Turnout as low as 2% in some counties

ShooterSF

Elfinknight wrote: »

As I have said in another thread, if you are undecided or unsure as to how to vote, you should vote no. Especially if its due to lack of understanding.
That way the status qou is maintained and the government have to come back with more information before they ask us again.

It...it's not as if it's a new treaty or something people are voting on. The article can't be much more than 100 words. This wasn't a 40 page "tome" referencing tonnes of other massive treaties. I...I...I can't. No. Just no; if you can't read it and read the stuff it's replacing and decide which you prefer then stay home or if you don't like either spoil your vote but if someone can't understand a paragraph of writing maybe they should stay home and look at popup books! I had to break out the dictionary myself for "imprescriptible" though it was pretty obvious afterwards

Liamario

Don't know what I'm voting on, so I'm not going to vote.

MagicMarker

Liamario wrote: »

Don't know what I'm voting on, so I'm not going to vote.

Eh?

Stheno

Liamario wrote: »

Don't know what I'm voting on, so I'm not going to vote.

Do some research for goodness sake!

Liamario

MagicMarker wrote: »

Eh?

Eh yourself

oscarBravo

28064212 wrote: »

The record low turnout was the seventh amendment, held on a Thursday. Does that mean Thursday is a bad day for polls?

It might mean that it was a bad day for polls in the 1970s.

Objectively, dispassionately, it's only fair to conclude that a referendum which has been pinpointed as inevitably having a low turnout would have a low turnout regardless of whether it was held midweek or on Saturday.

If any referendum can be expected to "inevitably" have a low turnout, then we have pretty much the quality of democracy that we as an electorate deserve.

Annasopra

Liamario wrote: »

Don't know what I'm voting on, so I'm not going to vote.

Good for you. Maybe next time decide that before the vote!

TheJug

An online exit poll elsewhere currently (midnight:30) running 53%/47% in favour of REJECTING referendum. More egg on Govt faces following the fiasco with The Supremes?

Stheno

TheJug wrote: »

An online exit poll elsewhere currently (midnight:30) running 53%/47% in favour of REJECTING referendum. More egg on Govt faces following the fiasco with The Supremes?

Wow if that's true.

Shame.

28064212

oscarBravo wrote: »

It might mean that it was a bad day for polls in the 1970s.

Or it might mean all Thursdays are bad referendum days.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If any referendum can be expected to "inevitably" have a low turnout, then we have pretty much the quality of democracy that we as an electorate deserve.

Probably. But that wasn't your initial assertion.

Objectively, dispassionately, correlation does not equal causation. It's not fair to conclude that the reason for the low turnout is that it's a weekend poll, when there's other obvious potential causes to look at, like a foregone result and voter apathy

TheJug

....

Amirani

TheJug wrote: »

An online exit poll elsewhere currently (midnight:30) running 53%/47% in favour of REJECTING referendum. More egg on Govt faces following the fiasco with The Supremes?

Online exit polls aren't really representative of the voting population. I wouldn't give it much credence.

DylanII

Yes I wouldn't be supprised if it was rejected.

The ****e I heard people say and seen on Facebook is unreal. The people that believed that would vote and the rest wouldn't, as they believed that it would be voted it regardless.

Stuff like, if you get depression they can take your kids, they can take your kids and have them adopted, if you die your family won't be allowed to take your kids. Just a load of ****e . . . Apparently they seen it in the newspaper

JustAThought

I went to see.an.exhibition in.the.Iilac Centre.Library.recently. it was about a.Polish man.called.Janusz Kozack.
He is.the only person out of over eigjt hundred.and.fifty thousand.killed.by.thd Nazis.in Treblinka concentration/ death camp who had his.name.commemorated . Out of 850,000 people.
He.was a Polish doctor and the .the.manager of an.orphanage in Warsaw. + decided to accompany The. Children he cared for many.of.whom.were.jewish, on the.train.journey.to.their deaths.
his writings.were.the.foundation.of.the.UN decleration.of.the.rights of.children.
his first principles were that a.child had a.rigjt to love, to a.home,to a.name,.and.to.belonging.

i.was.feeling.lazy,.but.because.of.this.man, Janusz Korzack, 70 years dead, i.decided to go out and.put a.tick.on.a.piece.of.paper. i felt, for.him, for all those.kids and for ours,.it was.the.least.I could.do.

Annasopra

TheJug wrote: »

An online exit poll elsewhere currently (midnight:30) running 53%/47% in favour of REJECTING referendum. More egg on Govt faces following the fiasco with The Supremes?

Yeah - sorry that's bull**** - online polls are meaningless

PseudoFamous

How long do referendums with only one constitutional amendment usually take to tote up?

