Not Necessarily Misled

We have come to accept that dissemination of false and misleading information can determine the outcome of elections, referenda and plebiscites. Britain and the United States appear to provide recent illustrations of this phenomenon.

Those of who struggle to understand why anyone would vote for Donald Trump are inclined to conclude that American voters continue to be misled and manipulated to believe conspiracy theories and dismiss verified facts.

Similarly, we attribute Britain’s exit from the EU by reference to manipulation and exploitation of voters’ xenophobia and unfounded expectations.

The spread of conspiracies, misinformation and blatant lies is also blamed for widespread worldwide opposition to Covid-19 vaccination.

Australia’s last two national referenda also appear to provide home grown evidence of sinister tactics and their capacity to sway outcomes.

Many of us, old enough to enthusiastically campaign for Australia’s political transition to a Republic in the 1999 referendum, remain convinced that the referendum failed because Monarchists spread misinformation that swayed the popular vote. In support, we point to the glaring discrepancy between the overwhelming support for a Republic by informed representatives of Australian society at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, on the one hand, and the equally overwhelming rejection of the Republic proposal by voters in the referendum, on the other.

Much fresher in the minds of Australians is the outcome of the 2023 referendum. For the sake of any Non-Australian reader, the 2023 referendum concerned a proposal to amend the Australian constitution by adding a section recognising Australia’s Indigenous peoples as Australia’s first peoples. In acknowledgement of this recognition the proposed amendment would also require a body called the Voice be established to make representations to parliament and government on matters concerning Indigenous people. The proposal was rejected by 60% of Australian voters.

In the months preceding the referendum, opinion polls consistently showed that a clear majority of Australians opposed the proposal.  Nevertheless, advocates of the ‘Yes’ vote expressed surprise and have continued to express disbelief at the outcome. Perhaps most noticeably, proponents of the ‘No’ vote continue to be blamed for the referendum’s failure.

What the 1999 and 2023 referenda appear to have in common is that irrespective of voters’ political leanings, those on the losing side have found the votes of their opponents so difficult to accept that they could only attribute the outcome to misinformation and lies.

Such perceptions may also lead some of us to conclude that many votes for the other side are really votes by misled or manipulated electors and not expressions of the views of informed individuals.  On that basis we may be tempted to question the wisdom of retaining the universal suffrage element of democracy. It is not limiting voting rights on the basis of gender, race, wealth, education or socio-economic status that we contemplate. The very thought of such discrimination offends our sense of justice,  fairness and equality. However, what is far less distasteful is the privately posited or whispered suggestion that only informed citizens be entitled to vote.

But could such a suggestion, and even the dismissal of unwanted political ballot outcomes, merely be a way of wanting to deal with those who do not share our views and consequently who don’t vote as we do? In other words, do the generalizations, conclusions and dismissal of seemingly inexplicable outcomes  simply reflect our partisan views or allegiances?

That this may indeed be the case, has been brought home to me in the aftermath of the 2023 Referendum. For the very first time I have found myself on the winning side, but not the side expected of academics, social reformers and progressives – like me. Consequently, I have felt targeted by the accusations and over generalizations leveled at ‘No’ voters en masse  – the allegedly misled and uninformed.

Also for the first time I perceive how extremely partisan Australia’s mainstream media can be. ‘Yes’ vote aligned journalists and commentators (who dominate Australia’s mainstream mass media) continue to attribute the rejection of the constitutional amendment proposal to racism, manipulation of the uneducated, lack of empathy for the disadvantaged position of Australia’s indigenous peoples, and above all a failure or incapacity of voters to understand the referendum question.

Yet for me, and I have no doubt numerous others, such generalizations are offensive, inapplicable, and smack of face-saving explanations or simply an inability or unwillingness to accept the verdict of the majority.

