No, Republicans, Tumbleweeds do not have the right to vote

1. 78

   Credence2posted 9 months ago

   Background
   
   https://news.yahoo.com/issue-1-smells-n … 16014.html
   
   The article speaks of the goal of the Republican legislature in Ohio regarding this Amendment 1. Those in favor want to raise the threshold of affirmative change from 50 percent to 60 percent. This is being proposed because states who have had similar ballot initiatives voted against the arrogance Republican legislatures regarding their extreme anti-abortion laws. The people in those states made in clear that these legislators are to be reminded as to who it is that they are there to serve.
   
   Ohio Republicans figures that they can short circuit this pattern by proposing that small individual counties, say with having 5000 inhabitants or less, should have equal standing with counties that include Cleveland or Cincinnati? Is that fair?
   
   Republicans are naturally anti-democratic, believing that the few should have authority the many. This is a troubling trend, the defeat of which is imperative and a clear example made to authoritarian Republicans that this will never do.
   
   Your thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      The majority spoke, as it should in regard o such issues that affect citizens. So put your worries aside on this one. Our democracy needed no help or push with hearing the majority's voices. 
      
      NBC NEWS   Aug 8, 2023 ---   "In a win for abortion-rights supporters, Ohio voters reject Issue 1
      
      Ohioans voted down a proposal that would have made it harder to pass future proposed constitutional amendments in the state, including one in November about abortion rights."

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

         "The majority spoke, as it should in regard o such issues that affect citizens. So put your worries aside on this one. Our democracy needed no help or push with hearing the majority's voices."
         
         I certainly would like to, but will the Republicans that have been pushing this learn to leave well enough alone?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 8 months agoin reply to this

            Gosh --- Do you have the right to dictate over the majority, just because you feel you know what is best?   The majority does not work that way, a banana republic works that way.  We have done alright up to now with the majority, just take the abortion issue. It will take a bit of time but the majority will work it all out to benefit our society in the end.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months agoin reply to this

               "We have done alright up to now with the majority,"
               
               Glad to hear you support The National Popular Vote so we can rest assured we never have another president who failed to get the most votes. No more Bush II or Trumps!

               replyreport
2. 95

   wildernessposted 9 months ago

   First, I have to ask - just what is an "affirmative change"?  Anything idiot liberals want to change?
   
   But second, I would have the opinion that a Constitution should not be changeable so easy.  60% of the vote sounds reasonable - anything less indicates that the proposed change does not carry the support necessary to change such an important document.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Maybe we need to focus on the reading comprehensionally challenged, narrow mind of the average conservative. The Ohio law has been in place regarding such ballot issues since 1912. Fifty percent seem to work for 110 years, why do we need to Sixty percent change now? So the real idiots are the people that want to change what has been acceptable law in Ohio for over a 100 years for purely political purposes. And you know what, the people Ohio know that the Republicans are going to try to pass this under the radar. If you had only actually read the article and spared us your standard commentary acquired through osmosis. Anyway, the people are on to it and it will fail, as it has to.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

         "why do we need to Sixty percent change now?"
         
         It's called "progressing", even if it didn't come from liberals and even if it doesn't meet the liberal requirements for change.
         
         As you didn't bother to define "affirmative change", I assume you recognize that the 60% requirement IS an "affirmative change", right?

         replyreport
   2. 77

      Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months agoin reply to this

      What do I think? " idiot liberals " Some hubbers should be banned from using (or misusing) adjectives. It would raise the level of debate in these discussions considerably.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         "reading comprehensionally challenged, narrow mind of the average conservative"
         
         "Republicans are naturally anti-democratic"
         
         I tend to respond in kind, using the same kind of language under the assumption that that is what a speaker/writer understands best.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months agoin reply to this

            I apply my comment to all participants here.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

               My only obligation is not to attack people on a personal level, but their ideals and ideas are always fair game.
               
               Otherwise, what is the purpose of debate?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  "no, republicans, tumbleweeds do not have the right to vote"
                  
                  You you believe that republicans have as an ideal or idea that tumbleweeds should have the right to vote?
                  
                  "So the real idiots are the people that want to change what has been acceptable law in Ohio for over a 100 years for purely political purposes."
                  
