By Mark Kenny

A version of this article was originally published by The Canberra Times.

Inevitably, parallels will be drawn between elections - with which we are accustomed - and referendums, with which we are not. But these can be as misleading.

Referendums are uncommon. Unless you're older than 42, you've never voted in one, and if you do remember the tawdry 1999 republic affair, it may not be fondly.

A disingenuous Howard government put the republic question forward but schemed for its failure.

But then, I would say that. Where I live, I can see the Australian flag from my back yard. And not just any flag but the biggest one there is - the giant standard atop our federal parliament.

If the October 14 referendum were conducted exclusively in Australia's inner-cities, it would be a doddle. Rather it involves all adults wherever they live and whatever their level of education and knowledge.

This highlights one of those election vs referendum parallels that doesn't work - least not in delivering overdue justice. Compulsory voting is an Australian strength. It forces parties aspiring to govern to connect across the middle-ground. Not only does this work against the kind of fringe quackery dominating American politics, but it periodically favours change-oriented parties because all workers get to vote.

In a referendum, perversely, this compulsion works against change. Voters who know nothing about the proposed constitutional amendment and make no attempt to find out, have as much sway as the most conscientious citizen. Encouraged in their disengagement, they default to caution when forced to choose between change or the status quo. Disreputable slogans like, "if you don't know, vote no" resonate with them, valorising their civic abandon.

Combine this anti-intellectualist tendency with the high bar for constitutional amendments (the double majority) and it's no surprise that few proposals succeed - just eight out of 44 questions put since federation, none without cross-party backing.

Crucially, the Voice lacks even that. Eyeing a slim path to his own survival and that of his beleaguered party, Peter Dutton sued for maximum division.

The challenge for the "yes" camp is to speak to those disengaged people, to shake them out of that tendency to moral torpor.

Anthony Albanese will try. The PM made all the right points at the campaign's Adelaide launch. This, he said, was an idea which came from the people and would be decided by the people. He called it a "once in a generation chance to bring our country together and to change it for the better" imploring Australian's not to "close the door".

But to stop people closing the door, he must open their minds, or more importantly, their hearts.

In a cacophony of fear and lies, they'll need to be listening first.

Mark Kenny is a professor at the ANU Australian Studies Institute and host of the Democracy Sausage podcast.