The Voice from a communications perspective

The Voice was my first referendum (in fact, my first vote) as an Australian citizen. I do not claim to understand everything about what the stakes were. Like many migrants (citizens or not), the First Nations' story is quite unknown to us (before moving to Australia, I had never heard about this part of the Australian story). So, I will not add my own voice to why we should have voted “yes” or “no” but only share a few thoughts from a communications perspective to try to understand why it happened as it did in October 2023 in Australia.

?

1)????? The Incentive or the "Entry Cost" of the "No"

Voting is usually a complex communication exercise. We ask citizens to choose among multiple candidates and programs. There are multiple themes/topics where candidates must position themselves, and the knowledge required for citizens to understand everything from the economy to international relations through environmental challenges is complex. The system itself can be hard to understand and adopt (preferential voting, etc.).

A referendum is an easier framework where the incentive/entry cost is quite low: basically, you have two options on the table. In terms of communication, the first reason for the "no" win is probably linked to this low entry cost to vote. For many people who are uncertain, it is very easy to be convinced by the "no" and ultimately vote "no." The entry cost is very low, and the apparent simplicity of the questions favored the weight of the "no" in the balance.

?

2)????? Anonymity of the Votes: The Referendum as a pretext

Now, let's make a parallel with reader comments below any online article. Why are comments below online articles mainly negative (sometimes violent), leading certain media outlets to close some comment sections? Mainly because social media platforms allow people to be anonymous, making them more likely to make negative comments. Online commentators who don't have to reveal their identity feel freer to say things they wouldn't say in person. The voting system is the same: you are able to choose your option and pick up the more controversial one if you'd like, without the need to defend the reasons publicly.

Adding the fact that the voting system could also be a way to project some of your other feelings (the same with online comments). People may make negative comments (or choose to vote for extremist parties) to project their insecurities or feelings onto others: in this case, voting could also be a pretext to contest, for example, the increasing cost of living, the rising safety issues, etc.

?

3)????? Media Narrative vs People’s Lives

No one could have guessed the results of the referendum. But all analysts were surprised by the large victory of the "no." It is not the first time it seems the results of a vote do not align with the media campaign activism and orientation (I have in my head the 2005 French European Constitution referendum).

This can be explained by the discrepancy between the media narrative (sometimes emphasized by a political agenda) and people’s lives and priorities. Even though the Australian referendum process is very balanced (I refer to the official referendum booklet with a list of reasons to vote "yes" for the supporters and reasons to vote "no" for the opponents), the media has chosen (and that’s their right) a side. And this has probably created this non-anticipated gap in the final results.

?

In conclusion and to summarize, there are probably plenty of angles we could use to explain the results of the vote (sociology, political context, etc.). From a communications perspective, let's not forget that people's involvement (low entry cost), the framework (the anonymity of the vote), and the narrative (the story and messages) are key to understanding why it happened as it did in October 2023 in Australia.