Thanks, Laurie for the clarification you offered of the "Section 25" post.
I know there is some rhetorical flourish in sweeping statements like, "Any
Australian of whom it might be said that they are NOT racist
must make a conscious decision to spoil their vote," but I don't think they
do much good at the end of the day. Still, there is also room for righteous
and understandable anger over something as vile as Section 25.
I agree with Susan, who said, "We're not going to change
the Constitution by spoiling our votes in this referendum. We're not
even going to effectively express our outrage: no one is going to
notice such a protest."
I also agree with her comments that, "My votes will be "yes" for the
republic and "no" for the preamble. My yes vote will be made in full
recognition that we've been treated with contempt by both sides, with
everyone concerned attempting to manipulate us. But a republic, however
imperfect, is far preferable to me over the inherently imperfect monarchy.
And, just maybe, Laurie will be proved right and we will take more
responsibility for our Constitution when we realise that we are on our own.
As for the preamble, it's unnecessary and disgusting."
On Sandy's point about being misled by both sides, it was interesting to see
the "deliberative poll" held over the weekend here in Canberra. The result
itself - which saw a massive swing towards a yes vote and in favour of the
model on offer - is almost irrelevant. The interesting thing was the extent
to which people respond well and enthusiastically to social/political debate
when they are actually included in the process. It bears out the point
Trudy has been making all along, I think, that we need more inclusive
processes of debate, and I hope more events like this are organised. How
interesting would one have been on the GST or on the ten point plan? In
fact, I'd like to see them as an integral part of the process, to have
"legislative juries" along with Senate Committees etc as standard practice.
I've included an article on the deliberative poll at the end.
Cheers
Tim
=========================
'Yes' vote jumps after poll debate
By STEPHANIE PEATLING in Canberra
Support for Australia becoming a republic jumped from 53 per cent to 73 per
cent after a two-day experimental poll of 350 Australians.
After heated debating among the group, selected and polled before the
discussions, support for Australia having a president elected by the people
dropped dramatically. The percentage of "no" voters fell from 40 to 27.
By the end of the weekend, support for a president elected by a two-thirds
majority of Parliament, which will be put to the electorate on November 6,
had increased from 20pc to 61pc.
At the same time, backing for a directly elected president fell from 50pc to
19pc, with 15pc wanting no change and 5pc uncommitted.
It is the first time a "deliberative poll", a brainchild of Professor Jim
Fishkin of the University of Texas, has been held in Australia.
The 350 "representative Australians", as they were called at the weekend,
were split into small groups to discuss the referendum before being surveyed
for their opinions. The full results will be released today.
An Australian Republican Movement spokesman said: "This is a great result
and it just shows if people have the right information they can see through
the monarchists' lies. But many people won't have the opportunity, and we'll
be working over the next two weeks to make sure they get it."
A "no" case spokesman, Professor David Flint, said the result was not a
setback for the monarchists.
"It demonstrates great volatility," he told ABC TV. "Last night there was a
great leaning towards 'no'; today there is leaning towards 'yes' ... It also
demonstrates to us, confirms to us, that there is a vast number of undecided
people out there."
Although participants in the poll overwhelmingly supported the process, many
called for greater education of the community.
Ms Colleen Wheate, of Cairns, said she went to the debate as an "uninformed
'yes' voter" but would now definitely vote yes in two weeks. "Now I really
feel like I'm making the right choice, and I'm concerned people will be
voting for the wrong reasons. I want to go and tell everyone I know who's
undecided about what I've learnt."
Mr John McEntyre, of Maitland, said he felt privileged to have had the
opportunity to spend two days questioning experts about his concerns.
"I've always been a swinging voter but I haven't been a sheep just following
other people," he said. "I've studied the issues. What really worries me is
that people haven't got enough information to make an informed decision."
Participants grew bolder in questioning the panel of experts and none was
ashamed to admit having a change of mind over the 48 hours.
One woman told the forum she had wanted to vote "yes" but needed the issues
explained in detail. "Now I'm not worried at all. I will vote 'yes'
proudly."
A man said: "I can only encourage every person I know to go and understand
the facts. When I came here I was voting 'no', but know I now I can vote
'yes'."
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
