I have yet to see a single rational reason to vote no. I just don't get it. How could you possibly be against consulting people before you make decisions that affect those people?

Do the No voters think that the government shouldn't listen to the AMA when making health policy? That they shouldn't listen to teachers and principals when they make education policy?

RIKSY
UNKOWN
DIVISIVE
PERMANENT

You can tell you should be worried because they use scary words and CAPITAL LETTERS. I also love how they put "it opens the door to activists" like it's a bad thing. Personally I wouldn't mind if Australia Day were replaced with a Treaty Day if that came to pass. It's just an excuse to get absolutely pissed around a barbie anyway.

I still honestly don't know which way to vote. Most of my indigenous friends have been posting on socials saying to vote no, so I'll probably go that way, but part of me just thinks no matter how tokenistic and kinda "us white men good, help black fella have say" it comes across, surely having it would have to be better than not having it?

Why couldn't this just be like gay marriage where the only reason you'd vote no is because you're a religious nut or a bigot? (unfortunately, it seems 40% of our population fit into those categories)

The "yes" brochure arguments really sound like a lot of political fluff. "Recognition".....cool, but what does that get them? What does "being recognized in the constitution" mean? "Listening".........ok but are you actually going to do anything? Who are you listening to out of the hundreds/thousands(?) of indigenous tribes around the country? "Better Results"......so got any actual plans for those things? How does the voice help achieve those results?

Having now looked at the "no" brochure, they basically echo what I just asked above haha. The Government literally won't divulge the details of what the Voice actually entails. That seems super dodgy.

Very, very sick of the no campaign brigading every discussion with terrible arguments in bad faith.

I have yet to encounter a legal expert, or for that matter, an Indigenous Australian who is accepted by their community, who is opposed. Similarly, the law is my degree. I've spent five years of my life studying it, and although I'm not a graduate yet (two units to go), I'd think I'd know more about this shit than Joe from bumfuck nowhere on Facebook.

There is no case for a no vote. None whatsoever. The change would not grant special rights to Indigenous Australians. It has been repeatedly explained by both lawyers and politicians. You can read the change yourself. It has to be a constitutional change, because that protects it from being outright removed by successive governments, which is the very thing that happened to the previous body that performed this role. By definition, it is not racist, as racism refers to negative treatment on the basis of race or ethnic background, and not differing treatment. This is one of three steps proposed by Indigenous Australians towards reconciliation, and isn't the endpoint. If it fails, it will be the endpoint.

When the colonisers arrived, Indigenous Australians outnumbered colonisers. Now, they make up just 2.5% of the population. We are driving them to extinction. If this fails, by the time we get around to trying again, it is likely the genocide will have all but been completed.

Ethically and morally, a yes vote is the only choice. Legally, it is the best choice for change.