While I think a compulsory plebiscite on same sex marriage, held at the next election as a way of minimising cost, is not a bad idea, it is hard to understand the point of a voluntary postal plebiscite on the topic.
It will, surely, simply be a deeply methodologically flawed attempt at gauging the public's opinion, at the enormous cost of $122 million.
If the Coalition were honest about it, why could they not acknowledge that a more reliable way of gauging public opinion would be to pay for, say, Newspoll, to devise an exceptionally large sample one off poll on the matter, with a simple question, so as to gauge public opinion nation wide within a very small margin of error.
The methodology could be devised so as to capture more than your standard landlines, no?
How much could that cost, really? I would take a stab and say that it couldn't be more than $5 to $10 million. Wouldn't some department or other have the funds to commission it, without getting the sanction of Parliament?
So, savings of at least $110 million, and a more accurate outcome. Much less for Labor to complain about.
What is wrong with this idea?
4 comments:
a plebiscite cannot be voluntary. It is merely a post in vote of which the sample is dubious.
A lot of people would not know how to post something!
True.
I have even found in recent years that many young adults (like, university students) write the address on envelopes in weird positions. Not in the centre.
The Postal vote choice demolishes their principle argument that they went to the election on a plebiscite promise and so must stick to that. They will do anything to prevent a free vote in parliament because that is a no win for the conservatives: lose their base if yes, annoy the proponents if No. That is why we are in this ridiculous position, it never had anything to do with keeping an election promise.
I should add as a social conservative I am a very strong NO but a plebiscite merely abrogated what Parliament should do.
Post a Comment