Sotto voce: the case for voting informal

Is there any way that we could have avoided this insoluble moral conundrum?

Yes, there really is.

We could legislate the Voice and add non-functional acknowledgment into the constitutional preamble. Further constitutional change in the future would still be on the table (but unlikely). This is actually the only solution that resolves these two solid moral arguments. And yes, I realise that this is Peter Dutton's latest policy but I have been saying it for six months, and others well before me.

Which leads me to a different, but what I think is the strongest, avenue to voting informal.

We never asked for this referendum which offers no attractive outcome, to me at least. I deeply resent this forced choice and I resent the Prime Minister for forcing it on me. I want a political price to be paid. This sounds like an argument for voting No, to punish the Prime Minister and to make it clear to future leaders that forcing a contrived and unnecessary referendum on the Australian people will be appropriately punished.

But the problem is that the resulting win for No will not be interpreted this way, as a targeted repudiation of political chicanery. It will be interpreted as a vote against reconciliation. Many indigenes will interpret it this way and will be encouraged to do so. The usual suspects in the media will decry the result rather than analyse the different reasons people may have voted No.

So, for this reason, I do not want to vote No.

The only way then for me to register a vote which properly reflects my views and does not send a message against reconciliation is to leave both boxes blank and write "No Choice" on the ballot.

Can an informal vote achieve anything?

Well, in the past it has.

In 1981, the Tasmanian government had a referendum where voters were offered a choice to build a dam on the Gordon, either above the Olga or below the Franklin. What a choice! Fully 45% wrote "No dams" on the ballot when offered this unacceptable binary. This historically high informal vote result was a good reflection of the popular will and was the only way that this democratic preference could be expressed. The key issue was that the option of "No dams" was not on the ballot. So they created their own third option.

We are in a similar situation now, though not identical since a "No Voice" option is available, unlike in Tasmania. What is identical is that the ballot does not offer what many, perhaps most, Australians would consider the best option i.e. a legislated Voice followed by constitutional acknowledgment. Instead, they are being forced to choose between two options neither of which they want.