There’s no real way to dress this up: Yesterday’s Sunday Business Post/Red C poll on the March 8th referenda was about as bad as you can get at this stage of a campaign, if you’re somebody who is hoping or campaigning for “No” votes on that date.
First, the margin: In both referendums, the “Yes” side has a lead of approaching 3-1, with roughly 60% of people saying they plan to approve the amendments as opposed to 20% or thereabouts who plan to reject them.
Second, the lack of an “enthusiasm” gap: When the poll asked people how likely they were to vote, and excluded those who didn’t seem very likely to vote, the “Yes” lead actually increased by a small amount, rather than shrinking. This seems to suggest that lower turnout, if it materialises, won’t significantly impact the “Yes” vote.
And third, the small number of undecided voters: In both referendums, the Yes side is polling well over 50% and the undecided vote is in the 20s, meaning that if every undecided voter opted for the status quo, and a “No” vote, then it still wouldn’t be enough to overcome the Yes lead. By way of guidance, it’s estimated that somewhere around 70-80% of undecided voters tended to opt for a “no” vote in recent referenda. That wouldn’t be enough, though, if these figures hold.
Now for the case for optimism for the “No” side, which was offered perhaps more ably than I might manage by Richard Colwell, the managing director of Red C and the effective author of the poll, writing in the Business Post:
“Historically, it is only at this stage a couple of weeks out that ordinary voters start to engage with referendums, and the arguments become better established on both sides…. current polling suggests that both referendums will pass, but of course polls measure opinion at a moment in time. So with two weeks to go in the campaign, and with undecided voters possibly more likely to vote No, the result may be potentially closer than the current polling might suggest.”
One thing campaigners tend to forget is that while they are paying close attention to every argument made in a television or radio debate, or online, most voters have barely noticed them. At the time of writing, there are fully 13 days to go until the votes are cast, and it’s reasonable to expect that many voters will make up their minds finally with just a few days to go. The crucial debates, if the polls are to be reversed, will be held in the last ten days or so of the campaign.
In that context, the polling shows that the “No” side has two big hurdles: First, this:
The poll also asked people their views on the constitutional wording around family and care with almost half (48 per cent) of people saying the current wording around a woman’s place in the home was “outdated and undermines Irish women’s role in society.”
One quarter of those polled (25 per cent) said the existing language “does not exclude women and mothers from other roles, and serves to pay tribute to the work done by mothers in the home.”
By almost two to one, voters are of the view that the “women in the home” language is outdated. One might very well deplore outright misinformation such as that from the NWCI and Minister Catherine Martin, both of whom have suggested that the constitution either says women’s place is at home, or that the state has some constitutional duty to oppress women under the current wording. Deploring it, however, is not enough: The YES side is pushing at an open door, with many voters instinctively believing that there’s – not to overcomplicate things – something dodgy about the current wording. This means that the starting position of almost half the electorate is that the women-in-the-home clause should go.
Second, this:
Over half of people (51 per cent) said the referendum on non-marital families enhances the definition of a family and does not weaken traditional marriage, while 24 per cent said it would.
There’s that two-to-one margin again, with over half of voters apparently of the view that we should recognise more types of family in the constitution.
The significance here is that in both referendums, the YES side is starting out with an in-built advantage, which is an electorate that is well-disposed to some sort of change. To put this simply: If the voter is thinking about whether he or she approves of the existing wording in the constitution when they go to vote, then the Yes side will win.
If one was to apply this thinking to the campaign to date, it would tend to suggest that some of the “No” side’s messaging might be ineffective: Think here of slogans like “don’t delete women/mothers from the constitution”. On that proposition, the poll suggests, the “No” side has already lost, with half of voters already wanting to take that step because they agree with the proposition that the current wording is “outdated”.
On the family referendum, criticisms of the “No” side are harder to muster: In both votes, it is clear that the “No” side’s best chance to win is to delegitimise and raise doubts about the proposed new wording, and hope that voters conclude that the change is too risky. In that respect, the focus on the definition of “durable relationships” and its potential implications for inheritance, immigration, and polyamorous relationships are well understood by the voters seems wise.
However, it might also be wise to start alerting voters to the argument that constitutional change is not strictly necessary if the state wishes to recognise more family types. For example, while the present wording recognises the family founded on marriage, it does not actively preclude the legal recognition of other family types. While the “No” side has been effective at highlighting the risks of change, they have not been as effective in undermining the perceived need for change.
Polls, of course, can be wrong. And it remains very likely that at minimum, the final results will be much closer to 50/50 than the current polling suggests. But at the same time, there’s no point avoiding the plain facts: As of now, the “Yes” side is in a very strong position, and it’s incumbent on the “No” side to think carefully about how to reverse that in the time remaining.