What Are Your Thoughts on Referendums. Are Voters Given Enough Say in The Countries Decisions? E.g. Refugee Intake

[Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 10:06
Last edited 30/06/2016 - 10:20 by 1 other user

I was really surprised recently when someone disagreed with me on referendums. I had pretty much assumed that nearly everyone would feel that the voting proletariate are not being listened to enough by our politicians on issues such as refugee intake and the like. Wouldn't you like to be asked (via a referendum) about some/certain issues? With a referendum on refugees for example perhaps a range from no refugees to allowing some and another option to allow all. I feel we the voters are often not listened to at all but rather being told what will be by political parties.

Someone argued that this is why we vote for a political party and so we should leave the… burden of decision making entirely to the party. I do believe that the overall running of the/a countries should be done by the political party (infrastructure and the like) BUT that on certain contentious issues - people should be encouraged via referendums to have their say. I suggested that around 10 referendums should be allowed each year. What could be more fair???

Are my feelings on the matter so at odds with most people?
Shouldn't the government be somewhat bound by the feelings of the majority via official voter referendums?

*My 1st poll folks - no nastiness please, I'm just reviewing my thoughts on such things.
Will appreciate sensible comments that will either sway or support my thoughts.

Poll Options

  • 156
    Yes - we should have more referendums. The people should have an official say.
  • 180
    No - we should not have more referendums. The government should make these decisions entirely.
General Discussion

Comments

  • lupiter on 30/06/2016 - 10:28
    +20

    10 referendums per year would be expensive! It's not hard for the government to get some polling if they want to know what the "consensus" is, and most referendums aren't legally binding anyway so the gov can do what they want with the result.

    • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 01:40
      +1

      Have it once, every few years.

    • Oz80085 on 02/07/2016 - 10:19
      +2

      Actually all referenda in Australia are binding. Usually a referendum would only be called to decide on whether to change the constitution in some way. It's called a "plebiscite" if it's not legally binding. Totally agree though. The massive cost of holding them makes it fairly prohibitive.

    • Musing Outloud on 02/07/2016 - 13:46
      +2

      BTayloris correct. Referenda are legally binding, Plebescites are not.

      History of Referenda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_Australia
      History of Plebescites: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departm…

      Most Referenda don't get up. What I do know is Referenda are for constitutional change but what I don't know is if Plebescites are only used for non-constitutional matters.

      In Australia it is compulsory to vote. In the UK it was not compulsory to vote. In the US, voting is not compulsory. I have an issue with the "Not Compulsory" as it represents only the motivated and not all people so is not theoretically as democratic as "Compulsory" voting.

      I'll explain by rough Brexit example. There are ~60m Brits of whom about ~45m can vote. About ~31m voted and ~16m voted for Brexit. So ~16m determined the future of 45m voters and a population of ~60m. Nevertheless those ~16m were angry and motivated. Regardless of whether I think Brexit is good or bad, the process itself did not serve democracy. Australia has got it right with compulsory voting.

      Interestingly, only ~1/3 of people under 25 voted, but when they did they mostly voted to stay. If this is an overall indicator of those who did not vote, then with compulsory voting Brexit may not have got up and arguably would have been a more democratic result.

      • soza on 02/07/2016 - 15:21
        -5

        I disagree

        I don't think you can call something democratic when its compulsory? Where is the freedom of choice?

        Only 22 countries in the world have compulsory voting….and half of those don't enforce it.

        Australia is about the only western democratic country that penalises its population for not voting.

        Yep we are up there with North Korea at forcing people to back something even if they disagree.

        You will see this the other way, as most aussies do because you know no different. But abstaining from voting is one of the biggest and most powerfull voices you can have.

        • floppydesk on 02/07/2016 - 15:51
          +10

          Why is abstaining that big and powerful? Sure, you don't like what's on the menu, so you "protest" by not voting for any of the parties/candidates on offer. What exactly are you achieving by this, apart from the ability to say: "Stuff'em, I didn't vote for any of them!" or "I told you it will be bad!"? How are you contributing to a better outcome? The same people end up in charge, with fewer individual votes - as in Musing's example.

          Democracy is not about expecting things from the government and packing your toys when you don't get what you want. It is about collective decision making, and leaving the decision to others is not really that big and powerful - it's lazy and easy…

        • soza on 02/07/2016 - 19:56

          @floppydesk:

          it is lazy and easy,…..
          for the political parties that don't have to do a thing to get your vote.

          The 20% of the UK. USA, France, Germany or wherever that don't vote are the target audience that can swing an election. Only way to get them to vote is by listening to what they want and driving policies that will get them to the booth on voting day.

          We are taught in Australia no vote no say and this has been passed down from our parents and our grandparents before them….but that b/s otherwise every western country or super power would be doing it

          Here is the company we keep when it comes to compulsory voting …..
          Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, North Korea, Singapore, Cyprus, Nauru, Uruguay. Schaffhausen, Luxemburg and Liechtenstein.
          That's It!….

          A few other countries have compulsory voting but don't enforce it and countries like Spain, Greece , Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Chile and Portugal had compulsory voting and scrapped it years ago.

          On the EU referendum I personally know people that didn't vote and it wasn't because they couldn't be bothered.
          The majority just didn't know what way to go and rather than swing it either way sat on the fence to leave it for others…..its was a very complex issue and one that many believe should not have gone to a public vote.
          Some were set to vote leave for all the idealism of sovereignty and independence but didn't like the way the right wing hijacked the campaign for purposes of immigration, so abstained.

          would a compulsory vote have changed the outcome? maybe….maybe not but at least this way the ones that voted made a consensual decision and were not forced to play pin the tail on the donkey.

          You have to also remember other countries don't do preferential voting like we do here. You get a few options and you put an X next to your choice. With this you have to be 100% sure hence the high % that don't vote.

        • jagsman on 03/07/2016 - 05:46
          +7

          On election day there is nothing stopping you taking your ballot paper, walking straight over and putting it in the box completely blank, then walking out. There, you just exercised your democratic right not to vote. That is your "freedom of choice". What you dont have (and I expect what you are whinging about) is the right to sit on your arse watching tv.

        • syousef on 03/07/2016 - 08:59
          -1

          @floppydesk:

          You can always vote INVALID. You just have to show up to not be fined.

