#The Saturday Paper

[trivial-troubles]

The Voice Referendum Review

Finally discharged from my electoral duties, I reckoned my first post would be about the conduct of the 2023 referendum. Not just the political campaigns, but the work of all the key players.

Part 1: Our Humble Servants

As the Australian federal electoral agency, the AEC was tasked with the delivery of Australia's first referendum since 1999. While considerably easier than a standard election (no Senate preferences!), there was still the issue of setting into motion the largest logistical operation in Australia.

Overall, the AEC did an excellent job in rolling out the referendum - more than 20 rural voter services were set up in Western Australia alone, little changes to polling premises were made, and the public was well-informed on what to expect on polling day. Their social media presence was probably the best seen of any government organisation, with a clear aim to inform as many twitterers and facebookers as possible. Pre-writ enrolments were finished before close of rolls, and the scrutiny was done as quickly as possible. All in all, one of the best electoral events in modern history.

The only issue I could find was small, but prominent: the ticks and crosses debacle. It all came out of an interview that Tom Rogers, the Electoral Commissioner, gave on Sky News. While the rules have in place for 30 years, it gave plenty of concern, especially among No voters, that the AEC could provide an inaccurate count. However, while the controversy was there, actual informality rates were less than one would find at a general election, most likely due to the AEC's urging for people to write either Yes or No (as well as the fact that it was on the ballot paper).

Part 2: Our Loyal Activists

As expected, the major political figures in the Voice debate were Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton – Prime Minister and Prime Minister-hopeful. However, like the republican referendum, the Voice referendum had its own specific leadership teams to help fuel debate in Australia.

On the Yes side: Linda Burney, Marcia Langton, Thomas Mayo, and Patrick Dodson.

On the No side: Warren Mundine, Jacinta Price, and - to a lesser extent - Lidia Thorpe.

Probably one of the most prominent strategic issues for the Yes campaigners was the influence that Lidia Thorpe had on the debate. While far across the aisle from Price's perspectives, she was able to promote the "Progressive No" vote, as she was of the view that the advisory body would do little to right the wrongs that have plagued the area of Aboriginal affairs within Australia. With that, with every conservative voter that they helped sway with their "just an advisory body" line, they alienated a staunch progressive voter.

What also didn't help is that two of the major campaigners were devout ALP members, with Burney having served as National President prior to her parliamentary career. If you were of the view that the Voice was another Canberra-based bureaucracy with a love for red tape, the idea of it being created by Labor probably did nothing to sweeten that thought.

Additionally, there appears to be a bit of fatigue regarding how to campaign for referendums. The double majority rule means that traditional marginal seats are obsolete and there's a higher bar to clear. The Yes campaign did well in inner-city regions, and especially in Sydney, Melbourne, and Canberra. However, in my opinion the No campaign was a lot more prudent with their resources, focusing on South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, as they had much smaller populations to target, but were worth just as much value as the Eastern Seaboard. Their targeted advertising in WA resulted in 13/15 electorates voting no in the referendum, even in seats that have been considered safe Labor seats.

Part 3: Our True Reaction

As with all political campaigns, the media took sides. The opinion columns in the Daily Tele, the Herald Sun, the West Australian and News Corp metropolitan papers generally favoured the No side, while the columnists at the Guardian, The Saturday Paper, and the Nine Papers (SMH, The Age, etc.) generally supported the Yes case. However, unlike traditional election campaigns, media analysis showed news reporting to be generally neutral in tone.

And then the referendum came and went. People had their names ticked off and cast their votes. If you were lucky, you got a sausage for your duty. If you were invested, you tuned into the television and watched the results come out.

And the result was shown simply:

39.94% in favour, 60.06% against.

0 states in favour. Referendum not carried.