DylanII

JustAThought wrote: »

I went to see.an.exhibition in.the.Iilac Centre.Library.recently. it was about a.Polish man.called.Janusz Kozack.
He is.the only person out of over eigjt hundred.and.fifty thousand.killed.by.thd Nazis.in Treblinka concentration/ death camp who had his.name.commemorated . Out of 850,000 people.
He.was a doctor and the .the.manager of an.orphanage in Warsaw. + decided to accompany The. Children he cared for many.of.whom.were.jewish, on the.train.journey.to.their deaths.
his writings.were.the.foundation.of.the.UN decleration.of.the.rights of.children.
his first principles were that a.child had a.rigjt to love, to a.home,to a.name,.and.to.belonging.

i.was.feeling.lazy,.but.because.of.this.man, Janusz Korzack, 70 years dead, i.decided to go out and.put a.tick.on.a.piece.of.paper. i felt, for all those.kids,.it was.the.least.I could.do.

Are you okay? You seem disorientated, do you need an ambulance?

Seriously though what's with all the full stops.

oscarBravo

28064212 wrote: »

Or it might mean all Thursdays are bad referendum days.

[...]

Probably. But that wasn't your initial assertion.

Objectively, dispassionately, correlation does not equal causation. It's not fair to conclude that the reason for the low turnout is that it's a weekend poll, when there's other obvious potential causes to look at, like a foregone result and voter apathy

I'm actually perfectly content to conclude that there's no strong causative effect between the polling day and the turnout. What I have a problem with is the people who bleat about not being allowed to vote on weekends, and then don't bother their arses to vote on weekends.

What is clear from this is that the perennial excuse of a midweek polling day for not being arsed to vote is just that - an excuse. Objectively and dispassionately, therefore, the government is hereby perfectly vindicated in ignoring such bleating in the future.

Annasopra

PseudoFamous wrote: »

How long do referendums with only one constitutional amendment usually take to tote up?

About 5/6 hours - we should have a clearish indication by midday and a result by 3pmish

JustAThought

DylanII wrote: »

Are you okay? You seem disorientated, do you need an ambulance?

Seriously though what's with all the full stops.

Haja tha.ks! My iphone died + i have.the.loan of.a.new.phone.while.i.wait.for.telecophonic.CPR . Suffice to say ; the new one stutters - the buttons are too small to use without a chopstick!

TheJug

Last couple of votes recorded on the exit poll I mentioned earler were for NO. With just 200+ people polled by 10pm, poll running an eye-popping 2 to 1 for NO. Now it's a more believeable 53%/47% for NO, but with double the sample size, i.e., 430 votes. Only three-quarters of those polled gave clear YES / NO responses. I am basing my 53/47 on the clear YES /NOs only.

Annasopra

TheJug wrote: »

Last couple of votes recorded on the exit poll I mentioned earler were for NO. With just 200+ people polled by 10pm, poll running an eye-popping 2 to 1 for NO. Now it's a more believeable 53%/47% for NO, but with double the sample size, i.e., 430 votes. Only three-quarters of those polled gave clear YES / NO responses. I am basing my 53/47 on the clear YES /NOs only.

Yeah - it's still meaningless nonsense

PseudoFamous

TheJug wrote: »

Last couple of votes recorded on the exit poll I mentioned earler were for NO. With just 200+ people polled by 10pm, poll running an eye-popping 2 to 1 for NO. Now it's a more believeable 53%/47% for NO, but with double the sample size, i.e., 430 votes. Only three-quarters of those polled gave clear YES / NO responses. I am basing my 53/47 on the clear YES /NOs only.

if your exit poll is done anywhere except the polling station, you're going to get biased results. I would trust an exit poll done in a church before mass more than I would trust one done on a political website.

Armin_Tamzarian

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the low turn out will lean heavily in the "No" camp's favour.

Most people think a yes is foregone conclusion

The exit poll from the local station indicated a clear majority of No votes.
I think you're correct.

TheJug

Mango and Niall: If the bookies' 12/1 NO (with between 1/33 and 1/50 for YES), and the polls of about a week ago are to be believed, the govt had a shoo-in YES. The very least the (unscientific) online poll proves is that No is going to get more than a token vote. Don't forget: the poll is just as likely to understate No as to understate YES. For your dismissals to be fully confident, the onliner has to be both WILDLY inaccurate, AND inaccurate in a PRO-NO direction. It could be inaccurate: NO might reach mid-60s!!!!!!

TheJug

Was in bookies Friday to take 12/1 when discovered out of cash. Wd have hazarded a pony. "£$%%$££-it anyway!

Bennybeau

Shroedinger's cat!

TheJug

Bennybeau wrote: »

Shroedinger's cat!

Alas, yes!:mad:

Sierra Oscar

This is heading for a defeat I reckon.

Armin_Tamzarian

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

This is heading for a defeat I reckon.

