Special Election Aug. 8th Issue 1

I am torn. I generally want constitutional change to be difficult. But I worry about the unforseen consequences of keeping it the same or voting yes. I think no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, there are scenarios where you would think "I wish we hadn't done that."

I remember voting for an initiative that defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman just 15 years ago or so, which passed very comfortably - and SCOTUS, in its vast wisdom, wiped it out. So, there are a lot of moving parts and angles on this issue, and I think the uncertainty and unknown potential consequences will probably sink the proposal. But I'm a tentative yes.
 
bob99 said:
Having to go to all 88 counties is too stringent of a hurdle. Some of the smaller counties have less than 10,000 registered voters. Vinton County largest town is McArthur." McArthur is a village in and the county seat of Vinton County, Ohio, United States.[4] It is located 27 miles (43 km) southeast of Chillicothe. The population was 1,783 at the 2020 census." Sounds like it wouldn't be that easy to fine 5% of the population at one given place. Why change that part on the Issue 1 proposition? An unnecessary obstacle.
Click to expand...
Why should they have any voice, screw em right?
bob99 said:
Having to go to all 88 counties is too stringent of a hurdle. Some of the smaller counties have less than 10,000 registered voters. Vinton County largest town is McArthur." McArthur is a village in and the county seat of Vinton County, Ohio, United States.[4] It is located 27 miles (43 km) southeast of Chillicothe. The population was 1,783 at the 2020 census." Sounds like it wouldn't be that easy to fine 5% of the population at one given place. Why change that part on the Issue 1 proposition? An unnecessary obstacle.
Click to expand...
So go door to door to collect signatures, you know like the old days?
 
If this fails the left will once again misread the conclusion. The objection is mostly centered on the petition segment or holding a special election. Not the "anti democracy " of having a higher threshold.
 
y2h said:
Why should they have any voice, screw em right?

So go door to door to collect signatures, you know like the old days?
Click to expand...
What you're advocating for is a logistical impossibility for any grassroots movement. The amount of money required to get that many people to canvass that many areas effectively means only the most elite of America, most outside Ohio, will be able to finance a referendum -- and I don't think you're going to like the issues put on the ballot if that happens.
 
IVCguy said:
I am torn. I generally want constitutional change to be difficult. But I worry about the unforseen consequences of keeping it the same or voting yes. I think no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, there are scenarios where you would think "I wish we hadn't done that."
Click to expand...
Exactly. And I am OK with the 60% requirement, but the proposed county requirements go to far IMO

The reason its on the ballot at all is because the Ohio GOP wants to stop one specific potential amendment this year. It's not a matter of if there will be future occasions where it backfires on them, but when.
 
Bull GreenDog said:
The reason its on the ballot at all is because the Ohio GOP wants to stop one specific potential amendment this year. It's not a matter of if there will be future occasions where it backfires on them, but when.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of an old saying of my grandmother.

“ If you burn the house down around you. Don’t cry when you have to sleep in the rain”
 
I'm Voting YES

I am actually for 2/3 majority. I believe the Constitution is sacred and in order to change it just about everyone should be on board.

I will be voting for abortion (though I would always choose life)
against identity affirmation .... you don't mess with kids plumbing...
I am against the law against drag queens performing in front of children. That should be a decision made by the parents of the children not the government. Obviously I believe that the parents should know if drag queens are performing in front of their child. Now, if it is just a reading at a library/school and many are doing it and one just happens to be a drag queen no big deal.....
 
y2h said:
Why should they have any voice, screw em right?

So go door to door to collect signatures, you know like the old days?
Click to expand...
Why is it necessary to have all 88 counties? The vote is August 8th. Let's wait and see what the majority thinks. The way it should be.
 
vamp2syd said:
I'm Voting YES

I am actually for 2/3 majority. I believe the Constitution is sacred and in order to change it just about everyone should be on board.

I will be voting for abortion (though I would always choose life)
against identity affirmation .... you don't mess with kids plumbing...
I am against the law against drag queens performing in front of children. That should be a decision made by the parents of the children not the government. Obviously I believe that the parents should know if drag queens are performing in front of their child. Now, if it is just a reading at a library/school and many are doing it and one just happens to be a drag queen no big deal.....
Click to expand...
Go, sensible old libertarians!!
 
bob99 said:
Why is it necessary to have all 88 counties? The vote is August 8th. Let's wait and see what the majority thinks. The way it should be.
Click to expand...
So which counties should have a say and which should be disenfranchised?

As I said if its voted down the conclusion cant really be drawn that it was the 60% threshold.
 
y2h said:
So which counties should have a say and which should be disenfranchised?

As I said if its voted down the conclusion cant really be drawn that it was the 60% threshold.
Click to expand...
Keep talking, I am listening. I don't know anybody who is a radical right. I am interested to hear your position. I am sure you would say the left leaning counties should not have a say and should be silenced. Majority has no rights. It should be the radical right with all the power. Sorry I can't agree with you, but you do you (y)
 
bob99 said:
Keep talking, I am listening. I don't know anybody who is a radical right. I am interested to hear your position. I am sure you would say the left leaning counties should not have a say and should be silenced. Majority has no rights. It should be the radical right with all the power. Sorry I can't agree with you, but you do you (y)
Click to expand...
50%+1 isn't really a majority.