And then the politicians made their statements, people went on social media to make their statements. Overall, the feelings on the No side were akin to a sigh of relief, having decisively blocked what they saw as unnecessary red tape. On the Yes side, people were considerably more upset, with some people seeing it as the end of Aboriginal reconciliation. Many progressives saw the vote as conclusive proof that Australia is a racist state that can't find a path to progress. Put simply, emotions were mixed. A few Aboriginal leaders called for a week of silence, due to the impact the campaign and ballot had on people's lives, and people were genuinely distressed because of the referendum.

However, I do want to point out one response from the Saturday Paper, as their first post-referendum issue's front page simply read "No.". While probably trying to show either despair in the newsroom, or solidarity with those who called for time to heal, it's pretty hard to swallow from a business gaining comfortable revenue from nearly a million readers, mostly left-leaning folk from the upper-middle class. I'd say it summarises the reaction on the Yes side quite well. At the core is a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and communities who reckon they need a break from the intense pressure that was put on them by both campaigns, and outside of that is a network of white activists and criers and Naarm Settlers™ who were very keen to cry for a community they've barely interacted with because of a cause they didn't pitch.

What's next for the realm of Aboriginal affairs is unclear. The government has stated that the Voice isn't the end, but as of 2024 there's been little discussion post-referendum, except for a few alcohol restrictions in towns such as Carnarvon, WA. But even without an advisory body, there are plenty of tools in the arsenal that could be used to help close the gap. While current governmental bodies have come under scrutiny, they're still there, and can be tweaked and altered if our elected representatives see fit.

We'll just have to see if either side of the aisle is willing to do it.

[nonesuchrecords]

“The thing I know about myself is that I deeply loved music from when I was a kid,” Caroline Shaw tells Australia’s The Saturday Paper. “It would make me cry. It was the thing that I was obsessed with and moved by. It’s spiritual and there’s magic in there somewhere. And if I can tap into that when I’m writing, I’ll be okay.” You can read what else she had to say here.

[heartorbit]

bugs when you lift up a rock

[hyunpic]

DAILY HYUNJIN GIFS UNTIL HIS BDAY: love you and all your little things - dance parties

[eskawrites]

so i’m rewatching bits and pieces of s4 for fic reasons and it’s hitting me all over again how and why nancy reacts to robin the way she does before and during the library scene. like! nancy has spent every season having to justify why she thinks what she does or, more often than not, fight with someone to try to pursue her theories. barb is missing and no one is listening to her. barb’s death was unfair but steve thinks they should just keep living their lives normally. she knows there’s a story with mrs driscoll but everyone, jonathan included, is telling her to drop it.

so of course in s4 when she has this idea in the back of her mind, her first instinct is to pursue it alone. even though the others are right there, and they know what’s going on. she still thinks no one will believe her, and she’d rather just do it herself than have someone try to tell her no.

and when robin comes with her nancy thinks that she was right, that robin is just another person who is going to doubt her theories and fight her about whether this is worth their time. except, robin does believe her, she’s just trying to get the information she needs to keep up with nancy. and once they finally get on the same wavelength, everything clicks. robin not only supports nancy’s theory, she takes it and runs with it, and suddenly they have the foundation they need to figure out everything.

and what gets me even more is that, from that moment on, nancy keeps robin at her side. she’s keeping an eye out for her, standing near her in the group, letting her ride shotgun. even when she doesn’t fully trust robin at pennhurst, she still chooses her. and robin proves her wrong again, so nancy keeps choosing her and keeps trusting her.

idk man i just love how strong their dynamic is, and how clear it is that this is good for both of them. for robin to have someone other than steve see her and accept her and care so deeply for her after being the odd one out at the end of s3. and for nancy to have someone finally in her corner, supporting her and believing in her without trying to get with her. they fit so well and their arc in s4 is such a treat, i love it so much

[fox-teeth]

Alright zine heads, do I go with DESERT STORM (left) or KRAFT TONE (right)? The vibe I'm going for is DIRT.

edit: I totally forgot tumblr polls were a thing, sorry for making everyone sound off in the replies (－‸ლ)

[myokk]

“Class, today we’re going to repot the baby mandrakes because they’re getting a bit too big for their current homes! Aren’t they cute?”

