It ain’t passing
The no screamers have a better argument than the yes yellers
posted by FletchBe careful what you wish for. The pendulum of simple majority rule swings pretty fast sometimes in the opposite direction.
It takes no political considerations when you dont have to pull the opposite isle into your camp to pass legislation.
If you want simple majority rule, dont bitch when you arent on the correct side of things later.
This is the present situation, so it’s what we’ve been living with in Ohio for 100 years. It’s not something anyone wishes for. Passage of Issue 1 would actually change it away from what you describe.
posted by j_crazyI like parts of it (requiring signatures from every county, not allowing new signatures after submitting the petition), but i also believe it will make it harder for citizen initiatives to go through and i hate the idea of 40% of dipshit state reps having the ability to kill anything that their crazy minds want. Overall, i think i'm a no here, even though i'm not eligible to vote in ohio.
It’s got nothing to do with legislative votes. It’s to do with citizen referendums getting things on the ballot. Has no effect on how the general assembly works.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIt’s got nothing to do with legislative votes. It’s to do with citizen referendums getting things on the ballot. Has no effect on how the general assembly works.
And that's not my reading of the actual proposal.
Getting "things on the ballot" is largely unchanged, just now you need 60% of the voters for it to pass into law. Please tell me how that is a bad thing?
Again, this is for a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. As far as passing laws, hardly anything has changed.
Or do you disagree that a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment should require more than a simple majority to enact?
posted by gutAnd that's not my reading of the actual proposal.
Getting "things on the ballot" is largely unchanged, just now you need 60% of the voters for it to pass into law. Please tell me how that is a bad thing?
Again, this is for a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. As far as passing laws, hardly anything has changed.
Or do you disagree that a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment should require more than a simple majority to enact?
If only it was that straight forward. Ohio has had the current system in place for over a hundred years and it has worked fine. Rarely do citizen measures make it to the Constitution, so the current law has worked well.
I object to the whole premise of this election. This only became an issue when the abortion amendment was proposed for this November.
Just last year, the state passed a measure getting rid of August special elections as they were deemed too expensive and low turnout. Yet, after the abortion measure, suddenly boom, a new initiative and measure to raise the threshold to 60%.
I actually do think we should up the floor to 60%, but not like this. I also object that 1 county can kill any measure, gives too much power to 1 County.
Instead, make it a November measure either this year or next. They also need to revise the Ohio Code to match as that would seem to be the better option, instead of amending the Constitution.
posted by gutHaving read every amendment to the Ohio constitution, and finding nothing remotely controversial, I'd say at best, it's a solution in search of a problem, at worst, a highly partisan POS.Or do you disagree that a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment should require more than a simple majority to enact?
posted by kizer permanenteWe know what we're wishing for. The Republican party to abandon the religious right and go back to a fiscal party.
Agreed, and for Democratic Party to abandon the far left wackados like the new wave LGTBQ that want to indoctrinate your kids, that are ok with abortions even after the baby is born, and can’t stop spending trillions more than we have.
I agree with you that the Rs are not what they should be, but good Lord the left has gone far more looney tunes.
I was originally a yes on this, but I did more research, and if it was simply the 60% I would be ok with it, but the requirement to start an amendment going from 44 to all 88 counties was an asinine addition. I will be a no for that reason tomor
posted by ptown_trojans_1If only it was that straight forward. Ohio has had the current system in place for over a hundred years and it has worked fine. Rarely do citizen measures make it to the Constitution, so the current law has worked well.
I object to the whole premise of this election. This only became an issue when the abortion amendment was proposed for this November.
Just last year, the state passed a measure getting rid of August special elections as they were deemed too expensive and low turnout. Yet, after the abortion measure, suddenly boom, a new initiative and measure to raise the threshold to 60%.
I actually do think we should up the floor to 60%, but not like this. I also object that 1 county can kill any measure, gives too much power to 1 County.
Instead, make it a November measure either this year or next. They also need to revise the Ohio Code to match as that would seem to be the better option, instead of amending the Constitution.
