tdunlop wrote:
> If the deliberative poll is unrepresentative, then so is every other poll in
> the country as the methods of choosing participants are identical - in fact
> it was done by one of the major polling companies, Newspoll, I think.
>
I said that there are other people who consider it unrepresentative. This is an
opinion expressed by others
that I have read. This statement was not made about the choosing (although an argument
could be made that
only certain people could take the time to go to Canberra) but about the conclusions.
> So if its results are deemed unrepresentative then so are the results of
> every other poll that shows people favour direct election and that direct
> electionists keep quoting.
Not true. Other people are asked their opinion without going through an intensive
discussion period. Other
polls ask people's opinion as it stands. These polls have shown a large majority is in
favour of a republic.
They also show that there is not enough support for the model on offer for it to get
up. They have also
shown that most of those in favour of a republic would prefer a direct election model.
> The advantage the deliberative poll had was that it actually provided people
> with information, allowed them to ask experts from both sides direct
> questions, and allowed them to discuss the ideas amongst themselves. Not
> like conventional polling which just asks for a yes or no. If it's a social
> experiment, then it's one with a lot of merit and I'd like to see more of
> them.
No one is arguing with that.
> Why Antony Green would suggest that it being a social experiment
> invalidates it is beyond me.
Antony Green said that it was a social experiment not a poll. He didn't say that
because it was a social
experiment it was invalidated. He said it wasn't a poll and maybe meant to imply that
this invalidated it as
a poll.
> Everything is new at some stage; doesn't mean
> its wrong. Reconciliation is a social experiment.
I think you're reading more into it than was meant.
> As to my position being entrenched - in terms of voting Yes on Nov 6, then I
> guess it is, though "entrenched" is rather more pejorative than the amount
> of discussion I've been willing to be involved in suggests.
I think you're reading too much into the word entrenched also. I just meant that you
won't be changing your
mind about voting yes, and I was not trying to change your mind. My previous argument
was that if the 'yes'
faction was trying to convince the direct electionists to come on board they were
going about it the wrong
way. It is totally irrelevant that all three sides have told porkies or that they have
been less than
flattering about each other.
> But when it
> comes to actually preferring a direct election to indirect appointment, then
> I'm not entrenched at all and have said from the beginning that I actually
> favour direct election is some ways - I just don't happen to think that
> voting No is a useful way of getting that result.
But Tim, that was not the point of my argument. You were very clear about how you felt
and I explained how I
saw things and that was fine. We all have a different point of view (some of us are of
the same view in
parts) and in our society that is allowed and healthy.
I feel that this is being rushed too much.
As Barry Cassidy said on the ABC last night, amongst the politicians at least it is
not so much a matter of
passion for republic or monarchy but about who wins and who loses.
It is my opinion that as a result we all lose. Our country loses. It is never too late
to try again.
What would have happened if the Federationists had rushed through the first (accepted
as flawed) model
because of one man's ego? What kind of country would this have been?
A change like this should have the country behind it. As it stands, it does not.
Trudy
>
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trudy and Rod Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, October 29, 1999 1:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [recoznet2] Re: SMH - 'Yes' case on its last legs, say
> strategists
>
> >Tim,
> >Your position is entrenched and so are many others. I just want to mention
> that Anthony Green called the
> >'deliberative poll' a social experiment and not a poll.
> >A lot of people would disagree with you also about the 'poll' being
> properly representative.
> >
> >Trudy
> >
> >tim:
> >
> >This is not true. The deliberative poll - which fulfils a reasonable
> >defintion of being properly representative and of being an opportunity for
> >ordinary people to assess the arguments - shows beyond doubt that once they
> >are properly consulted and informed, people reject the direct election
> >model. The figures were astounding - support for direct election dropped
> >from 50% to 19% over the six weeks of the process. And the only response
> >the No case has had is to denigrate the process, saying it was rigged. But
> >the real lesson in this result was for direct electionists - it showed that
> >they can't rely on a direct election model getting up. It doesn't
> guarantee
> >that it will be beaten, but it does show that the current figures of the
> >regular polls showing high support for a direct election model can't be
> >relied on once a concerted No campaign starts.
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >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/
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
-------------------------------------------------------
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/
