As the title says. It appears there’s a regular reason being given for not voting Yes for the voice in parliament, as being “We don’t know what we’re voting for”.
So, why don’t the political leaders give a full, account of what people are voting for? Surely if they want to counter that argument, they can do it quickly and easily. Just give the details. Stop the argument in its tracks.
Another way to say it might be: Why do you think a full, transparent definition of what the voice will mean, has not been presented?
Now, as a side note. If this was posted in /r/Australia, it would be censored. This would be a waste of my time. Let’s see if Lemmy can handle an adult conversation on this important topic.
The argument of ‘lack of details’ isn’t made in good faith.
The details have been given, short form and in long, detailed documentation all readily available. The ‘no’ complaints are just excusatory.
The only thing we’re voting on is the change to the constitution. The change wording has been supplied.
The actual makeup and operation of the voice is not up for voting. There have been very in-depth design documents, such as I posted in the other thread: https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report
Having read a 270 page report of how the organisation is structured and how it will operate, does that make you more inclined to vote yes? Is it enough detail for you?
Personally I don’t think the detail will convince anyone. I think it’s like the gay marriage survey - someone originally deciding to vote no on that, but then reading the actual legislative requirements and then changing their mind to yes. I just don’t think that’s a common occurrence.
There is enough detail out there. A lot of it is readily available without having to look into it much. The information pack for the referendum covers both sides. From what I gather, the lack of details is an excuse to vote no. Reading the “vote No” stuff completely lacks detail, which is quite ironic in their argument.