        • soza on 03/07/2016 - 09:41

          @jagsman:

          your right mate…
          along with the populations of Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, North Korea, Singapore, Cyprus, Nauru, Uruguay. Schaffhausen, Luxemburg and Liechtenstein.

          the rest of the world, well they have it wrong.

          for the record I have done that in the past (spoilt a vote) Mark Latham was a big advocate for this back in his day. This election I knew where my vote was going.
          And that's my point. Its not about not been arsed its about only voting if you know what you are doing and have confidence in your decision.

          Even our PMs have opted out of voting on issues they are unsure of the ramifications…..Gillard, regards Palestine given United Nations status.

          and
          my whinging only comes from trying to counter this original statement "Interestingly, only ~1/3 of people under 25 voted, but when they did they mostly voted to stay. If this is an overall indicator of those who did not vote, then with compulsory voting Brexit may not have got up and arguably would have been a more democratic result"

          my argument is compulsory voting is not more democratic and the fact that countries like the UK, USA, Germany, Russia, Japan Canada and the rest of the whole friggin planet don't do it proves that point.

        • soza on 03/07/2016 - 09:51

          @syousef:

          only problem with a Invalid/spoilt/blank votes is they hardly get noticed for the fact it could be argued they were accidental errors. If a significant percentage of the population eligible to vote chooses not too then its widely documented and added to the statistics.

        • bobbified on 04/07/2016 - 10:58
          +1

          @soza:

          It'd be pretty difficult to mistaken the huge pen1s that spans along the length of the Senate voting paper as an "accidental error".

      • soza on 03/07/2016 - 10:22

        a few interesting stats, about 6-10% of those registered to vote in Australia don't and will be issued a fine or have to account for their abstinence….of which saying I don't agree with any of the candidates or policies is not valid (yeah, real democratic isn't it)
        A further 10% of Australians are not on the register.
        Of those that do vote around 6% are invalid. blank or spoiled.

        So the 28% that did not vote in the EU referendum is not too dissimilar to the 15-25% of eligible voters that did not vote in last nights federal election.

        I also think we had an easier choice with a system that enabled us to make six preferences on an outcome that is only going to last 4 years.
        The Brexit was a huge decision…uncharted waters and permanent with massive perceived consequences either way ….all this on back of a persons choice of yes or no. For 72% to vote on this was massive.

    • anthonyaaa on 02/07/2016 - 17:52

      Why let the elite 226 members of parliament/senate make all the decisions. 6 figure pays, government entitltements and benefits. All the travel expenses and hotels. All the dinners and office staff… Your screaming corruption without our oversite

    • bobbified on 04/07/2016 - 11:05
      +3

      I'm still wondering why that, in this day and age, an online voting system hasn't been put in place so that we don't need to waste all that paper and man-hours to count the votes.

      Security-wise, if the MyGov login is good enough for my personal tax returns and healthcare, it's more than good enough for me to vote with.

      • lupiter on 04/07/2016 - 11:36
        +1

        There is online voting for some absentee votes in state elections (NSW, maybe others), and electronic polling booths (i.e. touch screens) for ACT elections.

        As an ex security researcher … I would not trust an online federal voting system. The question is not "can it be broken" (because it most certainly can, even a paper one can, see all the fear-mongering about double-voting) but what is the effort/expense vs the reward, and how easily can it be tracked, blamed and prosecuted.

        It's true that your health records and tax returns are useful to someone who wants to commit identity fraud. But putting the voting online would just be asking for it to be hacked by the Chinese and/or the Russians. Aus just doesn't have the tech to defend or even necessarily to detect that kind of work, if you look at all our high security systems they require airgaps to the internet.

        I have fewer issues with a properly audited, fully accessible, open-source touch-screen or other computerised voting system, where you can take proper airgap security measures. The main issue with this system is your "average joe" voter or scrutineer can't tell if the system has been tampered with, unlike with a paper voting system where everything is "on display" so to speak.

        • bobbified on 04/07/2016 - 14:03

          You've got a pretty good point there about the fact that other countries may have an interest in tampering with the system. I didn't even think about.

          But as with everything online, it's never going to be 100% secure and I think there's got to be point where there's a balance between functionality and the level of acceptable risk.

      • Max Power on 04/07/2016 - 16:36

        How do you maintain anonymity and integrity in the system? An account-based system like myGov can give you integrity, but not anonymity.
        How do you ensure people in a controlling relationship aren't disenfranchised? e.g. Strict parents or abusive partner supervising to ensure they vote how they're told.
        When people are in a polling booth, they control their own vote and no one knows how they voted.
        Electronic polling booths could be the future, but at this stage too much is sacrificed for the convenience of online voting from home.

        • bobbified on 04/07/2016 - 17:07

          I did some further reading and you and @lupiter seem to be correct about the issues with online voting from home or mobile.

  • blitz on 30/06/2016 - 10:30
    +15

    Referendums

    I would have also accepted 'referenda'.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 10:33
      +2

      I appreciate your comment.
      Thank you. +1

    • getcarter on 30/06/2016 - 11:42
      +2

      Just out of interest blitz, are you a quiz master?

      • jenkemjunkie on 01/07/2016 - 14:51
        +3

        I picture blitz as a drift king, along with his mates veilside, sparco, trust and greddy. Blow off valves audible as they tackle another mountain in the moonlight

    • rover on 02/07/2016 - 10:30
      +1

      and I would have also accepted "referendumses".

      • altomic on 05/07/2016 - 01:39

        My money is on "referendi"

      • brazen00 on 06/07/2016 - 20:42

        We haaaates them

  • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 10:32
    +16

    The current Lieberal (and I imagine, most) Government(s) don't care what the people want anyway, at least after they are elected. They care about enforcing their ideology and maintaining power (fear has proven effective countless times recently)/ensuring they will have a cushy job with their new mates in big business when their run is over.

    • freakatronic on 01/07/2016 - 00:07
      +13

      You could use names of political parties interchangeably in your statement and still be correct. It's not a party problem, it's a system problem.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/07/2016 - 09:53

        (and I imagine, most) Government(s) - thank you, for re-wording what I had already inferred. Previously politicians at least used to step down when they were caught/about to be; now they hang on til the last minute to their perks as if they're dangling from a helicopter…

        • freakatronic on 02/07/2016 - 09:59
          +2

          Hah I didn't really read what you wrote properly. Caught out, howzat.

