The referendum, yes or no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

We have different opinions and that's obviously not going to change. But the real "elites" won on the day. Tell me that Barnaby Joyce is just an average Aussie bloke and not an elite.

---

You keep needing to mention names of people to explain the defeat of the Voice

The majority of Australians didn't engage with this referendum until this week. It was introduced at a time where cost of living is everyones only concern

Murdoch, Joyce, all these names are just excuses

Best off reflecting why the PMs message cut through so poorly, otherwise you are just digging for more excuses

The PM was about as persuasive as a salesman wanting to sell you a DVD player. What a disastrous effort he made at convincing literally zero of six states. Why don't you now starting talking about this poor effort instead of blaming others?

For the sake of Australia I hope everything he touches doesn't turn to sh-t. He lacks real world experience

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Because historically the people affected by the policies haven't been listened to. It's just been actual elites paternally deciding what these people need without understanding the cultural differences, historical generational trauma and institutional racism (not talking about individual
Australian's attitudes here).

And I'm pretty sure millionaire Warren Mundine is more "elite" than anyone on an academics salary.

---

If they weren't listened to then,
Why would they be listened to a voice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

You keep needing to mention names of people to explain the defeat of the Voice

[/b]

---

You sure quote Mundine and Price a lot for someone who thinks mentioning names is somehow irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frisson

You keep needing to mention names of people to explain the defeat of the Voice

[/b]

---

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...15-p5ecd0.html

You should give up frisson, no matter how eloquently you put forward an argument the looniest of the loony left will ALWAYS find someone else to blame. They did a break down in the news last night and showed that the latte sippers in the inner suburbs of Sydney voted yes, where as the outer suburbs - LABOUR HEARTLAND - voted no.

Ask Reggie why the true believers voted no and his reply would be "they all read Murdoch's papers". So Reggie's argument is that all labour voters are gullible, but the truth is they voted no because they weren't given all the information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dotcumdotinyou

You should give up frisson, no matter how eloquently you put forward an argument the looniest of the loony left will ALWAYS find someone else to blame. They did a break down in the news last night and showed that the latte sippers in the inner suburbs of Sydney voted yes, where as the outer suburbs - LABOUR HEARTLAND - voted no.

Ask Reggie why the true believers voted no and his reply would be "they all read Murdoch's papers". So Reggie's argument is that all labour voters are gullible, but the truth is they voted no because they weren't given all the information.

---

Debate is good. Still waiting for excuses to cease and some substance be presented as to why Australia should have voted Yes with an untested Voice model that Noone, Noone, understood

Read the debate here carefully - not once do Yes advocates give details about the model. Would there be protests to the High Court if the Voice wasn't followed on a certain issue?

No matter how much the Yes want to blame someone else - Murdoch, Joyce etc, watch carefully - they never support their own spokespeople
Why. Because the Yes spokespeople were totally ignored by the Australian public

Who was the Federal Indigenous Affairs Minister who was one of the strongest Yes campaigners ? Who cares. Her own electorate, Barton, voted No. She was ignored. I'm not making this stuff up

Most Australians made up their mind by listening to their heart. The PMs message was as clear as dirty dishwater

It's been fun. Hope you found it entertaining too. Welcome your opinion.

I discussed the No campaigners because they were potent debaters. Mundine and Price wiped the floor of their Yes opponents

Six states voted No

The End

Everyone...
Another dirty secret:
If the Voice is such a good idea, then the PM can easily enact it now
Did you know that the Voice doesn't need the Constitution? It can be brought in with legislation. No need for a constitution. This is Fact

But it does need millions of dollars to pay Elites to be on yet another Canberra based committee that doesn't get it's hands dirty

However the Elites wanted an untested system to be permanently put in the Constitution. So the referendum was rejected for this reason

Does anyone else have the facts to explain why the Australian public voted wrongly in the Referendum? Actually give some information that addresses the concerns that led Australia to vote No. And don't mention the Left or the Right or Murdoch or call people racist or stupid. Debate the topic alone

The alternative is to now hold the relevant ministers now very closely accountable to all the Gaps including the crime in the Northern Territory. And hold the media to account so they regularly report on the progress being made on the Gap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Double_Adapter

Why the fuck do you guys want to rub salt on an open wound?

