On Friday 24 October, Ireland went to the polls to elect a new president. The Irish constitution requires anyone wishing to contest the election to either receive 20 members of the Oireachtas (the Irish Parliament), or the endorsement of four county or city councils. Alternatively, a former president who has only served one term can nominate themselves. By the time that nominations closed, three candidates had made it onto the ballot – Catherine Connolly (nominated by several left-wing parties and independents), Jim Gavin (nominated by Fianna Fáil), and Heather Humphries (nominated by Fine Gael).
This in itself caused some consternation as another prospective candidate, Maria Steen, had sought the endorsement of 20 parliamentarians but fell two short. Steen represented a more socially conservative position than the other candidates, and her failure to make it on to the ballot was viewed by some as an attempt to silence dissenting voices on issues such as immigration.
The three-horse race effectively became a two-horse one when Jim Gavin announced he was withdrawing from the contest after revelations emerged that he had failed to pay back money to a former tenant (who happened to be a senior journalist). However, as the deadline for nominations had passed, Gavin remained on the ballot.
Once polls had closed and the counting began – two things became immediately clear: Catherine Connolly was going to win on the first count (she won 63.4% of first preferences), and a significant number of people had spoilt their ballots. In total, 213,738 spoilt ballots were counted, amounting to 12.9% of votes cast. That was more than double the number of votes cast for Jim Gavin (103,568). For context, the % of spoilt votes in past three presidential elections was: 1.2% in 2018, 1.0% in 2011, and 0.7% in 1997.
It is also a significant increase on the number of spoilt votes at the last general election in Ireland in 2024, when just 0.7% of votes were spoilt. In the UK, number of spoilt votes at the last general election was 0.4%
Political commentators observed that many of the spoilt ballots had messages written on them. Some of these pertained to immigration, whilst others had Maria Steen’s name on them as if she was a ‘write in’ candidate. Whilst these votes clearly do not count towards the outcome of the election, they are an effective way that voters can express their dissatisfaction with the political system, whether that is with the nomination process for presidential candidates, or with the government’s policy on a particular issue.
If a voter is prepared to go to the effort of spoiling their vote (rather than just simply not voting), it suggests a certain level of anger or dissatisfaction that it would be remiss of the government to ignore. In that sense, spoiling a ballot may be considered good for democracy, as it can be said to boost engagement with the political process, as well as help to ensure that parties are offering something that appeals to all sections of society. Voters who habitually do not vote are more likely to be ignored by governments (contrast the policy offer parties make to older voters compared to younger voters – pensions v tuition fees). However, if any determination can be made as to who the 12.9% of voters who spoilt their vote were, than there is the possibility to someone in the future may be able to win them over.