Report on Reasons
Behind Voter Behaviour
in the
Oireachtas Inquiry
Referendum 2011
Michael Marsh, Jane Suiter and
Theresa Reidy with RED C
22 February 2012
Main questions
• Why did people vote as they did in the
Oireachtas Inquiry referendum?
• What does the public think about the political
reform agenda to which the government is
committed?
• What lessons can be learned for future votes
on reform?
SQ: status quo
SQ’: new status quo
I: voter’s ideal point
X1, x2: ballot wordings
SQ’
|
SQ
|
I
|
x1
|
x2
|
In order to make a competent and reasoned decision, voters must
decide where the ballot measure and status quo are located and
determine whether the proposition is closer to or farther away from
their ideal point.
They also need to assess whether a rejection of the proposal will
lead to a continuation of the status quo (SQ) or to an entirely new
situation (SQ’)
When little information is available, voters may not know whether the
ballot proposition is located at x1 or x2, or where the status quo
stands or will.
Moreover, voters may not even have explicit preferences….
18
/1
0/
11
19
/1
0/
11
20
/1
0/
11
21
/1
0/
11
22
/1
0/
11
23
/1
0/
11
24
/1
0/
11
25
/1
0/
11
26
/1
0/
11
27
/1
0/
11
Change in Yes vote
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Referendum voting
International research evidence:
– Very common elsewhere in the world to see support
for a yes vote at an early stage which is then eroded
over the campaign
– Explanation for this is essentially that campaign raises
uncertainty about the consequences of the
referendum, leaving people unsure whether the
suggested change will lead to a worse position that
the status quo
– “Never overestimate the information of the electorate, but never
underestimate its intelligence” (US journalist Mark Shields, cited
by Philip Converse Annual review of political science 2000,
reported in Hobolt: 2005).
Quantitative Methodology

1005 interviews were conducted between the 28th to 30th
Nov 2011 among all adults aged 18+, providing a sample
error of + or – 3%.

A random digit dial (RDD) method is used to ensure a random
selection process of households to be included – this also
ensures that ex-directory households are covered.

Half of the sample are interviewed using an RDD landline
sample, with the other half conducted using an RDD mobile
phone sample.

Interviews were conducted across the country and the
results weighted to the profile of all adults.
Qualitative Research - Research Method

4 focus groups were conducted on 1st and 5th
December 2011, by Carol Fanagan of RED C Research.

All had voted in the Referendum on the Oireachtas
Powers of Inquiry on 27th October 2011.