Commentators fail to grasp that rather than being racist, ‘No’ voters may in fact be equally if not more committed to addressing the disadvantaged position of our indigenous people. ‘No’ voters may also be just as informed about Australia’s constitution, and may clearly understand the issues and implications of the 2023 referendum question.

What this suggests to me is, that what may be dismissed as uninformed voting, as I dismissed ‘No’ voters when handing out ‘Vote Yes’ leaflets in 1998, may at least in part be a reflection of equally informed views that come from a different perspective to our own. This realisation has caused me to reassess, or at least qualify my assumptions about those who voted against the Republic in the 1999 referendum and dare I say, even my views about some of those who continue to support and vote for Trump.

There is much to be said for the ‘walk a mile in my shoes’ adage. Our capacity, let alone willingness, to rationally  assess and understand our opponents’ arguments is severely limited. The casting of a vote is so much more than an expression of a rational view about what we consider ought to be the deciding issue.  However, finding myself holding an unpopular (even if majority) view has proven to be quite a revelation – my road to Damascus.

The repercussions of not being willing to accept the legitimacy of the majority vote need not be as extreme as January 6, 2021.  Nevertheless they are of concern and not that dissimilar. Australian mass media continue to champion the cause by denigrating the majority of Australians who voted ‘No’. What should be a moment of reflection has turned into a period of bitterness and ungracious loss. To attribute the most unfounded explanations for the referendum loss, the media are promoting further division in society and greater dissatisfaction amongst some of the most vulnerable indigenous Australians. Were it not for the fact that I find myself supporting a majority view that is not championed by the media I would not be aware of this blinkered bias that fails to even try to understand why the referendum was lost and prefers instead to keep alive the unfounded ‘Yes’ camp allegations as to why a majority of Australians voted ‘No’.

As in all national political contests, some politicians will inevitably spin, exaggerate and misinform through selective and out of context information. Extremists and conspiracy theorists will also influence those attracted to them or their baseless views. But it is crucial to underline that despite what the losing side may say, the reality is that such misinformation is engaged in by both sides.

I have not heard the ‘Yes’ vote leaders accept that both sides may have at times been less than candid. For example, a key argument for voting ‘Yes’ was that the amendment needed to pass in order for Australia’s indigenous people to be able to make representations to Parliament. While a catchy and emotive slogan, it is simply not true. For me today so is not to offer an opinion, but to state the blatant reality that Australia’s Indigenous people do not need a Constitutional amendment to make representations to parliament, as they have and continue to do so.

Another argument appeared to indirectly concede that Indigenous people were already able to make representations to Parliament and government.  However, amending the constitution so as to establish a body to make representations to parliament, we were told, would ensure that the existence of the Voice was not left to the whim of governments as it had been to date. Once again this is largely untrue, as the proposed amendment left everything except for the existence of a body called the Voice, up to parliament.

Noting that spin and misinformation is rarely if ever the province of one side I conclude that perhaps misinformation is only deemed to matter when it is considered to account for winning votes for the other side.

We also rarely concede that others may vote for different reasons. Consequently, when they do we may find their vote to be inexplicable. For this reason, when we intentionally or unintentionally pre-determine the the basis on which electors should determine their vote, it follows that we may assess the outcome on the basis of an issue or issues that appear to most strongly support our side.

Having already accepted that misinformation does occur, I’d like to stress that the views I have expressed are not intended to detract from the need to limit political misinformation and outright lies disseminated in an endeavour to sway the outcome of a ballot.  I don’t believe that I am contradicting myself by suggesting that it is important to recognise that while we may attribute the tag of misinformation to views that are contrary or different to our own, there is a pressing need to counter the dissemination of malicious misinformation, such as who won and lost the last election.

Arguments citing Australia’s constitutionally implied, freedom of political speech or the US first amendment, to protect the spread of deliberate untruths are tiresome. Freedom of speech has legitimatelimits in all democracies.  If promoting false information about the outcome of an election can amount to a crime,  shouldn’t we take steps to prevent false information being disseminated to voters?