[hiddencircus]

MALLEUS GRAPHICS! | for @luctus-flos's event

week 1 prompt: a spring without you. + color green + commonly mischaracterized character likes & reblogs are appreciated! | reblog if use

[the-converse-high-top]

Another Käärijä Research Project

aka: käärijä style-shifting project

as a preface, here are my (non) qualifications for this project and the circumstances under which it happened:

I am a linguistics student, and this past semester I took a course on sociolinguistics. the goal of this project was to become familiar with the concept of and analyze style-shifting (it's more commonly known as code-switching online but theres a difference and this is style-shifting), specifically by analyzing the speech of one person. We had the option to study oprah or to have someone else approved by my prof, so you know I had to ask my prof if I could study jere. This project is solely my intellectual property; even though I had a tutor help me a lot, everything written in this paper and on this post was my work alone.

now, on to the actual findings! the full paper and transcripts will be linked at the end :D

the actual variables (words or sounds) that I studied were the pronunciation of r, and use of the word "the".

to make things a lot easier from the get-go, i'm going to introduce you all to one of my favorite websites, ipachart.com (the international phonetic alphabet [ipa] chart is a big chart with an entry for every sound that exists in a language. this handy dandy website has an audio recording for each one of those sounds).

go to this website, and then scroll down to the table. go to the column labeled "post alveolar" and then click on ɾ and ɹ. those are the sounds i studied in this paper! ɾ is the finnish r and ɹ is the american r :)

so basically what i did to find instances of my variable was i just looked up a bunch of esc interviews and listened out for use of the different r sounds. i also transcribed the entire dinner date live because i love torture apparently :) the specific interviews and lives/stories are in the bibliography of the paper :p

after i transcribed all the interviews and lives/stories i went through and highlighted every instance of the r sound. then i calculated the ratios of ɾ to ɹ based on the context they were spoken in. the two contexts i looked for were formal contexts (sit-down interviews) and informal contexts (literally anything else).

i found that jere uses ɹ WAY more often in formal contexts than he does in informal contexts, and the same in reverse with ɾ.

i then went back to the transcripts and looked for all instances of the word "the". i also looked for instances where i thought it should be present, but was omitted. i calculated the ratio of present vs omitted "the"s in formal vs informal contexts and made some charts.

the graph with the smaller black section is "use of 'the' in formal settings" and the one with the smaller green section is "use of 'the' in informal settings" (the images are transparent, sorry)

i found that jere uses "the" WAY more often when in formal settings! there were also some instances where he added a "the" where it was unnecessary, which is studied at length in this wonderful paper by @alien-girl-21

something i also noticed that i elected not to study because this paper took enough energy on its own was that in formal contexts, whenever the "or" sound came in the middle or at the end of a word, jere wouldn't pronounce the r. it stuck out to me mostly because i heard words like "performance" turning into "perfomance", which i thought was an interesting quirk.

unfortunately i was somewhat limited by both my brainpower and capacity to do more work on this paper in the relatively short timeframe i was given (2 weeks) and the fact that i was given a 5 page MAX for this paper (not including a bibliography). i had a lot of fun doing this though and am definitely planning on studying jere for for academic credit again in the future if given the chance!

also i would like it to be known that i spent an hour searching for that 5 second clip of the urheilucast where jere said that he used to sell kitchens and understands english better than he can speak it.

link to a google drive folder with the actual paper i wrote and the transcripts of the interviews with notation:

please feel free to send me asks and dms with questions or comments about this paper! i absolutely love rambling about linguistics :3!!

[transsextual]

beautiful sunny day today ^-^

[pauls1967moustache]

[tsukasalover]

desk reveal ^_^ wowow!!1! just moved some stuff around today..

closeups ↓

[soupbtch]

ummm. my fic is done.

[thelandswemadeofpaper]

I just realized the Secret Trio/Quartet is more magical/supernatural

While the Celebrity Trio is more scientifical

[ambivartence]

i got it back!

[browsethestacks]

The Marvel(ous) UK Of Comics