Kizer and I agree on all points for once.
I agree with the 60% measure but not requiring all 88 counties. Some counties literally only have a couple thousand registered voters, so a couple thousand out of about 8 million Ohio voters could alone stop the process.
Also the weird quick nature of the way it’s being pushed through, not a fan.
If they had it in November like normal, was just a 60% vote for an amendment (similar percentages for congress and states for US Constitution amendments), but the changing of 44 to all 88 counties for signatures was just too much
posted by jmogAgreed, and for Democratic Party to abandon the far left wackados like the new wave LGTBQ that want to indoctrinate your kids, that are ok with abortions even after the baby is born, and can’t stop spending trillions more than we have.
I agree with you that the Rs are not what they should be, but good Lord the left has gone far more looney tunes.
I was originally a yes on this, but I did more research, and if it was simply the 60% I would be ok with it, but the requirement to start an amendment going from 44 to all 88 counties was an asinine addition. I will be a no for that reason tomor
Yeah.. I'm not even sure how we got to where we are today. it's unrecognizable from even 20 years ago.
Voted at the ass crack of 6:30 before I headed to work. About 8 of us were in line when the polls opened and a steady trickle the few minutes after. Still impressive for August in my opinion.
posted by queencitybuckeye
Having read every amendment to the Ohio constitution, and finding nothing remotely controversial, I'd say at best, it's a solution in search of a problem, at worst, a highly partisan POS.
60% of votes is as bipartisan as it gets.
Saying it's only an issue because of abortion is kind of the pot calling the kettle black, no? You care about it mainly, it seems, because you want abortion to be legal and know it won't get 60% of the vote. Which is a very convenient position to hold, until the next time when it's something you oppose.
posted by gut60% of votes is as bipartisan as it gets.
Saying it's only an issue because of abortion is kind of the pot calling the kettle black, no? You care about it mainly, it seems, because you want abortion to be legal and know it won't get 60% of the vote. Which is a very convenient position to hold, until the next time when it's something you oppose.
And this wouldn't even be necessary if the Republicans didn't pass the heartbeat bill. And they know forcing it to 60% is the only chance they have of keeping it a law. Otherwise this wouldn't have even been an issue. It's the issue of abortion because they made it so.
posted by kizer permanenteYeah.. I'm not even sure how we got to where we are today. it's unrecognizable from even 20 years ago.
It was after the last Bush. Bill Clinton and the 2 Bush's were ideologically different, but not THAT different.
At the start of his first campaign Obama/Biden weren't that different than Rs as well. But over that 8 years and the 6/7 years since good Lord its like "lets see which side can further away from center next".
Currently the Ds are winning that "battle" but the Rs, many of them anyway, are not that far behind.
Look at Robert F Kennedy, Ramaswamy, Tulsi Gabbard, etc. All 3 rather centrist, yet all 3 have (had in 2020 in Tulsi's case) no shot in the primaries because of the whackadoos voting in the primaries.
If I had to rank right now in order of who I would vote for (current candidates) in the general they would go...
1. Ramaswamy
2. Haley/Scott/Kennedy (2 Rs, 1 D all fairly close for me on how 'normal' they are).
3. DeSantis
Then WAY down the road here...
4. Trump (would take ANY R over him, but I am ignoring the other almost 10 candidates as they have no shot)
Then WAY down the road more.....
5. Biden (mainly because the man should be in a nursing home not the WH).
posted by kizer permanenteAnd this wouldn't even be necessary if the Republicans didn't pass the heartbeat bill. And they know forcing it to 60% is the only chance they have of keeping it a law. Otherwise this wouldn't have even been an issue. It's the issue of abortion because they made it so.
I would be "ok" with it being on the ballot even if the main reason WAS abortion, as long as they did it ethically "right". November election, don't throw in the all 88 county BS, etc.
