Paul Hosford: Let's use the number of spoilt votes in Áras election to overhaul our entire political system

We should take the chance to have a proper discussion around all of our political structures and run a consultative process on which parts of the system work and which don't 

It would be foolish to suggest the 213,000 who spoiled their votes were all members of one homogenous movement. Picture: Larry Cummins

The decision of more than 213,000 people to spoil their votes in last week's presidential election has prompted considerable soul-searching.

In the media and on social media, mostly, where commentators grapple with what the vote means. Proponents of the mass spoiling campaign claim it as a shockwave to the Irish political establishment, but at the same time play down the landslide victory of Catherine Connolly.

The logic of that argument goes: if you add the votes of Michael D Higgins and Sinn Féin's Liadh Ní Riada in 2018, it equates to somewhere around the 914,000 first preferences this year, so the left-wing vote hasn't surged at all. 

It's an arguable point, but its most ardent supporters miss the logical follow-on: if the left-wing vote can be read in pure numbers, so too can the anti-government/establishment vote which in 2018 coalesced around Peter Casey's populist and anti-Traveller rhetoric. In 2018, the businessman got 335,000 first preferences.

Even if the spoil campaign claims every one of Jim Gavin's 103,000 votes — and more Sinn Féin voters said they spoiled their ballot than Fianna Fáilers — the anti-establishment vote would be down on 2018, surely?

But it is foolish to suggest every one of the Fianna Fáil candidate's votes was a protest against any one thing, including their own party, just as it would be foolish to suggest the 213,000 who spoiled their votes were all members of one homogenous movement. 

While, contrary to the beliefs of some, there is nothing to suggest Ms Steen would have won the election, but it is clear there was an appetite for her brand of conservatism to be represented on the ballot. Picture: Sam Boal/Collins 

It would be equally foolish to simply turn all of this into a counting exercise and ignore the underlying data or to take what happened last week as simply a left-right argument online.

Luckily, polling company Ireland Thinks carried out an exit poll of those who had spoiled their votes and the resulting data is a fascinating read.

Of those who responded: 

• 50% said their driver was a lack of choice or that they didn't like the candidates; 
• 18% cited an "undemocratic process"; 
• 12% made what was classed as a general spoiled ballot statement; 
• 8% classed themselves as a protest/anti-Government voter; 
• 8% expressed support for a candidate who didn't make it on to the ballot, principally barrister Maria Steen; 
• And 5% said  they acted out of frustration or called the election a "farce".

There are Venn diagrams of those grievances and largely they intersect in some form of dissatisfaction with what was on the ballot. 

Some didn't like Ms Connolly or her opponent Heather Humphreys, while others wanted a specific candidate on the ballot (including 5% who wanted former MMA fighter Conor McGregor), while others were dissatisfied with the entire process, from nominations to votes.

Of those 8% who wanted a named candidate, 68% chose Ms Steen, the barrister whose late push to secure a nomination saw her fall two Oireachtas members short of the 20 required. 

While, contrary to the beliefs of some, there is nothing to suggest Ms Steen would have won the election, but it is clear there was an appetite for her brand of conservatism to be represented on the ballot.

The research makes the point that spoilt vote campaigns are not necessarily new and have been used in other countries, like in France's 2017 presidential election, but does suggest Ireland's experience does point to an opening for some political movement.

As author of the research Kevin Cunningham writes:

"A spoiled ballot at this scale isn’t apathy, it reflects agency without a landing place. The voters doing it here were sufficiently engaged and motivated to turn up merely to be counted. They are clearly more more right-leaning than the electorate overall, and animated by a belief that the field wasn’t genuinely open. 

That doesn’t automatically translate into growth for the radical right, but it does suggest that the time when this type of voter was apathetic is now past. Their rapid convergence on Maria Steen, followed by spoiling their vote, reveals that these voters are in search of a banner to gather under. 

"They are disproportionately male and younger. When these voters are offered a credible option in the future they’ll almost certainly turn up and vote for it."

If we are to have a conversation about the system, it should be had now, seven years before this kicks off again.

But beyond the political ramifications, there is the structural question of whether the nominations process is fit for purpose. To be clear, the system worked entirely as it has in any other election in 2025.

There was no mass conspiracy and it was not illegal or fraudulent. Councillors are empowered to nominate, as are Oireachtas members. Under the current rules, they did just that. There is absolutely no logic to suggesting Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael should have nominated a political opponent (though one wonders if Ms Humphreys might have been helped by Ms Steen in the field, with conservative transfers flowing back).

But if we are to have a conversation about the system, it should be had now, seven years before this kicks off again. And, while we're at it, let's discuss all of our political system. If we're going to need a referendum, let's make sure we're doing the kind of generational overhaul that is so often needed. 

For example, right now the country is required to have one TD per 30,000 people. Population growth suggests that could mean more than 200 TDs in the near future. Many of those TDs are expected to form a government, but the constitution limits the number of senior ministers to 15, which has led to ministers taking on word salad briefs in recent years.

In the wake of the nominations row, Independent Ireland proposed a bill which would see the requirement of 20 Oireachtas members updated to reflect Ireland’s EU membership. Under that legislation, nominations would instead require the support of 20 members drawn from the combined pool of 174 TDs, 60 senators, and 14 MEPs.

The logic here is that 20 votes would equate to 8.5% of the total. In line with the same principle of proportionality, presidential hopefuls would be able to secure a nomination with the backing of 80 individual councillors from across the country, rather resolutions from four individual councils.

This would, in theory, keep the bar high to enable the presidency to be a serious office and a constitutional brake, but would ensure more minority voices could be heard. In the wake of the election results, both Taoiseach Micheál Martin and Tánaiste Simon Harris indicated they would be in favour of some discussion around the process, but if we're going to do that, we should take the chance to have a proper discussion around all of our political structures.

Run a consultative process on which parts of the system work and which don't and run a referendum aimed at updating those that need it. Don't simply pay lip service to that cohort who spoiled their votes because you think they might vote for you in the future.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

A discussion on the nominations process was necessary in the run-up to this year's election, but it had to be had at the turn of the decade and it had to encompass more than just a route to the Áras.

We can look at last week's results and write them off, or we can use the impetus to finally address parts of our political system which have for too long been off limits politically.