                  That would apply to much of the legislation being passed today, and nearly all of that being passed that has strong opposition.  Things like the end of slavery, the right of women to vote or own property, animal cruelty, any and all gun legislation, the right to kill babies, etc.  Everyone is an idiot, right?

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                     No one is calling YOU an idiot, Wilderness.
                     
                     The description was metaphoric. It points to the fact that this entire affair was based on those that believed the majority should not rule.
                     
                     Conservatives, when one studies Amendment 1,  believed that any 1 of the 88 counties that did not provide 5 percent of the voters from its county to qualify a ballot issue, would be sufficient to nullify the process. Conservatives offers a solution that pretty much would dash any citizen generated initiative and they knew it.  So one rural county can short circuit the votes of other 87? I say that is anti-democratic and it comes from the Republican Party in Ohio. So, what did I get wrong?
                     
                     We know what this was ultimately about, abortion rights, Republicans deciding to change the rules when they no longer suit them, that is anti-democratic.
                     
                     Well, their ruse failed utterly. The Bill of Rights protects basic freedoms like that against involuntary servitude and equal suffrage for women. Legislatures pass laws, but these legislatures are not to be considered unaccountable to the voters that put them there and the defeat of Amendment 1 serves as a timely reminder.
                     
                     What happened in Ohio does not involve a challenge to the Constitution or Bill of Rights but it was about citizens determining just how much power and authority legislators are to be given to thwart the will of majority of the electorate.

                     replyreport
               2. 77

                  Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                  There is such a thing as civil debate.

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                     We may well have differing standards as to what constitutes a "civil debate"

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        Sharlee01posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                        Come on --- I don't see any comment here that is not civil.  I see hair on fire, without cause. LOL  I mean read all comments, pretty dam civil.   Seems to me if a great point is made by a conservative, it corner the liberal and they set off  Oh I am an indignant match to their hair, and cry --- we need to be civil.   As I said this thread looks pretty civil, and just not going the way some had hoped it to.

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

                           That is what I think, too. If we all were anymore conciliatory and civil, we would end up a rather dull amalgamated porridge instead of the  spicy debate recipies for which we are all known for here.
                           
                           I spew the lukewarm from my mouth.....

                           replyreport
                        2. 77

                           Kathleen Cochranposted 8 months agoin reply to this

                           When you have a reputation for failing to be civil on these discussion boards, it is hard to accept someone's definition of "civility."

                           replyreport
3. 90

   IslandBitesposted 8 months ago

   Ohio voters reject ballot measure seen as threat to abortion rights effort
   
   A proposed constitutional amendment at the center of the abortion rights battle in Ohio is projected to fail, delivering a major win for Democrats and reproductive rights advocates.
   
   Voters in the Buckeye State rejected a ballot measure that would have required at least 60 percent of voters to pass any amendments to the state constitution — up from a simple majority.
   
   The Associated Press called the election shortly before 9 p.m. ET.
   
   The proposed constitutional amendment was supported by Republicans and different interest groups, including anti-abortion activists and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
   
   Though the proposed amendment does not mention abortion in the text, it was largely seen as an effort to undercut a separate ballot measure in November that aims to enshrine abortion rights into the state’s constitution.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Credence2posted 8 months agoin reply to this

      Great news, island Bites, I wonder what the Republicans will do now? Reproductive Rights on the upcoming ballot issue this fall in Ohio will simply not be denied.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         IslandBitesposted 8 months agoin reply to this

         They should be really worried.
         
         An Ohio ballot initiative to make it harder to amend the state constitution, a change conservatives said was needed to protect the state from a radical liberal agenda, has failed to pass in a lopsided vote.
         
         Voters overwhelmingly rejected State Issue 1 by a large margin on Tuesday, meaning the threshold for future ballot measures to pass will remain at 50% rather than the 60% the initiative would have required had it passed.
         
         The issue prompted a massive early vote turnout – one that had some election offices straining to manage the load.
         
         As of last Wednesday, more than 533,000 people had voted by mail or in person since early voting began July 11, according to data collected by the Associated Press. That's nearly double the final early voting figures for Ohio's two previous midterm primary elections, which included races for governor and Congress.

         replyreport