Dear Foxy,

So, outside the affluent lo-fat kale-and-goat-cheese circles (probably in other cities as well), I wonder what the split was ?

And, since there is no such thing as a slippery slope, this is the end of it all ?

Love,

Joe

While I've not a doubt that the law will be changed to allow SSM, what this result wil bring to the surface is what type of democracy we really have regarding the results of plebiscites/surveys.

For example:

- If the result of a general plebiscite/survey were to be truly democratic, ie. where the only thing that counts is 50% of the voting population plus 1 vote, then in this case the law shouldn't be changed.

-but if we were to have a true representative democracy (which is what many claim we theoretically have) where each electorate has a representative that is meant to represent the will of their electorate (where will means what 50%+one constituent want) then each MP should take the YES vote of their electorate and multiply it by the participation rate of the electorate and vote accordingly.

/

But for those who think that a simple majority of respondents is all that should ever be required then ask yourself these hypothetical questions:

1) How would you interpret the result if instead it were reversed, ie. 61.6% said No, 38.4% and a voter turn-out rate of 79.5%, would you still accept it?

2) How would you interpret the situation where the issue voted on had a lot more at stake, such as the introduction of Sharia law where gays are executed. What if in this poll the public said 50.001% Yes but only 80% voted. Would the 50.001% be sufficient to change the law?

3) How would you interpret a result if it were an the extreme event where only 1 person voted and said YES- would you still really feel that the majority supported it?

[PS: by-the-way: I'm not for nor against gay marriage, rather I'm in the camp that Government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. However, I am interested in how this result should be interpreted- it raises deeper interesting issues regarding what type of "democracy" we really have.]

Expected. Turnbull has already decided that the Bill he doesn't like won't get a look in. For mine, it's another step down the path to perdition for Australia, and further proof that people with no historical or biblical memories can be fooled into accepting anything.

Dear Joe,

Every state and territory voted "Yes" by more than 60%
except for NSW where the Yes vote was 57.8% and the
No vote was 42.2%.

As Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said -

"Australia voted Yes for fairness, commitment and love.
It is unequivocal, it is overwhelming."

He added -

"And now it is up to us here in the Parliament of Australia
to get on with it, to get on with the job the Australian
people have tasked us to do and get this done this year,
before Christmas. That must be our commitment."

Hopefully, this will herald the end of all discrimination in this country and we can get on with the task of creating true equality.

Looking at the survey results by electorate, 'Yes' was likely carried by young urban.

http://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

4,873,987 were against, ie voted 'No'.
20% did not vote, which is another large number.

However what will be more interesting and hopefully will be the subject of PhD research is the involvement of social psychologists in 'nudging' the 'Yes' vote (and shafting the other side), here and overseas. Such manipulation has become common in US Presidential elections, as an obvious example.

Are academics, researchers, in this case social psychologists, putting their ethics and the credibility of their science at risk in taking sides, even though they might justify it for what they perceive to be a 'just' cause?"