The analysis of the referendum’s outcomes has been reinvigorated following the release of the Electoral Commission’s exit poll. Many shared the perception that the referendum’s explicit intentions and phrasing were obscured, that individuals with disabilities were condescended and sidelined, and that the Government entirely mishandled the process. The majority of the No vote appears to be a logical response to these concerns.
Moreover, the ongoing suggestion that we should gloss over these issues without further examination is strikingly noticeable. Particularly notable is the disparity in the No vote among self-proclaimed Sinn Féin/Independent voters in comparison to other political affiliations. Over two-thirds of potential Sinn Féin electors rejected both referendums — a figure only outperformed by Independents. To put that in context, the next highest party No was from Fianna Fáil, with 53 per cent.
Consequently, if a mere 43 per cent of No voters expressed dissatisfaction with the questions’ ambiguity or lack of detail, where does the rest of this overwhelming opposition from Sinn Féin and Independent backers originate? Could it have been a vote formed out of protest? Apparently not, given that accounted for only 7 per cent.
It could be seen as positive or negative, given that over half of voters claimed a moderate comprehension of the concerned issues. Still, this perception was contradicted when voters were given a true or false question: “Does the family amendment provide all family forms with the same Constitutional rights and protections?” Over 90 per cent of the Yes side but just 59 per cent of the No side answered truthfully (as per the commission’s stance). This sizable difference caused by a basic true or false question warrants in-depth exploring.
A significant number of voters felt there was “no need for change” or that they “didn’t agree with [the proposals],” ranking these sentiments amongst the top three reasons for voting No. On the other hand, popular campaign topics like the concept of a “durable relationship” and the proposal to remove the woman/mother from the Constitution seemed to attract little concern in the end.
Recollect the lavish display of billboards endorsed by Senator Sharon Keogan bearing statements like “Don’t Cancel Women” and “Don’t Force Mothers Out to Work”. These were graciously labelled as “factual misrepresentations” of the purported plans by the Electoral Commission. We are aware that the efforts of Keogan and her team were successful. This is evident as a significant one-third of the No voters admitted to believing the incorrect assertion that any alterations would annihilate the representation of women from the constitution. A mere six per cent of such voters claimed their decision was made in the interest of preserving the positions of mothers/women, with only five per cent attributing their decision to ambiguity surrounding enduring relationships.
The commission gathered similar evidence exploring women’s role in the workforce and men’s domestic responsibilities. Over a third of those who voted ‘No’ felt that the harmony of family life was disrupted if a woman worked full-time, attesting to 12–13% more than the voters who endorsed ‘Yes’. Conversely, an overwhelming 90% from all sides concurred that men should share equal responsibility with women in matters of home and children.
Moving on to the question raised by the commission about immigrants and whether their presence benefitted the economy of Ireland, we see some hopeful signs. While the ‘No’ voters were 20% behind the ‘Yes’ voters, nearly 58% of them concurred that immigrants were positive for the economy, linking directly to our persistently undermanned hospitals, care homes, retail and hospitality sectors.
While it appears the voters gathered information primarily from trustworthy sources such as television/radio (83%), newspapers and news sites (69%) along with the commission itself (67%), it was also evident that a large percentage depended on social media (50%) and online video sites (41%) for information.
This indicates an acceptance of conspiracy theories, with a considerable one-third of the respondents assuming that a small secretive group holds sway over all influential political decisions globally, while an additional 20% were uncertain. This revelation challenges a general complacency, hinting that the commission may need to devise stronger methods to tackle campaigning groups that spread deliberate distortions or untruths.
The poll issued a stark warning that the Leinster House bubble is not unique. Data from the survey indicated an underreported No vote across all territories, attributed to a significant “shy” No vote. This was because those voting No were more inclined to avoid the survey than their Yes counterparts, leading to the conclusion that the percentage of No votes may have been higher than shown in the reported vote statistics and attitudes. Moreover, the fact that only 1.5 million out of a potential 3.5 million voters turned out, underlines additional complexities in understanding the full picture. Quite a task for the market researchers, indeed.