• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I guess it can go both ways - it can either put it back further because people rejected it, or it could lead to further discussions around a better solution (with hopefully more details given before being asked to vote).

    At the moment it seems we’re voting yes or no on a title of “the voice” while being told we don’t need to know what the voice can actually do.

    • c15co@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is exactly what happened with the Republic referendum. People didn’t like the model, so they voted no. It’s been 24 years since that referendum and in that time there has never been a conversation around a different model.

      The public said no, so no politician wants to touch it.

      If you vote no, treaty will never happen.

      • billytheid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it’s not. In fact it’s not specifically because of the Republic referendum. People just won’t take responsibility for their laziness or inability to read a simple document.

        The simple truth is that Australians are mostly racist.

        • c15co@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Im not sure I understand your reply.

          My point about the republic was that if people say no to the Voice because it doesn’t go far enough, will end up killing the conversation that could become treaty. Just like the republic conversation died with the 1999 referendum