Each group comprised of 10 participants and included
a mix of ‘YES’ and ‘NO’ voters.
Group
Gender
Age
Social class
Location
1
Mixed
18-29
BC1
Dublin
2
Mixed
30-39
C2D
Kilkenny
3
Mixed
40-49
C1C2
Dublin
4
Mixed
50-66
BC1
Kilkenny
The Oireachtas should be able to hold inquiries
into matters of general public interest
but
• WHILE 93 % of those voting yes support
reform for Oireachtas inquiries
• 58% of those voting no also support reform
for Oireachtas inquiries
• Why did latter group vote no?
Three Reasons
• Too big a change
• Too much uncertainty
• Other reasons more important
Lots of signs of low knowledge
Don’t Know%
Why I voted ‘yes’
18*
Why I voted ‘no’
44**
Recall arguments for a ‘yes’ vote (‘yes’ voters) 42
Recall arguments for a ‘yes’ vote (‘no’ voters) 47
Recall arguments for a ‘no’ vote (‘yes’ voters) 50
Recall arguments for a ‘no’ vote (‘no’ voters)42
Recall who argued for a ‘yes’?
50
Recall who argued for a ‘no’?
57
* includes ‘no particular reason’ and ‘did not know what it was about’ as well as ‘don’t know’
** includes ‘did not know what it was about’, ‘not enough information’, ‘only found out on election day’, and ‘no particular reason’
as well as ‘don’t know’.
Levels of Trust in Sources of
Information
High trust (4/5)%
Politicians
9
Information from the internet
11
Media coverage
25
Some Former Attorneys General
27
Referendum Commission
35
Legal experts
37
Responses were on a 5-point scale where 1 was not at all trusted and 5 very trusted.
Partisanship
• The ‘no’ vote was strongest (65%) among those who
said they would vote Fianna Fáil if there were to be
an election tomorrow and weakest among Fine Gael
voters (37%).
• Labour and Sinn Féin supporters were in the middle
(55% and 57% respectively), but still clearly voting
‘no’. Supporters of other parties and independents
also voted ‘no’ by a ratio of two to one.
• The opposition of Fianna Fáil voters is particularly
noteworthy given that Fianna Fáil supported the
amendment, although as we have already seen there
was very little recognition of this among voters.
Usefulness of Various Sources of
Information
Very useful (4/5)%
Referendum Commission’s adverts
14
Referendum Commission’s information booklet 18
Internet
19
Friend/colleagues
22
News articles or stories
28
TV/radio discussion programmes
36
Responses were on a 5-point scale where 1 was not at all useful and 5 very useful.
What Source had the Most Influence?
High influence (4/5)%
Referendum Commission
12
Some Former Attorneys General
23
Political debates and politicians’ views 24
Family and friends, colleagues
27
Specific TV or radio broadcast
29
Media coverage
30
Responses were on a 5-point scale where 1 was not at all influential and 5 very influential.
Expected change in ‘no’ Vote Under
Simulated Conditions (a)
‘no’ vote would change:
Issues
If all favour Oireachtas inquiries
by -23%
Trust
If none trust former AGs
If none trust legal experts
If all trust politicians
If all trust Referendum Commission
by -21%
by -8%
by -22%
by -11%
Expected change in ‘no’ Vote Under
Simulated Conditions (b)
‘no’ vote would change:
Knowledge
If none know former AGs criticised change
If none know limits to Seanad inquiries
If all don’t know ‘no’ arguments
If all feel adequately informed
If all Referendum Commission ads useful
Partisanship
If all would vote FG
by -2%
by -7%
by -10%
by -11%
by -17%
by -17%
Reason 1
• Too big a change?
– A reasonable case: not all against had low
knowledge by any means, and those who knew
about argument made by former AGs and trusted
this source more likely to vote no
Reason 2
• Too much uncertainty?
– the yes vote would have been higher:
• if the electorate had judged itself to be better
informed
• or had found certain sources of information more
useful,
• or if a greater number had trusted the Referendum
Commission
• but those who favoured the principle and voted no,
were less likely to feel they knew enough
Reason 3
• Other unconnected to the substantive issue?
– Some signs of an anti-government vote with FG
supporters much more likely to vote yes [and FF
most likely to vote no]; perhaps a question of trust
in government politicians as much as antigovernment vote
– However, judges’ pay did pass easily
Main questions
• Why did people vote as they did in the
Oireachtas Inquiry referendum?
• What does the public think about the political
reform agenda to which the government is
committed?
• What lessons can be learned for future votes
on reform?
Agreement With Possible Political Reforms
The Oireachtas Power Of Inquiry Referendum
(Base: All Adults 18+)
Almost 3
in 5 of
those who
voted no,
agree.
Agree strongly (7)
The
Oireachtas
should be
able to hold
inquiries into The number
of TDs should
The Seanad matters of
should be general public be
abolished importance significantly
%
reduced
%
%
22
Local
government
should be
given power
to raise and
to manage
their own
finances
%
55
22
33
Agree slightly (5)