No bother, sure we'll just have another bash at it til we get it right.
A la Lisbon.

Stheno

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

No bother, sure we'll just have another bash at it til we get it right.
A la Lisbon.

Enough to put you off bothering to get out of bed to vote!

I reckon the no side in this one were stronger in the amount of fear mongering they carried out.

Sierra Oscar

There are rumours doing the rounds of a provisional exit poll suggesting a 'No' side victory.

53% - No | 46% yes.

Shame on the government if that is the case. The electioneering stunt will have cost the 'Yes' side dearly, despite the fact that it simply was not necessary at all. There has also been a complete failure by those leading the campaign to actually engage people with the referendum, and that is being expressed in the turnout figures. There was universal support for this referendum one month ago. It will be some achievement if the government has managed to turn that into a defeat.

Hopefully it is just a rouge poll though. Time will tell!

liammur

Pathetic. The country is bankrupt and they are having these meaningless referendums. No wonder people don't vote.

Sierra Oscar

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

There are rumours doing the rounds of a provisional exit poll suggesting a 'No' side victory.

53% - No | 46% yes.

Shame on the government if that is the case. The electioneering stunt will have cost the 'Yes' side dearly, despite the fact that it simply was not necessary at all. There has also been a complete failure by those leading the campaign to actually engage people with the referendum, and that is being expressed in the turnout figures. There was universal support for this referendum one month ago. It will be some achievement if the government has managed to turn that into a defeat.

Hopefully it is just a rouge poll though. Time will tell!

There's 10-15% of the electorate who'll vote No no matter what. There's 10-15% who'll say "please give a reason to vote yes" but who'll vote no otherwise. Then there's a small percentage who has reasonable beefs with the amendment.

As you said, it's a pathetic attempt at electioneering where it wasn't needed. There's been no laws struck down, there's been no cases that have been pointed at as having a different outcome with this amendment. Even the title, "The CHILDRENS' REFERENDUM", do you not care about children? Pathetic stuff all over.

Armin_Tamzarian

Deleted User wrote: »

There's 10-15% of the electorate who'll vote No no matter what. There's 10-15% who'll say "please give a reason to vote yes" but who'll vote no otherwise. Then there's a small percentage who has reasonable beefs with the amendment.

Then there's a large section who have voted before and are likely to vote but don't really care.
Getting out of work for an hour to vote could be see as an incentive.
There's no incentive though when voting means disrupting their Saturday.
I think weekend voting was a stupid idea.

Trampas

A low turnout has to suit the No vote. To many people think it was a easy win for the Yes so the Yes people didn't feel the need to vote. While the No felt their voted needed to count so got out and voted.

Dave!

RTE saying early indications are it's a Yes

Weirdo b*stard John Waters is on

Manach

Either way it goes, I hope it encourages a people to keep a spotlight on children rights and to engage with essentially RFC when relevant government committees ask for input.

spank_inferno

The "Yes" side have it.

AlekSmart

oscarBravo wrote: »

On the topic of this being used as a reason not to allow weekend voting in the future: that's a position I actually have a lot of sympathy with. If people really, truly cared about future ballots being held at weekends, they would have turned out in droves for this one, even if only to turn in blank ballot papers.

Good point OB....Perhaps we could seek a referendum on Weekend Voting being inserted into the constitution ?

For all of our high-sounding malarkey about Democracy and all that comes with it,Ireland and it's people have been remarkably reluctant to put it's principles into effect.

Tzar Chasm

will there be a rerun of this because there was such a low turn our, ala Nice 1?

even if it comes down o. the yes side

thebman

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

will there be a rerun of this because there was such a low turn our, ala Nice 1?

even if it comes down o. the yes side

Might be a rerun due to supreme court ruling yet.

Elfinknight

Folks,
To the few of you that jumped down my throat over my aattitude about voting no if undecided or unsure, I'm not specifacaly talking about this referendum but about them in general.
The important thing is that people use thier vote.
Not turning up or spoiling votes is really not an option.

To the poster who asked would i like a power point representation in my home, no but it is the governments responsability to convince me to vote thier way when they do call a referendum.

oscarBravo

Elfinknight wrote: »

The important thing is that people use thier vote.
Not turning up or spoiling votes is really not an option.

Voting out of ignorance is the worst of those three options.

To the poster who asked would i like a power point representation in my home, no but it is the governments responsability to convince me to vote thier way when they do call a referendum.

The Supreme Court begs to differ.

Dave!

Elfinknight wrote: »

Folks,
To the few of you that jumped down my throat over my aattitude about voting no if undecided or unsure, I'm not specifacaly talking about this referendum but about them in general.
The important thing is that people use thier vote.
Not turning up or spoiling votes is really not an option.

It's still a poor policy. What if the status quo is grossly unjust or is preventing certain positive changes? Then your No vote is actively contributing to that situation remaining in place.

