Lazy

I wouldn’t be surprised if, given the near universal support from the government and other bodies, most people thought it’d go through effectively on the nod anyway so why bother?

Democracy. They don’t have to, the choice is theirs.

Because its a complex legal framework, & I’m not an expert in constitutional law. You might as well ask me to vote on Heisenberg’s uncertainty theory, I know roughly what it is but don’t really understand it.
Also, both sides of the campaign offered no concise explanations as to
1) why the current wording was deficient
2) what specifically will this alteration to the constitution do to change the landscape.
There was a lot of fudging e.g “this may (or may not) allow the state in some future date to….”

So the government can rub your vote out and get BONDHOLDERS to vote instead!

Why didn’t you bring a pen with you/ or ask the presiding officers at the polling station for one? I always ask for a pen and get one without any hassle.

So that the elf in the ballot box can change your voting preference, just for a laugh!

I would suggest that its probably because its easier. Pencils don’t run out of ink or break, or stop working and its probably cheaper as well.

But as somebody pointed out you don’t have to use the pencil. You can use your own pen and the vote is valid as long as you make it clear how you intend to vote and don’t do anything that could render the vote spoiled.

Exactly Judith, next time there’s a vote on anything I’m going to add it in like a signature to any comment I make:
“bring your own pen if you’re paranoid!”

Christ almighty, are people really that stupid? It seems so. To suggest that the counting clerks take out every single vote, rub out the X on the No and tick the X on the Y is completely idiotic. The boxes are sealed in the polling station, they are escorted by Gardai to the counting hall, the returning officer in the presense of the Gardia stores the boxes, seals the door and leaves them until the morning for counting in front of the public. If the seal is broken on the door or the boxes, an investigation is carried out. The Gardai also stay outside the hall overnight. The boxes are often shown to tallymen (Yes/No campaigners and people of various political parties) to show that they are properly sealed. If they were all to conspire to fixing the election or referendum, it would be one big secret considering the amount of polling clerks, gardai, the returning officer and those for/against the particular vote.

For years, online keyboard warriors keep saying “We voted X and so did everyone else, but we got Y”. Perhaps they did go that way, but that’s not a representative sample of the whole Irish electorate. Hence why we have exit polls from all forms of national media which is usually accurate and they have polls in the leadup to the vote. Everyone I knew who voted, voted Yes (bar one who said all the child needs to do is complain about their parents and the child is immediately removed) but I didn’t say “Sure, twill be a Yes vote then” as a result. How do I know what Dublin or Cork are voting? Or someone else in my town? I don’t. They could all be voting No, or not Voting at all.

Also remember that the Government have absolutely nothing to do on an individual case by case basis in terms of looking after the children. It clearly shows the amount of uneducated who are stupid enough to think the Government parties make all the choices for where kids go.

Why exactly do you go by children’s charities? They don’t have any particular legal knowledge that makes them worth listening to. Their opinion was based on the same false information everyone else got. The law was already sufficient to protect children. It just wasn’t implemented by the HSE. This referendum has changed nothing at all in regard to protecting children.

Sean, anyone working with children has to be qualified or informed about child protection laws.

I don’t ‘go’ by anybody I was influenced by children’s charities is what i said. I could of easily been influenced by waters & co but I found their argument was full of bullshit & scaremongering in my opinion.

Well Susan, you’d think they’d have known that this ammendment has changed nothing in that regard and the problem was with the implementation of existing law.

@sean. This amendment was never going to change anything only the constitution. It lays down a framework whereby existing or new legislation is modified or guided. This will take years to enact at the speed these people go! i voted yes because this was about children and not political ego – I wish these people would come up with solutions rather than rubbish arguments. Ps. I understood that the retracted data published by the government was not false but bias to the yes vote.

This is why I voted no.. Amazing how many people who have worked in the system voted No. http://www.indymedia.ie/article/102657

I’m not sure that children’s charities are the voices who should be given so much weight on this at all.

We were a foster family in our teens – I was witness to no interaction between our family (including foster siblings) and children’s charities.

Generally, children’s charities see an aspect of where help is needed – that does not to extend to experience within the home.

