this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)

Melbourne

1844 readers
74 users here now

This community is a place created for the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We are a positive, welcoming and inclusive community. We might not agree about everything, but we always strive to stay civil and respectful.

The focus of our discussions is based around things that effect Victoria, but we are also free to discuss our local perspective on wider issues. Or head to the regular Daily Random Discussion thread to talk about anything.

Full Community Guidelines

Ongoing discussions, FAQs & Resources (still under construction)

Adoption Certificate for Nellie, the Daily Thread numbat (with thanks to @Catfish)

Feedback & Suggestions

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think we need a third option in Referendums: the "yeah, nah" vote. For people who agree with the general idea, but not the specific version presented. If the yes and the "yeah, nah" vote combined equal a majority, there should be a compulsory period of community consultation to come up with a better proposal to go back for another vote. Or just a preferencial system where more than one choice is presented in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What change could be made to the question before us that would likely shift your "yeah, nah" to a "yes"?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm planning on voting yes already. It's more that there is so much splitting of the vote through arguments that this specific version is not right for various reasons, but voting "no" generally leads to an end to proposal for change, not to a further conversation about how to improve things as many people seem to hope. The same thing happened with the Republic vote - support for a Republic in general was and remains quite high, but support for the specific model put forward was not high enough to get through. There needs to be stability in the Constitution so you don't want it to be too easy to change, but IMO the current system works against change too strongly, leaving us with an outdated document that really needs to be updated.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago