Further Effects of "The Voice" debate

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, nomadpete said:

They seem to think the 'voice' committee will speak for the existing 110 advisory bodies listed on the government  website.

It will be interesting to see how it evolves.

That artivle is poorly written. Those 110 advisory bodies are not limited to ATSI representative bodies. Some examples they list are "Some of them you might have never heard of, or even noticed were advising the government, such as The National Blood Borne Virus and Sexually Transmissible Infections Surveillance Subcommittee or the Foods for Early Childhood Reference Group."

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

And the International media will not give an explanation for the NO vote.

Yes. And that is because almost all of the "offical" No campaign arguments against is verifiable BS. But, don't take my word for it, this Youtuber sums it up referring to offical documentation:

 

They will save us embarressment by not publishing the "official" reasons. Of course, these are not the only reasons people will vote no, but without the international press asking a lot of individuals to find sany other patterns, this is all they have to go on.

 

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

you can form the opinion that Australians are politically cautious

You  can, or I prefer not terribly progressive, and, like the UK, looks to be regressive in some aspects. in my opinion..  Like Albo not even entertaining an indepdendent's bill to make intentional lying in poilitical advertising illegal.

 

6 hours ago, spenaroo said:

its due to a failure of the yes campaign, they did not communicate effectively.

<snip>

A comment was made that this is the closest we have come to US style divisive politics.

with it being for or against, us and them. 

100% agree with this. On this forum, people voting No have not generally subscribed to the No arguments, but lean that way based oin their personal experience. I personally respect that. However,. most of the population are voting based on stereotype and what they see and hear in the media (social and MSM).

 

Sadly, the  debunked BS of the No campaign seems to be used as a justification to vote no even though most of the MSM are calling it out as BS.. This is akin to the Trump MAGA supporters - despite all the evidence, which is overwhelming, they refuse to believe it, and they staunchly support the Magamaniac. Yes, we haven't seen the volence and that is because Australia's cultural disposition doesn't lend itself the same way, but the divisiveness as been, IMHO, driven largely by the No campaign wwith its disingenuity and deceit.. Instead of being  honest, have a genuine debate and people can make their own minds up based on the facts and their values, it has generally been divisive mud slinging..

 

They say the change is risky, divisive and full of other stuff.. But as far as I can see they are the one intoducing it purely on ideological grounds.

 

It is very much like US politics, where free speech is being mistaken for unaccountable deceit and lies that affect peoples' lives.

 

IMHO, I am siding with the Victorian Supremee court judge who is retiring and commented on the conduct of the No Campaign - very shameful. and worst there are a lot of people buying into it.

[spacesailor]

The 6 pm news .

spacesailor

[willedoo]

26 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Promoting what you suggest would undermine the current referendum.

Nev, which post are you referring to?

[facthunter]

Having another change by legislation as an alternative proposed.  Nev

[willedoo]

19 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Having another change by legislation as an alternative proposed.  Nev

It's not an alternative proposal. The Voice has to be legislated either way. If the referendum passes, the Voice has to be legislated. If the referendum fails, the Voice has to be legislated if the government and the Aboriginal stakeholders decide to go ahead with it.

 

If you were referring to my previous post, I think you misunderstood it. I wasn't suggesting or promoting any position. I was just making the observation that if the referendum fails, they can still go ahead with the process if they want to. The Voice would be a lot more secure if the referendum passes, but it's not the end of the world for the Yes advocates if it fails, which it has a very good chance of doing. In the event of a referendum failure, there's still the possibility that the Voice can be introduced regardless. If that happened and people realised the sky didn't fall in, then it might be possible at a later date to try again to enshrine it in the constitution.

 

Nev, just a tip: it pays to quote a post you are referring to. It saves a lot of guesswork for other forum members. Particularly in those cases where other posts appear in between a post and it's reply. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by willedoo

[red750]

On the news, they said someone could vote at two polling booths, making a false declaration, and both votes would be counted. The fact would be discovered days later when checking the rolls, and the perpetrator fined, but the votes would count.

[octave]

16 minutes ago, red750 said:

On the news, they said someone could vote at two polling booths, making a false declaration, and both votes would be counted. The fact would be discovered days later when checking the rolls, and the perpetrator fined, but the votes would count.

