a "None of the Above option" or "Re open Nominations" and spoiled vote.

    No there isn't.
    You don't have a candidate to your liking and vote accordingly with the same answer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Agent J
    Registered Users Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭Agent J


    Justind wrote: »
    No there isn't.
    You don't have a candidate to your liking and vote accordingly with the same answer.

    How?

    How does one express dissatifiaction in the choices without being lumped in with other groups aside from not voting(Which isnt an option if complusory voting is brought in)

    Those that accidentaly make a mess of the ballot
    Those that intentionally do it
    Those that think there isnt anyone actually on the list they wanted to vote for

    A simple "Spoils" categeory does not cover the above because there are very different reason for each.


Advertisement