Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The recent Seanad referendum showed that people could be confused very easily by the way in which ballot papers were presented. The survey showed that 13% of those who had voted "Yes" to abolish the Seanad had thought they were voting to retain it. A total of 6% of those who had voted "No" said they wanted to abolish it. One could argue flippantly that such errors were balanced out, but there is a case to be made for ensuring clarity in any proposal put. This could be achieved by including in the ballot paper an explanation of the purpose of the referendum. I suggest the Seanad referendum ballot paper could have included the simple question: "Do you want to abolish the Seanad?" The Taoiseach commented after the referendum that the question on the ballot paper had caused confusion among voters.

I am not convinced that the layout of the ballot paper was responsible for the number of spoiled votes at 14,255. Presumably, most of these votes were spoiled by placing an "X" in the two boxes. However, it is difficult to explain why anyone would do this in a referendum where the choice is between "Yes" and "No". A minority of the spoiled votes included personal insults against candidates or their families or other forms of abuse. I have heard about a ballot paper on which were drawn pictures of characters from "The Simpsons", but I am unsure how one would decide whether a preference had been expressed between, for example, Mayor Quimby or Mayor Moe. However, that is another day's work.

I refer to the total of 45,424 spoiled votes in the European Parliament elections last May, a very significant number, and 19,400 in the local elections, which seem to indicate that the layout of the referendum ballot paper was not the main factor in the number of spoiled votes in that case. The proportion of spoiled votes in the Seanad referendum was 1.16% compared to 1.14% in the local elections; they are almost identical. The anomaly is the much higher proportion of spoiled votes in the European Parliament elections, 2.7%, even though the number of votes cast was only 50,000 fewer than in the local elections. It could be the case that people do not treat the European Parliament elections as seriously as other elections. I am interested in knowing the contributory factors, given that thousands were quite capable of filling in properly the ballot papers for the local elections but not the European Parliament elections. It could be assumed that in the case of the latter the spoiled votes were, in the main, deliberate.

There is a case to be made for a change in the layout of the ballot paper, given that it has remained the same since 1963. I suggest the proposition be printed on the ballot paper rather than citing the relevant section of the Bill. I commend the positive decision taken ten years ago to put candidates' photographs on the ballot paper. It was a great idea and has been of assistance.

The higher than average number of spoiled votes in referendums is significant. A random sample of referendums such as the Lisbon One and Lisbon Two referendums, the 2002 referendum on the protection of life and the divorce referendum in 1997, shows that the level of spoiled ballots ranged from between 0.33% to 0.53%. The only referendum in which there was a higher number of spoiled votes was the one on judges, when the number was 2.11%. I suggest the layout of that ballot paper should be examined to see what changes are needed. There is merit in the suggestion that ballot papers be proofed.

The report refers to extensive research on the wording used carried out in Scotland prior to the recent referendum on Scottish independence. I refer to the question which was simple and to the point: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" This is preferable to quoting sections of a Bill. It is better to put a straight question. It is difficult to imagine how such a direct question could be confusing for any voter. The number of spoiled votes in the Scottish referendum was lower than 0.09%, not even 0.1%. This evidence supports my proposition that the question on the ballot paper be phrased in a similar manner. I suggest a question such as: "Should the Seanad be abolished?" This would require legislative change.

I support Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh's proposal that there be a permanent electoral commission, which proposal was approved by the committee, with a remit covering how information is distributed and other election issues. I believe the Government has plans in that regard. The Constitutional Convention also dealt with the matter. The way forward is to have an independent commission to deal with all electoral matters.

I reiterate that having a simple, straightforward question on the ballot paper is preferable. Members exist in a bubble in that we are familiar with legislation and legislative language, but members of the public prefer to be asked straight questions. These matters need to be reviewed because of the decline in the numbers voting in referendums and elections, which is a concern.

Other speakers referred to the need to engage young people in the democratic process. A number of referendums are planned for next year. I propose that everyone over the age of 16 years be given the right to vote in future referendums and elections.

See this speech in context