Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A House DividedThis article was first published on 23 October 2011 but given today’s multiple votes, we decided to revisit the issue.
WHENEVER THE PUBLIC is asked to cast its vote on matters of policy – or, more commonly in Ireland, on a constitutional referendum – we happily refer to the poll as a referendum.
Whenever there are two of those ballots happening at the same time, however, the public seems to divide on matters beyond the mere items being voted upon.
It’s a debate which keeps coming up, time and time again – so just what, exactly, is the plural of ‘referendum’?
First of all it’s important to go back and discuss the original origin of the word. ‘Referendum’ is derived from Latin – specifically the verb ‘referre’, meaning ‘to refer’.
The problem with the plural is that the ten-letter word we use now was never actually used in older times – the word preferred in previous eras was ‘plebiscite’, based on the Latin ‘plebescita’.
This word is derived from the old Roman-era word ‘plebeian’, meaning ‘commoner’. The word was originally used to refer to votes of the Concilium Plebis, which was essentially the Roman-era parliament.
It was only in the mid-19th century that the word ‘referendum’, as a derivation (the ‘gerund’) of the verb ‘referre’, began to be used by Anglophones. A gerund is the -ing form of a verb – so the best English translation would be ‘referral’ – as in, the ‘referral’ (or ‘referring’) of a certain matter to the public for their vote.
But the absence of any historical precedent isn’t the only hindrance in trying to figure out the plural. There’s also the fact that in Latin, there simply isn’t a plural form of a gerund. Think of English – you wouldn’t talk about the ‘referrings’ of bills to a court or to the public, you would only speak about the ‘referring’ – the idea being that there is only one idea, one notion, of referring a matter from A to B.
That’s what leaves us with a grammatical vacuum as far as this goes. The debate then rests on whether a modern English-speaking society should treat the word like the modern invention that it is – and to pluralise it as if it was a standard English word – or whether to modulate Latin plurals to suit the word’s original origin.
And, frustratingly, this is where things begin to get even more complicated. The choice between English and Latin plurals is muddled by the very nature of the ballots themselves – as in, whatever matters are being voted on.
Because there isn’t a plural gerund in Latin, the two different options for pluralisation have an actual impact on the meaning of the word itself.
If ‘referendum’ means ‘referral’, then ‘referendums’ – by its inherent definition – pluralises the actual act of voting, according to the Oxford English Dictionary anyway. Using ‘referendums’, therefore, implies having several ballots on a single issue.
The alternative – the attempt to pluralise a Latin word that can’t be pluralised, turning it into ‘referenda’ (just like ‘memoranda’) – implies the other option: the idea of having separate ‘referrals’, i.e. for separate measures.
So, going by the Oxford school: ‘referendums’ means separate votes on a single (or perhaps related) issues, while ‘referenda’ means votes on separate issues.
And this is where some user discretion comes in. For our current circumstances – the two plebiscites being put to the public on Thursday – we have two ballots, on defined and individual issues.
But while the outcome of the vote on judges’ pay will not have any sway on the outcome of the one on Oireachtas inquiries, there’s always the argument that the two are related because they both deal with proposed amendments to the same document – Bunreacht na hÉireann, the Constitution of Ireland.
So – ‘referendums’ or ‘referenda’? As it turns out, it’s all really just a matter of preference.
Which is your preference?
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Who’s more dishonest?
Prisoners or the ones they’d be voting for?
It seams like prisoners have more rights than their victims
If you read the judgement, the ECHR (not the Court of Justice in Europe, by the way) objects to a blanket ban on all prisoners voting. They agree, in principle, that some prisoners can be banned, but not all. So I’m not sure how you’re arguing that a mugger has more voting rights than the victim or a drug dealer has more voting rights than a drug user.
They’ll have more voting rights than everyone who’s been forced to emigrate. Commit a murder and you get to be involved in shaping a government?! Enforced emigrants can’t vote from abroad so can’t help reshape the government that caused their exodus. Something’s wrong with that picture.
If you read the judgement, you would have noted they don’t say it has to be extended to murderers, simply that a blanket ban against all prisoners is disproportionate. What about those serving minor sentences?
I think it would be really interesting for Irish emigrants to take a case to the ECHR, however. It’d be a good case with these precedents.
Even more reason to leave the EU
The EU and the European Convention of Human Rights are two separate organisations.
Nick, EU Membership requires accession to the ECHR.
Do you think he was referencing that distinction or that he had confused the two? I’m betting on the latter….
I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You’re clearly less cynical than I am. :-) Regardless, I do think there’s a lack of understanding of the distinctions between the two and it’s important that when we’re talking about it, that it’s clearly pointed out what the ECHR does and what the Court of Justice of Europe does.
How far can the ECHR go in interfering with the way countries are run?
Surely suffrage is a constitutional matter.
I don’t believe that prisoners voting is mentioned in the Italian constitution (certainly not in the UK). I heard the arguments being made on behalf of the prisoners and it was quite compelling – the idea that when politicians (not constitutions) define who should be able to vote, it’s a dangerous concept of democracy.
Suffrage is generally granted by the state. Should it be imposed from above?
And the UK doesn’t have a written consitution it has a history through law.
It seems it comes down to how much you believe that voting is a human right and how much you think it should be a sovereign matter. Considering that voting has typically been denied to women and minorities in a lot of states, I view it as a basic human right (of course, I’m in the minority that believes children should be able to vote, so I doubt I’m representative of the whole populace).
If you perceive voting as a basic human right, this judgement makes a lot of sense. You don’t seem to view it as a right, but as something which states can legitimately deny portions of the population.
Sorry, I’ve been agog since I read that you want kids to vote.
They can’t decide whether they want sausages or fish fingers for dinner but you want them to elect governments.
Mad. As.
I believe in pure democracy. But I don’t think they can do worse than some other voters in Europe!
Diluting the franchise doesn’t strengthen it, unless you believe in homeopathy.
I don’t know what that comparison is about, but if you argue that you believe in universal suffrage, there should be no exceptions. But then we’ve already established you believe governments should be able to take the vote away from people without any form of oversight.
I also would love to live in a society governed by pure democracy but could only ever work if everyone was informed on what they have the power to vote on, take for example some people I’ve meet recently who plan on voting yes, they can only reiterate what the TV told them about “stability” and future bailouts. They hadn’t the foggiest clue what I was on about when I mentioned my concerns and skepticism over certain articles of the treaty or our relation to the ESM if we ratify it what it means to vote Yes and our then commitments, they switch off and say “ah but shure the Gov. are looking for a yes so we can get more money and the no are a bunch of shinners and out from the fringes as usual”
These people who wont go to the bother of looking into what they been asked to make an informed decision and vote on are dangerous, and a sad byproduct of democracy led by laziness and persuasion when they will vote the way they are told if its repeated enough times and made sound the safer option between the ads for Eurovision.
Even though they will not question the accuracy or merits of what they are taking as positive points.
This can be said for people who vote the other way also mind, but since the Gov are pushing these things in a certain direction pure democracy has little chance of achieving its true potential of everyone in society making a valid contribution through their informed decision when real assessments and clear wordings are absent and drowned out with garbage, garjon and scaremongering.
My understanding of an individual being punished for crimes committed means ‘no rights to anything that is happening in the outside world. Did the crime – do the time!
It is in my opinion that if you are in prison for committing a crime you forfeit your right to vote until you are rehabilitated and released!
Next thing you know they’ll expect the jails to let the inmates nip down to their local voting centres, “of course we’ll be back, honest g’vnor.”
Sinn fein will be thrilled!
have your say