The Referendum Commission - what a shower of wasters!

[Ferdia]

In my view, the Referendum Commission failed in its obligation 'to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals, to promote public awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote at the poll'. The Commission expended large sums of taxpayers' money in a trendy looking but useless advertising campaign. The advertisements depicted disembodied male and female torsoes, accompanied by an exhortation to vote and a web address for further information. These advertisements were a waste of newspaper space and air time, since they made no direct effort to 'explain the subject matter of referendum proposals'. They were too general and too vague to be of any value. The same assessment applies to the the bland booklet mailed to a million households.

It is a basic tenet of good communications that different people assimilate information in different ways. Some people like to read new information slowly, some do it quickly. Others prefer a visual representation, while more prefer an oral one-on-one conversation. To succeed, any communications campaign must be designed to take into account the differing needs of the various audiences. Had the Commission done this, much of the criticism about lack of information could have been avoided.

The relevant Minister, John Gormley TD, must review the effectiveness of the Commission and in particular, their abject performance in this campaign. The Comptroller and Auditor General should conduct a 'value for money' evaluation. A useful key performance indicator in that exercise would be to measure the percentage of voters who felt they were to any degree 'informed' by the Commission. My guess is that number would be in low single digits.

[stopthetrain]

In my view, the Referendum Commission failed in its obligation 'to explain the subject matter of referendum proposals, to promote public awareness of the referendum and to encourage the electorate to vote at the poll'. The Commission expended large sums of taxpayers' money in a trendy looking but useless advertising campaign. The advertisements depicted disembodied male and female torsoes, accompanied by an exhortation to vote and a web address for further information. These advertisements were a waste of newspaper space and air time, since they made no direct effort to 'explain the subject matter of referendum proposals'. They were too general and too vague to be of any value. The same assessment applies to the the bland booklet mailed to a million households.

It is a basic tenet of good communications that different people assimilate information in different ways. Some people like to read new information slowly, some do it quickly. Others prefer a visual representation, while more prefer an oral one-on-one conversation. To succeed, any communications campaign must be designed to take into account the differing needs of the various audiences. Had the Commission done this, much of the criticism about lack of information could have been avoided.

The relevant Minister, John Gormley TD, must review the effectiveness of the Commission and in particular, their abject performance in this campaign. The Comptroller and Auditor General should conduct a 'value for money' evaluation. A useful key performance indicator in that exercise would be to measure the percentage of voters who felt they were to any degree 'informed' by the Commission. My guess is that number would be in low single digits.

Just like what peter madalson said, all the spin and the negativity of the ''NO'' side should have been addressed in the first instance, which undermined the referendum, but nobody is expecting a magic which is now left to the government anyway. :P

[Universal_001]

They should have ran a campagn with melons and EuroBoxer shorts emploring the voter to improve their prospects...that would have ensured a yes...

[corelli]

I heard yesterday from various sources that the preception amongst government generally and the legal profession is that the Commission made a mess of matters with specific reference being given to the appearance of the Chairman in the broadcast media and being caught out in relation to his lack of knowledge.

[Bobb]

I'd say they were quite effective at raising awareness. Turnout was up. People are only criticizing because the result was wrong. If it was up to me there'd be no referendum commission, cos if people need to be encouraged to vote then they shouldn't bother

[Ferdia]

I'd say they were quite effective at raising awareness. Turnout was up. People are only criticizing because the result was wrong. If it was up to me there'd be no referendum commission, cos if people need to be encouraged to vote then they shouldn't bother

Good Evening, Judge.... or should that be Emily?

[Catalpa]

It also emerged that these individuals were not acting alone but others in the shadows had their ear.

It was a con job IMO.

On top of that they couldn't fully explain the bloody Thing anyway!

[pikey]

I'd say they were quite effective at raising awareness. Turnout was up. People are only criticizing because the result was wrong. If it was up to me there'd be no referendum commission, cos if people need to be encouraged to vote then they shouldn't bother

Well some of us lacked the autism required to read the treaty .They were handy in that regard .The lisbon treaty can be read and understood in the same way a phone book can be read and understood.

[Ferdia]

I'd say this cock up ************************'s up Emily O'Reilly's ambitions to run for President. Being associated with this debacle.

[stopthenwo]

The Commission were a disgrace, they deliberately mislead the voters. Their booklet didn't give the facts, they failed to explain the Referendum Act and they, like RTE, acted outside their statutory obligations. They were just another organ of the yes campaign paid for by us and leading us into our own enslavement.

Their advertising campaign was very sinister with bodies cut in half, and a message to "get the full picture". It seemed designed to turn people off from actually looking into the treaty and coercing them to look away. They should be fully investigated and held accountable for their actions but of course they won't be. Judge Iarlaith doesn't seem to know or care about his oath to defend the Constitution.

They are just another example of the lies and disinformation of the yes side, the whole campaign was an absolute disgrace. Now when the no side actually won we are still being subject to their propaganda and they cannot accept the result.

I wonder if the yes side had won would we still be subject to the intense propaganda that's going on now.