  • Youfah Mizzum on 30/06/2016 - 11:07
    +4

    Firstly, (from my understanding) a referendum is binding on the Govt to pass whatever legislation is required as a result of the referendum result.
    One the other hand, a plebiscite is similar but without the binding, so a Govt can hold a plebiscite on major issues which hugely affect society to garner the overall consensus of the public.

    Then we have another issue - the definition of "consensus". Although there is no legal proportion of percentage, only a majority i.e. 51%, in some business circles a consensus is deemed to be 65:35, i.e 65% will decide whether whatever decision is required.

    Whether a plebiscite or referendum is held would/should be based on the impact such a decision would have on society. Huge issues should go to the people, and I am not sure refugee intake is such an issue as to go to a public vote. I doubt anyone would deny access to genuine in-need refugees, the big question is what number? 5000? 10,000? 100,000? Economic migrants (those fleeing countries that are in political and/or financial disarray but left to seek a better life elsewhere, and they have a bit of cash to back them up) as opposed to genuine refugees (those who have been forcibly kicked out of their homes, no money, maybe a death warrant put on on them if they ever return for whatever reason) are sometimes hard to distinguish.
    Those two categories of people are often lumped in together, particularly by greenie parties who deem all people fleeing other countries are refugees.

    A good example of a major issue with major repercussions on society is the same-sex marriage debate - hence why the Libs want to hold a plebiscite. Adjusting the definition of marriage to exclude any gender definitions is enough of an issue to seek the wider opinion of the public.

    It is a huge financial undertaking to hold referenda/plebiscites which is a good enough reason not to hold them regularly and for minor reasons (relatively speaking), such as whether Kidman Station should be sold to foreign investors, or whether there should be a Medicare co-payment when visiting the doctors, or any other decision which should be made by the Govt. That is what they're elected to do.

    Just my 2 bobs worth.

    • jnewau on 30/06/2016 - 11:51
      +19

      "A good example of a major issue with major repercussions on society is the same-sex marriage debate - hence why the Libs want to hold a plebiscite" Err no. They want to hold a Plebiscite so that they can be seen to do something without actually doing anything (while wasting taxpayer money)

      The Howard Government had no problem changing the Marriage Act to redefine marriage without such a plebiscite before.

      • BigTed on 30/06/2016 - 12:37
        +10

        And the Greens/ALP don't want a plebiscite - not to save money (clearly neither of then are afraid of spending money - look at their commitments) but because they are scared of what the people might actually decide.

        • jnewau on 30/06/2016 - 12:45
          +3

          And this goes back to my point re: conviction from politicians.Politicians from both sides have dithered over this, especially Labor

          If one of them is for gay marriage, then FFS say it. if you're against it, then say so as well. The Libs do better here because quite obviously some of the more conservative elements in the LNP there have already said so. Agree with them or not, at least they're consistent.

        • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 14:37
          +2

          @jnewau:
          Yeah Libs are in a sticky situation with gay marriage. They can't openly support it as a party because ~40% of the population are against it (and majority of those are probably LNP voters).

          So a plebiscite is the best compromise we can hope for, one that I for one am happy with.

        • dazweeja on 30/06/2016 - 17:45
          +10

          They're not scared of what they people might decide. The ALP and Greens think it will easily pass.

          This will cause incredible harm to gay people but in particular gay parents and the children of gay parents. How would you feel if you were a gay parent and every day for months people were debating whether you deserved to be? How would you feel if you are a child of gay parents and you were seeing ads on the telly every day telling you that you were being harmed? That's just talking about the stuff that will be civil - there'll be much more that is just outright offensive, homophobic bile.

          And we'll be paying $160million for that?

        • dazweeja on 30/06/2016 - 17:51

          @jnewau:

          I'm not sure how you got the impression that more Liberal members than Labor members have declared their position on SSM? It's true that more Liberals have come out against but that is not the same thing.

          You can check here: http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/whereyourmpstands/

        • BigTed on 30/06/2016 - 18:45
          +4

          @dazweeja: No-one is debating gay parents' rights to be (either to exist or be gay parents). I don't recall seeing any ads that say children of gays are being harmed either. Pretty sure the issue is just whether gay couples should be entitled to have the state recognise their union as identical to hetero unions after going through the requisite formalities - more than it is already recognised as such.
          Do you seriously believe that the ALP and Greens care about the estimated and approximate figure of $160m? The ALP have promised $100m for a new football stadium in Townsville to secure just one seat! Spending the money is not the problem. Hordes of homophobes are not suddenly going to come out of the woodwork.
          No - they don't trust the people to deliver the result they want. They are scared it will be another Brexit.

        • GOFYS on 30/06/2016 - 19:19
          -1

          @Devils Advocate:
          26 million Facebook Users put up rainbows. Facebook has 1.23 billion users.
          That's only 2.11%.
          The other 500 million supporters should pick up their game.

        • dazweeja on 30/06/2016 - 19:58
          +6

          @BigTed:

          I know that gay parenting is not the issue but it's practically all opponents - ACL and their ilk - of SSM talk about. There is a group called Australian Marriage that have already taken out full page newspaper ads and now have TV commercials. Their slogan is 'Think of the child'. Their newspaper ad said, 'Is it equality to force some kids to miss out on their dad'. Their first commercial is 'Equality for the child', their second is 'Motherless generation'. Saying that it's about homosexual unions is true but also not particularly relevant in the real world. The anti-SSM campaign is very much framed around gay parenting and the rights of the child. For example:

          http://australianmarriage.org/
          http://www.acl.org.au/lyle_speaks_for_children_s_equality_in…

          This is just the start, the campaign hasn't even started yet. We'll be bombarded with this for months leading up the plebiscite. Hordes of racists did come out of the woodwork for the Brexist campaign. Hordes of homophobes will come out for this. Yes, the ALP/Greens don't want another Brexit when it leads to this:

          http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/06/29/484038396/a…
          https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/28/campai…
          http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/27/europe/racist-attacks-post…

          P.S. The LNP have also pledged $100m for the Townsville Stadium - for one seat - so it's not hypocritical for the ALP to say this $160m is wasteful. I personally think both are incredibly wasteful.

        • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 21:23
          +7

          @Whitecane:
          That's a bit of a silly thing to say. How many didn't change their profile picture to the French flag colours after the Paris attacks? Not changing their picture doesn't mean they support the attacks, same as the rainbow colours.

        • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 01:53
          -3

          @dazweeja:

          Being against ssm doesn't mean you're a homophobe.

