March 8th - What’s your vote? **Mod Note In Post #677**

Really? Im nearly certain we got lots of exit polls in the past - different rules for referenda perhaps?

Earlier it looked mostly yes yes. No cope here, was obvious a couple of weeks ago us wokeists probably wouldn't win. Only thing that annoys me is the loonies like Ferg Power et al campaigning for a No will see this as a victory. Even though nothing changes for anyone.

Seems like a bizarre issue to pick given for 95%+ of folk, a yes vote wouldn't materially effect them.

You will get first exit polls after 10pm

What reasons would you have voted yes for? What purpose did this referendum serve for your fellow citizen?

"Even though nothing changes for anyone"

And that is exactly why I voted No & No. Reckless to vote Yes for the family one as it's not clear at all what you'd be agreeing to. And the second unnecessarily removes references to mothers etc.

So nothing will change and we'll all know where we are.

No to both I hate this woke government .Anything this lot say vote the opposite

Encourage everyone with a pulse out to vote No No .

Right up to 10pm .my 22year old just went out and voted no ,

Hopefully boards.ie isn't an echo chamber, but based on comments here it's a landslide

Anyone I spoke to has been a no, but in saying that I haven't spoken to a hundred people :)

Voted Yes to the 39th Amendment and No to the 40th Amendment.

Yes to the Family Amendment because I didn't feel the negatives outweighed the positives. In particular I heard some examples both in the news and from a work colleague of family setups which have been at least partially disenfranchised because marriage is recognised over and above other stable and meaningful relationships. I wish the wording was stronger, but I think ultimately the greater good is achieved with it than without.

No to the Care Amendment because it takes a starting position of effectively no constitutional reference to care at all, which allows statute to define it, and instead muddies the waters with the word "strive". I do think there has been some misinterpration of that word - it is a strong one and I had to look up the definitions to find it is in fact a much stronger word than "endeavour", which was touted as an alternative. However I also read that the legal advice around the word was that a court may struggle to rule on it in the way I think the disctionary defnition is intended and instead lean towards a more lenient interpretation. I also watched Senator Tom Clonan, who has a son requiring care, give a couple of impassioned arguments against the amendmenent. I've read Senator Clonan's columns in the Journal for some time, mainly on military or defence matters, and always found his narrative insightful, balanced and logical. I gave a lot of weight to his view which I have respected for some years, and he is for sure more knowledgeable in this area than I am.

I also felt it didn't adequately address reccomendations of the Constitutional Convention which was the below and which I felt reflected two entirely seperate issues:

"Make Article 41.2 (on the role of women) gender-neutral to include other carers both ‘in the home’ and ‘beyond the home’.

The State should provide ‘a reasonable level of support’ to carers."

All things considered I felt this amendment opened the door to too much (more) ambiguity as to the state's responsibility regarding care, was essentially half-baked, didn't necessarily represent an improvement on a zero reference to care, and needs wording which is much less open to interpretation.

voted NO NO

and there's 5x other NO NO's that I know of in my own extended family

2x reasons:

1) that wishy washy language, like "strive"??? they can't be serious

2) I want to punch that Thatcherite fupp in the face, a warmup for the coming GE

I don't feel that's a reasonable logic upon which to base a vote in a constitutional referendum.

The Government that put the question may be incompetent, that doesn't mean their proposed answer to the question is. At the local, European, Presidential elections - sure, have a proxy vote against the governement of the day - but the constitution is our fundamental law and has to be judged on its merits alone.

Odds have been taken down by boyles. Anyone know what the closing odds where?

Completely agree. This craic of a No vote because the Gubberment, or Yes vote because the church support a No is ridiculous. Try formulate some sort of opinion and base it on that, not what Mick down the road is voting.