Sotto voce: the case for voting informal

I find it hard to understand how passionate some folks are about voting Yes or voting No. Not because I do not understand passion, but because the cases for either position are so unconvincing.

I am not "barracking" for either side. If the result is Yes I will find it hard to watch the self-satisfied ABC pundits or Albo taking a bow of glory. If the result is No, I will not want to watch Dutton's fork-tongued opportunism and I will really hate to see the disappointment of our indigenous peoples.

Guess who won't be tuning in to the watch the count.

When I look at the various arguments for Yes or No they are mainly weak. The few stronger arguments seem to counterbalance each other. Crucially, I actively dislike both outcomes almost equally.

So let's look at the various arguments, not exhaustively, but the main ones, which I think lead a reasonable person to consider voting informal.

The functional argument for voting Yes is that direct representation will result in better policy and implementation. This is asserted by supporters quite strongly. I have no idea of this is true and neither does anyone else. I would not be surprised if a Voice ends up being full of sound and fury signifying nothing but disunity and having little tangible effect. But I don't know either.

The main functional argument for voting No is based on risk. Rather than improving the workings of government a Voice may lead to continual legal challenges as well as conflicting messages and views from a likely disunited Voice. Is this inevitable though and so what anyway? This is just politics as usual. And the government of the day can adjust the parameters of the Voice to improve its function.

I consider the functional arguments weak on both sides. The Voice could be good and it could be bad, but probably not very good or very bad and nobody knows which. So this is my first possible road to an informal vote.

The national unity argument for voting Yes is that it will make us less divided because goodwill towards indigenes will be formalised and agreed by the nation. The national unity argument for voting No is that other ethnic groups like migrants and poor white farmers will feel excluded and betrayed because one group is given special privilege. For sure, we will not be more unified after the referendum. And since the final vote is likely to be close, there will be a lot of disappointed people on October 15, regardless of the outcome.

If we are after national unity, then there is no path to it from this referendum and it would be better not to have a vote at all. Which motivates an informal vote on the basis that "I will not be part of this whole divisive exercise."

The moral argument for voting Yes is to correct the lack of acknowledgment in the original constitution, and implicitly acknowledge past wrongs by empowering those dispossessed. There would be few Australians who would be unmoved by the symbolic goodness of a Yes vote. The moral argument for voting No is that we should not embed ethnically based rights into the constitution. All sorts of bizarre considerations natural arise and so far are not addressed. Who qualifies to vote as an aborigine?

I consider both of these moral arguments strong though I realise that there are arguments against both of them. But I take the view that the Voice is morally good in one way and morally bad in another. Which is a problem for me because these considerations largely counterbalance each other.