Double Majority Provision may be undemocratic, as not satisfying certain requirements of the provision, it will not be successful. This also means that it is difficult to achieve.
1977 referendum on simultaneous elections got support from 62.2% of national vote but failed as only got majority in 3/6 states
Smaller states can be given a disproportionate amount of power.
NSW 8.1 million, compared to Tasmania’s 540,000
The votes of the territories only count to the national majority. This is problematic where this can compromise of a large voter base of which the amendment impacts.
Polling catchments where Indigenous Australians form more than 50% of the population voted on average 63% in favour of the voice
Australian people are able to drive constitutional change if the people support the proposal
The 1967 referendum shows that people-driven change arguably may have a greater chance of receiving bipartisan support and a ‘yes’ vote.
While people have the final say on the change, this can only occur if the government is interested and initiates and passes the bill.
Without the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal) Bill 1967, the referendum would not have occurred.
If national support for change is lacking then the proposed change is likely to fail.
‘Killing off the Voice is a way of killing off the republic’ (Anne Twomey), indicating that the 2023 referendum has negative implications for a future republic referendum.
Australians generally lack understanding of the Constitution.
The message ‘if you don’t know, vote no’ potentially diluted informed debate.
All 8 successful referendums have had bipartisan support.
In the 1967 referendum, there was no presented ‘no’ campaign. This simplifier the message being presented.
No referendums have been successful that did not have bipartisan support.
Whilst the 2023 referendum had support from the ALP and the Greens, it lacked support from the Liberal and National Party.