Neither (4)
Disagree slightly (3)
Disagree (2)
Disagree strongly (1)
17
8
13
9
10
9
6
3
4
7
8
25
23
9
15
4
32
Same sex
marriage
should be
allowed in
the
Constitution
%
Reference to
women’s life
within the
home should
be removed
from the
Constitution
%
32
38
Agree (6)
The offence
of blasphemy
should be
removed
from the
Constitution
%
The voting
system PRThe terms of STV (Single
the President Transferable
Vote)
should be
reduced from electoral
7 to 5 years system
should be
%
replaced
%
14
6
22
19
11
16
6
12
15
7
13
21
31
11
3
6
7
11
10
25
24
6
18
5
12
13
21
8
7
10
16
8
12
5
18
8
20
15
26
Mean Score
4.88
5.11
6.04
4.56
4.54
5.18
4.46
4.39
High agreement with reducing the number of TD’s, as well as the Oireachtas should be able to
hold inquiries into matters of general public importance - 3 i 5 of those who had voted no, are
actually in agreement with this.
3.45
(Q 16)
Reform
Reform:
% agree
(5/7)
The number of TDs should be significantly reduced
87%
The Oireachtas should be able to hold inquiries into matters of general public importance 75%
Same sex marriages should be allowed in the Constitution
73%
Local government should be given power to raise and to manage their own finances
62%
The Seanad should be abolished
59%
The terms of the Presidency should be reduced from 7 years to 5
54%
The offence of blasphemy should be removed from the Constitution
53%
References to women's life within the home should be removed from the Constitution 51%
The voting system PR-STV (Single Transferable Vote) electoral system should be replaced
34%
• Is there a body of opinion that is pro-reform?
• What about a Constitutional Convention?
No sign of pro reform voters
• No sign of any general disposition to reform, or against
it. Slight tendency for those who favour abolition of
Seanad to favour reduction of TDs, and also for those
who favour same sex marriage to be keen to remove
offence of blasphemy from constitution and place of
women in constitution but tendency is slight.
• No generally strong tendency of yes or no voters to
support reforms but No voters slightly less likely to
favour abolishing the Seanad or increasing power of LG
but more likely to favour removal of offence of
blasphemy.
Preference Of Possible Make-up Of The Constitutional Convention
(Base: All Adults 18+)
Totally
Made up of
politicians
123 4
2 13 5
Totally made
up of general
public
Mean
5.99
5
6
41
11%
15
72%
7
15
8
8
9 10
2 8
18%
(Q 17)
Don’t Know?
Main questions
• Why did people vote as they did in the
Oireachtas Inquiry referendum?
• What does the public think about the political
reform agenda to which the government is
committed?
• What lessons can be learned for future votes
on reform?
Broad Campaign Advice
• In low salience referendums, the campaign matters!
The public information campaign is a critical
component.
• Timing is vital, a rushed referendum increases voter
suspicions of the motivations for the change. A
perception of haste does not generate confidence.
• Campaign should make use of direct and indirect
campaign methods.
• Trust is crucial!
Direct Campaigning
Indirect Campaigning
• Canvassing – political
parties are agents of
political education
• Trust in local versus
national political figures
• Involve “others” outside
political system
• Posters are useful in
alerting
• Greater diversity in
campaign pamphlets and
literature
• Role for political
parties and civil society
• Target "soft" news
• Local and national talk
radio
• Press – local and
national (emphasis on
tabloid press)
• Online Sources –
websites, social media
campaigns, blogs.
The Referendum Commission
Tightly specified legislative framework but consideration
might be given to:
1. Targeting a wider set of campaign communication
avenues: it should pay especial attention to
communicating with generally less well-informed
voters.
2. Literature must strike a balance between clarity,
simplicity and the requirement to address complex
and comprehensive information.
3. The composition and design of the Commission
could be given some attention.
Quantitative conclusions
• Voters in support of Oireachtas inquiries in principle.
• There was a very low level of awareness of the debate
• However, there is a clear association between trust in legal
experts and some former Attorneys General and voting ‘no’,
as there was between knowing these made a case for a ‘no’
vote and voting ‘no’.
• Partisanship mattered with the particular support for 'yes'
among Fine Gael voters.
• Evidence suggests that the ‘yes’ side was unable to mobilise
those who should have been in favour.
• But there is also support for the suggestion that for some
voters this was a bigger change than they could accept.
Qualitative Conclusions
• More information should be provided through
a wider diversity of media;
• More information should be provided from a
wider variety of sources and personnel; and
• The campaign should be developed over a
longer period of time.