Major problems with the Voice referendum are plain to see: even some of its prominent supporters question its chances of succeeding with the question in its current format. So it’s clearly going to fail, right? Not necessarily. American psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, has said, ‘The emotional tail wags the rational dog.’ All he is saying is what many of us know to be true, namely, we often make decisions based on emotion, more so than rational reasoning. Emotions are fine when used appropriately. Ideally, they should work in partnership with rational thought. When used with logic, emotions can unleash creativity and vision, and motivate us. But when logic is lacking, emotions can lead to quick but ineffective fixes that bring joy to some but create intense pain for others. In short, emotions should be our servants and not our masters.

From what I have seen so far in the debate about the proposed Indigenous Voice to parliament, I think many people will vote based on emotional reactions at the expense of rational or logical thinking. Why is this? Spoiler alert: I believe that if too many people vote based on emotion, this will lead to a Yes outcome. And I believe this to be problematic for several reasons. One reason is it sends the poisonous message that has characterised Indigenous affairs for decades: namely, that Indigenous people’s salvation lies in yet another silver bullet in the future. It distracts both the people and government from focusing on what they could be doing now, and instead leads them searching for yet another promised pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Recently I have seen several intelligent and good people offer arguments for a Yes vote that I believe are highly emotive. For example, emeritus professor of politics at La Trobe University, Judith Brett, wrote in the Australian that, ‘To refuse this invitation, no matter what the reasons, will do lasting damage both to the body politic and to the nation’s soul.’ Get it? If you don’t want the weight of damaging this nation’s soul on your conscience, then you had better vote Yes.

Again in the Australian, Troy Bramston wrote that the Liberal party, by not supporting the Voice, has ‘spurned the invitation to walk with Indigenous Australians on a journey of reconciliation’. Using the reconciliation angle again, David Crowe stated in the Sydney Morning Herald that, ‘The Voice is ultimately a vote on reconciliation….’ Get it? Vote No, and you are opposing reconciliation. Vote Yes, and you are promoting reconciliation.

Sydney’s Sunday Telegraph reports: ‘A cavalcade of Indigenous superstars is set to be recruited by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to sell Australians on a Yes vote for a Voice to parliament.’ Does that sound like an appeal to the emotions, or to logic? Advertisers know that many will buy a product because it is endorsed by a favourite celebrity, even though it may be of questionable quality and value. Maybe celebrity endorsements are being sought for the Voice proposal because its value and quality are questionable?

I’m willing to be helped out here, but I fail to see the logic in Minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney’s claim, that the proposed Voice to parliament would have prevented recent alcohol-related problems in Alice Springs from escalating to the crisis that they became. This is a highly emotive argument, and as such, is surely spurious. Of course, nobody wants to feel responsible for the horrors we have seen in the streets of Alice Springs and elsewhere when grog bans were lifted.

Elsewhere, the minister has told us that Indigenous Australians have had no voice and no say in the matters that have affected their communities. I can imagine well-intentioned voters, after hearing this, on referendum day thinking, ‘Well, of course I’m going to vote for Indigenous Australians to have a Voice.’ The fact is, Indigenous Australians already have a Voice. Not just Indigenous people in the senior ranks, but those on the ground who communicate with elected politicians and local leaders.

Many, myself included, have reasonable questions about the Voice. How will it work? What powers will it have? What processes will it use? These questions are highly relevant and reflect the almost certainly complicated nature of the Voice, as far as we know. And that is not necessarily a criticism, as many worthwhile ventures in life, by their nature, are complicated, especially at the national level.

Without clear and accessible answers to these questions, the final referendum question will be difficult to properly understand. When faced with difficult questions, our minds employ what Daniel Kahneman in his landmark book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, calls intuitive heuristics. That is, when faced with a difficult question, we answer an easier one, often without noticing the substitution. Applied to the upcoming referendum, I believe that for many people, rather than answering the question in its final format, whatever that may be, they will answer a question in their minds like, ‘Do I want to help Indigenous Australians?’

Finally, in recent times we have seen nasty criticisms fired at high-profile No campaigners. Concurrently, quite a number of those who are committed to voting Yes on principle, are concerned at the proposed reach of the Voice, and are also being attacked. Such criticism comes from those who are emotionally driven. We know who they are, so I don’t need to name them. To them I would simply say, instead of harsh criticisms, direct your energy into explaining what the Voice will be and how it will actually help Indigenous Australians in any practical way. The public will then be better placed to vote.

My logic system is different to yours, so I can’t tell you what to vote for on referendum day, but I do suggest that you consider what is best for Indigenous Australians, if and how the Voice will help them, and how it will help all.