6.Jones wrote: Ellafan wrote:
There is no doubt that many people who would have voted for a republic didnt because they didnt like the model put forward.
Can you please identify the evidence for that statement? Opinion pieces by ABC & SMH journos are not evidence.
Also, it can equally be said "There is no doubt that many people who voted for a republic would have voted 'no' if the other model had been put forward
We know by reference to the [often acrimonious] debate within the Republican movement at the time. The minimal change republicans wanted a parliamentary republic - and some a McGarvie Model republic - while the progressive republicans wanted a popularly elected head of state. The referendum was deliberately worded [as was the government's right] to split those constituencies by pinning the two-thirds majority clause to a yes vote. Politics [and refrenda] 101. To argue otherwise is disingenuous. As Menzies famously said, "to get an affirmative vote from the Australian people on a referendum proposal is one of the labours of Hercules."
First, that is a hypothesis. Where is the evidence that shows it is correct? Can you point me to a PHD thesis, or published scholarly work that has evidence from a sufficiently large sample of ordinary punters, interviewed after the event, disclosing their real motivations for voting 'no'?
Secondly, there was a constitutional convention which came up with the proposal. They couldn't come up with a form that commanded a majority vote within the convention. That was because, in the end, the hard-line republicans abstained. The government of the day put up the proposal that had the most votes. Saying John Howard "deliberately worded [it] to split" the republican vote is disingenuous.
Thirdly, Phil Cleary, a leading figure in the hard-line republicans, made a misjudgement - he was of the view that a failed referendum now (then) would be followed by other referenda, where the elected president model might eventually get up. So if you want a single person to shoulder the blame, it's Cleary. Having said that, he may still be proven correct; when the Queen goes, there will likely be a push to get rid of Charlie III, so it might just take a bit longer than he thought.
Fourthly, attempting to apportion the reason for the rejection of the referendum to one cause, and misrepresenting it as a result of a partisan manipulation, is overly simplistic. It's similar to a disappointed losing team fan blaming the referee. There are at least 10 reasons for the no vote succeeding.