The systemic racism of the referendum double majority

The double majority requirement for the Voice referendum is seldom talked about but has complexities that are not readily apparent. If you didn’t know what it is about, it goes like this: in order for the referendum to pass, a majority of voting-age citizens and a majority of states must agree with the proposition. In other words, the Yes vote requires over 50% of Australians and over 50% in over 50% of states.

In the current situation, therefore, a successful vote for Yes requires a vote of over 50% in the population and in over 50% of the population in four of the six states. The double majority is a significant hurdle to clear; this situation makes it easier for the No campaign to win as it only has to win three states but Yes needs to win four. In a referendum No is the default position; in all other situations than a clear win for Yes, the No case prevails.

There’s another issue with the double majority most people would not consider and I wonder if you have noticed it yet.

Can you see it?

Here we go: in the double majority the two territories don’t count as states.

This is problematic in the case of the ACT; the people who live in our nation’s capital don’t count, their vote has less value than a vote in a state.

In the NT this problem becomes an issue of race.

The NT has a small population, around a quarter of a million, approximately 32% of which, about 80,000 people, are Indigenous. This territory, already remote and isolated — where the most disadvantaged Indigenous peoples live — is facing a partial erasure of their vote. The entire Territory, including 80,000 Indigenous peoples, is being disenfranchised.

In the quite likely situation of the referendum being decided on the four of six states rule, it won’t matter how the people registered to vote in the NT voted. The NT could support the Voice to any proportion, even 100% support, and it won’t count. Any three states could scupper the Voice.

Despite this, the main complaint about the voting process is that an X will not count as a No vote.

I find myself questioning why Liberal Senator and avid No campaigner Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is not concerned by the partial disenfranchisement of the residents of the people of her own state. If her main concern was the voices and rights of Aboriginal peoples from “the bush” surely she would be screaming about this from her state-provided pulpit.

Perhaps, like me, she firmly believes that the Voice will win in the NT and doesn’t want her own people counted. Perhaps she had the same experience as I have and is aware that the Aboriginal peoples of the territory want Yes and she is happy for them to be disenfranchised.

If we are genuinely concerned about the voices of Indigenous peoples from remote communities, as many people claim to be, I have to ask why nobody, except my friends in the NT who brought this to my attention, is concerned about the partial disenfranchisement of 80,000 Aboriginal peoples in the bush.

This article was republished with permission from Claire G Coleman on Post.