          Good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an2TU58LlTE

          I think it's great that the LNP is having a plebiscite on ssm, instead of ALP not even giving people a choice.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/07/2016 - 02:28
          -3

          @ozhunter:

          You don't deserve a choice to dictate rights to others. Your discriminatory views should not be able to affect the lives of a marginalised minority through legislation.

        • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 04:37
          +2

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          If gay people want to have a ceremony, make vows, give each other rings, or live together. I couldn't care less. I don't see any reason to call it the same thing when marriage in its current definition is of a heterosexual union.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/07/2016 - 05:18
          +6

          @ozhunter:

          (a) "Separate but equal" isn't really equal. Full stop.
          (b) Obviously you do care, otherwise you wouldn't object.
          (c) That's laughable. Definitions can change, easily. John Howard did it, we can do it. America did it just fine. The point is, it doesn't impact you in the slightest, but can mean a world of difference for the gay men and women who want their relationship normalised, not otherised as you suggest.

        • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 06:15

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          Are boys not equal to girls?

          Definitions can change, easily.

          Of course it can. Every fruit could be called an apple, but it's not as they are different.

          I don't care if someone is gay, but no logical reason to call it a marriage when one is a same sex union and the other one is opposite sex.

          There's civil unions that's let gay people have a legally recognised union. Why do you think they want to be called "married" so badly?

        • dazweeja on 01/07/2016 - 09:51
          +6

          @ozhunter:

          I completely agree that being against SSM doesn't necessarily mean that you're a homophobe. There's just a lot of crossover between the two groups.

          Why not call it the same name? What does it 'cost' heterosexual people? Nothing. What does society gain? We send a message of inclusion. We tell gay people that they're equal and their love is the same as ours. When we live in a society where the suicide rate of young gay people is way too high, as just one example, this sort of symbolism is very important. I don't want to live in a society where we have one name for unions within one group of people and another name for the union of others. What sort of message does that send? It's easy from a position of privilege to say that the words and terms don't matter but they really do. Let's just get on with creating an equal society.

          And Labor is giving people a choice. The same way that other decisions like this are made in a democracy. It's called an election.

        • ThadtheChad on 01/07/2016 - 10:57

          @ozhunter:

          Explain what aspect of a heterosexual marriage cannot be present in a homosexual marriage? Also why shouldn't a union of homosexuals be called marriage?

        • callum9999 on 01/07/2016 - 11:28
          +7

          Although people think democracy means mob rule, putting the rights of a minority up for a vote by the majority is not an example of good democratic practice…

          And im not even going to get to the absurd notion that gay marriage has a major effect on the country. If you aren't gay it has virtually no effect whatsoever… Certainly less than your refugee example.

          As to my views, I have absolutely no faith that the electorate are competent to make important national decisions so no, I wouldn't want referenda. It's bad enough they get to choose the government as it is!

        • [Deactivated] on 01/07/2016 - 11:36

          @Whitecane: a lot of leaders from the two biggest religions on earth still teach that "LGBT" is "wrong".

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/07/2016 - 12:41
          +1

          @ozhunter:

          You know what, maybe you have a point. And while we're at it, let's stop the coloured people from using the word 'marriage' too. I'm totally not against black people, I just don't think they have the same claim to it as white people do. /s

          The fact of the matter is, marriage is a staple of society that only serves to otherise gay people when you deny it to them. The point is acceptance. Not being petty, possessive and selfish over the term.

          A same sex union is not the same as marriage. It's the equivalent of herding gay people onto a reservation. There is literally nothing lost by expanding the definition, but much to be gained.

        • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 14:12
          -3

          @dazweeja:

          Because it's not the same.

          I don't want to live in a society where we have one name for unions within one group of people and another name for the union of others. What sort of message does that send?

          There's two sexes, so you're going either going to be in a same-sex union or a heterosexual union.

          It's would be like me complaining because I can't join the local high school girls netball team because I'm a guy. You could say they're excluding me on the basis of sexism and ageism.

          Gays are included in society. They know homosexuality isn't illegal, can form civil unions, and they even have mardi gras.

          @gearhead:

          Two people of the opposite sex.

          Why can't it be called something else? Marriage is already taken.

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          The fact of the matter is, marriage is a staple of society that only serves to otherise gay people when you deny it to them. The point is acceptance.

          Deny what to them? The label "marriage"?

          Marriage is already equal. It is open to any man or woman.

          Boys/girls schools, professional sports, teams, toilets, change rooms, +18 sites, gyms all serve to "otherise" the opposite sex. Nothing wrong to have institution have requirements when there other institutions that let others do the same thing.

        • dazweeja on 01/07/2016 - 14:57
          +3

          @ozhunter:

          It's fine to have a different word for boys and girls where it's common to need to differentiate between the two. But say, for example, a heterosexual couple who couldn't have children decided to get married. In what meaningful way would their union be different to a homosexual union that you'd need a different term? If someone told you they were married, would you ever need to ask them if it was a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage? No, you wouldn't because their union would be the same in all respects. On some occasions, you might ask them if their partner was male or female if that was important but that is a different question. There is absolutely no need for a different term. It would serve no purpose, unlike having a different word for 'boy' and 'girl'. If it serves no purpose to have different terms, then your argument seems to boil down to, "I own this term and I don't want them to have it".

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 01/07/2016 - 18:16
          +1

          @ozhunter:

          Marriage is already equal. It is open to any man or woman.

          That is downright, shockingly disingenuous and you absolutely know it.

          all serve to "otherise" the opposite sex.

          Yes, equate 50% of the population with 2%, the circumstances are exactly the same, aren't they? (hint: they're not).

          Your argument is ridiculous and flimsy. Throwing out a heap of false equivalences doesn't help your case. You haven't given an actual reason as to why the two are different, you're just saying they should be treated as such. There is no significant difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one. The only reason you want to keep the gays separate from your precious institution is rooted solely discrimination.

          Your posts are ridiculously arrogant and lacking in self awareness. You seem to think that you can 'let' gay people have this, but not that. I mean, it's not illegal and it's not like Saudi Arabia where you can be lawfully murdered, what more do they want, right? Just take what we give you and pipe down, right? Wrong. Rights aren't yours to dole out whenever you see fit. Get some perspective.

        • ThadtheChad on 01/07/2016 - 19:08
          +2

          @ozhunter:

          Two people of the opposite sex.
          If there is an infertile hetero couple, how exactly do they differ from a gay couple? For all intents and purposes, they should be the same.

