1 Low turnout
At 33.5 per cent, the turnout was the third lowest on record and similar to that of the Nice I referendum in 2001, where that treaty was rejected by voters on a low turnout.
There is a strong view among some political scientists, and backed by research conducted by Richard Sinnott of UCD into the Nice treaty, that the proportion of No voters in a low turnout is higher than when voting levels are higher.
According to Dr Theresa Reidy of UCC’s department of politics, there is a core group that votes No that does not vary much. She said the “variable voters” tends to be the “soft yes” voters who don’t vote when they feel they are insufficiently informed or are not motivated enough to do so.
“The lesson is if there is not a very intense campaign and a significant effort made to engage voters, people will not vote, or vote for the status quo.”
Saturday voting may have added to the low turnout.
2 Information deficit
The vox-pop interviews with the public over the weekend were extraordinarily consistent – most people, when asked, said they were confused as to the purpose and effect of the amendment.
The current holding position for working with the McKenna judgment is “just not satisfactory”, according to Prof David Farrell of UCD.
“Some serious and fundamental rethinking is needed.”
He says a much stronger information campaign is needed that reflects the arguments on both sides.
The recent UK referendum on the AV system of voting provided a useful template. Funds were made available to umbrella groups who applied.
It made a huge difference.
3 Referendum Commission
Accordito Reidy: “The Referendum Commission is only allowed to inform people about what is contained. Its information is dry and legalistic. Even when the commission set out the Yes and No arguments in the past, it was anodyne and legalistic.
For Reidy, one of the difficulties with the operation of McKenna is that the political parties and civil society groups get no money.
“It limits their ability to engage with the electorate,”she says.
Like Farrell, she says that even when the commission set out the Yes and No arguments, it was not sufficient. “People want to know if the view is coming from a party or a church or a civil society group or trade union. That was absent.”
She says the temporary status of each referendum commission adds insult to injury as it is only up and running a matter of weeks before the poll.
4 Urban working class and Donegal
The two Donegal constituencies and Dublin North West all had No majorities.
Donegal has voted against the national trend in most recent referendums.
This time round it voted No, despite Sinn Féin advocating a Yes vote. Also in many working-class constituencies, the result was finely balanced.
Says Farrell:“Research by Richard Sinnott throughout the 1990s consistently showed a divide between urban working-class and middle-class areas, and between rural areas and city areas.
Labour’s Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton said some families in working-class areas expressed fears about “excessive zeal” on the part of social workers, and that was a factor.
5 The No campaign
The No Campaign had an effect on two, seemingly contradictory, fronts. The first is that the overwhelming support from politicians and civic groups led to a lack of engagement and debate – and consequently a lack of understanding and interest. Then in the latter stage of the campaign a small number of No spokespeople – particularly columnist John Waters and Kathy Sinnott – were prominent and may have brought an influence to bear.
6 The Supreme Court decision
It occurred very late in the campaign. But its finding that the Government’s €1 million information campaign was unconstitutional was covered extensively in the media and could have swayed some voters.
According to Farrell, the extent of that is impossible to gauge.
7 A curse on all their houses
A lot of people who vote No are doing so because they want to send a message to the government of the day, says Farrell.
