The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[Andrew Walker]

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.

It won’t be revisited. Much to the yes crowds distress It is well known the No vote looks highly likely to get over the line Only a fool cannot see that this is subterfuge and a ruse to lower the No vote

[zac]

It won’t be revisited. Much to the yes crowds distress It is well known the No vote looks highly likely to get over the line Only a fool cannot see that this is subterfuge and a ruse to lower the No vote

it's no ruse. it's following the rules that have been in place for referendums since 1967. see this ballot for the 1999 referendum - 1999 Referendum Report and Statistics - Australian Electoral Commission (aec.gov.au)

[Jacks Fur Coat]

It doesn't make it right or fair though Zac.

[Andrew Walker]

it's no ruse. it's following the rules that have been in place for referendums since 1967. see this ballot for the 1999 referendum - 1999 Referendum Report and Statistics - Australian Electoral Commission (aec.gov.au)

That is not the same the link you provide is for the Republic where you either say YES or NO. There is no option to tick
This upcoming referendum if you vote yes You can either tick the box or write YES But if you vote no snd you tick the No box as opposed to writing NO your vote is invalid

There are different rules for voting YES and NO. The rules for voting NO mean if you tick the No box it is invalid but if you tick the YES it is a valid
Only a fool cannot see this is clrarly trying to stack the deck in favour of the yes vote.

[zac]

That is not the same the link you provide is for the Republic where you either say YES or NO. There is no option to tick
This upcoming referendum if you vote yes You can either tick the box or write YES But if you vote no snd you tick the No box as opposed to writing NO your vote is invalid

There are different rules for voting YES and NO. The rules for voting NO mean if you tick the No box it is invalid but if you tick the YES it is a valid
Only a fool cannot see this is clrarly trying to stack the deck in favour of the yes vote.

it's exactly the same kind of ballot with exactly the same rules - if you ticked the box for the last referendum it counted as a yes (which seems fair enough) but if you put a cross it was classified as informal. that part is not ideal but there are times when people put a cross in a box on a form to indicate that they're affirming something. while a tick seems to be an unambiguos affirmation a cross is more difficult to interpret.
whether or not it's fair and right is a fair question but it's not part of some conspiracy brought in for this referendum - it's following protocols that have been in place for more than fifty years

[player 1]

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

I believe you Zac. I am mindful of your story you shared about the young indigenous chaps who soft mugged you in the cab. You're a good chap, as is Izzy and I'm sure Paddo, but I don't agree this is the way forward. I could be completely wrong - it's happened before!

[Andrew Walker]

I believe you Zac. I am mindful of your story you shared about the young indigenous chaps who soft mugged you in the cab. You're a good chap, as is Izzy and I'm sure Paddo, but I don't agree this is the way forward. I could be completely wrong - it's happened before!

According to Paddo that opinion of it not being the way forward would make you a racist peta credlin liberal voting sky news devotee. In short he would label you a sheeple as he does with anyone who may disagree with his box with the view of the world. But I too am sure he’s a good chap as well I certainly find him an amusing chap

[Big Dog]

That is not the same the link you provide is for the Republic where you either say YES or NO. There is no option to tick
This upcoming referendum if you vote yes You can either tick the box or write YES But if you vote no snd you tick the No box as opposed to writing NO your vote is invalid

There are different rules for voting YES and NO. The rules for voting NO mean if you tick the No box it is invalid but if you tick the YES it is a valid
Only a fool cannot see this is clrarly trying to stack the deck in favour of the yes vote.

They're not fools, they know it's designed to hinder the no vote.

[zac]

i don't know who has control of the procedures for deciding what's an informal vote, whether it's the govenment or the australian electoral commission, but as far as i know the procedure hasn't changed since the 1967 referendum - you're given one box and told to write yes or no but when it comes to the counting, ticks will be counted as yes votes and crosses will be deemed informal. dutton could have lobbied to have that protocol changed when he was in government - but he didn't. bit rich for him to come out now and complain about it

[Jacks Fur Coat]

i don't know who has control of the procedures for deciding what's an informal vote, whether it's the govenment or the australian electoral commission, but as far as i know the procedure hasn't changed since the 1967 referendum - you're given one box and told to write yes or no but when it comes to the counting, ticks will be counted as yes votes and crosses will be deemed informal. dutton could have lobbied to have that protocol changed when he was in government - but he didn't. bit rich for him to come out now and complain about it

The Commissioner (Tom Rogers) is responsible. But I can't see how you can attribute any expectations on Pistol Pete when in office. He would have been focusing on winning the election and would not have foreseen the details of this referendum and its subsequent controversies. He surely had other things on his mind. Would have required the forward thinking of Nostrildamus.

[zac]

The Commissioner (Tom Rogers) is responsible. But I can't see how you can attribute any expectations on Pistol Pete when in office. He would have been focusing on winning the election and would not have foreseen the details of this referendum and its subsequent controversies. He surely had other things on his mind. Would have required the forward thinking of Nostrildamus.

maybe, but it's a bit rich for him to complain about the protocols when he's been in parliament for yonks and has done nothing about changing them.
and it's straight up dishonest for him to suggest that this is part of an unfair yes campaign tactic to influence the vote

[Jacks Fur Coat]

There was a ground breaking moment yesterday in the whole of Australian 'landscape' . Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price addressed the good old Press Club.

And wow, its one of the most authentic, raw, real truth telling pieces you will ever hear. She spoke of the awful abuse she has suffered for speaking her mind, and having opinions that don't fit the standard narratives.

She fielded the standard talking point gotcha questions from the peanut gallery, and man she hit them outa the park.

And she offered real hope for a better united Australia.

A masterclass. This may well have been a watershed moment for this country.

Regardless of political leanings, you can appreciate what she is offering.

I append the speech. A bit longish but even some or part educates us all and can open our eyes.

[The Monk]

it's no ruse. it's following the rules that have been in place for referendums since 1967. see this ballot for the 1999 referendum - 1999 Referendum Report and Statistics - Australian Electoral Commission (aec.gov.au)

Did the people call the referendum as required in the Constitution? No...The corporate politicians did. Were a corporation have been since 1973 when Gough stitched this country up and Hawkie Ratified it in 86. Beazley said in 1990...we have full remit from teh UN to acquire all private land. Its a massive land grab Black and white lose. If you cant see that I cant help you.

Tom Rodgers and teh AEC have been sortng out elections for decades. This wont be any different. Its two wings of the same bird playing us for mugs.

[Paddo Colt 61]

Same old same old - talk about anything but the simple proposition and ratchet up the fear. I know just who are the mugs. "Did the people call the referendum?" Gimme a break, what a side splitter that one is. You mean the Australian people? LOL.

[Random Rooster]

Did the people call the referendum as required in the Constitution? No...The corporate politicians did. Were a corporation have been since 1973 when Gough stitched this country up and Hawkie Ratified it in 86. Beazley said in 1990...we have full remit from teh UN to acquire all private land. Its a massive land grab Black and white lose. If you cant see that I cant help you.

Tom Rodgers and teh AEC have been sortng out elections for decades. This wont be any different. Its two wings of the same bird playing us for mugs.

Who are these corporate politicians and why is it so necessary for then to have this constitution?

How did Whitlam stitch up the country and what did Bob Hawke do?

What has Beazley as a leader of the opposition who was never the PM got to do with it?

Tom Rogers has only been in charge of the electoral commision since 2013- when you saying "sorting out" do you mean the election of Albanese was rigged ?