So this is no different from any other election?    I would imagine that to materially change the result many people would have to vote more than once, especially in a simple binary choice   It is more relevant in an election where a seat may only have  100000 voters.  It would take great commitment given the penalties.   

12. Are there penalties for illegal voting?

Yes – up to $6600 fine and/or two years imprisonment.

 

Although with anonymous ballots it would be impossible to weed out multiple voter's votes it would probably be possible to ascertain if enough multiple votes had been cast to change the outcome.

 

This is not a new issue though, is it? It is the same as any other election.  My fear is that we are starting to drift down the Trumpian road of crying "rigged election"    If as I expect the no-vote wins, I may be annoyed about obvious false advertising but I will certainly accept the result as I do with every other election.

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by octave

[willedoo]

On the radio today they were interviewing some yes and no volunteers at local pre-polling booths. They said the mood was definitely with the no camp. Having said that, it's a safe Liberal seat and it was mainly older people voting, so demographically no at the opening of pre-polling. It's not necessarily how the vote will be on the day when the younger generations tend to vote.

[octave]

Here's the facts about multiple voting - it is negligible in Australia

https://www.6newsau.com/post/here-s-the-facts-about-multiple-voting-it-is-negligible-in-australia

Updated: 10 hours ago

 

An AEC tweet has sparked discussion about people voting multiple times in the Voice referendum.

A tweet from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) about the possibility of multiple voting at the Voice to Parliament referendum has sparked discussion and some false claims on social media.

 

 

 

"If someone votes at two different polling places within their electorate, and places their formal vote in the ballot box at each polling place, their vote is counted," the AEC said.

 

 

 

The AEC provided initial context in the replies, however only one of their tweets has widely spread, missing important context. Their website has additional information on the specifics around multiple voting.

 

 

 

Here's the facts: Multiple voting is illegal, and previous elections have shown it is negligible in Australia.

 

 

 

Just 0.03% of the 91.9% turnout for the 2019 federal election were multiple mark-offs, and following the 2013 federal election, 2,000 people admitted to voting twice - just 0.014% of the total votes.

 

 

 

(It goes without saying that this is not about someone voting in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate at the same time).

 

 

 

As then-Acting Electoral Commissioner Tom Rogers (who is now the Electoral Commissioner) told a Senate committee in 2013, "the greater majority of those, over 81 per cent" were elderly, had poor literacy skills, or had a "low comprehension of the electoral process".

 

 

 

Psephologist Dr Kevin Bonham, who has also previously scrutineered at multiple elections before, estimates multiple votes "might be something like [very roughly] 0.01%".

 

 

 

"Many apparent multiple votes are clerical errors...of the remainder, the vast majority are unintentional - usually voters with issues such as senility or confusion about the process," he said on Twitter.

 

 

 

When voting, polling booth workers will ask all voters for their full name, address, and whether they’ve voted before in the election. If voters answer 'no' to the third question, their names are marked off the electoral roll, they receive their ballot papers and are then able to vote.

 

 

 

Immediately following any election, or referendum, the AEC will digitally cross-reference the electoral rolls against certified electoral lists (an electronic list of eligible electors) to check if there are multiple marks against names. The AEC will then contact anyone suspected of voting more than once to get information of when, where and if they voted.

 

 

 

6 News has contacted the AEC, who confirmed this is the process for both elections and referendums.

 

 

 

The AEC has again confirmed today: "The instances of multiple marks have never been of a significant volume and never more than the margin in an election. We have electronic certified lists across all pre-polls and continuing to many on-the-day polling places with real-time mark-off of the roll."

 

 

 

The electoral commission can, and has previously, referred cases of multiple voting to the Australian Federal Police, with imprisonment possible.

 

 

 

"Multiple voting under the Electoral Act or the Referendum Act may take the form of a person voting more than once under their own name. For example, where a person attends more than one polling place on election day or votes more than once using early or postal voting.

 

20," the AEC website says.

 

 

 

"Multiple voting may also be voting more than once by both voting in their own name, and also voting in the name of another person or persons. For example, in addition to casting their own vote, a person may go to a polling place, claim to be another person whom they know is on the roll for that division, have that person’s name marked off the certified list, and cast another vote."

