With the Voice to Parliament Referendum date announced to be October 14 2023, this thread will run in the lead up to the date for general discussions/queries regarding the Voice to Parliament.
The Proposed Constitutional Amendment
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Past Discussions
Here are some previous posts in this community regarding the referendum:
- The Voice referendum official Yes/No pamphlets
- Linda Burney says there is everything to gain and nothing to lose by supporting the Voice
- Families distressed after 'highly misleading' video used by anti-Voice campaigners goes viral
- The Indigenous Voice to Parliament – separating fact from fiction | 7.30
- 10 questions about the Voice to Parliament - answered by the experts
- The yes pamphlet: campaign’s voice to parliament referendum essay – annotated and factchecked
- Fact-checking for the "No" referendum pamphlet was not compulsory
Common Misinformation
- "The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 Pages not 1" - not true
Government Information
- Referendum question and constitutional amendment
- voice.gov.au - General information about the Voice
Amendments to this post
If you would like to see some other articles or posts linked here please let me know and I'll try to add it as soon as possible.
- Added the proposed constitutional amendment (31/08/2023)
- Added Common Misinformation section (01/07/2023)
Discussion / Rules
Please follow the rules in the sidebar and for aussie.zone in general. Anything deemed to be misinformation or with malicious intent will be removed at moderators' discretion. This is a safe space to discuss your opinion on the voice or ask general questions.
Please continue posting news articles as separate posts but consider adding a link to this post to encourage discussion.
What claim? What deflection?
You’re just calling me racist and claiming my feelings are hurt, literally proving my point.
Source?
You think I need a source to say lots of indigenous people are voting no? 😂
What you're saying implies the existence of some sort of majority. Something which you have argued a lot. Some polling shows that around 80% of Indigenous Australians support the voice, last time I checked around 20% is a minority
Is 20% not “lots”? If 20% of our population died would you not say a lot of people died?
I'm not arguing over whether 20% is an insignificant amount of people which by most measures it isn't. But it also isn't close to a majority, if it was something like a 60-40 or 50-50 split I would accept your argument. But it would appear that a fairly strong majority of First Nations people support the voice, substantially more than those that don't.
I’ve never said the majority don’t support it though, so I don’t know why you’re arguing like I have?
I’ve said a poll of 700 people isn’t worth the paper it was printed on, and that 20% of the population would classify as a lot, which it does. There are not many measures where 20% isn’t a significant amount.
You're not even interacting with my comment, I never said that 20% was insignificant, in fact I said it's not. What it sounds like you're trying to say is that Indigenous people are more divided on this than polling would indicate. However, you don't provide any evidence to the contrary because you cannot, as you just said polling is pointless, the only time all Indigenous Australians will be asked this is on the 14th of October. Even then we won't be able to tell how many Indigenous people voted each way, and it will be too late for people to make their votes based on that. Thus nullifying your reasoning against the alteration.
You shouldn't be voting based on what other people think. There will never be something that 100% of a reasonably large group will be happy with. Never. At what point do you accept that not many people are against something 10%? 1%?
The poll being cited isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. 732 people. It’s irrelevant. You can make a poll say whatever you want, especially with such a tiny number of participants.
Almost every indigenous person I personally know and interact with - which is a lot since my wife works in the indigenous health field and I went to a school with about 40% indigenous population - are voting no.
You said I am saying the majority are against it. I didn’t say that, and we don’t know either way. I’m saying that 20% in a shitty poll is still a LOT of people and that shouldn’t be ignored, and that’s in the shitty poll that was no doubt run and paid for by Yes leaning organisations/people.
I’ll us whatever is available to me to make my decision on how to vote, including what other people I trust think, especially those that were supposedly doing this for. If you shouldn’t be voting based on what others think then why is the 80% poll still being brought up?
I'm not voting based on the poll, I've got my own reasons. No one should vote based on the poll. You're the one voting based on how many people you think support it not me and many other people here
That’s not at all why I’m voting no.
@Whirlybird @Ilandar Uh yes. You do.
You claimed "lots of Indigenous people" think the Voice is a useless idea. Where is your evidence?
Yeah, and I’m shocked you’re actually asking for a source on that because that’s ridiculous.
The source you’re quoting was a poll of 700 indigenous people 😂
Why is it ridiculous? If you make a claim, back it up with evidence.
The two polls I cited are evidence. Despite your faux scepticism, their accuracy was explained clearly to you by another user earlier this month. First you attempted to argue that they were inaccurate because Australia has a population of 5 million Indigenous Australians, and when it was pointed out to you that this figure is completely wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about, you proceeded to double-down and make baseless claims about the validity of the reults despite being unable to provide a single, statistical explanation of how they were "wildly and massively incorrect".
