The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[Halo1]

The problem is that this has always been the case for referendums and Dutton and LNP have always been aware of this. Either this should have been raised through previous processes or they totally missed it (very hard to imagine this being the case) and are now having a cry due to their own incompetance. Given all the cynical tactics we've seen them use so far, I'd suggest that they were always aware and are now doing their best to undermine confidence in the process.

100%. My point was the AEC could have seen this coming and tested the situation by flipping the question. eg Do you NOT want a Voice in the constitution then:
Yes =Yes - No voice.
Tick = Yes - No Voice
No = No - Get a Voice
Cross = Not counted or maybe not counted. I can’t see that the AEC has completely ruled it out.

I would imagine the yes side would be jumping up and down at the above hypothetical too.

So a change or a better designed question/collection of the response could avoid the unnecessary debate over the process.
How hard is it to have a box for yes and a box for no and you cut your self and sing it with blood.

 

[Tubbsy]

the AEC could have seen this coming and tested the situation by flipping the question. eg Do you NOT want a Voice in the constitution then:
Yes =Yes - No voice.
Tick = Yes - No Voice
No = No - Get a Voice
Cross = Not counted or maybe not counted. I can’t see that the AEC has completely ruled it out.

Haha, so if people are struggling to understand a simple yes or no question, flipping it so yes means no is going to really confuse them.

So a change or a better designed question/collection of the response could avoid the unnecessary debate over the process

I mean it really couldn't be simpler, and the reason for the tick vs cross thing has been clearly explained by the AEC - ie a cross is sometimes an affirmative choice on a form.

Anybody who is actively agitating about this aspect of the referendum is being disingenuous.

 

[David2406]

Maybe we need another referendum next year to see if we allow crosses or ticks as well as yes or no

 

[Tubbsy]

Maybe we need another referendum next year to see if we allow crosses or ticks as well as yes or no

 

[rockmoose]

Si

 

[Haakon]

Looking forward to this being over and nothing changing…

 

[The Duckmeister]

I'm tempted to just put a blank paper in the box, I'm totally ambivalent to the whole thing.

 

[oldcorollas]

why didn't they just have separate boxes for yes and no??
surely that's easier to machine count anyway?

 

[sane]

 

[Tubbsy]

why didn't they just have separate boxes for yes and no??

What if someone writes no in the yes box!!!!

 

[oldcorollas]

What if someone writes no in the yes box!!!!

i guess... opens a portal to different dimension?

 

[safreek]

View attachment 402149

I guess that's the third option, maybe

 

[johnny]

100%. My point was the AEC could have seen this coming and tested the situation by flipping the question. eg Do you NOT want a Voice in the constitution then:
Yes =Yes - No voice.
Tick = Yes - No Voice
No = No - Get a Voice
Cross = Not counted or maybe not counted. I can’t see that the AEC has completely ruled it out.

I would imagine the yes side would be jumping up and down at the above hypothetical too.

So a change or a better designed question/collection of the response could avoid the unnecessary debate over the process.
How hard is it to have a box for yes and a box for no and you cut your self and sing it with blood.

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I've worked with the AEC over the years on numerous issues, including quite recently, and often with Tom Rogers himself (I'm not working with him on a one-to-one basis, but I'm in the room, literally, if I can put it that way. He was also on my podcast once!). I've never worked with an organisation that thinks things through as thoroughly and comprehensively as the AEC does. They are one of the very few orgs in Australia that I have actual faith in.

 

[johnny]

If there was ever any proof needed that ideology has the power to make people walk off a cliff:

Contrary to appearances, Zed’s not dead just yet. Is this really what ACT Liberals want? | Riotact

Senator Zed Seselja's defeat at the last federal election was a major national story. It was a perfect fit with…

the-riotact.com

 

[Halo1]

Haha, so if people are struggling to understand a simple yes or no question, flipping it so yes means no is going to really confuse them.


I mean it really couldn't be simpler, and the reason for the tick vs cross thing has been clearly explained by the AEC - ie a cross is sometimes an affirmative choice on a form.

Anybody who is actively agitating about this aspect of the referendum is being disingenuous.

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I've worked with the AEC over the years on numerous issues, including quite recently, and often with Tom Rogers himself (I'm not working with him on a one-to-one basis, but I'm in the room, literally, if I can put it that way. He was also on my podcast once!). I've never worked with an organisation that thinks things through as thoroughly and comprehensively as the AEC does. They are one of the very few orgs in Australia that I have actual faith in.

That is good insight and good to know. I do see that some things are easier to say than do in reality. it will always be the case that if you give the likes of Dutton an inch they will take a mile and it just becomes a pure distraction.

 

[Scotty T]

I'm totally ambivalent to the whole thing.

Then you should vote yes, because it will never affect you.

 

[Haakon]

Then you should vote yes, because it will never affect you.

Exactly. I don’t think it will make any difference, but it might and it cant hurt. Just seems to be reinstating Atsic with more permanence from what I can tell. Sure that was a bit of an argumentative clusterfuck in the end, but it’s abolition was a dick move (yet another one…) by Howard.

Plus it pisses off the so called “conservatives”, so that’s a win all on its own.

 

[ForkinGreat]

Exactly. I don’t think it will make any difference, but it might and it cant hurt. Just seems to be reinstating Atsic with more permanence from what I can tell. Sure that was a bit of an argumentative clusterfuck in the end, but it’s abolition was a dick move (yet another one…) by Howard.

Plus it pisses off the so called “conservatives”, so that’s a win all on its own.

I think the big mining interests like Jabba and Gina, Rio Tinto, Santos and BHP are shitting themselves that they might actually have to pay proper royalties to the traditional owners, and also not fuck up their ancient cultural sites, and acutally consult with them & treat them with respect.
That would be a refreshing change for the better.
While they are at it, the mining corps can pay proper tax, and a decent resource tax, so Australia isn't just giving away our mineral wealth for cents on the dollar, FFS.

 

[beeb]

I think the big mining interests like Jabba and Gina, Rio Tinto, Santos and BHP are shitting themselves that they might actually have to pay proper royalties to the traditional owners, and also not fuck up their ancient cultural sites, and acutally consult with them & treat them with respect.
That would be a refreshing change for the better.
While they are at it, the mining corps can pay proper tax, and a decent resource tax, so Australia isn't just giving away our mineral wealth for cents on the dollar, FFS.

And the traditional owners would be more likely to push for action on climate change, etc...

 

[Scotty T]

Some shit just popped up from the guy who now runs a Western Sydney bike shop where I worked in the 90's, son of original owner. Hadn't seen him for years, recently bumped into him back at Blacktown (yep it's that shop) and added on Facebook. Shared some shit saying the vote is a UN agenda to take our land. I gave him a mouthful. Looking forward to a reply, no reply, a block or he deletes the bullshit message.