IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucd/wpaper/201521.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding the 2015 Marriage Referendum in Ireland: Constitutional Convention, Campaign, and Conservative Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • Johan A. Elkink

    (School of Politics and International Relations and Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin)

  • David M. Farrell

    (School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin)

  • Theresa Reidy

    (Department of Government, University College Cork)

  • Jane Suiter

    (Institute for Future Media and Journalism, School of Communications, Dublin City University)

Abstract

On 22 May 2015 the marriage referendum proposal was passed by a large majority of Irish voters and the definition of marriage in the constitution was broadened to introduce marriage equality. This referendum is remarkable for a number of reasons: (1) it is uniquely based on an experiment in deliberative democracy; (2) the referendum campaign was unusually vigorous and active; and (3) the voting patterns at the referendum point to a significant value shift along the deep seated liberal conservative political cleavage of Irish politics. This article provides an overview of the background to the referendum initiative, the campaign prior to the referendum, and the key factors that drove voter turnout and preference. Based on a post-referendum survey, we find that while support for the government of the day, political knowledge, and social attitudes have the same effects as commonly found in other referendums, the variation among social classes was less prevalent than usual and door-to-door canvassing by the two sides of the campaign impacted through turnout rather than vote preference. The voting behaviour of the different age groups suggests strong generational effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Johan A. Elkink & David M. Farrell & Theresa Reidy & Jane Suiter, 2015. "Understanding the 2015 Marriage Referendum in Ireland: Constitutional Convention, Campaign, and Conservative Ireland," Working Papers 201521, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:201521
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201521.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. MARK FRANKLIN & MICHAEL MARSH & LAUREN McLAREN, 1994. "Uncorking the Bottle: Popular Opposition to European Unification in the Wake of Maastricht," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 455-472, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pierre-Guillaume Meon, 2009. "Voting and turning out for monetary integration: the case of the French referendum on the Maastricht treaty," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(18), pages 2369-2384.
    2. Catherine E. De Vries, 2017. "Benchmarking Brexit: How the British Decision to Leave Shapes EU Public Opinion," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55, pages 38-53, September.
    3. Vassilis Tselios & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2020. "Did Decentralisation Affect Citizens’ Perception of the European Union? The Impact during the Height of Decentralisation in Europe," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, May.
    4. Noah Carl & James Dennison & Geoffrey Evans, 2019. "European but not European enough: An explanation for Brexit," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 282-304, June.
    5. Bert N Bakker & Claes H de Vreese, 2016. "Personality and European Union attitudes: Relationships across European Union attitude dimensions," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 25-45, March.
    6. Nicola Pensiero, 2020. "To leave or not to leave? Understanding the support for the United Kingdom membership in the European Union: Identity, attitudes towards the political system and socio-economic status," Rationality and Society, , vol. 32(3), pages 255-277, August.
    7. Richard Hyman, 2010. "Trade Unions and ‘Europe’: Are the Members out of Step?," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 14, European Institute, LSE.
    8. Tridimas, George, 2007. "Ratification through referendum or parliamentary vote: When to call a non-required referendum?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 674-692, September.
    9. John Curtice, 2017. "Why Leave Won the UK's EU Referendum," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55, pages 19-37, September.
    10. Christoph Mikulaschek, 2023. "The responsive public: How European Union decisions shape public opinion on salient policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 645-665, December.
    11. Florian Stoeckel, 2013. "Ambivalent or indifferent? Reconsidering the structure of EU public opinion," European Union Politics, , vol. 14(1), pages 23-45, March.
    12. Netjes, Catherine E. & Edwards, Erica, 2005. "Taking Europe to its extremes: Examining cueing effects of right-wing populist parties on public opinion regarding European integration," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Democracy and Democratization SP IV 2005-202, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Julie Hassing Nielsen, 2016. "Personality and Euroscepticism: The Impact of Personality on Attitudes Towards the EU," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1175-1198, September.
    14. Frank Mols & Jolanda Jetten & S. Alexander Haslam, 2009. "EU Identification and Endorsement in Context: The Importance of Regional Identity Salience," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 601-623, June.
    15. Lisbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2005. "The Neofunctionalists Were (almost) Right: Politicization and European Integration," The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0024, University of Hamburg, Faculty for Economics and Social Sciences, Department of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Science.
    16. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2005. "Calculation, Community and Cues," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(4), pages 419-443, December.
    17. Robert Rohrschneider & Stephen Whitefield, 2016. "Responding to growing European Union-skepticism? The stances of political parties toward European integration in Western and Eastern Europe following the financial crisis," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 138-161, March.
    18. Frank Mols & Jolanda Jetten & S. Alexander Haslam, 2009. "EU Identification and Endorsement in Context: The Importance of Regional Identity Salience," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 601-623, June.
    19. Richard Haesly, 2001. "Euroskeptics, Europhiles and Instrumental Europeans," European Union Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 81-102, February.
    20. Cosmina Tanasoiu & Constantin Colonescu, 2008. "Determinants of Support for European Integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 363-377, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    political campaigns; electoral behaviour; referendums; constitutional convention; marriage equality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:201521. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Geary Tech (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/geucdie.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.