I'm not the one claiming some counties shouldn't be involved in the process 🤷‍♂️
 
y2h said:
50%+1 isn't really a majority.

I'm not the one claiming some counties shouldn't be involved in the process 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
However the vote goes in August is fine with me. In the end all counties are involved in the process, as long as everybody gets a vote. Yes, 50% plus one is a majority. Simple mathematics.
 
Let's say Issue 1 passes. Subsequently, the pro-abortion amendment in November falls short of 60%. Somebody is immediately going to run to the federal court and scream bloody murder and stay any anti-abortion law enforcement enacted by the legislature.

This will take years. The Ohio GOP has set us down an impossible course with their original anti-abortion law. They left any woman who wants to terminate a pregnancy with standing to sue, to say nothing of the changing of the referendum threshold under dubious circumstances which will also be subject to years of legal review. If you truly want abortion gone completely, you might actually be better served voting no and moving on to a new amendment as well as hoping the legislature tries a different approach, such as the one in Texas.
 
The one thing with Ohio's amendment process is that it's a check on their legislature's power. There's been issues over the years where the people have decided what their elected politicians were unwilling or unable to pass.

And yes, 50%+1 allows not just a majority to make a decision on a matter, but also the ability to change that decision (yeah, I know amendments have to be different, but look how many different ways the gambling amendments were voted on until it passed). The issue is that this is a 'close the door behind you vote'... And you never get it back. Regardless your political position.

Never vote against your ability to participate in the political process in the future. No matter what issue you're upset about.

Win or lose on the merits of your positions, not on your ability to restrict the voice of your opponent.



Use this thought experiment:

Amendment is proposed that would require incumbents to lose their elections by at least 20 points in order to be removed from office. Otherwise, they stay in office for the next term.

Would you think that was a good thing or a bad thing? Why or why not?
 
Sykotyk said:
Use this thought experiment:

Amendment is proposed that would require incumbents to lose their elections by at least 20 points in order to be removed from office. Otherwise, they stay in office for the next term.

Would you think that was a good thing or a bad thing? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
This is the problem with Issue 1. State governments have to be democratic in form. The Supreme Court is not as conservative as people think it is. Saying "I want you to vote 50%+1 to make it so referenda can only pass by 60%+1" is an extremely dicey proposition. And it will be sent that high should Issue 1 pass. The state constitution provides for alternative methods if one hates 50%+1 so badly.
 
Sykotyk said:
The one thing with Ohio's amendment process is that it's a check on their legislature's power. There's been issues over the years where the people have decided what their elected politicians were unwilling or unable to pass.

And yes, 50%+1 allows not just a majority to make a decision on a matter, but also the ability to change that decision (yeah, I know amendments have to be different, but look how many different ways the gambling amendments were voted on until it passed). The issue is that this is a 'close the door behind you vote'... And you never get it back. Regardless your political position.

Never vote against your ability to participate in the political process in the future. No matter what issue you're upset about.

Win or lose on the merits of your positions, not on your ability to restrict the voice of your opponent.



Use this thought experiment:

Amendment is proposed that would require incumbents to lose their elections by at least 20 points in order to be removed from office. Otherwise, they stay in office for the next term.

Would you think that was a good thing or a bad thing? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
This doesn't take away from anyone's ability to participate in the political process. It doesn't restrict anyone's voice. It requires gaining broad acceptance of your position. If your position has merit than you'll find that support as opposed to limping it across the finish line. Amending a Constitution should require broad support.

Do you believe the US Constitution should be amended by only half the states?
 
After giving this some additional thought,I won't vote on this issue. It's about abortion IMO. Go ahead and murder the child. Smother it if it doesn't meet your expectations. Let God sort out the action. I'll keep my guns and you can have your abortion.
 
I enjoy wrestling said:
After giving this some additional thought,I won't vote on this issue. It's about abortion IMO. Go ahead and murder the child. Smother it if it doesn't meet your expectations. Let God sort out the action. I'll keep my guns and you can have your abortion.
Click to expand...
Let the abortion issue be a one issue stand alone vote. There should be no attempt to rig the vote. One vote per person. That is the fair way to do elections. Present the issue of abortion and let the majority decide. Why should this be handled any other way?
 
jackson03 said:
What you're advocating for is a logistical impossibility for any grassroots movement. The amount of money required to get that many people to canvass that many areas effectively means only the most elite of America, most outside Ohio, will be able to finance a referendum -- and I don't think you're going to like the issues put on the ballot if that happens.
Click to expand...
You mean like now?
 
bob99 said:
Let the abortion issue be a one issue stand alone vote. There should be no attempt to rig the vote. One vote per person. That is the fair way to do elections. Present the issue of abortion and let the majority decide. Why should this be handled any other way?
Click to expand...
Too many stupid and ignorant people.
 
y2h said:
Do you believe the US Constitution should be amended by only half the states?
Click to expand...
Do you think the Presidential election should be decided by the states? It is done in one circumstance, why not all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top