          Why can't it be called something else? Marriage is already taken.

          Why should it? English (and law) have been evolving over time already. In places where gay marriage is legal, all it takes is to remove the gender qualifier from the definition of marriage. There is no new ground to be covered here, this has already happened in a lot of places in the world. Under what rationale are we sticking to an anachronistic definition of the term marriage?

          It just appears to be some form of pandering to a demographic that is as obsolete as the concept of restricting marriage to opposite genders.

          I could even argue that since the world is slowly being accepting of the fact that gender identity itself is a bit less rigid, the concept of "opposing genders" is fast going the way of the dodo.

          So I ask again, why should you marriage be restricted to a union between a man and woman?

          It's would be like me complaining because I can't join the local high school girls netball team because I'm a guy. You could say they're excluding me on the basis of sexism and ageism.

          Sure. But you're allowed to join a netball team aren't you? The 'high school' and 'girls' qualifiers describe that specific team that only allows girls from the high school.

        • superkieu on 01/07/2016 - 21:00

          @Whitecane:

          these 26Million Facebook users included people who are straight but joined for fun.
          statistically speaking, 2.1% is irrelevant and not worthy of attention.

          97.9% of the Facebook population didn't care because they have other things to worry about.

          even if these 2.1% suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, life will carry on as if nothing has happened.

        • ozhunter on 01/07/2016 - 22:41
          -2

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          That is downright, shockingly disingenuous and you absolutely know it.

          Which part?

          You haven't given an actual reason as to why the two are different, you're just saying they should be treated as such. There is no significant difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual one

          Men and women are different. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise. Gay couple is a sterile union.

          Why should it?

          Because men and women are different. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an2TU58LlTE

          Sure. But you're allowed to join a netball team aren't you? The 'high school' and 'girls' qualifiers describe that specific team that only allows girls from the high school.

          Gays can also form a union, can they not? They can also have a wedding, give rings to each other, makes vows etc. Gays don't care if they can form a union and live happily with their partner, they want "marriage".

          Since no one answered, my guess to why gays want to be "married" is that marriage is a worldwide institution that is accepted and celebrated. Gays just don't want to be tolerated, they want society to accept homosexuality and they think they if gay marriage passes, that society will just accept their lifestyle.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 02/07/2016 - 00:02

          @ozhunter:

          Which part?

          You know which part, don't be obtuse. Marriage is not available to same sex couples, therefore it is not equal. Don't give me that 'homosexuals can marry, just the opposite sex' idiocy.

          Men and women are different. Gay couple is a sterile union.

          Since heterosexual couples can be sterile or can choose to be child free, and gay couples can adopt and have surrogacy options, child rearing is not an inherent, exclusive feature of heterosexual relationships. Therefore, there is no functional difference between hetero- and homo- sexual couples. Therefore no, there is no difference.

          Since no one answered, my guess to why gays want to be "married" is that marriage is a worldwide institution that is accepted and celebrated. Gays just don't want to be tolerated, they want society to accept homosexuality and they think they if gay marriage passes, that society will just accept their lifestyle.

          And what in the flying (profanity) is wrong with that? You think we should settle for tolerance? You think it's wrong to want acceptance? You think that we should settle down and stop 'complaining' because we're not being outright persecuted, because it could be worse? Because it's inconvenient for you? (profanity) you, and (profanity) off. You prioritise your 'convenience' and petty selfishness over the quality of life for thousands of people.

          You see, you do get the point after all, you just hide behind thin excuses to shield yourself from criticism. Just face it, you're objecting to this solely because you're opposed to gay people… you talk a lot of words, but your intent is plain as day. You might think yourself tolerant by the barest definition of the word, but you're really not. Congratulations, now you're worthy of the title 'homophobe'.

        • ozhunter on 02/07/2016 - 01:36
          -3

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          You know which part, don't be obtuse. Marriage is not available to same sex couples, therefore it is not equal. Don't give me that 'homosexuals can marry, just the opposite sex' idiocy.

          Is the term "boy" not equal as it only applies to boys or how "heterosexuals" is only applicable to heterosexuals?

          Since heterosexual couples can be sterile or can choose to be child free, and gay couples can adopt and have surrogacy options, child rearing is not an inherent, exclusive feature of heterosexual relationships

          But child-bearing is.

          Same-sex couple adoption is just another problem. Why should a gay couple be allowed to adopt when nature does not allow them to conceive a child of their own? When they adopt, or use surrogacy, they rob a child of either their father or mother. I know gay parents can be great parents but it would not be ethically right for the child.

          And what in the flying (profanity) is wrong with that? You think we should settle for tolerance? You think it's wrong to want acceptance? You think that we should settle down and stop 'complaining' because we're not being outright persecuted, because it could be worse? Because it's inconvenient for you? (profanity) you, and (profanity) off. You prioritise your 'convenience' and petty selfishness over the quality of life for thousands of people.

          Nothing wrong with wanting to be accepted, but gays do have to understand that not everyone accepts homosexuality as morally right. I accept gay people(but not homosexuality) and respect that they should have the right to be with the person they love.

          If same-sex marriage does pass, do gays actually think all of society will actually accept homosexuality because the government changed the term which is on an exclusive heterosexual nature(even before the Marriage Act)?

          Without a doubt, if term "civil union" was exclusive to homosexual couples it would in no way be respected as marriage which is why they don't want it; they rather hijack "marriage"

        • ThadtheChad on 02/07/2016 - 11:18

          @ozhunter:

          But child-bearing is.

          I could also argue that child-bearing can also be de-coupled from marriage. :) You needn't be married to have a child.

          Same-sex couple adoption is just another problem. Why should a gay couple be allowed to adopt when nature does not allow them to conceive a child of their own? When they adopt, or use surrogacy, they rob a child of either their father or mother. I know gay parents can be great parents but it would not be ethically right for the child.

          That is quite an assumption there. Why should infertile couples be allowed to adopt if "nature" does not allow them to conceive? This is a rather fallacious line of thinking as we can keep pushing it to ridiculous extremes, for example: why should we treat a child with birth complications when nature intends them to die.

          Nothing wrong with wanting to be accepted, but gays do have to understand that not everyone accepts homosexuality as morally right.

          This is a fast waning mindset among the educated masses who have a more "metropolitan" upbringing. With the exposure to a multitude of cultures, people and differing ways of life, there is acceptance and understanding that is becoming the norm, not the aberration.

