to save anyone a click, yeah most no votes are the oldies, if anyone is surprised
deleted by creator
Yes has Farnsie and Barnsie
No has Pantsdown and that strange potato man.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
Found this which made me lol a bit
Rupes can’t vote. He renounced his Australian citizenship to be able to own media in the US.
Yeah, it is pretty irrelevant.
Murdoch probably owns the majority of media in Australia which could mean that he’s theoretically got influence over many, many votes, yeah? idk lol better than having the one vote as a citizen?
But whatever. Exclude him if you’re still happy with everyone else. Or even if you like just one of those people. Or don’t like them, but disagree with whatever. Everyone is entitled to their vote for whatever reason.
Hey, just a little nudge, if you’re keen to chat about the Voice to Parliament, we’ve got this corker of a megathread where we can all have a good chinwag in one spot. But if you’re not up for that, no worries, it’s business as usual. Gotta keep things fair dinkum!
that thread looks like a nightmare
Yes but a contained nightmare.
How many of you are voting “yes”? BTW how to vote and when does it start ?
Here’s the Australian Electoral Commission page for it. The last referendum happened before I was born so, can’t speak much to that. I imagine it would be similar to the recent federal election where you go to your local polling place (usually a state school - the AEC should send a letter), however, instead of ranking candidates on the ballot you will just have a box which you should write ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in (yes if you support the voice, no if not). But definitely check out that resource I linked and if you’re interested in people’s opinions on the voice, have a read through our megathread
The last referendum happened before I was born so, can’t speak much to that. I imagine it would be similar to the recent federal election
Probably you mean “before I was voting age” rather than “before I was born”. The last referendum wasn’t that long ago and it was about recognising indigenous Australians in the constitution. Australia voted No.
Anyway, it’ll be closer to a plebiscite than an election - which we’ve done more recently (gay marriage, and Australia voted Yes). Turn up at one of your ocal schools/halls/etc, preferably with photo ID so they can find your name, select “yes” or “no” on a slip of paper, fold it up and put it in a tamper proof box. Then go home and watch the count at the end of the day.
You might be tempted to write a message (or draw a middle finger) on the slip of paper. Don’t do that. It’ll probably just result in your vote being discarded. And nobody who sees it will care - it’ll just be set aside and ignored.
It was nearly 24 years ago, so there’s more than half a decade someone could be born within following it and still be eligible to vote in this referendum.
The preamble contained more than recognition of indigenous Australians, that was only one of the points in it. Full text here https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r900_first-reps/toc_pdf/99160B01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
Probably you mean “before I was voting age” rather than “before I was born”. The last referendum wasn’t that long ago
I mean I too feel the 90s weren’t that long ago, but it has been long enough that I wouldn’t assume they misspoke on that one. After all someone born when that referendum happened would turn 24 this November, so there’s a good number of people old enough to vote in this referendum who weren’t around in '99.
I’m assuming the same rule applies as per elections - as long as your vote is filled out correctly and unobscured you can draw as many penises as you want. It will still count.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The RedBridge poll was conducted over a period both before and after the Uluru Dialogue launched its ad for the Yes campaign featuring John Farnham’s You’re the Voice.
The poll results also suggest naming the date for the referendum vote, and a general intensifying of campaign activity, have had little immediate impact on public opinion.
Polls from both RedBridge and Essential this week have suggested that the No vote is slowly firming, while Yes is struggling to consolidate its locked-in support.
On paper that might give them a campaign advantage, and enable hundreds of thousands of one-on-one conversations to occur as polling day approaches.
Yes advocates, like Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, maintain those conversations — and a direct engagement with the issue — will make all the difference.
Combine that with a general apathy about the referendum, which Kos Samaras says is coming through strong in focus groups conducted by RedBridge.
The original article contains 1,155 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
If you’re racist, vote no. It’s that simple.
Voting no doesn’t make you racist. Voting no means you do not support the proposed change to the Constitution.
…Change to the constitution to allow first peoples more say over things that directly affect them via establishing a representative body.
Voting no means that you are against the above. Voting yes means you’re for it.
If you’re against it, it does feel quite racist as you’re voting not to have an indigenous voice enshrined in our constitution. Why not let them have a fair go?
The representative body can be established without a change to the Constitution.
But since colonisation, there hasn’t been one. There was a committee briefly appointed by Rudd but then abolished by Abbott.
I’d like it enshrined because then we would have one regardless and it would take a huge effort to get it removed.
A Government that did not want it in, would simply reduced it to 1-2 people and ignore it.
It would still be better than creating a committee and then abolishing it completely until any leadership decides it’s in their interests to establish one.
We also won’t be in charge of how it’s going to work, remember. This referendum is just whether or not it should be in the constitution as a requirement.
I believe it should be.
It literally does. By voting no you’re saying you do not believe there should be a council that advises on first people’s affairs. So either;
- you think we’ve done a cracker of a job without them so far in relation to policies that affected them
- you think they shouldn’t have a say in laws that may negatively affect them
- you’ve listened to one of various no campaign myths that has been debunked and are worried about paying more tax,or being negatively affected by this somehow.
The representative body can be established without a change to the Constitution.
Not really. Because if it could, it would have. This forces it to happen without liberal/conservative interference.
The fact that it’s been impossible thus far to create a significant body to the point where said group of people have forced a referendum to occur should be enough proof that it needs to occur.
The other part of this is it’s not the US. No one knows our constitution, and up until this point most probably didn’t even know we had one…
deleted by creator
Just to clarify, did you miss an “n’t” in there?
God damn autocorrect. You are correct.
