Voter refusing to take referendum slips

[Bleu Poppy]

the referendum commission website shows mock ballot papers clearly marked "The Twenty-Ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Judges’ Remuneration) Bill 2011" and
"The Thirtieth Amendment of the Constitution (Houses of the Oireachtas Inquiries) Bill 2011"

I didn't vote, being out of the country, but the bits in parentheses should have been enough, no?

Agree whole-heartedly with you.

The information was there on the papers- no excuses possible.

[ibis]

I'm not arguing (maybe not very well) that to vote

1. Yes = change
2. No = no change

is not an issue, but for people who haven't got a clue, one way or the other, It's not exactly ideal for them to be deciding whether such a vote carries through.
I personally would prefer 40% of the population made an informed decision. Rather than 60% said if you don't know, vote NO ... or if you haven't a clue vote YES.
But it's just my bit of wishful thinking...

Well, you could look a it this way - it's the duty of those who propose a change to the Constitution (in other words, the government) to explain fully what that change involves, and to ensure that there is a debate on it. If they have failed in that duty by not providing adequate time for that explanation and debate, then they deserve to see the amendment they propose defeated.

[Odyessus]

I'm not trying to open a debate on divorce, or anything else, I'm just making a point that the principal should be if you haven't got a clue what you're voting on the best thing you can do, is not vote!

Voters in the divorce referendum had plenty of time to hear all the arguments from both sides and evaluate their positions. I'm talking about when voters are unsure of the consequences of what is being proposed. Many voters today had little or no idea of the issues, because of the the lack of time for public debate.

I guarantee that if the so called "Abbylara" amendment is carried, many people who abstained will come to say: "If I had known it was about giving politicians these powers, I would have voted No." Of course if it is defeated, many abstainers may come to think it would have been a good thing to pass the amendment if only they had understood it at the time.

However in that case, there is nothing to stop the government putting the question again after we've had a proper debate, possibly with some changes in the wording to reassure doubters that we are not voting for a Star Chamber.

[Odyessus]

Well, you could look a it this way - it's the duty of those who propose a change to the Constitution (in other words, the government) to explain fully what that change involves, and to ensure that there is a debate on it. If they have failed in that duty by not providing adequate time for that explanation and debate, then they deserve to see the amendment they propose defeated.

I fully agree. The onus is on the government to convince citizens of the merits of changing the Constitution. After all, it is the fundamental law of the land and gives citizens certain rights which may not be abrogated by any government. Asking citizens to give up some of these rights requires the government to make a very strong case and allow time for opposing arguments to be heard.

Abstaining may let these rights be curtailed because the citizen is not fully aware of what is being proposed.

[Peppermint]

Well, you could look a it this way - it's the duty of those who propose a change to the Constitution (in other words, the government) to explain fully what that change involves, and to ensure that there is a debate on it. If they have failed in that duty by not providing adequate time for that explanation and debate, then they deserve to see the amendment they propose defeated.

Yes you could indeed say that those proposing to change the Constitution are required to explain fully what the change involves, and that it's debated fully. And if they don't do it well they deserve to be defeated....
BUT, but ,but it still doesn't say we should advise people to vote No (or yes) without knowing what they are voting for.. I'm not arguing against this referendum, far from it. But I want people to vote for (or against) because they know what they are doing.... I know, tis but a dream...

[ibis]

Yes you could indeed say that those proposing to change the Constitution are required to explain fully what the change involves, and that it's debated fully. And if they don't do it well they deserve to be defeated....
BUT, but ,but it still doesn't say we should advise people to vote No (or yes) without knowing what they are voting for.. I'm not arguing against this referendum, far from it. But I want people to vote for (or against) because they know what they are doing.... I know, tis but a dream...

In a perfect world, I'd agree 100%.

[former wesleyan]

Yes you could indeed say that those proposing to change the Constitution are required to explain fully what the change involves, and that it's debated fully. And if they don't do it well they deserve to be defeated....
BUT, but ,but it still doesn't say we should advise people to vote No (or yes) without knowing what they are voting for.. I'm not arguing against this referendum, far from it. But I want people to vote for (or against) because they know what they are doing.... I know, tis but a dream...

They're voting for that scene when they watched Tony Blair wriggling in front of a House of Commons Committee enquiry on the Iraq War; they're voting for that scene when they watched Murdock Pere et Fils wriggle in front of a House of Commons Committee on the phone hacking scandal and where they turned to each other and said " why can't we do that here ".
The ones who voted NO will probably watch some one wriggling in front of a House of Commons Committee in the not too disant future and turn to each other and say " why can't we do that here ? ".

[ibis]

They're voting for that scene when they watched Tony Blair wriggling in front of a House of Commons Committee enquiry on the Iraq War; they're voting for that scene when they watched Murdock Pere et Fils wriggle in front of a House of Commons Committee on the phone hacking scandal and where they turned to each other and said " why can't we do that here ".
The ones who voted NO will probably watch some one wriggling in front of a House of Commons Committee in the not too disant future and turn to each other and say " why can't we do that here ? ".

Because the government offered that sweet little apple with a very big worm in it.

I'm sure that the government, if the referendum isn't passed, will do a reasonably good job of pretending that there's no way to investigate people without that amendment.

[Peppermint]

Odyessus..
Your knowledge of the divorce (and probably other) referendums is way ahead of mine, I wasn't in the country when all these things happened..
But, and I hate to say it, you're not really disproving my point.
All I'm saying is people who haven't got a clue, when it comes to voting, telling them to vote Yes (or NO) without knowing what they are voting for is not making a good democracy.....

[Toidissatafu]

Because voting No to a proposed Constitutional change is a vote to maintain the status quo. This is an entirely reasonable position to hold if one has not been convinced of the merits of changing the Constitution.

To vote Yes in such circumstances is to say "I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but I'll do it anyway."

The cautious thing is to leave the Constitution alone unless we are convinced that we can safely change it for the better.

That is the logic.
Only got confusing when Adolf McDowell popped up pleading for a No vote.
Since when has he been a guardian of civil rights.