          Also, morally right? That's their opinion, but it doesn't stop them from being discriminatory. :) Remember, Australia has always had a rather chequered past when it comes to discrimination. We're rapidly moving away from that, however, those bad apples hold us back.

          If same-sex marriage does pass, do gays actually think all of society will actually accept homosexuality because the government changed the term which is on an exclusive heterosexual nature(even before the Marriage Act)?

          It does two things,
          1. It demonstrates that the Australian Govt is in touch with the changing times. It also sets the underlying framework for future reforms.
          2. It shows through action that our core value of egalitarianism is still very much an ideal we are working towards.

          Without a doubt, if term "civil union" was exclusive to homosexual couples it would in no way be respected as marriage which is why they don't want it; they rather hijack "marriage"

          Why wouldn't it be respected? What makes a heterosexual marriage more "respectable" when compared to a gay union/marriage? Is it the endorsement of some outdated religious institution? Or is it just a personal POV?

          Look mate, I get you don't want 'dem gayz' to be 'hijacking' the word "marriage". I would like you to ponder over one thing, if the gay-marriage were a thing, would that make your marriage any less potent? Your vows, your commitment, your legal standing would remain the same. So in effect, nothing would change for you. However, it would bring a great deal of legitimacy and acceptance for the gay community.

        • StewBalls on 02/07/2016 - 12:31

          even if these 2.1% suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, life will carry on as if nothing has happened.

          Incorrect, musical theatre, interior design & political activism would all be set back decades, if not centuries…

        • ozhunter on 02/07/2016 - 14:19
          -2

          @gearhead:

          I could also argue that child-bearing can also be de-coupled from marriage. :) You needn't be married to have a child.

          Kids aren't necessary but is one purpose of marriage.

          Why should infertile couples be allowed to adopt if "nature" does not allow them to conceive?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDTLjeZzbQ8

          Also, morally right? That's their opinion, but it doesn't stop them from being discriminatory.

          If using a word to describe a specific union is discriminatory even though any individual any where can take part of it then you must think every single term in the English language is also discriminatory.
          Bos, girls, homosexuals, men, women, etc. Anything and everything can be discriminatory.

          1. It demonstrates that the Australian Govt is in touch with the changing times. It also sets the underlying framework for future reforms.

          If ssm is passed, I'd of course acknowledge that they are legally married, but no one would change their view on it just because the government legalised it. Do you think people would just go "Oh, we can accept them now"?

          1. It shows through action that our core value of egalitarianism is still very much an ideal we are working towards.

          It is equal, you just have to form the union with someone of the opposite sex.

          Why wouldn't it be respected? What makes a heterosexual marriage more "respectable" when compared to a gay union/marriage? Is it the endorsement of some outdated religious institution? Or is it just a personal POV?

          Because not everyone accepts homosexuality for many reasons. Why should I accept it because someone else chooses that lifestyle? I can tolerate other people's choices as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

          They obviously aren't happy with civil unions. Do you think society would see one union as superior to the other if they have different terms? (Of course you do which is why you want the same terminology). Why do you think society think marriage would be seen as superior? And do you think that view would change just because the same term is applied?

          I would like you to ponder over one thing, if the gay-marriage were a thing, would that make your marriage any less potent? Your vows, your commitment, your legal standing would remain the same.

          My marriage would be the same. If worse comes to worse, when writing or typing about celebrating marriage, I'd have to clarify that I mean real/traditional marriages. Would you be more accepting of gays if the government allowed to be married or would it remain the same?

          However, it would bring a great deal of legitimacy and acceptance for the gay community.

          Civil unions are legitimate and society is very accepting of gay people. The simple logic remains of why call them the same thing when they are clearly different.

        • StewBalls on 02/07/2016 - 15:00

          @ProspectiveDarkness: Consider yourself lucky, I usually get put immediately in the penalty box for far less than that…

        • U4333439 on 03/07/2016 - 09:16

          @gearhead:
          I am pro plebiscite in the absence of someone just fixing it, bit for me part of the difference is… I genuinely felt embarrassed at work last week when I was celebrating a work collegeues engagement witht several gay co-workers around. The simple understanding of the commitment by others and warm celebration is something they currently can't share. Goes double for wedding talk. How would your wife (not making an assumption - just works better in my example) feel if she couldn't celebrate her engagement/wedding in the same way everyone else does. To be honest, while the commitment may feel the same to my partner and myself, I probably wouldn't share it with others as I wouldn't expect them to understand.

        • ozhunter on 03/07/2016 - 09:21
          -1

          @U4333439:

          Just to be clear, you're in a homosexual relationship?

          There's nothing actually stopping gay people from celebrating their commitment to one another and throwing a party.

        • ProspectiveDarkness on 03/07/2016 - 22:21
          +2

          @ProspectiveDarkness:

          To anyone who's curious about my deleted comments: apparently you're not allowed to call a homophobe spade a homophobe spade because that constitutes 'name-calling'. Because we're all children, apparently. But nah, demeaning thousands of people as being morally wrong and inferior is perfectly fine, and completely above reproach. What a (profanity) joke.

        • U4333439 on 04/07/2016 - 21:48
          +1

          @ozhunter:
          No - hetero marriage with two kids. I think you're missing the point. Sure you can celebrate your civil union and I'm sure many people do. The fact is that society (and I'm sure people in general) don't respond in quite the same way. Civil union dresses? Civil union rings? Civil union… Maids? :) I think they lose something quite tangible by not getting to call their ceremony and their relationship the same way others do.

        • ozhunter on 06/07/2016 - 04:03
          -1

          @U4333439:

          The fact is that society (and I'm sure people in general) don't respond in quite the same way.

          And it's sad that they think if the term marriage is applied to their union, that society worldwide would accept it as they do heterosexual unions.

          Civil union dresses? Civil union rings? Civil union… Maids? :)

          Wedding ceremonies could be used for both marriages and civil unions; weddings aren't even necessary. You'd think they'd want their own tradition because their so proud(pride marches) of their sexuality.

          I think they lose something quite tangible by not getting to call their ceremony and their relationship the same way others do

          Agreed, but they won't get it just because the term "marriage" is legally applied to them.

          A good read: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of…

        • U4333439 on 06/07/2016 - 08:02
          +1

          @ozhunter:
          Sorry mate, but that is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I checked out your artcle and found it fairly…sad. Your recent comments make it obvious that you have something against gay people in general so I think I'll leave you with that.

