linguoboy wrote:"support for a monarch-free Australia is higher now than it was 16 years ago when 45% of Australians voted in a referendum against keeping the tie with Britain"
Uncharacteristically bad wording for the Economist here. What they mean is that 45% of those who voted in the referendum voted against keeping the British monarch as head of state, not that only 45% voted at all. (In reality, turnout was 95% of the electorate, which is typical for federal elections in Australia.)
Is it really wrong, though? I immediately read it as:
[...]when 45% of Australians [voted in a referendum] against keeping the tie with Britain.
..., because a referendum's subject would never be formulated as "the referendum against keeping the tie with Britain", because that would be very biased wording. Plus, what people first look for in polling results is not usually turnout.
But I guess you're right; it could have been a lot less ambiguous.