For example Yes campaigners for this referendum would say that the current situation prevents children from being adopted after they have been taken from abusive parents, and that passing this referendum would pave the way for that to change. By voting No (because you can't make your mind up), you're effectively voting to keep the current system in place.

If you can't make your mind up then you shouldn't vote.

goreyguy

As a student, i did an informal poll of some of my friends last night before we went out, they all are either still students or after just graduating. Only one other person had voted from a group of 10, he is very political and voted yes.

Everyone else didn't, mostly they were uniformed about the subject and decided not to vote.

Also I had recently noticed a large increase in some people of facebook, who I wouldn't exactly call friends but they are friends on facebook, telling people to vote no.

Most of these people were poorly educated who had kids before they were in their 20's spouting some ridiculous claims from blogs on the internet. Or saying the government can't be trusted etc etc. They all trust the government to pay them child benefit and the dole though, more than happy to drink and smoke that money they are "entitled" to as they say.

nesf

Gilmore today on Saturday voting:

It may well be that people’s voting pattern works better with their working pattern than it does with the routine families have on a Saturday.

Full article: http://www.thejournal.ie/gilmore-childrens-referendum-turnout-669980-Nov2012/

Hotblack Desiato

So how does he think having the schools close fits in with parents' working pattern? :rolleyes:

Our school year is too short as it is without shutting schools down for use as polling stations, never mind forcing working parents to arrange childcare or take the day off.

Ellis Dee

I had to come to Finland for some medical treatment (the alternative would have been to have it in Ireland, but I want to try and live a bit longer) so I couldn't vote yesterday. However, I would have voted "yes", especially when I look at who and what was advocating a "no" vote.

I'm not sure the amendment will achieve all that much actually, but if Dana and John Waters and their ilk are against it, it must have something going for it.

That said, many of the savage crimes perpetrated against children, especially those in institutions run by the church, over the decades since we supposedly achieved independence were completely illegal even at the time, but nothing was done. That raises the question of how we can be sure that any number of lofty-sounding laws and declarations of noble aspirations will actually protect our children now, either.

The low turnout points to a massive malaise in Irish society. There is something very seriously wrong when 20% of the electorate want to protect children, 15% are against it and 65% seemingly don't give enough of a toss to go out and vote.

Perhaps it's down to voter fatigue, with endless wrangling - invariably with sickening religious overtones - about the latest patch they want to stick onto a document that is way, way past its "sell by" date and should have been binned long ago.

Rather than having these referendums every few years, with all the messing involving the Supreme Court that they involve, isn't it time we faced up to reality as a nation and started from scratch to write a new constitution that suits the present century rather than the 19th?

Dev's constitution is a cross between a religious tract and a political manifesto and is founded on at least one lie, when it declares that worship is due to an almighty deity - although reason must tell anyone who possesses it that there is no evidence for the existence of such an entity. This could be replaced with a recognition of everyone's right to believe whatever they want, as long as this does not impact adversely on others.

I was watching from the sidelines and sometimes closer as the Finns revised their 1919 constitution - which had actually served them rather well - from the 1970s onwards, setting up several cross-party committees, bringing in all kinds of experts and consulting many more as they worked out a new constitution. That led to the fundamental rights provisions being completely revised in 1995, and they were incorporated as such into the new constitution that came into force in 2000.

It say this about children, by the way (in the chapter dealing with fundamental rights and freedoms): "Children shall be treated equally and as individuals and they shall be allowed to influence matters pertaining to themselves to a degree corresponding to their level of development."

Note that children are guaranteed an input in everything concerning them, and not just in confrontational court cases as proposed in Ireland.:)

I suggest that in the Irish case we should first elect a constitutional assembly (preferably extending the vote to expatriate Irish citizens) and let them get on with their work of drafting a constitution that will do us proud and make us the envy of the world.

Then let us vote on it, and in such a way that citizens have little if any excuse for failing to go to the ballot box: again the Finnish way - advance voting for a couple of weeks in all post offices, embassies abroad, hospitals, institutions and then actual voting at polling stations for one or two days or perhaps even longer.

We owe it to ourselves to get our house in proper order at long last. :cool:

Dirk Gently

Elfinknight wrote: »

To the poster who asked would i like a power point representation in my home, no but it is the governments responsability to convince me to vote thier way when they do call a referendum.

We live in an information age. Turn on your tv, radio, read a paper, come onto debate forums such as this and seek information if you need to. I can't see what else the Gov can do except put out the info and hope you make an effort to take it in. What are you expecting, compulsory evening courses for every citizen for every vote? It's you're responsibility as a citizen to weigh up the options and vote which way you think is best for the country. You have failed to preform your own duty as a citizen. There's not much the Government can do about that if you're unwilling or too lazy to make a decision based on readily available information.