You can’t elect a party on one issue, three entire election is multifaceted you can’t try claim because the greens said the were against genocide and no one voted for them it’s simply due to that.
The greens could have lost on any of their other policies with their views on genocide being ignored.
Look at America, good old “genocide Joe”, lost the election being supposedly pro genocide while trump was going to fix it.
Yes but governments can’t make massive changes in legislation easily and small incremental changes over time can achieve the same results.
Like they say, don’t let perfection be the enemy of good
Yes, I agree, but they were still the only party that were opposed to genocide and nobody cared enough to vote for them.
So whatever your views of the greens, the voters view of genocide was that it wasn’t important.
No, that’s wrong.
You can’t elect a party on one issue, three entire election is multifaceted you can’t try claim because the greens said the were against genocide and no one voted for them it’s simply due to that.
The greens could have lost on any of their other policies with their views on genocide being ignored.
Look at America, good old “genocide Joe”, lost the election being supposedly pro genocide while trump was going to fix it.
No one is elected on one issue
No, I’m saying that as the only party to be anti genocide, if Australians cared about it as an issue, their votes would have increased, not decreased.
Not based off of one issue.