        • ozhunter on 06/07/2016 - 14:37
          -1

          @U4333439:

          I think you know my comments make perfect sense. I don't have a problem with gay people per se, it's homosexuality that's the problem.

        • one man clan on 06/07/2016 - 15:25

          @ozhunter:

          Wow

          What's the problem? Does it make you uncomfortable? Question your own sexuality? Feel a bit funny when two blokes are holding hands?

          It's like saying I don't have a problem with Asians, it's their race that's the problem.

        • ozhunter on 06/07/2016 - 15:48

          @one man clan:

          Lol that must be it. If someone is against gay marriage, they must be gay. It cannot be any other reason. They don't want to let themselves get "married" /s

          I doubt even gays themselves value their relationship as much as heterosexuals do. Another possible reason why they are trying to force other to accept homosexuality. They can't stand that a word is being used exclusively for a heterosexual union.

          Look up Milo Yiannopoulos on Youtube.

        • Max Power on 06/07/2016 - 19:23
          +1

          @ozhunter:

          when writing or typing about celebrating marriage, I'd have to clarify that I mean real/traditional marriages.

          You do realise that traditionally marriage was for financial security where the wife was the property of the husband.
          Is this what you're promoting or do you have to clarify that too?

          What about a marriage of ideas? Does one idea have to come from a man and the other from a woman.

          I doubt even gays themselves value their relationship as much as heterosexuals do.

          So who invented the concept of divorce?

          I don't have a problem with gay people per se, it's homosexuality that's the problem.

          I don't have a problem with you per se. It's ignorance that's the problem.

        • one man clan on 07/07/2016 - 10:43
          +1

          @ozhunter:

          Serious question: what is it about homosexual relationships that you disagree with?

        • ThadtheChad on 08/07/2016 - 21:37

          @ozhunter:
          I reckon I understand why you have this POV. Over the course of the discussion, you've painted a fairly strong picture (or perhaps I've misread it entirely) that you're religious.

          Thusly, that makes your view that 'homosexuality is immoral' a simple matter of opinion. There need not be any facts backing it, which you've already demonstrated. :)

          Re the piece on the Irish times, that reads like ho-hum Christian anti-gay propaganda (only useful in it's printed form, as kindling). There is not a single tangible argument in there that actually demonstrated the imperative need of a father.

        • rover on 09/07/2016 - 17:41
          +1

          @ozhunter: not everyone accepts homosexuality as morally right

          An interesting perspective. I did some research and found evidence that these "not everyones" use to support this stance. Two common arguments seem to be:

          "Ewwww"
          and
          "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve"

          I think they might need to try harder.

      • greatlamp on 30/06/2016 - 16:36
        +11

        Unpopular opinion: the 'gay marriage' issue is used as a distraction while the real issues go unnoticed.
        Less than 1% of the population is affected by this, why is this an election issue?
        Present the bill in parliament, vote on it, agree to look at it again in 5 years if rejected.

        • one man clan on 30/06/2016 - 16:51
          +6

          Because as human beings we are capable of considering more than one issue at one time?

        • darkchoc on 30/06/2016 - 20:00
          +5

          When a majority makes a decision affecting a disadvantaged minority, it is discrimination.

          Society had changed. The definition of marriage will not have as negative impact on the majority like it will have as a positive impact on the people that want it.

        • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 21:27
          +1

          I think it's more like 5-10% of the population that it affects directly (gay population), plus the family and friends of that number that it affects indirectly.

        • freakatronic on 01/07/2016 - 00:14
          +3

          @Devils Advocate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201…

          Despite what TV would have you believe, <%2 of the population are gay. Yes, I know. TV shows have a gay family in every second house.

        • Devils Advocate on 01/07/2016 - 01:01

          @freakatronic:
          Identifying as gay and being gay are two different things, http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/05/ec…

        • scupper on 01/07/2016 - 05:09

          I agree, this should be a non-issue since the appropriate response should be to just pass the bill, but as with the refugee issue, we're finding that we're not all as civilised as we thought. The party with the majority vote does not want marriage equality to happen but doesn't want the backlash for that stance and so is promising a plebiscite instead. Note that the success of the plebiscite only guarantees the presentation of the bill, the members of this party may still vote against the bill.

        • superkieu on 03/07/2016 - 09:02

          rememberme,I agree with you.

          It should not even be a thing.

        • U4333439 on 03/07/2016 - 09:20
          +1

          @Newplace:
          Don't agree with your first sentence. It certainly can be discrimination, but I don't believe that minorities should have an equal voice by virtue of being a minority. THAT would be discrimination.

          We simply need to drag the oblivious majority with us and teach them why this is an issue that should mean something to them.

    • Devils Advocate on 30/06/2016 - 14:34

      Referendums aren't necessarily binding. Brexit isn't binding, still pending approval from MPs.

  • jnewau on 30/06/2016 - 11:19
    +19

    A referendum is used to change the Constitution of Australia. None of the issues I think you're suggesting have anything to do with Constitutional change, so the answer is no, we don't need more.

    If you want to bog the nation down with expensive and pointless non binding Plebicites, then yes, your suggestion would do this.

    What we really need to do is require our politicians and parties to actually have clear agendas and policies and convictions, go to an election with them and then follow through with them. Not lie their arse off before an election and change course afterwards. This also needs the voting population to actually be engaged in politics and give 2 shits about politics and care about their vote.

    It also requires some politicians that actually inspire the population to get behind them and actually be a leader. Politics now is nothing more than a team sport with rusted ons voting for their preferred party regardless of policy (or lack of). A Plebiscite will follow the exact same path with people voting along party lines.

    Spend an hour cringing at the loons that call talkback radio one morning and ask yourself if we really need these people having even more impact on our society?

    Edit - most people are simply uninformed and should have as little impact on society as possible - we employ legions of people in the bureaucracy to make the (hopefully) right decisions. Politics often gets in the way unfortunately.

    The Poll result here is a perfect example of this. We have people here voting for a Referendum when they obviously don't even know what the purpose of a Referendum is.

    • cameldownunder on 30/06/2016 - 12:30

      LOL. That's like saying the Soccer team votes for a captain, and the captains of the 2 teams have a penalty shootout.

      Say you want the maximum speed on the roads increased to 120kmh, or the speed in residential areas decreased to 30km/h, how do you do that here?
      You ask the parties / politicians what they think about it, and vote for the ones that say they would support it, and hope for the best?