Votes are stored too, in boxes that get damp, moisture can damage and smear an ink mark, but a pencil mark will remain grand n the damp, bookies used them up recently for same reason, & autographs, they worth more in pencil, amazing item now that I think of it..

i voted Saturday so why should my effort be voided simply because the other 70% didn’t show up, everyone had an opportunity to voice their opinion.

If people didn’t vote and the result wasn’t as they wanted, tough. It’s a democracy, the decision isn’t made by the people, it’s made by the people who show up.

Let them challenge the result. But let them pay for it themselves.

I voted. But I agree how the hell can 58% of a pathetic 33.5% turn out manage to change the constitution of our country.

Ironically Peter, because of the constitution!

There is no minimum requirment for turnout in our Constitution, probably because the framers of it assumed that people would do their civic duty when it comes to voting. Low turnout can not be used as grounds for overturning the decision. We’ve had referenda with lower turnouts that this.

Perhaps we need to have a referendum to include a minimum threshold clause into the Constitution! It definitely should be considered by the Constitutional Convention. That being said I wouldn’t like to set such a threshold too high because it discriminates against those who do turn out on the day.

The Government information campaign is a more likely ground for a challenge but I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court would accept that over 75,000 people or so would have changed their minds because of it.
We will have to wait and see the full judgement but I would have thought that if the Supreme Court had been of the opinion that the Government’s campaign could materially affect the outcome they would have stopped the referendum from taking place. It would be a very big decision for the Supreme Court to overturn a democratic decision made by the voters.

However if there is one lesson for the Government to be learned then it is that they should stay out of promoting referenda. Let the Referendum Commission explain it and let individual political parties and organisations campaign for and against it. That way such issue won’t arise again.

@reg @Jim. I agree with ye. It just sickens me that it’s allowed on such a small turnout. IMO (I know I’m kidding myself) but a 90% turnout with a 75% majority would satisfy me, especially on the subject of changing our constitution.

or maybe people didnt give a shite because it wasnt going to affect hospitals pensions or social welfare payments…. im all right jack mentallity…

Basic principle of the Hanafin v Minister for the Environment was that Hanafin failed to prove that the government’s bias materially affected the results of the referendum. Sure it was an interference but the bar for proving that voters were affected is high as otherwise it’s effectively saying that voters are either stupid, easily misled or don’t bother looking at differing viewpoints on the issues.
Given the advent of the internet since 1996 when Hanafin was decided, I’d say the bar is even higher nowadays.

Feel free to disagree with me but based on my understanding of constitutional law, a legal challenge is likely to fail.

Do it then. Why wait for others to do it on your behalf if you feel so strongly about it?

Just to be clear, are all the No voters “far Right loons”, with a capital “R”, or just those who took to the airwaves to explain why?

@Desmond there has been no attempt to overturn the descision as yet,unless you know something no else does.Lastly unless that picture is false aren’t you a bit on the mature side for name calling.My 12 year old knows its wrong to do it.

Alex,
They are loons because their arguments were paranoid falsehoods.

@Alex, as you said “just to be clear” … the only person threatening a legal challenge so far is Sinnott … and far Right loon is a pretty acurate description of her. My point is that she can make any challenge she wishes, but the taxpayer should not be asked to pay for her indulgence.

So does that make all the political parties advocating a yes vote far left loons?!
Mind = blown!

Desmond, you do remember that the govt (pushing a yes vote) spent €1.1m in taxpayers money in an exercise which mislead them!?

@Tomy .. answer to first question “No”. Answer to second question, “Yes”. In any event, the government’s website/leaflet error does not come anywhere near constituting sufficient grounds to overturn the exercise by the people of their sovereign right “in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.” (Art. 6). Anyone who chooses to launch a challenge to this exercise of our Article 6 rights should be made stand the cost of that challenge. The taxpayer is not a piggybank for any Right-wing loon to launch no-hope legal challenges.

If it is a no-hope challenge then it’s just stupidity. However, if there is grounds, I have no problem with the challenge.

In any event, forgive me if I don’t take your word for it with respect to regarding it as no-hope.

….these people of will, I’ve heard of them, AKA keyboard commando(e)s(nts) or the armchair patriots, they will a lot, same with the spoken crew, the talk a lot, doncha think?

Look now, be realistic – more than 60% of the electorate is not in Australia or anywhere else. Stop making excuses for people.

Some people are exercising their right to NOT vote but let’s be honest, a lot of people simply didn’t bother.

No