I just can't get the "we'll put it on a special August election" BS. I vote no on every school levy that tries to get forced down a "special election" as well, put it on a normal primary or a general election. If the levy is the ONLY reason I have to go to the polls that day, I am voting no basically every time.
posted by Ironman92
To be fair, 127 amendments in just over 100 years is asinine. It should be 60%, and saying "well black people couldn't be in the Ohio National Guard" or "no women or blacks could vote" is also asinine as even if they wouldn't have passed in 1920s they would obviously pass by now.
There is no good reason for 127 amendments, it should be 60%, but not the way they did it this time to get there.
Over $15 million dollars pumped into Ohio from outside sources on this vote.
posted by FletchOver $15 million dollars pumped into Ohio from outside sources on this vote.
Well, as others have pointed out, every way they went about this was wrong.
I'm actually kind of shocked this was brought by the Republican legislature. Only thing I can figure is they are worried about an amendment passing that will tie their hands to modify/tweak the law (which probably wouldn't be the case with a regular old ballot initiative).
I guess pro-actively heading off a potential amendment that would have no restrictions on abortion. Which is probably a good reason for a 60% threshold, especially since most people voting on that will have no clue what they are actually voting for.
posted by iclfan2Don’t have to worry about me, but based on who is advocating for voting against it, I’d vote yes (from a brief google and Twitter search).
Almost every organization (left-wing groups) pushing the No vote ironically have constitutions and by-laws that require at least a 60% majority to change them, some at 75%. The hypocrisy is comical. To change such a structural foundation as our constitution should require a substantial majority, otherwise we will continue to be vulnerable to the one issue vote buyers, such as the gambling group that has been hard-coded into our constitution --- highly ridiculous. We elect representatives to make policy at the legislative level, where it should remain. If you don't like the policy, change reps who will change the law etc...etc.... don't hard-code every whimsical issue directly into the constitution to never be changed again.
posted by jmogThere is no good reason for 127 amendments, it should be 60%, but not the way they did it this time to get there.
Vote for better politicians. I mean, WTF two amendments proposed PER YEAR? Elect different people and hold them accountable to do their jobs.
Also, we are seeing how the current set-up can be easily influenced and corrupted by people outside the state. That is certainly something that wouldn't have happened even 30 years ago, and should be concerning to everyone.
posted by jmogTo be fair, 127 amendments in just over 100 years is asinine. It should be 60%, and saying "well black people couldn't be in the Ohio National Guard" or "no women or blacks could vote" is also asinine as even if they wouldn't have passed in 1920s they would obviously pass by now.
There is no good reason for 127 amendments, it should be 60%, but not the way they did it this time to get there.
I just posted it….the 4 of the examples are silly or don’t matter to me at all
posted by gutVote for better politicians. I mean, WTF two amendments proposed PER YEAR? Elect different people and hold them accountable to do their jobs.
Also, we are seeing how the current set-up can be easily influenced and corrupted by people outside the state. That is certainly something that wouldn't have happened even 30 years ago, and should be concerning to everyone.
To be fair only 77 were put through, and 19 passed, by citizen initiative. The balance to get to the 227/127 numbers were our fuckhead legislators, so they’re definitely more the problem as you point out
This is the most frustrating part I think. Both campaigns are using the “stop special interests” line of bullshit, as both sides were also about 85% funded from out of state. They all suck assposted by Fletch
Over $15 million dollars pumped into Ohio from outside sources on this vote.
posted by ts1227
This is the most frustrating part I think. Both campaigns are using the “stop special interests” line of bullshit, as both sides were also about 85% funded from out of state. They all suck ass
And that's the other shady piece of the puzzle. They hold this on a special election when turnout is already low, and then they dump money - mostly from outsiders - to try to push it over the margin.
TBH, state government seem even more useless than the Feds. Maybe because the Feds have already taken so much power from the states. But it's mainly the Feds and local govt that annoy me, while I struggle to see how my state govt impacts me (beyond taxes).
Assuming if this passes it will be harder for recreational marijuana to go through.
Therefore, I’m officially going with meaningless NO.