 

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, willedoo said:

The way I understand it, all the referendum does is make it a constitutional requirement for the Voice to be established and kept no matter which party is in power. All the other details about the Voice will have nothing to do with the constitution as it is sorted out and overseen by parliament by legislation and regulation.

That seems to be the key to opening Pandora's box.

The possibilities are endless, hopefully good, hopefully not disastrous,  probably innocuous.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, willedoo said:

the Voice to be established and kept no matter which party is in power. All the other details about the Voice will have nothing to do with the constitution as it is sorted out and overseen by parliament by legislation and regulation.

No argument there.

[nomadpete]

Fine. I am not frantically 'no' about the Voice. I just cannot be convinced  that it will do anything to improve the lot of the most needy of the indigenous  communities that I have been in.

 

Note there is no such feverish constitutional need to improve the lot of the average disadvantaged Caucasian descendant,  either. Maybe that is because  changing the constitution does little to do directly fix the disadvantages suffered by any societal demographic.

 

Having said that I will probably vote yes in this latest distraction, simply to annoy the right wing nutters, who also live in a world of their own.

 

Seems to me many of the fervent yes voters seem to lack any personal knowledge  of the complex problems that exist in the indigenous  diaspora, and rely entirely on other opinions, and biased statitistics. Which makes their opinion just as vulnerable to manipulation as the no voters.

Edited October 4, 2023 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I personally respect that. However,. most of the population are voting based on stereotype and what they see and hear in the media (social and MSM).

Applies equally to fervent yes voters in my opinion.

[Jerry_Atrick]

It may, but most independent analysis suggests the Yes arguments are accurate... So at least put in good faith as opposed to bad faith of the "official" No campaign..

 

The "Official" No campaign is what I was referring to as shameful.

 

It is sad people don't do a smidgen of research - or worse as in this case, where the information is readily available from MSM outlets that would normally not side with "lefty" stuff even are calling out the BS, that they still rely on the BS to justify their No Vote. If they relied on the facts, or just admitted they didn't want it regardless, fine by me.

 

But that is a sad reflection of where humanity (at least in the west) is at, at the moment.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Proportional credibility would be good,  allowing that some discredited 'no' or 'yes' campaigners have made valid points as well as some bs points. Rather than canning everything a naysayer says, it might be beneficial to hear a point by point analysis of points made, with credit for valid points. This would be less divisiveness, more instructional.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Yes. And that is because almost all of the "offical" No campaign arguments against is verifiable BS.

"Almost all" and ""official" campaign" meaning Dutton., Abo, and all those cohorts listed that most here find nasty.

 

Note, the same doesn't generally apply to the "Offical" yes campaign... generally

 

Lance

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I am not sure what happened, as I also wrote that by official campaign, I meant those on either side getting the media's attention and creating the Yes/No arguments on the AEC flyer. As I did it on my laptop, I can only surmise I siped the track pad with my arm and it managed to delete it.

 

I think by saying "some discredited no and some discredited yes campaigners have made valid points" is a little misleading in the conext it presents that on both sides there are similar number of valid points made or similar proprotion compared to the total number of "points" they make. Independent university research on the arguments/polints made in public by thhe "official" campaigns  would seem to differ on both counts - at least on what has been argued in the media. But, for example, I get Lydia Thorpe's arguments - they weigh heavy in her mind, so fine..

 

Again, I am not sayijng every No argument is invalid nor am I saying that every no voter is a sucker for the crap being spewed out by the official No campaign.

 

Also, I always enclose official when referencing "offical" campaigns, because they are both self-appointed and don't have a mandate form anyone but themselves.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[onetrack]

The "YES" campaigners are in the 'nure with the AEC for producing and issuing "YES" vote posters that copy the AEC's colours. This is an offence, and quite a devious move on the part of the "YES" camp.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/yes23-campaign-asked-to-keep-purple-white-signs-away-from-aec/102927986

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

It looks like it is an offence to display posters and the like purporting to be AEC signage and guidance to vote, but it is not an offence to have posters in the same colours displayed, providied they are not displayed near AEC posters/signage, is what I take from that article.

 

From the article, "When we were alerted to this signage the AEC requested the Yes23 campaign to rectify the situation by ensuring their signs are not placed in the proximity of AEC voting centre signs."; If the continual display of those signs was an offence regardless, I would expect the AEC demand they stop displaying them at all. And, Yes23 has agreed to not display their signage in close proximity of the AEC signage .

