How to lose a referendum (in Ireland) – challenges of practical and symbolic constitutional change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ireland has, in the past decade, been held up as a rare example of relatively successful practice of constitutional change referendums. The Irish example, featuring major success in referendums on same-sex marriage and abortion, and a novel Citizens’ Assembly (CA) process, suggested positive campaign practices and the development of a healthy ‘referendum culture’. In 2024, two supposedly liberalising referendums that were expected to pass – broadening the definition of the constitutional Family and inserting a constitutional protection of care – instead failed by huge margins in campaigns that had major problems. This possibly suggested a major shift in Irish politics or referendum culture, with a loss of public trust. The proposals, however, were also confusing, poorly drafted and poorly campaigned for, so the reasons for the failures may be more discrete and contained. In this article, I use a detailed account of these referendums as a lens to explore Ireland’s referendum practice and consider four possible challenges to Ireland’s referendum process suggested by these votes: a deep pathological suspicion of vague proposals, a declining information environment, a great difficulty in dealing with symbolic rather than practical changes, and the possible decline of public trust. These potential challenges are not unique to Ireland and are likely to beset referendums around the world. I conclude, however, that it is not clear from the 2024 experience alone that Irish referendum culture is in decline and that only time will tell if this is so. This serves as an apt reminder that a healthy referendum culture is at best a contingent and fragile thing that will always be in the process of change and always have an uncertain future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.036 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".