91
Indigenous communities overwhelmingly voted yes to Australia’s voice to parliament
(www.theguardian.com)
63% is overwhelming? It's less than a 2/3 majority.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
91 points (96.0% liked)
Australian News
526 readers
73 users here now
A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- Keep discussions civil and respectful
- Exclude profanity from post titles
- Exclude excessive profanity from comments
- Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with
[satire]
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Banner: ABC
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That was in booths where the population is at least 50% Indigenous. It's difficult to capture these demographics directly so they have to do it by % Indigenous population in each booth / area.
But that just makes the numbers even more meaningless. While it might be very likely that most of the Yes votes came from indigenous people, it's also possible that 100% of the non-indigenous people in that area voted Yes and a majority of indigenous people voted No.
Stretcing 63% of the overall vote into an overwhelming majority of indigenous people lacks journalistic integrity.
You would expect non indigenous votes to track similar patterns to other nearby polling stations. Consider the pretty smooth gradient we see with yes vs no generally.
It's not unreasonable to expect non indigenous voting to track the 60% no. It would be strange if they didn't, possible but not really a reasonable assumption.
So in a 50% place with a 60/40 split you might expect somewhere like the (previously indicated) ~80% voting yes. Perhaps a bit lower, but still high support.
Again, this isn't the only indicator of indigenous support given the earlier polling.
Sure, in casual conversation it's a reasonable assumption. That doesn't hold for journalists writing news articles - particularly when it is stated as fact and not clarified. You have to analyse the numbers to realise the headline is hollow.
No that's literally how statistical inference works. If you think they've made an error submit a letter and get them to retract the article.
No it isn't, there's a massive gap in the statistics where the inference should be derived from. If you think I'm wrong then explain it, don't brush it off without actually saying anything meaningful.
How can you infer that an overwhelming portion of one group supported something when all you have is the combined level of support and no statistics on the individual groups, other than a ratio of population size?
It's an assumption, it's not labeled as such, that's bad journalism.
get them to retract it if you're so sure.
Yeah, sure, if I call them out for poor journalism standards they'll just roll over and accept that, because this article totally wasn't written with that deception in mind.
There's no statistical analysis here, as you implied, it's just a bunch of regions with their population size and overall votes. Hell, many of their numbers didn't even fit the narrative - they had a large majority indigenous population but more No votes, more than the nation overall. It's just bullshit and hand waving to get you to accept it as true without really thinking about it.
You're trying to set an impossible to prove boundary so you can claim that you "win" the argument. That's bollocks. If you don't have anything meaningful to say here, yourself, then kindly bugger off.
Well the bbc said it was overwhelmingly shot downs with a 60 40 ratio
Well yeah, here in the UK referendums are only allowed to pass or fail in the cursed 52:48 ratio
Must be devastating to be indigenous in Australia. Even a paltry thing like this can’t pass as long as the settler/colonisers are there. I despair for them.
There was literally no downside for ATSI communities to vote yes.
Additional representation with no limitations on existing avenues of representation? Who wouldn't sign up... assuming you're included.
why wouldn't they?
Why wouldn't anyone? The people it would affect really wanted it and the people it didn't affect had no real reason to deny it.
There was a lot of talk that most Aboriginal Australians didn't want the voice.