 

They may well have chosen those colours for simply their campaign, or they may have chosen them to trick voters. I think it is a bit of both, and they should not have picked colours close to the AECs (in fact, there should jkust be a law against it).

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

7 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

They may well have chosen those colours for simply their campaign, or they may have chosen them to trick voters.

I'm reminded of something similar happening during the last Federal election in a Melbourne electorate that had a high Chinese population. That time it was the Right side of politics who did it. This time it is the Left side. Perhaps we should be fair at the next election and have the AEC require ALL posters etc to be in the colours of the AEC.

 

Could this need to insert the amendment into the Constitution have been avoided by the passing of an Act? Technically, yes. If the referendum result if YES, then this is what will happen in order to set the Who, What, When and How of the Voice would be established and operated.  Could an Act been passed without the referendum?

I doubt it because:

• the current Opposition in the Lower House would be staunchly against it, based on its approach to the referendum.
• the Greens in the Lower House would demand all their airy-fairy philosophies be incorporated.
• the Crossbenchers would be working deals with the other three groups to gain advantages.
• the same factors would apply in the Senate, sending the proposal back again and again, despite that House supposedly only being a House of Review to make sure laws are constitutional.

The only way such legislation would move quickly through the several steps would be if the Government had an overwhelming majority of seats in both Houses. Given the results of the past few elections, it seems clear that neither side of politics will ever get that overwhelming majority.

 

So, even if a Left-leaning Government passed such an Act, it would only take a change to a Right-leaning Government for such an Act to be repealed.

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Given the results of the past few elections, it seems clear that neither side of politics will ever get that overwhelming majority.

Long may the last...

 

6 minutes ago, old man emu said:

So, even if a Left-leaning Government passed such an Act, it would only take a change to a Right-leaning Government for such an Act to be repealed

and that is the point of the referendum. to ensure there will always be some form of representation. But, I have to admit, that it does not guarantee it will not be a toothless form of representation - and that is, as I understand, why Lydia Thorpe is against it... 

[old man emu]

2023 - Labor Federal Government - Referendum passes

2023 - The "Voice Establishment Act" becomes law.

2025 - Federal election results in establishment of a L/NP Government.

2025 - The "Voice Establishment Act" repealed.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes.. in all probability... but... if in 2025, the LNP get in and they effectively dismantle something that against all odds was voted for by the people of Australia, not even Murdoch can save their bacon.

 

[edit] Conjecture of course. I am learning the pockets that allow people to exercise their principles are very shallow indeed.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Idealism ends at the hip pocket.

 

OME said.....

"

• the current Opposition in the Lower House would be staunchly against it, based on its approach to the referendum.
• the Greens in the Lower House would demand all their airy-fairy philosophies be incorporated.
• the Crossbenchers would be working deals with the other three groups to gain advantages.
• the same factors would apply in the Senate, sending the proposal back again and again, despite that House supposedly only being a House of Review to make sure laws are constitutional."
•  

OME has described the normal disfunctional manner in which our government operates for all any any legislation - and it amazes me that anything gets passed.

 

BTW almost every YES placard I see is mass printed and has the AEC logo on it, implying approval by the AEC, and implying significant funding. Also almost every NO placard I see is hand made, implying these are a genuine personal opinion.

I am not saying either is right, but that money speaks louder than thought.

[octave]

27 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

BTW almost every YES placard I see is mass printed and has the AEC logo on it,

 

I don't think I have seen any Yes posters with the AEC logo on it.   A quick search doesn't yield examples as far as I can see, unless the logo is tiny or on the back or something.    If there are Yes or No posters with the AEC logo on I am not convinced it would sway anyone either way.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=vote+yes+posters+the+voice&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwi5taK5z92BAxX9a2wGHaV5DF0Q2-cCegQIABAA&oq=vote+yes+posters+the+voice&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDDoECCMQJ1CvCVivCWC3GWgAcAB4AIABkQGIAZ8CkgEDMC4ymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=MP8dZbndOf3XseMPpfOx6AU&bih=1025&biw=2133&rlz=1C1CHZO_enAU915AU915

Edited October 5, 2023 by octave