Every time someone asks you to provide a source or some evidence, you crumble. You start strawmanning, or attempting to divert or deflect attention away from your obviously fake and flawed arguments to something completely irrelevant like your feelings. You have absolutely nothing of value to offer in this debate and it is painfully obvious for everyone to see.
So much wrong here lol.
Just because the people doing the study claim a tiny margin of error doesn’t mean they’re right. I didn’t claim 5 million either, I said that as the post I responded to said 20% of our population, which equals about 5 million. I was responding to what was written.
A poll of 700 people, with no details on how they were selected or who made up the 700 people, can not be used to say 80% of all indigenous people support it 😂.
You’re going off the rails mate lol. Calm down and stop making things up that have only happened in your head.
Why not? You are still yet to offer any scientific or statistical explanation as to why this poll is flawed.
Because it’s 700 people.
It was already explained to you that a sample size of 732 is more than enough. Most nationwide political polls are conducted with similar sample sizes that represent a significantly smaller proportion of the total population. The poll has been checked by experts who endorsed its methodology and said there is no scientific evidence to suggest it is inaccurate.
Again, where is your evidence that "lots of Indigenous people" don't support the Voice or think it is a useless idea?
You're free to believe that, but I don't. Just because it was "explained to me" it doesn't make it true. I can "explain to you" how the earth is flat, but that doesn't mean it is. A poll of 732 people (that we don't know the selection process/criteria for btw) is not to be taken seriously as being representative of the entire indigenous population. It's an absolutely pathetic sample size.
By your own favourite poll, 20% don't support it. 20% of the population is "lots".
No it's not. It would be a standard sample size for a nationwide poll if we were dealing with the entirety of Australia's voting population, and in this case we are limited to a significantly smaller number of people. You are essentially claiming that every political poll is completely useless because they all have an "absolutely pathetic sample size" according to you.
Wrong. The No vote was between 10 and 14% across those two polls. That is not "lots", it is a minority.
Most are, yes.
Using a poll of unknown selection criteria and size of 700 people to determine the popularity of an entire population is stupid and should be taken with a grain of salt - like all tiny polls like that. They can say their margin of error is 2% or whatever they want but it doesn't make it true.
If only 80% of them support it, 20% don't. Math, how does it work?
Also a minority can still be "lots" 🤣. Words, how do they work? You're saying that there aren't lots of indigenous people then, since they're a minority, right?
The YouGov poll was not "tiny". It was of a normal size. What do you find difficult about this concept?
The Ipsos poll reported 80% Yes, 10% No, 10% Undecided. The YouGov poll (the one you keep referencing) reported 83% Yes, 14% No, 4% Undecided. Neither of these polls reported No at 20%, that is a complete fabrication on your part. Stop lying.
Was that the 732 person one? If it was, it's tiny.
It can be the "normal" size for a poll while also being tiny/small. These things aren't mutually exclusive. Again, words, how do they work?
If you're not voting yes you're voting no. If you're undecided and don't vote yes, it's a no. This is embarrassing for you. If you don't vote yes, you're against it even if you are "undecided".
Is that the one that was only 300 people? 🤣
is this a big thing that was faked, and has no evidence?
?
By your braindead logic, the undecided responses can also be interpreted as support for Yes because they failed to indicate their support for No. According to you, Indigenous support for Yes is between 87% and 90%.
If you’re undecided on an issue you don’t support it.
You should probably just go back to virtue signalling and calling people racist.
If you're undecided on an issue, you haven't decided whether you support it. That's why they call it undecided.
????????
If you’re undecided it means you don’t currently support it.
Might have got you mixed up with one of the virtue signalling “everyone who votes no is racist” posters, if so I apologise.
If you're a white person you really shouldn't be trying to represent the views of Indigenous Australians. I don't care how you're voting, we all need to reflect on and consider whose voices we're trying to represent here.
So white people also shouldn’t be saying that “80%” of indigenous people support the voice either?
I would argue that's different because these people are citing polling information not trying to represent Indigenous voices. By design, quantitative data does not represent qualitative data. If they were trying to represent qualitative experiences, then yes absolutely this applies. It's important that we all reflect on our positions in this debate, especially if we are claiming to represent the perspectives of Indigenous Australians.
When I say lots of indigenous people don’t support the voice I’m also quoting polling data because even if you believe that 80% poll, 20% is a significant number. Even 10% is a significant number and qualifies as “lots”.
Statistically this argument makes no sense. I'm a qualitative researcher myself so i would agree that the qualitative experiences of those 20% are important, but quantitatively they are not. Regardless, the argument still stands, we need to critically reflect on our positions within this debate. You can vote however you want, but if you are advocating for your opinion on the basis that you know what Indigenous Australians want then well frankly that's not a great position for a non-indigenous person to occupy.
I’m not and never have advocated for that.
Also 20% is quantitively a big percentage.