The Voice

[Gointocarlton]

I find it interesting that from June 10 to October 15, there was zero discussion on this topic here. Why is that? There are a lot of clever people on this forum and yet. Does it demonstrate the lack of interest on the topic? Or was it a tell that people were afraid to voice (no pun intended) their opinion? As EB has pointed out, I think given cost of living stress people are under, this could not have come at a worse time so perhaps peoples minds were elsewhere.
My wife and I did a fair bit of research on The Voice referendum, her way more than me as she was home for 12 weeks recovering from ankle fusion surgery. So I think we were well armed to make an informed decision. When the referendum was announced, I thought it would be a resounding YES, it seemed like a no brainer. The thing that surprised me most was the number of prominent First Nation peoples who were opposed to it. That for me was the biggest tell that this was not going to get up.

[dodge]

For me, GTC, sick of politicians not working together for the betterment of the country.  Can't generally be bothered with political - and unfortunately the voice was - discourse.  That, the well organised far left and right and lack of respectful debate (although this suite is pretty good) turn me right off.

[LP]

Not sure it's the 'vast majority'.  If 10% of the swinging voters would have seen a different outcome.  The 'If you don't know, vote no' catch-cry was well and truly on display where I voted, and I would suggest that many of the people walking in to vote had only that message ringing in their ears, because many people (I use my 4 adult children as exhibits) couldn't be bothered finding out what this referendum was about.  Perhaps that explains why the inner-city academics voted yes, while the outer-suburbanites voted no?

Possibly, but I think the slogan effect was greatly overstated, perhaps that is being discussed because it's what many in political and academic circles want to be the truth.

Personally, I think by far the biggest impact came form those identified as Indigenous who publicly opposed the referendum, and that's an uncomfortable place to go for the politicians and academics because they can't offer something that will unify the very group they are trying help. We seen just in the last few days how the tone of the debate has changed, even before the result the shouting and finger-pointing started.

The left media are now publishing voting analysis booth by booth, that's a thinly veiled effort to label everyday Australian's as racist based on where the lived and voted. I's the very divisional thing Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine warned and rallied against, and it looks like they are now proven to be true.

I'm not sure how politicians and academia will explain that away because Price and Mundine made the bulk of their statements before the vote. I expect the left will now try it's best to smear them, so we will see more finger-pointing and personal attacks. Which leaves the "experts" from the Yes campaign coming across as "When you are wrong it's your fault, and when they are wrong it's your fault!"

[LP]

They spent $500,000,000 on a referendum relating to a disadvantaged minority group that at last survey had 830,000 confirmed individuals in it's membership, how is that money well spent?

Albanese could have turned half the Indigenous population in millionaire$ and it would have actually saved money!

[LP]

The indigenous unity didn't exist during the campaign - where did it go or was the Uluru statement not representative?

[member=181]dodge[/member]
As near as I can tell, a large swathe of the Indigenous community did not want a "Special Category" they just wanted to be recognised as Australian's equal with all others, not better or worse just one of the bunch. They viewed the referendum as creating a special class.

Oddly, I'd heard this from some Sth Africans and Timor-Leste friends, they identified The Voice immediately as divisive and racist by creating a separate / special category. But then they have lived this very model before, they don't want special seats on the bus!

Politically, I'm not sure The Voice made much sense either as it basically defined a minority interest, when in reality many of the shared issues should be for all Australians to ponder.

[PaulP]

There were two surveys commissioned earlier this year (January and March I believe) canvassing First Nations people and their thoughts on The Voice. 80% in one survey and 83% in the other said they would vote yes. All surveys have limits, and these two are no exception. However big or small the sample spaces may be, they have to be more representative than what people are supposedly hearing. 

[Lods]

There were two surveys commissioned earlier this year (January and March I believe) canvassing First Nations people and their thoughts on The Voice. 80% in one survey and 83% in the other said they would vote yes. All surveys have limits, and these two are no exception. However big or small the sample spaces may be, they have to be more representative than what people are supposedly hearing. 

It'd be interesting to see if that vote held up.
A lot of non-indigenous people who were intending to vote 'yes' changed their minds during the course of the year.
I'm sure the majority of indigenous people still supported the yes  vote...but for those, if any, who changed their minds I wonder what caused that change.

[PaulP]

It'd be interesting to see if that vote held up.
A lot of non-indigenous people who were intending to vote 'yes' changed their minds during the course of the year.
I'm sure the majority of indigenous people still supported the yes  vote...but for those, if any, who changed their minds I wonder what caused that change.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-02/f.../102673042

For those interested, this piece does a bit of a deep dive into this question. As I often say, both God and the devil reside in the detail. At any rate, despite what the politicians say, we are essentially back to square one IMO.

[Baggers]

Quite some layers to the 'failure cake' of the Yes campaign, as have been mentioned here.

The article from The Conversation, which PaulP posted under General Discussion, shone a very bright light on the media's -- none too impressive -- role.

This little black duck singled how the marketing/PR/slogan failures may also have contributed.

EB1 made a very salient point also, re timing during economic hardship, which reminded me of the psychological works by Prof Sheldon Solomon (outlined in his book, 'The Worm In The Middle') and Anthropologist, Ernest Becker (from his book, 'The Denial of Death') - in a crass, simplistic nutshell... people become more conservative during times of hardship. I'm not suggesting that the outcome would have been different but I do ponder had the referendum been held in December what the difference may have been.

And there are other layers as mentioned here and in the media... well, those who report without agenda, bias or prejudice.

[PaulP]

I think the "times are tough" argument is pretty weak. To give one example among many, there are people around who spend hundreds of dollars on football memberships, tickets, merch, travel, hotels etc. if their team make finals in a different city. But somehow, standing in that booth on Saturday, with that dinky little pencil in your hand, you can't write the word "yes" because there's a cost of living crisis.

Yeah, not buying it.