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.
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.