For what it's worth, click on state, then electorate and that will display all the suburbs associated with that electorate.

https://www.pollbludger.net/fed2023ref/Results/

---

Thanks bro, was looking for that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles

Because historically the people affected by the policies haven't been listened to. It's just been actual elites paternally deciding what these people need without understanding the cultural differences, historical generational trauma and institutional racism (not talking about individual
Australian's attitudes here).

And I'm pretty sure millionaire Warren Mundine is more "elite" than anyone on an academics salary.

---

Nothing wrong with Warren Mundine he’s an achiever.

What a cunt of a take. The No campaign had zero facts. They relied on lies, disinformation and preyed on people’s fears. There will be a land grab, by Rinehart, Palmer etc. they poured millions into the No vote, I wonder why.
Have some compassion, I hope some people here never have a life altering event that means they have to rely on social services or charities just to exist.
And indigenous Australians in remote areas voted overwhelmingly for the Yes vote. Also data is showing that the No vote was primarily from poor socioeconomic area with limited education and training.

Way to brag dumb cunts.

All the No vote campaign did was to provide an excuse for people to vote No. People who didn’t want to see others get ahead. Plain and simple.

I do agree that the yes campaign was diabolical. As soon as I saw the drag queen go on the stage in London, I knew it was over. It’s unbelievable how wrong they got it. I also get a sense that it was too personal for Albanese, or he wanted it to be his legacy. Fancy ignoring the masses.

No-one won. All the problems will still be there this Monday morning. Neither side of the issue has concrete ideas other than to impose their so called Centralized solutions from the Canberra Bubble. The indigenous people will have to fight for themselves, traditional politics will not deliver, so expect the fight to get pretty nasty. Meanwhile the best the rest of us can do is shut up and seek solace in our preferred orifices.

The only disinformation is the yes campaign trying to deceive the Australian public as to the true motives of this voice which is treaty and truth telling.

And what does treaty mean? Pay the rent of course, reparations. Too much money is already wasted, I don’t want to pay the rent or reparations to the 10th generation descendants of the true victims.

And if you don’t believe me, there’s plenty of proof online from earlier comments made before labor took government by some of the key architects of the voice

You’re right. I don’t believe you. It was an advisory body. What a cooker.

The best legal minds in the country endorsed The Voice. Probably those with the most to lose and they still gave it the thumbs up. Where’s your evidence cooker? Steer clear of those 5G towers huh?

Prime example again of why the yes campaign lost. Drop the attacks on the voters, stop treating those that disagree with you with disdain and respectfully address the points made in the argument.

An advisory body? Why not legislate it? Labor has the numbers to pass it through both houses. Why enshrine it in the constitution?

If you look at what Thomas Mayo has had to say in all his activism and wisdom, you’d know that the intention was to have a constitutionally protected voice that can make representations to the government and request the government to consider a treaty with this voice committee which would supposedly be representative of all aboriginal communities.

https://youtu.be/SMy3wcP9g8g?si=HnLLGb-10Yj8gDXe

I could also make the argument two former high court judges have publicly stated their concerns around the voice’s overreach Ian Callinan and Murray Gleeson.

End of the day the Australian public has overwhelmingly rejected this proposal and so a new path forward should be the focus to address the problems indigenous people face.

Putting each person's opinions aside. Let's look at some stats on the demographic that voted yes or no. Check this report out:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-...-map/102978520

Here's some stats:
- Rural people are more likely to vote no vs city people who would vote yes
- The less educated a person is they're more likely to vote no
- older people tended to vote no vs younger who preferred to vote yes.
- higher income also tended to vote no (most likely cause they thought the whole paying rent thing would take their land away lol).

Again don't really give a shit even though I did vote.

71 Uni teachers in constitutional law rebutted Ian’s ideas in a signed open letter saying the pros far outweigh the cons. I’m
paraphrasing.

Perhaps these uni teachers were right. But I saw what the key architects of the Voice have had to say, and my interpretation was that it was not just an advisory body but a trojan horse to introduce treaty and force the government of the day to consider it as the constitution would protect the voice. It might start of as an advisory body but it’s clear that the architects had higher aspirations for the voice and its powers.
My evidence is there.

It might be true that the architects wanted more powers (interestingly, this is why some indigenous people voted No saying it didn’t go far enough) but in its current state, is was meant as an advisory body, giving people a say on the issues that affect them. They had no powers, the government would not have been obliged to even take on board their recommendations. To say anything else, I think, is misleading. And that’s the whole issue of why this was a clusterfuck, with both sides bearing responsibility.