      Wouldn't it be better so collect 100K+ signatures and submit that to Canberra?

      People in Australia have discovered the site change.org to get heard by politicians, and it seem quite successful. So why not take the next step.

      • jnewau on 30/06/2016 - 12:40
        +5

        LOL change.org indeed. Change.org is great if you want to contribute to say, their second biggest ever result, which is to get GTA V released on PC. Life changing stuff there!

        I would hope that policy in our country is not determined by whoever can be bothered clicking on a box on a website. At least in NSW petitions need to be written and signed before they're tabled in Parliament.

        Can you provide an example in Australia of a Change.org petition that was taken notice of and enacted a policy change? And not just one that they claim on their website. Who is surprised there'd be Pork Barrelling from Barnaby Joyce to dairy farmers just before an election?

        BTW Road rules aren't determined by politicians - we have State Government Departments which employ experts in their fields to determine appropriate road rules.

        I'd trust them more than a bunch of randoms that click on a box on a website

        • cameldownunder on 30/06/2016 - 13:50
          +2

          It's not at high political level, but they managed to get Aldi to not have caged eggs any-more.
          I think the new Australian notes will have tactile groves for the blinds.
          There is a initiative to include a treatment for Cystic Fibrosis in the medicare scheme.
          And there are petitions for the farmers, barrier reef, coal mines, ….

          If you're happy to vote left, middle or right, and then sit back, and watch tragedy unfold, that's OK. it is your right.

          Don't slam and ridicule people that are a bit more interested in what happens in their own country, and take up the tool that seems to have an impact.

          About the roads, I love that excuse, that because it is not managed by the politician, you cannot influence it.

        • jnewau on 30/06/2016 - 15:04
          +3

          @cameldownunder:

          About the roads, I love that excuse, that because it is not managed by the politician, you cannot influence it.

          Firstly, nowhere above did I say politicians had anything to do with road rules. I said experts in Government did. Believe it or not, politicians are a very small part of our government. It's the departments and bureaucrats that write the wording of our laws, regulations etc. Most of the time politicians act on their Department's advice. Politicians are most certainly not experts at anything except bullshit.

          Secondly, it's common sense. Who do you trust more to make an informed, rational decision? A bunch of random armchair experts that sign a petition on the internet, or people who actually know what they're talking about?

          Currently rules and limits are determined by traffic planners, researchers who looks at traffic statistics, accident rates, mortality rates, studies on traffic accidents etc

          What you are proposing is a bunch of people get together to change a rule because why? It sounds cool? So you can go a bit faster?

          In what way is a mob of randoms(and let's face it, anyone can click on a tickbox without ANY qualification can do this) more qualified to come up with a better outcome than people who work on this stuff day in day out.

    • ilikeradiohead on 30/06/2016 - 13:42
      +2

      Clearly you don't work for the government. The bureaucrats make recommendations to the Ministers/cabinet who then decide on what should be done. The bureaucrats themselves don't make any decisions. Want to build a road? Put up a proposal to the Minister for Transport who will support or oppose it. If he is keen he will present it to cabinet who will decide if funds are to be released.

      Also, the majority of (state) government workers are nurses, teachers, police and prison officers. Only a small portion of government workers work on policies.

      Also, referendum is the generic term for this type of poll. So you are technically correct, but also splitting hairs.

      • jnewau on 30/06/2016 - 17:12
        +1

        And 99% of the time they accept that advice and rubber stamp it unless politics gets in the way. Because they aren't the experts, that's what they pay their departments for.

        Anyway, I disagree that I'm splitting hairs re: definitions. A referendum is a vital part of our democracy. It's a cornerstone of our democracy.

        Yet we have people here talking about it , talking about wanting changes, but not even getting the basic terminology right. And yet they want to have a say on far more complex foreign policy or trade issues, Defence issues, population issues, environment issues etc. All which can have huge flow on effects to the environment and the economy. How can anyone make a truly informed decision with the current political environment we have, where politics mostly consists of point scoring at their opponent's expense?

        Hardly anyone can, because none of us can be truly informed on all the issues. That's why we vote and elect the party we think will do it best. If they do a crap job? Then chuck them out next time.

        It's a long way from perfect but I don't think the alternative would be any better. I suspect many think this way would be better simply because of dissatisfaction with the hopeless governments we have had the last decade, rather than the system overall. Let's watch the US and if Trump gets in then we can tell if populism is such a great idea.

  • BuyoTheCat on 30/06/2016 - 11:26
    +1

    I talked about this with a random person who I realise was working in politics. I mentioned that governments are not giving what the majority of the people want. She made a point that I didnt consider.

    For example: Let refugees come settle in Australia (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, Not for discussion)
    There will be certain groups who will be against it and they will fearmonger to make people vote against it. In a situation like this a vote is hardly the consensus of the majority. T

    When there are certain regulation that involves money and industries, lobby groups will work even harder on a scare campaign.
    I cannot think of any example at the moment.

    • iridiumstem on 30/06/2016 - 11:30
      +1

      Brexit. There were campaigns that some argue were scaremongering.

      http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-24/how-brexit-campaign-us…

    • MITM on 30/06/2016 - 15:14
      +2

      Coke & co industries prefer "donating" to Tidy Town competitions rather than increasing the cost of a bottle or can by 10c to ensure it is returned for recycling. They fear losing sales.
      Some states managed to overcome the cartels where 10c deposits are now the norm (and their towns are tidier as a result)

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 17:30

      ABCC - construction industry watchdog thing is maybe an example.

    • [Deactivated] on 30/06/2016 - 19:19
      +1

      "For example: Let refugees come settle in Australia (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, Not for discussion)
      There will be certain groups who will be against it and they will fearmonger to make people vote against it. In a situation like this a vote is hardly the consensus of the majority."

      I appreciate your comment, but isn't it fair to say the same or similar 'mongering' and tactics will be tried on by those who wish to vote for it whatever 'it' may be? Pretty much evens things out IMO.

      (not discussing your example - only your answer).

      • BuyoTheCat on 30/06/2016 - 22:05

        Perhaps this is not a good example. but i understand your point because each side will have a point to push and will do their best to push it. and i totally understand it.

        One point is HOW they push it and how they try to use fear as the engine to drive their agenda.

      • scupper on 01/07/2016 - 04:20
        -1

        Wrong. You can't argue for compassion using fear.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join