"The problem was the model the government offered up in the referendum was way too vague and poorly delivered. "
Certainly agree with that, I think the yes campaign was abysmal and badly mis-directed. Basically pandering to the "true believers" with little substance for the rest.
Firstly the constitution is the "instruction" on how we want the country governed and any changes should benefit all of Australian society - improving the lot of the Aboriginals (health, education, etc...) should improve overall society but this wasn't explained. Secondly those proposing a change are the ones that need to explain how it is better, and what outcomes we should expect from the change. Most of the messages I saw were vague "it's the right thing to do" and "your racist if you don't" (both sides were guilty of the "racist" tagging). Having been through several work reorganizations we all know that people resist change unless they see a clear benefit and historical constitutional change failures are further evidence of that. Evidence from other societies that have something similar (eg Sami parliament in Norway) how they might work and how they have benefited society and affect on existing parliament would have been useful. Lastly many of the "Yes" devotees seem to have little introspection into why the yes campaign failure may have been due to their approach, just blaming Dutton & Murdoch for daring to promote "No". People should vote Yes or No on whether or not they believe the change will actually improve society, voting on emotion alone is foolish.
