For all the good intentions, the seemingly modest request and growing army of volunteers, the "yes" campaign message still does not appear to be getting through.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
A simple, central "yes" narrative is not yet working to win over voters, with a team of political scientists watching over traditional and non-traditional media to find no less than 33 different "yes" messages.
The "no" camp have seven ways to oppose swirling around the currently winning, "If you don't know, vote no" slogan.
And, while we are at it, a counter is desperately needed for the deliberately disruptive and often racist bots overwhelming and befouling social media when voters need real engagement and are crying out for legitimate information.
It is telling, and fairly late in the game for an October 14 referendum, that 72 per cent of the respondents to the latest readers' survey on the Voice by ACM, publisher of this masthead, say the Albanese government has not done enough to explain the Indigenous committee that is being proposed.
It is easy to fix on the politicians and the ACM survey found voters were not really drawing from, in any substantial numbers, information from government websites and advertisements.
Yet they are looking for a top voice on the Voice and they want trustworthy information after being hit over the head by the "no" side that there is not enough detail. There is plenty and a great start is the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is one page with supporting documents.
READ MORE:
Add to that is the not-often-touched-on detail that the Voice make-up and shape would be later worked out by Parliament, including with the input of the federal opposition.
It is the way of the constitution. It is not there for detail. There is a narrow path for the Voice's existence, while the "no" side can say anything in the vacuum and cast all manner of doubt.
Meantime, racist bots are smashing up online conversations with threats and dehumanising engagement. People on the "no" side say they are being shamed as well.
In the middle, Australia's Indigenous people are treated as footballs again.
So much for a kinder, gentler polity.
The ferocity of the, by all accounts, unreal opposition online needs serious scrutiny.
Some accounts are pumping out vile, toxic things at inhuman rates. They are emboldening others.
Social media is not a safe place to engage on the Voice, and the current scorched earth policy can only expect to further sully platforms and drive sensible voices away beyond October 14 whatever the result.
The words "bin fire" come to mind.
The Voice proposal to let Indigenous people take charge of their own lives stands on a precipice.
ACM's survey of voters show only 34 per cent of people supported enshrining the Voice to Parliament in the constitution compared to 61 per cent who said they expected to vote "no".
Just 5 per cent indicated in the survey they were undecided, whereas the polling from official campaign body, Yes23, suggests a far higher undecided cohort.
ACM understands the "yes" message is about to simplify and be more targeted as the tough ask of the double majority referendum result is sought.
The message, the overarching narrative, is expected to coalesce around unity and inclusion. The antithesis of division.
Is it possible for voters to truly understand the standing start for First Nations people? The inter-generational disadvantage? The loaded unappreciated existence? Or can they know the constant feeling, as Indigenous arts journalist Daniel Browning put it recently, of being trailed by the "stink of assumptions?"
Just over a month to go, which feels like an eternity and a blink of an eye at the same time.