Improving Future Referenda

P. Breathnach

Agent J wrote: »

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.

The net effect is the same: the vote does not influence the outcome.

Next, we will have the "don't knows" demanding recounts because some of their votes were grouped with the "couldn't be arseds".

Agent J

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The net effect is the same: the vote does not influence the outcome.

Next, we will have the "don't knows" demanding recounts because some of their votes were grouped with the "couldn't be arseds".

The above only applies if complusory voting was brought in.

Are you in favour of it or not?

Sparks

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The net effect is the same: the vote does not influence the outcome.

Horse hockey. The net effect is only the same when those voting "none of the above" are negligible - when they are not, they do affect the outcome because if the majority vote for "none of the above", there are consequences that do not exist if the majority spoil their vote through error or ignorance.

Long Onion

There may be a point about the posters issue but really, as a referendum issue is deemed important enough to be referred to the people (as it will effect our constitution) it is important that people be allowed discuss their opinions. A gagging order on public debate will achieve nothing other than to contradict the basic rationale behind having the referendum in the first place.

One thing that I do think should be seriously considered is some kind of test to adjudicate whether or not that which is the subject of the referendum, is comprehensible to the man on the 'clapham omnibus'. Perhaps a referral of the subject matter to the courts to be decided on having regard to a standard of reasonableness.

This issue, in my opinion was too complex to be fully understood by the voting public at large and so, was not suitable for a referendum. The fundamental principle of all western legal systems is that the law be clear and precise - this treaty is far from it.

The correct options should have been:

1) Allow the Gov. to try to ratify the treaty by legislation, Art 26 is there to make sure it is not an ultr vires decision. Or;

2) Force the EU to re-draft it in terms that are comprehensible to the public - then have a referendum.

(p.s. I am a happy man today!)

Tony EH

Number 2 being the preferable option, of course. A public vote on Lisbon was the correct way to proceed and certainly much better than the way other, so called, democratic governments ratified the treaty.

But, yes, a draft of the treaty without the prevailing gobbledygook is essential to future referenda, assuming that future referenda is allowed to take place.

...and I agree with the idea of getting rid of sloganeering posters. Which were replete with lies FROM BOTH SIDES and only served to confuse the issue...and the voters.

Just because a "Yes" was delivered today (and I'm not surprised in the least), doesn't mean that the Irish public understood the treaty any better this time around. I'd wager that many people voted the opposite way, because they feared they gave the wrong answer the last time.

What's truly stomach churning this afternoon, is having to watch the likes of Dick Roach licking his balls in self congratulation. But it would have been equally disgusting if it had been Declan Ganley.

Sparks

Long Onion wrote: »

A gagging order on public debate

Anyone who believes that a ban on posters is a gagging order on public debate has either a very low opinion of the public's level of discourse or has a very high opinion of posters.
Somehow I believe that neither opinion would withstand critical scrutiny...

Mad_Max

Would a public funding option work? Set a budget of say 1million euro each and thats all that can be spent by either side over the entire campaign.

One thing I didn't like in this run of lisbon was the amount that seemed to be spent by the Yes side (and I voted yes). A system like that would at least give equality to both sides.

This obviously wouldn't neccessarily improve the quality of the claims made by either side but something like this, in conjunction with the referendum commisions' input, might stop campaigns spending a fortune on scaremongering posters etc.

Long Onion

Sparks wrote: »

Anyone who believes that a ban on posters is a gagging order on public debate has either a very low opinion of the public's level of discourse or has a very high opinion of posters.
Somehow I believe that neither opinion would withstand critical scrutiny...

I was actually referring to the point being made earlier in the thread about allowing nobody but the referendum commission to utilise the media in the run up to future referenda. I did cede that there was a fair point being made about the posters (which to my mind are a waste of money, time, ink and rhetoric) but I was treating both issues (posters & public debate) as being very much seperate.

Edit: P.S. if i was a member of Coir, I would now be visiting multiple other forums on Boards telling everyone how Sparks is planning to ban all posters on Boards.ie and must be stopped ...