The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[Jacks Fur Coat]

'if you don't know - vote no.'
why? if you 'don't know' how could you know a no vote is better than a yes vote? that's not logical. makes more sense to toss a coin or to vote informal

It means you don't change anything, esp the Constitution. BAU. So don't know definitely is a 'No'.

[zac]

Just don't mark an X for No. Won't be counted.

However a tick will count as a valid Yes vote.

Hmmm...sounds fair

Big Clive is going to Court on this one, stay tooned.

another red herring - it's been the law for yonks. an x against the yes vote won't be counted either but a tick against the no vote will be counted. nothing to see here

[zac]

It means you don't change anything, esp the Constitution. BAU. So don't know definitely is a 'No'.

so you 'don't know' but you know that it's a bad change. doesn't make sense

[Jacks Fur Coat]

another red herring - it's been the law for yonks. an x against the yes vote won't be counted either but a tick against the no vote will be counted. nothing to see here

Not a law but an interpretation for election officials and yes it has been consistent. You make an interesting point actually, I still think the fundamental issue though is people associate a tick with yes, and a cross for No. To whit, there is more likelihood for No Voters to mark an X, than a Yes voter would. More likely I said, not impossible.

And no it ain't a red herring mate, its a legitimate point.

What they should have done (or do) is just have a bloody box next to each word Yes or No, and ANY MARK in the relevant box is acceptable. Easy for voters, counters all.

I think this is the first time theyve asked the voter to write Yes or No. It smells a bit funny.

[Paddo Colt 61]

[QUOTE=player 1; Which is the main thing you're worried about.

And the main thing that you're worried about is that Albo will get a win.

It's not Albo's referendum. A decent percentage of Labor rusted ons are naysayers and a large percentage of Lib voters are all for it. True, Albo will bask in the reflected glory as the country's PM but he'll need a win of some sort as he is trending down in polls mostly because of this AUKUS fiasco. Talk about Lib Light. Unforch our working class is as much enamoured of the USA as any other sycophantic lot in the West. That's the thing with "Democracies" the meatheads are easily manipulated by the media's lies (look at Murdoch's role in the rise of the No vote) so we're all subject to the collective will of a nation of know nothings who have trouble dragging themselves away from Survivor and The Farmer Wants a Wife let alone being able to form a coherent opinion on anything much.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

so you 'don't know' but you know that it's a bad change. doesn't make sense

You know that if it aint broke dont fix it.

[zac]

You know that if it aint broke dont fix it.

haha but it is broke - and it's time for dinner. go easts

[Jacks Fur Coat]

haha but it is broke - and it's time for dinner. go easts

The Constitution is broke? Don't think so.

[zac]

The Constitution is broke? Don't think so.

even dutton thinks the constitution should be changed

[Andrew Walker]

even dutton thinks the constitution should be changed

So you agree with Dutton That really must hurt

[ism22]

LOLz is this you indoctrinating school children Andy Warhol?

---

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-...plan/102833626

Conservative think tank IPA accused of indoctrinating school children with Voice to Parliament lesson plan

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has been accused of trying to indoctrinate school children by distributing a classroom lesson plan that teaches students how to mount arguments against the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

The conservative think tank has paid for multiple Facebook and Instagram ads promoting high school education materials it says gives teachers "the tools you need to walk your class through both sides of the referendum".

The ads link to a free, 34-page teacher guide and workbook the IPA has written for year 9 to 12 students in English, Australian History, Civics and Indigenous studies.

While the lesson plan promises to teach students about all sides of the debate, the main written exercise asks them to present the "No" case.

It asks students to refute a series of statements supporting the Voice using an almost 1,000-word summary of various "No" arguments.

Students are then asked to rank the arguments in order of persuasiveness and then "respectfully discuss with your peers".

They are not asked to repeat the exercise from the "Yes" perspective.

Students are also asked to complete a true/false quiz that includes the statements, "Anyone who votes No in the Voice Referendum must be racist" and "There are no acceptable arguments for voting No in the Voice Referendum".

The Australian Education Union (AEU), which reviewed the materials, described the lesson plan as a "shallow attempt to inflict their conservative views on students in schools".

"We will fiercely oppose any such moves by private and political organisations that seek to indoctrinate students," AEU federal president Correna Haythorpe said.

"This move by the IPA can only be viewed as a cynical attempt to influence and interfere in Australia's democratic processes via the education system."

The AEU has pledged its support for the Voice but has not told its members how to vote in the referendum.

...

[player 1]

Students are also asked to complete a true/false quiz that includes the statements, "Anyone who votes No in the Voice Referendum must be racist" and "There are no acceptable arguments for voting No in the Voice Referendum".

...

Sounds like a bit of balance for a change. We can't have that! I take it your answers are firmly "true" and "true".


"The AEU has pledged its support for the Voice but has not told its members how to vote in the referendum"

A non sequitur.

Meanwhile......https://www.skynews.com.au/australia...a02e1baf025372

[zac]

Not a law but an interpretation for election officials and yes it has been consistent. You make an interesting point actually, I still think the fundamental issue though is people associate a tick with yes, and a cross for No. To whit, there is more likelihood for No Voters to mark an X, than a Yes voter would. More likely I said, not impossible.

And no it ain't a red herring mate, its a legitimate point.

What they should have done (or do) is just have a bloody box next to each word Yes or No, and ANY MARK in the relevant box is acceptable. Easy for voters, counters all.

I think this is the first time theyve asked the voter to write Yes or No. It smells a bit funny.

i got it wrong - there's the question and then there's one box and you're asked to put a yes or a no in it. ticks will be accepted as a yes vote but nos will count as informal. yeah, that might very slightly affect the no vote.
seems like there were two boxes for all referendums up until 1951 but since 1967 it's been just the one box. i wouldn't have a problem with two boxes

[zac]

So you agree with Dutton That really must hurt

honestly no - it's about issues not personalities or political partisanry

[Jacks Fur Coat]

i got it wrong - there's the question and then there's one box and you're asked to put a yes or a no in it. ticks will be accepted as a yes vote but nos will count as informal. yeah, that might very slightly affect the no vote.
seems like there were two boxes for all referendums up until 1951 but since 1967 it's been just the one box. i wouldn't have a problem with two boxes

It beggars belief (to me) that they would have one box which allows certain symbols to count for a 'Yes' vote, but no equivalent for a 'No' vote.

Given the multicultural society that is Oz, and the amount of peeps with English as 2nd language, there will be a raft of terms and symbols placed into that one box.

Insane.

If the AEC (and Govt) wishes to sustain any pretence of credibility, this needs to be revisited.