Only 8.7% of aborigine-identifying South Australians turned out to vote in the first Voice election.

Some candidates were elected with 6 votes. Three candidates received 0 votes. They didn't bother to vote for themselves!

Naturally an anti-aboriginal Hansonite will always be looking for some negative aspect to throw at Aboriginal people, here he believes is another opportunity. The fact is the non-compulsory vote was a success, with more candidates nominating than required to be elected (7 for each of 5 regions and 11 for Central Region ). In the numerically large Central Region 41 candidates put their name forward for the 11 positions. Yes some candidates did score a low vote, equalling the Hansonite One Nation vote in some compulsory elections.

Paul The Despicable

More twisting of the truth, you moron.

Of course plenty of people wanting to get there noses in the trough nominated. The miserable 8.7% of people who voted for them is the big story.

Aboriginal people themselves are not interested in this racist nonsense. They are probably sick of being lumped in together as a group instead of being treated as individuals like other people.


Identity politics and extreme racism is the hallmark of the ALP these days. Given privileges to minorities is pure Maoism.

ttbn,

Continuing with your name calling, elsewhere you refer to me as a moron, but as you are of the "right breed" this forum will allow that. Yes, like many, Aboriginals are not interested in politics. concerned with the day to day personal issues affecting their lives. I agree with the concept, maybe you don't, but that's how it is. BTW; most clubs would be over the Moon if 8% of members turned up to the AGM and voted, even with free beer!

A ringing endorsement for the whole concept of The Voice.

I'm sure the whole of SA are anxiously waiting to here the ancient wisdom of the aboriginal community which will no be revealed!! All problems are now solved.

Its just a shame that only one in twelve of our aboriginal betters saw fit to share their obvious superior knowledge with the world. How will we survive?

What a shambles. But the usual suspects will spin it and the anxiously gullible will buy the spin.

mhaze,

"waiting to here the ancient wisdom", if that ancient wisdom doesn't arrive on time, may be we can HEAR it from afar. Like ttbn, this guys another stone thrower. When you make a mistake like HERE for HEAR, cop it sweet my little darling.

Speaking of aboriginal "knowledge", it is all bulls-t.

Without a written language, there is no evidence for any of the "lore" passed down orally for umpteen thousand years. Stories change after a couple of tellings.

"Romancing" of ancient lives has been popular with malcontents for thousands of years.

Read "Romancing the PRIMITIVE The Myth Of The Ecological Aborigine", by William J. Lines, and learn.

Paul,

highlighting typos? How pathetic? Can't think up even one defence for the failed Voice?

ttbn,

I somewhat agree with you there, oral story telling does lose meaning though the "Chinese Whisper" effect over time. Bit like Christianity and the life of Christ. Stories are misquoted and embellished, often from the get-go. In the case of Christ, I suspect much of Christs teachings are actually the thoughts of someone else. BTW; Stories can change with just one telling, but after hundreds. I'm more interested in social justice for Aboriginal people, more so than any ancient lore.

" Bit like Christianity and the life of Christ. Stories are misquoted and embellished, often from the get-go"

The trouble with that way of thinking, and this is common among those who just buy the anti-Christian rhetoric, is that people were writing down the Jesus story within 2 years of his death.

Aboriginal oral history wasn't even written down within 20,000 years of the supposed occurrence.

mhaze,

"within 2 years of his (Christ) death."

What writings are they mhaze? How is their date authenticated.

"The crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth in 1st-century, most likely in AD 30 or AD 33." Independent sources, not the Baptist Church of America. Like his death the birth year of Christ is also uncertain. Again most likely between 6 BCE and 4 BCE. The first 100 years of Christianity is still very much a mystery. The 4 Gospel writers, their true names are unknown, they were given Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110.

Pilates report to Caesar.
http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr21_pilate_letter_on_christ.pdf

oops dropped a zero .... "writing down the Jesus story within 20 years of his death." NB 20 not 2.

These writings were Paul's letters to the various churches around the Aegean and elsewhere.

Josephus...Pilate Letter on Christ.
Sorry, but its a fake.

Jose'

You refer to writings from the 5th century "Acts of Peter and Paul" the writer of which is unknown. The Non-Christian historians Josephus and Tacitus give evidence for the existence of Jesus, but little else is known. Much that is attributed as being the "word of Jesus" may just as easily be from other sources, we simply don't know.

Something interesting from the 1st century "Dead Sea Scrolls". There is no mention of Jesus Christ or Christianity as a sect within Judaism contained in the scrolls at all. They give a detailed insight into Judaism as practised in Judea at the time, but for the Christian Sect and its founder, there's nothing.

Jose'

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, ah! Just as you have trotted out the "Letter From Pilate" in the past as iron clad evidence of the circumstance surrounding the crucifixion of Christ, you do so again, its complete bunk! The only independent account is that of the Roman Tacitus, that Christ was crucified by Pilate, but the circumstance and the details are not known. Josephus and Lucian also make passing reference to the crucifixion. I believe there has been a huge amount of embellishment added to the Easter story, most likely by early Christians to give a undeserved "supernatural aurora" to Christ. The fact is nothing was recorded of Jesus during his life, not his teachings or his actions, it all came about in the centuries after his death, by people who had a vested interest in promoting a supernatural Jesus, like Christianity today, early Christians were out to attract new adherents, and "good" stories was a way of doing just that.

Most aboriginals did not turn up because they do not want someone telling them what they need. They want to live their lives free of Government interference. Only the activists turn up to put their voice, some with ZERO votes they did not even vote for themselves or even as few as four votes. To represent 30,000 aboriginals who did not turn up.

mhaze,

When challenged mhaze quickly backtracks, 2 years become 20 years. The earliest Gospel that of "Mark" (real name unknown) was at least 30 years after Christs death, could be as much as 40 years. So what were the writings within 20 years? I think you plucked 20 years out of the air. Pre Gospel accounts of Christ are rather scant, mention him in passing, nothing more.

Of course the clear indication that people with aboriginal ancestry are no more interested in group-think than any other individuals are well go right over "Mali's" head. Quiet a refreshing and welcome change to SA politics, the Premier has made a big mistake on this one.

Fortunately, it can be overturned by a change of government. All we need now is a decent Liberal leader. We have had two duds in a row.

When voting is non compulsory voter turnout is generally poor. I recall when voting in council elections in Sydney was made non-compulsory, the voter turnout was very poor, less than 30%, apathy was the winner. They soon reverted to the old compulsory voting.