Who voted No? Everyone

[KingKane]

I'm curious how people are already suggesting that the No vote is somehow down to FG voters, yet the treaty was defeated by over a 100,000 people. The polls leading up to this all showed significant proportions of the major parties as intending to vote No or not knowing. There was a concentration on the portion in FG because it surprised people the most but even the FF numbers were a bare majority in favour, but there is no way numerically that this treaty has been defeated without a majority within of all the main parties voting No or 50/50.

We've not got an actual exit poll to dwell on so it is naturally speculation on my part but I do wish that some people would use some basic numeracy skills. If FF had gotten 2:1 Yes this treaty would have passed, hell if they had gotten 60/40, it would have passed. None of the parties on the YES side succeeded in convincing the electorate of the merits of their case and that is why the treaty was defeated. Not because of one portion of any one party.

[Pidge]

None of the parties on the YES side succeeded in convincing the electorate of the merits of their case and that is why the treaty was defeated. Not because of one portion of any one party.

Absolutely. And, in the absence of any exit polls, it's tricky to play the blame game with any degree of accuracy. Still, I think the surprise lies with the FG voters. The voters of most pro-Europe party in the state voted against Lisbon. It's odd, more than anything else.

[merle haggard]

youll also find many of the farmers helping the protestors in rossport , supplying them with food fuel and shelter are to a large degree fg voters for some bizarre reason

[toxic avenger]

Blame can be laid with FF for the paralysis of Government for the first four months of this year due do Ahern's past spivvery, followed by his prolonged ego-massage lap of honour, then Cowen's lap of honour, plus an insipid campaign thereinafter. Blame can be laid with Enda Kenny for having the charisma and debating skills of a fence. The PDs and Greens just went missing and abdicated responsibility completely. But most of all, blame can be laid with the EU for producing such a gigantic load of waffle without one big idea in it to sell the thing, in addition to their contempt in not dropping the Constitution when they should have.

Although, when I say blame, I mean thanks...

[Blue Tide]

I just spoke to my aunt, a woman who never had any formal third level education but a woman who I always thought was somwqhat intelligent nonetheless. Anyway, she and her entire 6 person family voted no because she thought her children would be conscripted by a giant European army. I nearly spat my tea into her face with shock.

[Pidge]

The PDs and Greens just went missing and abdicated responsibility completely.

Eh, the party didn't have a stance.

[KingKane]

The PDs and Greens just went missing and abdicated responsibility completely.

Eh, the party didn't have a stance.

Remarkable really that the Greens were able to claim victory for the votes in their own multi seat constituencies and all this while having an each way bet. Imagine what they could achieve if they had an actual stance on something!

[toxic avenger]

The PDs and Greens just went missing and abdicated responsibility completely.

Eh, the party didn't have a stance.

What was Gormley giving out about earlier this week?

[FutureTaoiseach]

Well it is a strange thing and a lazy thing that the press did not carry out exit-polls. It seems bewildering considering they normally do. But on what you're talking about, I would look at it like this (considering the lack of info):

About 1.6 million valid votes were cast last Thursday. Based on opinion polling before the vote arguing that just 2% of SF voters favoured a yes vote, I think we can surmise that virtually all SF voters said no. That's around 6-7%. FG voters were apparently evenly-split so let's say they split 50:50 - that's another 14% on the no side. The last TNS-MRBI poll had Labout voters opposed 47-30% so let's say 61% of Labour voters said no - 6%. That's 27% - about half the no vote so far. Now the question is about the FF voters. The last TNS-MRBI poll said the divide there was 41-25 in favour of the Treaty - but remember 42% supported the Treaty among the entire electorate in the last Red C poll so we can't be sure where the undecided FFers went - and Red C said 60% of FFers were going to vote yes. Assuming this happened with 40% of FFers voting no, that's about another 16% added to the no said and 25% to the yeses. That brings the no vote up to around 41% so far. So where did the remaining 13% come from? In my opinion it comes from the Independent voters (about 5% at the last election) plus a last-minute swing against the Treaty among the FFers.

[Rocky]

I'm curious how people are already suggesting that the No vote is somehow down to FG voters, yet the treaty was defeated by over a 100,000 people. The polls leading up to this all showed significant proportions of the major parties as intending to vote No or not knowing. There was a concentration on the portion in FG because it surprised people the most but even the FF numbers were a bare majority in favour, but there is no way numerically that this treaty has been defeated without a majority within of all the main parties voting No or 50/50.

We've not got an actual exit poll to dwell on so it is naturally speculation on my part but I do wish that some people would use some basic numeracy skills. If FF had gotten 2:1 Yes this treaty would have passed, hell if they had gotten 60/40, it would have passed. None of the parties on the YES side succeeded in convincing the electorate of the merits of their case and that is why the treaty was defeated. Not because of one portion of any one party.

FFers and general anti-FG people were always going to blame FG. Every single FG voted could have voted for the Treaty and every single FG member could have canvassed for it non stop for six months and they would still blame FG.